The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Appears to meet WP:N WilyD 15:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Advaita

[edit]
Neo-Advaita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet wiki WP:GNG criteria and also with WP:SIGCOV, most of content are self published or from blogs , there has been no significant coverage in any media except for blogs , sources stated are either blatant hoax or not reliable according to Wikipedia policyShrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC). Some points to be noted:[reply]

1) The editor is proclaiming wrong information as truth and referring to a source which does not say that e.g. 1st sentence of the article : ""Neo-Advaita is a term used by critics to designate a modern, western form of Advaita Vedanta in which the traditional prerequisites of knowledge of the scriptures"" :: ref to (Davis, Leesa S. (2010), Advaita Vedānta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry, Continuum International Publishing Group) page 48 ! here is the Google link of page , neo advaitha ? it talks about neo vedantins and not neo advaitha ??
2) Using names of Ramana Maharishi,Vivekenanda & H. W. L. Poonja who in their lives or in writings have never even remotly used the word neo-advaita . Stating statements by the above authors and then naming it neo-advaitha does not make it reall!! (stating lies in-between truth) e.g. sun is round ,moon is round, America is round, Pluto is round.

-- Shrikanthv (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Neo-Advaita is a term used by critics[1][a][3][b][c] to designate a modern, western form of Advaita Vedanta in which the traditional prerequisites of knowledge of the scriptures[5] and "renunciation as necessary preparation for the path of jnana-yoga"[5] have been discarded,[6] and the inducement of direct experience is emphasized."

Notes
  1. ^ Marek: "Wobei der Begriff Neo-Advaita darauf hinweist, dass sich die traditionelle Advaita von dieser Strömung zunehmend distanziert, da sie die Bedeutung der übenden Vorbereitung nach wie vor als unumgänglich ansieht. (The term Neo-Advaita indicating that the traditional Advaita increasingly distances itself from this movement, as they regard preparational practicing still as inevitable)[2]
  2. ^ Alan Jacobs: Many firm devotees of Sri Ramana Maharshi now rightly term this western phenomenon as 'Neo-Advaita'. The term is carefully selected because 'neo' means 'a new or revived form'. And this new form is not the Classical Advaita which we understand to have been taught by both of the Great Self Realised Sages, Adi Shankara and Ramana Maharshi. It can even be termed 'pseudo' because, by presenting the teaching in a highly attenuated form, it might be described as purporting to be Advaita, but not in effect actually being so, in the fullest sense of the word. In this watering down of the essential truths in a palatable style made acceptable and attractive to the contemporary western mind, their teaching is misleading.[4]
  3. ^ See for other examples Conway [web 1] and Swartz [web 2]
Book-references
  1. ^ Marek 2008, p. 10, note 6.
  2. ^ Marek 2008, p. 10 note 6.
  3. ^ Jacobs 204, p. 82.
  4. ^ Jacobs 2004, p. 82.
  5. ^ a b Davis 2010, p. 48.
  6. ^ Yogani 2011, p. 805.
Web-references
  1. ^ Timothy Conway, Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita and Real Advaita-Nonduality
  2. ^ James Swartz, What is Neo-Advaita?
Sources
  • Davis p.48 says: "This shift away from traditional emphasis on knowledge of the Vedas and renunciation as necessary preparation for the path of jnana-yoga".
  • "Using names of Ramana Maharishi,Vivekenanda & H. W. L. Poonja who in their lives or in writings have never even remotly used the word neo-advaita . Stating statements by the above authors" - there are no statements by these teachers on neo-Advaita. Even a superficial reading of the article makes this clear. The term is used by critics of western Advaita-teachers who emphasize sole insight, bypassing preparation and practice.

-- Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I praise your hard work , but being the intention of wiki GNG concerned, the two main links you portray as references are:
    1)^ Marek 2008, p. 10, note 6. , IS a work of diplomant in vienna , It cannot have weigablity as a good source as it is work of a student which still has not been corrected by the university itself ? , and definetly as the student potrays in his thesis it is a maybe.
    2)^ Jacobs 204, p. 82. this source is really skeptical as nothing is written about publisher or the author and is only found in a private website and cannot be considered as source from books reference as this may be self created notes for the website and nothing more.
    3)Davis 2010, p. 48.Yogani 2011, p. 805.
    The above links are not concerned with neo-advaitha
    4)external sources : ^ Timothy Conway, Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita and Real Advaita-Nonduality; ^ James Swartz, What is Neo-Advaita?
    I believe this sources are dubious as the are personnel websites promoting there concepts. -- Shrikanthv (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaction by Joshua Jonathan
    The main link I give is Phillip Charles Lucas, published in an academic jurnal. Gleig is a PhD-thesis. You may not like it, but it's clear that there is a neo-advaita movement in The USA and Europe, and that it's being critisized.
    Ad1. What's the "maybe"?
    Ad2. Jacob's article was published in the journal of the sriramanamaharshi.org. Of course I may be mistaken, but this seems to me to be as closely connected to Ramana Maharshi as possible.
    Ad3. Davis 2010 p.48 is about Ramana Maharshi and Poonja, indeed, not about students of them. Not exactly a consolation, is it?. Yoganini explicitly mentions Neo-Advaita at page 805:

    I say "neo-Advaita" because if we dig a bit we will find that the great Advaita and jnana yoga teachers clearly recognized the role of the witness, bhakti, and yoga practices. Neo-Asvaita is prone to strip it all down to the bare logic and expect that to be a viable stand-alone practice". (Yoganini, p.805)


    Ad4. advaita.org.uk seems to me like more than just "promoting concepts". --Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the additional references.
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary also says: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." It's clear that the article is about a new religious movement, not about the exact meaning of a specific word.
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary also says: "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics[3]), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns." The article provides additional background information on the origins of this movement, and places it in the modern cultural exchanges between western and Asian cultures.
  • The exact wording of the lead may be changed ("Neo-advaita is a term used by critics/is a modern interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which is critisized"); the point is that there are a lot of western Advaita-teachers who emphasize self-inquiry, disregarding other aspects of Advaita. This movement, and this criticism, has been noticed by above-mentioned sources.
  • Lucas (article in a scientific journal), Gleig (PhD-dissertation), and Jacobs (article in the MountainPath, published by the Sri Ramana Ashram) are being ignored in this review. Regarding the additional info, situating neo-Advaita in western discoures: Brown is published in an academic journal; Gombrich, McMahan and Sharf are book-publications by academics.
  • Recapitulating: at least three different Advaita-related organisations (Sri Ramana Ashram, advaita.org.uk and Andrew Cohen's What Is Enlightenment) mention neo-Advaita in several articles and on several webpages; several academics have conducted research on neo-Advaita; and neo-Advaita can be placed in a broader cultural development, which has been going on for more than a century and influences popular culture in many ways. My conclusion is that neo-Advaita is notable, and the article is based on reliable sources.
Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I noticed that you do a lot of work on Afd's. My apologies for the slight sarcastic undertone I put in my comment; I've changed the tone. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I didn't see the slight sarcastic undertone anyway. I think the big problem here is the article's focus still is on Neo-Advaita being a "term". When that is done, the topic falls under the difficult neologisms requirement. I think if you instead merely summarized what the reliable sources say about the topic (e.g., "representative survey of the relevant literature"), you can avoid the difficult neologisms requirements and get better results at AfD. The negative tone of the article is off putting, the excessive write up on "Advaita Vedanta" which is not the topic of the article, and the article's detailed reliance on sources that may not be Wikipedia:Independent sources - sources that are independent of the Neo-Advaita topic - are a problem. Reading the lead of the Neo-Advaita article, I still don't know what Neo-Advaita is. The Advaita Vedanta article isn't much better. I added a sentence to Advaita Vedanta at the top to try to explain what it is.[1] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I changed the lead so that the topic no longer is about a neologisms.[2] The rest of the article should be rewritten in a history section with any criticism etc. chronogically intermixed with the rest of Neo-Advaita's history. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that we have reached consensus to keep the article? Lova Falk talk 18:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More