Talk:Ram Dass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is part of the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, set up to organize and expand entries on Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants as well as related subjects according to chemical type, effects, organic carriers, and cultural/historical uses. Please feel free to participate by editing this article and visiting the project page.

Ram Dass was a Hindu?! In Be Here now he said hinduism was gauche and that he was atracted to buddhism.

ram dass is a self-described unaffiliated hindu. when he says this in be here now he is relating how he felt about hinduism and buddhism before he traveled to the east and learned about them.--Ganeshananda 08:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page over the redirect, per Wikipedia standards, as he and everybody else have been calling him "Ram Dass" for years. Just over half the links were to Ram Dass already. ;Bear 21:53, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Please change the name of this page, as Ram Das is easily confused with Ramdas both mean the same thing but here in wiki Ramdas, is much more relevant as Ramdas was a influnetial/famous/popular saint. Where as Richard Alpert is not know here in the subcontinent as Ram Das. please change it to Richard Alpert. --Gd 09:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That would be quite inappropriate, for reasons already stated above. Ram Dass IS his name. The fact that in one place a person is not known by a particular name does not invalidate his use of the name in his own country, and the fact of his being known by that name there and many other places. Also Ram Dass is not exactly the same as Ram Das or Ramdas, and even if the names were exactly the same, Wikipedia has a way of dealing with that without trying to force a different name on one of them. (Note: I moved your writings to the proper place -- the newest goes at the bottom.) ;Bear 06:22, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

The word "prominent" appears about four times in two sentences. Maybe someone could use a thesaurus.

fixed. --Ganeshananda 18:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ram Dass is also Hanuman... 2 I don't think "Maharaj-ji" actually means "Great King" 3 Does anyone know enough to do an article on guru kripa (grace of the guru)? 4 Birthplace of Ram Dass 5 idealogy? 6 meaning of "Ram Dass" 7 on ram dass' sexuality 8 george415

[edit] Ram Dass is also Hanuman...

I don't see it mentioned anywhere on the Hanuman entry either, but I think it's important to note that "Ram Dass" was originally another name for Hanuman ("Ram Dass" meaning "servant of Rama"). In my understanding, Hanuman's unconditional and limitless devotion to Rama is one of the major themes and lessons of The Ramayana. His servitude is further exemplified by the popular artistic portrayals of Hanuman opening his chest cavity to reveal his heart is occupied by Rama and his wife Sita.

Hanuman is also very important to the Ram Dass that was once known as Dr. Richard Alpert. "In 1974, Ram Dass created the Hanuman Foundation, which developed the Prison Ashram Project, designed to help prison inmates grow spiritually during their incarceration..." [1] Often at Ram Dass' speaking events a tapestry of Hanuman hangs behind him.

Several times locals claimed to see Maharaj-ji, Ram Dass' beloved guru, traveling the mountain side in the actual physical image of the monkey god himself. Maharaj-ji could often be found doing his japa of "Ram, Ram, Ram, Ram, Ram, Ram..." One of the guru's favorite pleasures was to have the Ramayana sung to him, during which tears would roll down his face. --Ganeshananda 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think "Maharaj-ji" actually means "Great King"

It's my understanding that "Maharaj" means "Great King" and the "-ji" is like an extra bonus title of respect. I'm not sure how "-ji" translates, but I think "Maharaji" means something more like "Venerable Great King". --Ganeshananda 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I wikified the term and removed the explanatory statement. — goethean ॐ 16:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone know enough to do an article on guru kripa (grace of the guru)?

I've referenced it in the Ram Dass article, but there's no wikipedia entry for it to link to. It's the only technical term without one. I could try to splash something together for it, but I really don't know enough about it specifically. --Ganeshananda 23:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC) anyone? --Ganeshananda 11:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace of Ram Dass

I've changed Ram Dass' place of birth in the main entry from Boston to Newton. Newton is just outside Boston and is pretty much considered Boston, but they're definitely separate. When his place of birth is listed as Boston, I'm not sure if its an error or an geographical over-generalization. Either way, I'm pretty sure he's from Newton, not Boston. I lived in Newton for a bit near where he grew up and have even talked to him about it. That being said, I'm not sure if the category of people from Boston should be removed from the entry. And what is the person data that shows up on the edit page but not the front page? That also lists his birth place as Boston. --Ganeshananda 06:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC) hahaha, i was rewatching fierce grace and saw that the movie even says hes from boston, but his house was in newton im pretty sure. im sure he was delivered in a hospital in boston if he was born around there. i think im just splitting hairs now. still, it is an encyclopedia afterall, right? --Ganeshananda 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] idealogy?

I'm not sure that 'idealogy' should be used over 'ideology.' Merriam Webster lists idealogy as a variant on ideology; however not all dictionaries list idealogy at all, e.g., Mac OS X dictionary and the wiktionary. Ok, so those aren't the most authoritative references, but still, 'ideology' is a much more common form. Rather than confusing people (and frequently reverting "typo" edits), why not use 'ideology' instead? Is there any difference in meaning between the words?  — vijay (Talk) 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

alright alright. but it was never a typo. --Ganeshananda 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) still, i suppose i shouldnt be so stubborn. --Ganeshananda 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

no worries. It may also be a British English (and therefore Indian English) form?  — vijay (Talk) 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, no idea. --Ganeshananda 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] meaning of "Ram Dass"

the parenthetical clarification of "Ram Dass" has been changed from "servant of God" to "servant of Ram (God)" to "servant of Ram (a Hindu god). however, i think one of the first two are definitely the best. to say that "Ram Dass" means the servant of a particular god is a pretty short-sighted view of Hinduism and, in my opinion, gives the wrong impression of Hinduism and, perhaps more importantly here, Ram Dass' spiritual views and the actual meaning of his name. Ram is just one of the many names and faces of saguna brahman (God). Ram Dass certainly does not believe in and worship one particular god of a set of others. he understands that they are all just metaphors for the same thing - God, the universe, the Tao, the void (sunyata)... ram dass is not just a picky polytheist. so, im going to change it back to the second option, but this is definitely something open to interpretation and am certainly willing to hear anyones opinion to the contrary. if the reader is confused, he can always just click the "Ram" internal link.--Ganeshananda 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the parenthetical note for stylistic reasons. Given your comments above, I would rather that the article say: "servant of God". — goethean ॐ 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

sounds good to me. go for it. nice compromise.--Ganeshananda 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] on ram dass' sexuality

this is something that apparently needs to be settled through dialogue. in my opinion (and in ram dass' if i understand him correctly), his sexuality is about his ego, not his soul, message, or lifes work. besides, you dont see in every other wikipedia article "Einstein - an important 20th century physicist, and a noted heterosexual..." his being bisexual does not define him, it is just something that he happens to be. i think shining a spotlight on it serves mostly as a distraction since egos are not whats important, but sharing the message of love and harmony. i think that should remain at the forefront of the article. there is a clearly marked link where ram dass is interviewed about his sexual preference and what it means to him. it is a footnote as is every aspect of his ego in his life. --Ganeshananda 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with your point about the emphasis of Ram Dass's sexuality on his life. However, the argument saying that "Einstien ... a noted heterosexual" is rarely seen is not to the point. Consider if Einstien had been known to be bisexual or gay. It would be quite surprising, then, if the article left out mention of his sexuality. Just as women, African-Americans, and, indeed, all minorities have struggled for recognition, the LGBT (to lump a whole lot of people together) people of the world struggle for recognition. One would hardly expect an article on George Washington Carver not to mention his race. However, an article on Bill Gates would rarely be found saying, "Bill...is a anglo-american entreprenuer." Of course, in a better world race would be notable irrespective of the race in question, and similarly with sexual orientation. Hopefully, reminding people that there are female scientists, african-american inventors, buddhist punk-rockers, and bisexual spiritual leaders will help us reach a point where mentioning these qualifiers will be irrelevant. I don't think we're there yet.

Furthermore, Ram Dass doesn't consider his sexuality to be irrelevant. For instance, regarding the absence of any discussion of his sexuality in the film Fierce Grace, the San Fransico Chronicle reported in 2002:

"All that stuff went on the cutting-room floor," Ram Dass told me last week.

"I've had a hard time getting my homosexuality into my drama. Most of my friends don't like that I'm homosexual. They dissuade me from coming out. They feel people would have attitudes, would be put off by it." —full article

And, although Ram Dass may feel that his sexuality is merely an aspect of ego and, consequently, does not define him, on Wikipedia, and eleswhere, biographical articles tend to focus on the aspects of individual's personalities — not their god-consiousness. Ram Dass may "just be" bisexual, but he also "just is" a spiritual leader. Wikipedia is simply an encyclopedia. It does not exclude information based on what an individual hopes her/his "message" is. Nor does it need exclude much information at all, given that it is not paper.

I guess all of that is to say, I think that while Ram Dass's sexuality should not be in his introductory sentence (because it is not what he is known for), it could certainly be mentioned in the article, as it is a documented fact. Hope that all makes sense and seems reasonable.  — vijay (Talk) 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

sounds reasonable to me. i dont think it should be in the summary sentence because it makes it seem as if its equally important as all of his lifes work. ram dass doesnt lie about his sexuality but he doesnt seem to be very 'open' about it in his talks, lectures, books, videos, and so on. considering this article is a biography of a living person is it wikipedias job to out people who dont want to be outted, just because its a fact? --Ganeshananda 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) also i dont think he should be used unwillingly by some in the LGBT community as a tool for recognition. certainly not on wikipedia. --Ganeshananda 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Any known fact of importance to any reader of wikipedia can and should be included in the article if it can be sourced. In this particular case, it would certainly not be outting someone who doesn't want to be outted. I agree that we probably won't be seeing Ram Dass in a pride march, because I believe that he does not consider his sexuality to be something worth focusing on. On the other hand, I imagine he would encourage anyone to explore the sexual nature of their existence because he would encourage anyone to fully explore their entire existence. That all being speculative, however, means it has no bearing on the article.

The article doesn't need to be a biography that fits with a living persons message — it needs to create an encyclopedic body of knowledeg about that person. To that end, the information presented needs to be verifiable and notable (though primarilly the former). Ram Dass's sexuality is certainly the former, and presumably the latter for many people. Therefore, there is no reason to not include it.

At this point, however, I could only see adding something like

==Sexuality==

Ram Dass first came out as bisexual in an interview with someone at sometime.[cite]

which doesn't fit well with the article's structure as it is now. So, I feel like it should be added when it can be done in a more "quality" manner. So that's where I stand. — vijay is now Gogobera 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree. --Ganeshananda 08:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a few lines about it. -Will Beback · † · 19:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should label the man as gay --- Ram Dass said this:

"I would say that if gay people who read this are willing to really sit down and examine their own minds in a systematic way, they may experience the freedom to take more delight in life and in their gay expression of it. And they will see that who they are isn't gay, and it's not not-gay, and it's not anything--it's just awareness . I really challenge them to make that exploration on their own before they write the script of their lives in stone too much. Because if they have picked up a book that's called Gay Soul, they're asking for it. And if they're asking for it, they should be able to get it. Somebody should say, "Look, don't get trapped in that. Get on with it." There's no need to label yourself at all."

So don't write the script of HIS life like that. Just put a couple of quotes in there from the man himself. If nobody objects, I will make the changes. [2] Pgc512 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is my revision:

Throughout his public life, Ram Dass acknowledged his bi-sexuality. In the 1990's, he became more forthcoming concerning his homosexuality [3] while avoiding labels and pointing out that who we are "isn't gay, and it's not not-gay, and it's not anything--it's just awareness". [4]

After I finish editing it, I will copy it into the main article. Pgc512 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the LGBT writers category. 'Bisexual writers' is sufficient. It is not helpful to elect RD to 'clubs' as he has taken a strong stand against such labels. Pgc512 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see where the subject refers to his homosexuality. I don't see where he refers to his bisexuality. What's the source for that? -Will Beback · † · 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the way he referred to himself around the time of Be Here Now (1971). Pgc512 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Source? I do see that in the 1990s he talked about his homosexuality. Why would we favor his earlier remarks over his later ones? If we want to give a fuller description, and can find the sources, we could say that he regarded himself as bisexual in the 1970s and homosexual in the 1990s. I don't see the justification for simply calling him "bisexual". -Will Beback · † · 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The source sould be Be Here Now and/or some of the books/tapes he produced around that time. This is the way I see it - in the 70s and later, he admitted to having bisexual experiences - meaning he had both heterosexual and homosexual experiences - in the 90's he talked more about being a homosexual but also about not being labeled . So, all in all, it seems we have a person who during the course of his life has had both homosexual and heterosexual experiences, but resists being labeled or being categorized as being in one group or another. His notability and his work and his message certainly does not center on or focus on his sexuality ... Pgc512 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This biography is about the man. We have one or more articles about his books. Being labelled a bisexual is no less a label than being labelled a homosexual. The fact that he doesn't like labels doesn't make then any the less true. Many gay men have had sex with women but decide they prefer sex with men. We have several references to him being homosexual, but we still don't have any for him being bisexual. I read Be Here Now a long time ago - where does he discuss bisexuality? -Will Beback · † · 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to an interview from the late 80's [5]. In it, he says "I've been bisexual all my life ..." and goes on to talk about having two ongoing separate live-together relationships - one with a man and the other with a woman. Pgc512 12:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That'll do. Thanks, -Will Beback · † · 20:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

i believe at one point in college ram dass was engaged to a woman and was also having sexual relations with men during his engagement. im not sure where this is talked about but if i remember correctly the book "Can't Find My Way Home: America in the Great Stoned Age" deals with ram dass' sexuality and history. --Ganeshananda 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

also just wanted to say that i think the paragraph on ram dass' sexuality is excellent as it stands now. good job guys. theres the dialectic in full effect. --Ganeshananda 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Will and Ganeshananda, I think it is a 'good enough' also. Pgc512 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

While I don’t object to the interesting discussion, I think it is ironic that a life-issue which Ram Dass endeavored to accept-without-emphasizing, and encouraged others to do likewise, has generated nearly 2,000 words here! Some homosexuals and bisexuals (as I reckon do the vast majority of heterosexuals) choose not to create an identity which revolves around their sexual orientation or sexual preference. Although considering homosexuality as central to one’s identity would seem to be the “politically correct” cultural norm in the first decade of the 21st Century, it is hardly requisite, it is merely one mode of expression, and the one that gets the most public discussion and media coverage for obvious reasons. Worth mentioning here? Yes. Worth emphasizing? No. Worth pointing out that Ram Dass felt that "sexual orientation" be accepted and not made central to one's identity? Yes! Absolutely! 61.91.165.92 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Rex

[edit] george415

can someone block this guy from the article. he insists on changing major parts of the article that are correct and replacing them with misinformation, like changing all the hindu instances to buddhist. ram dass is not buddhist. ram dass is hindu. hindu, hindu, hindu. --Ganeshananda 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ive already had to go back and fix it twice in the past week or so.