Talk:Divine madness

Resolved

@WikiEditorial101: before you simply re-insert info, could you please check the recent history of the page? Part of the info you re-inserted was still in the article; part wa sremoved with good reasons. Best regard, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your concerns. However, I did not "simply reinsert" info; as an Inclusionist, I carefully combed through the relevant elements of the discarded and well-sourced info; if there is anything in particular that you don't think belongs, please be my guest to mention it here, I'm willing to discuss it. If you're referring to the part of the quote you used elsewhere, I'll amend that right away. If you'll notice, there also appears to have been some errors in transferring that excerpt from the quote accurately—if you'll kindly compare it to the original, you'll see that it appears to have been accidentally paraphrased. I'll take care of that too. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Divine madness

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The info you added to the lead shifted the focus of the article from Trungpa's "crazy wisdom" to "divine madness" in general; I think that's good. There's probably a lot more to say on this topic, in addition to the info that's already there. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 23:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trungpa-quote

Resolved

I moved the complete quote into a note, and copied the last three sentences, presenting them as a quote.

"We go on deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper, until we reach the point where there is no answer. [...] At that point we tend to give up hope of an answer, or of anything whatsoever, for that matter. [...] This hopelessness is the essence of crazy wisdom. It is hopeless, utterly hopeless."

Nothing was changed to these three sentences. I did this because it's a rather long quote; the last three sentences convey enough of the intention of the author, I think, namely "This hopelessness is the essence of crazy wisdom". You simply re-inserted the whole quote, while the shortened quote was still there

I changed the preceding sentence from

"In his book Crazy Wisdom, the Tibetan tülku Chögyam Trungpa describes the phenomenon of Divine madness as a process of spiritual discovery:"

into

"In his book "Crazy wisdom", the Tibetan tülku Chögyam Trungpa describes the phenomenon as a process of enquiry and letting go of any gope for an answer:"

"proces of inquiry" and "letting go of any hope for an answer" comes much closer to his intentions than "a process of spiritual discovery"; the last phrase is a frather optimistic interpretation.

So, I'd rather have the shortened quote, with the full quote in the note; and the "process of enquiry and letting go of any hope" paraphrase. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 23:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The quote appeared to have not just been shortened, but, if I'm not mistaken, the wording also appeared to be a bit different; for instance, Trungpa doesn't even say "deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper"—he says "further and further and further and further". But I fixed it, so no worries mate. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't change the wording. If the quote was incorrect, that was not my work. I've shortened it once again; the last three sentences are the most essential of this quote. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the first sentence of your preferred quote, "we explore further and further and further without looking for an answer" with the three-after-last sentence, "We go on deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper". Apologies would be appropriate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch and WikiEditorial101: so, now that we agree there was confusion about these two sentences which resemble each other: how about shortening this quote, and moving the full quote into a note? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Avadathu (and antinomianism)

Resolved

I removed this, following Ms Sarah Welch; see diff. I hope that MSW can give a further explanation here; at face-value, this info seems okay to me, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 23:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@WikiEditorial101:, @Joshua Jonathan: Avadhuta is antinomian and may behave in one or more ways where he does not care about social norms (such as nakedness, etc). This is not "divine madness" / "crazy wisdom", as these concepts mean something else. Does general antinomian behavior belong in this article? At the very least we need to explain the difference if we decide to retain it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I just took a look at that article; it's mainly about Christianity. I think you're right that the difference should be explained. But that means that "divine madness" also needs a more precise definition or description. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Feuerstein on samsara and nirvana

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I removed

"From a particular Buddhadharma spiritual lexicon and perspective, Georg Feuerstein implies nonduality in his equating the essence of Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa as the root of crazy wisdom: "Crazy wisdom is the articulation in life of the realization that the phenomenal world (Sanskrit: संसार saṃsāra) and the transcendental Reality (Sanskrit: निर्वाण nirvāṇa) share the same essence."^[1] Generally, the difference between Sanātana Dharma and Buddhadharma conceptions of "Samsara" and "samsara", respectively, are the former, a proper noun denoting a relative apparent locality, and the latter, an interiority or state of mind, the two are resolvable when understood from a nondual perspective."

References

1. [1]

   Feuerstein (1991) 70.

Part of this info was already (or still) in the article:

"According to Georg Feuerstein,

Crazy wisdom is the articulation in life of the realization that the phenomenal world (Sanskrit: संसार saṃsāra) and the transcendental Reality (Sanskrit: निर्वाण nirvāṇa) share the same essence."[6][note 3]"

This part (both parts) seems to be gone altogether now; actually, I think this shortened piece of info was interesting, because it points to the Two truths doctrine, which is not that crazy (I think), but quite comprehensible. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 23:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

At second thought, it's okay; the Two truths doctrine is not specific for "divine madness," but a general part of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feuerstein on "the spiritual lexicon of Advaita Vedanta"

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I removed this part, because I found it indeed to be incomprehensible. We seem to agree here, don't we? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 23:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I thanked you for your edit. Thanks again! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Etymology

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The so-called "Etymology" section that you created—composed of Tumgpa talking about what Crazy Wisdom means—not only has absolutely nothing to do with the etymology of the phrase "divine madness", it also contains a paraphrased misquote of Tungpa (this can easily been seen by comparing it to the original quote that I restored from the pre-merger Crazy Wisdom article. I'm not sure how that happened, but I'll assume good faith; however, none of this has anything to do with Etymology AND there is a misquote in there—thus I'm removing the section altogether. WikiEditorial101 (talk)

Looking at this version, it started with "According to George Feuerstein, the term "crazy wisdom" was coined by Chögyam Trungpa.[3]". That's about etymology; I think this line should be re-inserted. But it's fine to have that in the subsection on Trungpa's "Crazy wisdom." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Denoting who coined a term is not an etymological matter; etymology is the study of the way that words evolved over time, how a certain word as come to mean a certain thing (in essence, the study of language, not copyright). WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

Some additional sources and info (to be expanded):

Tibetan Buddhism

• DiValerio, David (2015), The Holy Madmen of Tibet, Oxford University Press
• DiValerio (2011), Subversive Sainthood and Tantric Fundamentalism: An Historical Study of Tibet's Holy Madmen (PhD-thesis):

"I argue that the distinctive eccentric behavior of the Madmen of Ü and Tsang is best understood as a form of “tantric fundamentalism” in that it was based on following a literal reading of the Highest Yoga tantras, enacted as a strategic response to changes taking place in late 15th-century Tibetan religious culture. The “madness” of Drukpa Künlé resulted from his taking a critical stance towards Tibetan religious culture in general. This study concludes that the “holy madman” tradition is constituted by highly self-aware individuals making strategic use of the theme of madness in the construction of their public personas."

• Ronald Davidson (2010), Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture, Columbia University Press.
• Stefan Larsson, Crazy Yogins During the Early Renaissance Period:

"“Crazies” in Davidson’s book Davidson, very appropriately I believe, connects the Tibetan crazy yogins with the Indian siddhas. In the chapters of the book devoted to the Indian siddhas he describes some of their unorthodox and antinomian aspects. Davidson mentions that the siddhas of India used images and told stories that violated Brahmanical ideals and he make the conclusion that this must both have shocked and delighted their audiences."

• Stefan Larsson (2012), Crazy for Wisdom. The Making of a Mad Yogin in Fifteenth-Century Tibet, BRILL.
• Robert N. Linrothe (2006), Holy Madness: Portraits of Tantric Siddhas

"These mahasiddhas were instrumental in transmitting tantric Buddhism from India to the Himalayas between the seventh and eleventh centuries. Their legends are filled with miracles and eccentric behavior, which in the end is interpreted as not mere indulgence or insanity but the wisdom of direct religious, mystic experience."

• Crazy siddha gives quite some hits at Google.
• Idem for crazy yogis:

• Erik D. Curren, Buddha's Not Smiling: Uncovering Corruption at the Heart of Tibetan Buddhism
• David Gordon White, Tantra in Practice
• John W. Pettit, Mipham's Beacon of Certainty

Hinduism

• June McDaniel (1989), The Madness of the Saints: Ecstatic Religion in Bengal, University of Chicago Press.

Western spirituality

• Georg Feuerstein, Divine Madness, may not be the best source. See this review by Stuart Smithers in Tricycle (1992). See also DiValerio (2015) p.241 ff.
• Hugh B. Urban (2016), Zorba the Buddha: Sex, Spirituality, and Capitalism in the Global Osho Movement, Univ of California Press. P.35:
  

"one of the key themes that runs throughout Rajneesh's teachungs from the early 1960s until his final works before his death is that of "divine madness" or "crazy wisdom."

I wouldn't be surprised if the meaning of "divine madness," c.q. "crazy wisdom," has changed in recent times, to legitimate libertarian practices under the disguise of spirituality.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: please summarize these as and where appropriate. I summarized a few more today in other sections. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You mean here, at the talkpage, or at the article? Or both, in that order? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Directly the article, please. Will save the unnecessary duplicate effort, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive edits.

The most recent edits ruined the lead, equating Divine madness with clinical mental illness and had an overall negative tone; my concern is not just with the quality of the article, but that the article communicates an accurate understanding of this phenomenon. Because of recent edits that I found to be (unintentionally) destructive, and because there is the issue of misquoting Tungpa, I am requesting administrive intervention in this matter and respectfully ask that no further edits be made until I can get someone in to moderate, else this become an edit war. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with the recent edits, you can discuss them here at the talkpage, as I did before, after your multiple reverts. If you're unable to gain concencus for your preferred version, there are other ways for dispute resolution. As a last resort, you can post a thread at WP:ANI. Note, though, that you have reverted my edits before, and that you seem to be assuming WP:OWNership of this page. Note also that you removed information from reliable sources, published by academic presses. So, be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. @Ms Sarah Welch: any thoughts here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You've now two times removed sourced info from reliable sources; that's truly disruptive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Trungpa-quote, you seem to be confusing the first sentence of your preferred quote, "we explore further and further and further without looking for an answer" with the three-after-last sentence, "We go on deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper". Apologies, and a self-revert, would be appropriate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That, true, I am mistaken on that matter, and I apologize for my honest mistake. However, it doesn't change the fact that the Etymology section you created using that Tungpa quote had absolutely nothing to do with etemology at all, but about Tungpa coining a term—two entirely different things (not to mention that it was about the term "crazy wisdom", and you chose to title the article "Divine madness"—same concept, but a completely different term, and etemology is the study of the origin and development of words, not concepts). Also, most of your edits were very helpful until I confronted you, and then you suddenly rearranged the entire article in a way that seemed careless and ill informed at best (not to mention that you didn't discuss those changes on the Talk page like we'd been doing). Having said that, I respectfully request no futher discussion while we await an administrator, as I requested moderation only after you seemed to become emotional/disrespectful/accusatory; no, I have not "assumed ownership" of his page—I am merely doing my best as an editor to look out for the best interests of all articles on Wikipedia. It's truly nothing personal. Again, I liked your merging of the article, and also most of your edits (before the onslaught of what felt like something bordering on thinly veiled revenge edits). WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi WE101. Some responses:

• Moving the Trungpa-info was fine. After all, that's one of the strong points of Wikipedia: working together, making improvements and corrections.
• Trungpa translates the term drubnyon ("crazy siddhas") as "crazy wisdom." I'd added this info too:

"The term "crazy wisdom" translates the Tibetan term drubnyon, a philosophy which "traditionally combines exceptional insight and impressive magical power with a flamboyant disregard for conventional behavior." (Bell 2002, p.233))

You removed it with your reverts... See McLeod, The Benefits and Pitfalls for some commentary on Trungpa and drubnyon.

• Usually we don't discuss edits before making them; demanding so is WP:OWN.
• Don't expect an administrator to moderate; we'(you) have barely been discussing your edits yet. Thta's what you start with. Removing info from sources published by academic presses is not a wise move, to say the least...
• Do take a look at those two sources (DiValerio and June McDaniel); they've got a lot to say on the topic. Do at least read through the first chapter of both books; they give introductory info on "divine madness," and on its association with lay, c.q. non-institutional siddhas, yogis and holy men. A very important phenomenon! Wandering ascetics versus 'tamed' professionals; see also the history of Zen, or the Alvars etc. in India.
• There was (and is) indeed irritation at my side: your first edit moved this info info

"Since Trungpa described crazy wisdom in various ways, some scholars have suggested he did not have a fixed idea of crazy wisdom. (Divalerio, David (2015). The Holy Madmen of Tibet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 239)"

from the lead into a new "Controversy"-section, with the comment

"That's just crazy—and a cop out; if it were true, what would be the point of this article? Let's give that idea it's own section."

There are so many problems with just this one move of one sentence, and it's explanation:

• "That's just crazy" - that's a personal opinion; and it's not crazy. It means that trungpa was not very accurate. His book is not a scholarly study, it's a transcript of a series of teachings. Did you read the DiValerio-source? See also WP:RS and WP:RNPOV.
• "cop-out": no! That's scholarship, the real study of a phenomenon, instead of popular publications. It's the opposite of "cop-out." This really reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and like a lack of knowledge on the subject.
• "if it were true" - what makes you doubt it? Do ypu have sources which say otherwise? This gives me the impression that your personal pov is at stake here.
• "what would be the point of this article?" - a good question, which you don't answer. The point is, that the phenomenon of "divine madness" exists in several cultures, including Tibet; that Trungpa, and his followers Keith Dowman and Georg Feierstein, popularized it in the west (add Bhagwan to the list); that their popular concept is inaccurate regarding the phenomenon, but tells something about western spirituality, and it's association with personal freedom and personal development. Those are major points to dive into, and to articulate in this article. Which I started to do, and which you all removed.
• Controversy-section: why do you call this "controversy"? Trungpa's behavior was controversial; this is a scholarly comment

It also added a definition by Feuerstein. Unfortunately, I don't have access to this source, but the term "Dharmic traditions" is not WP:COMMONNAME, and mostly used by Indian nationalists and pov-pushers; it was an alarm-bell for me. The definition itself seems to be to broad and to unspecific; given the comments of DiValerio on Feuerstein, this impression of mine seesm to be correct.

Well, that's a long response, but it does give you a further idea of my impressions of your edits. We seem to agree on many points, but some of the edits give me the impression that you're being led by your personal ideas and knowledges, and not by the available sources. I expect a critical attitude toward, and a good reading of sources, instead of removing them. Please think about my comments above; they're based on a long-term experience with Wikipedia and its workings. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

When I said "that's just crazy", it was supposed to be a pun on "crazy" wisdom. A joke. You know, like when you called Ms Sarah Welch your sock puppet? But the meaning is valid—if Tungpa had no idea what he meant when he said "Crazy Wisdom"—a phrase he himself coined—then how could he (and thus we) possibly define it? That's not me not liking it, that's just common sense. But he did know what it was, of course, but was himself a Crazy Wisdom master. One offhanded statement isn't enough to support invalidating his take on the phenomenon. "Usually we don't discuss edits before making them"; but of course we do, when there is a conflict between editors (that's what the Talk page is actually for). And I found it pretty "crazy" that you didn't insist on a source for that sentence (that I didn't even write) until I moved it a little higher in the paragraph. Then you suddenly demanded a source for it. But anyway, I was definitely wrong about that quote, and also misunderstood what you meant when you referenced mental illness (I think it reads more clearly now, though) and there were absolutely some mutual misunderstandings. But in end things didn't turn out that bad. Isn't that right Ms Sarah Welch? Your thoughts Ms Sarah Welch? :-) WikiEditorial101 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Take a look again at WP:NPOV and WP:RS, for "One offhanded statement isn't enough to support invalidating his take on the phenomenon." And close the AN-thread, if you think that "things didn't turn out that bad," as suggested by an uninvolved editor over-there (if only bevause it's the wrong notice-board). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

A summary on Shamanism, Christian missionaries in South America/Africa, etc would further improve this article. For sources, please see 1 for example. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Also a little bit more on Tibetan crazy yogis, Padmasambhava, and the Tibetan Renaissance. That is, more context. But I'm working on that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Now that the article is evolving nicely, I will leave it in the able hands of WikiEditorial101 and you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be "Divine madness" without the "(religion)" part? The disambiguation page directs to this and to one article which redirects here (probably was merged), other than that it lists some pop-culture things that use the expression as a title. I'm kind of new, and a more casual editor, so the process is kind of over my head. If you think this is a good idea that is. PopSci (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

My first thought was, "What else can it be than a religious thing?" But, looking at the disamb-page: there are quite a lot of topics on Divine madness, so I think that it makes sense to use the addition "(religion)". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking that the other page now named "Divine Madness" could be "Divine madness (disambiguation)". Does that make sense? PopSci (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The third item on the disambiguation page Divine Madness redirects to Odin, which article does not mention the expression "divine madness" only that Odin's name is related to various words anger or madness. The second item is the ancient Greek version of divine madness which seems to have been merged here. The rest are rock and pop musicians who have used the expression as titles, which is understandable since it is a cool expression. PopSci (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense too, but I don't know what the exact Wiki-policies are in this regard. You'll have to find a gnome who knows more. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I will give it a try. PopSci (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• I renamed the other article as a disambiguation page, and put in a request for this one to be renamed. See what happens. PopSci (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

A helpful person jumped in and made the change! Now this page needs a direct to the disambiguation page. I'll see what I can do.PopSci (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

To expand upon the Hinduism section, you may find the discussion at https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/34113 helpful. Daask (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Article should be more balanced LordAgincourt (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)