Guest guest Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Obviously Vivekananda was such a mundane character that all people just liked him and therefore he could teach whatever he wanted, people accepted everything from him. He must have a nice situation in this life however his future was surely samsara - for spiritually misleading people the most heavy karmas are waiting. Or... Obviously Prabhupada was such a mundane character that all people just liked him and therefore he could teach whatever he wanted, people accepted everything from him. He must have a nice situation in this life however his future was surely samsara - for spiritually misleading people the most heavy karmas are waiting. Om Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niranjan Posted February 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 <....e claim that Vivekananda was somehow a devotee of Krishna is not supported by any of his own works, writings or teachings. Vivekananda was an impersonalist.>> Each soul is potentially divine.The goal is to manifest this divine nature within by controlling nature, external and internal. Do this either by work or worship or psychic control, or philosophy- by one or more, or all of these- and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines or dogmas, or rituals or books,or temples or forms, are but secondary details. --Swami Vivekananda Swami Vivekananda , with respect to this above quote of his, himself practiced Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga and Karma Yoga, even though he was basically a Jnana Yogi. He saw no contradiction in this. His spiritual master, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa , himself was a devotee of Krishna and a Jnana Yogi. It is thus natural that Vivekananda was an impersonalist and a devotee of Krishna as well. This is the same with Adi Shankaracharya, who was an impersonalist , and a devotee of Krishna as well. Even he who has seen only a spook is more spiritual than book-learned pundits. By this quote of his, it can be easily understood that Vivekananda, in his outspoken and charecterestic manner ,is disparaging mere book-learning and intellectual gymnastics , and stating that spiritual practice is more important than theoretical knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Our problem is that we all look for some super natural power in a SPIRITUAL guru. Ramkrishna and Vivekanand had some. That is why so many fools take them seriously. And today there are followers of SAIBABA . He will also be very popular again because of his foolish followers. YS, DEV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Our problem is that we all look for some super natural power in a SPIRITUAL guru. Ramkrishna and Vivekanand had some. That is why so many fools take them seriously. And today there are followers of SAIBABA . He will also be very popular again because of his foolish followers. YS, DEV Interesting. You are willing to admit they had supernatural powers and yet think it is foolish to follow them. If this is considered foolish, by this logic then following a spiritual Guru with no powers and is exactly like any lay person would be considered moronic - an extreme case of a fool. Better to be a fool than a moron. What do you think? Om Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niranjan Posted February 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Our problem is that we all look for some super natural power in a SPIRITUAL guru. Ramkrishna and Vivekanand had some. That is why so many fools take them seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 If the goal is to get those mystic power there are so many ways. "Joto mott toto poth". But the love of God can not be achived in this kali yuga by following other paths then bhakti Jog . YS, DEV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Funny you mentioned this . Both Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda had time and again mentioned not to desire supernatural powers or yogic powers, which comes to one during progress in yoga and which takes one away from the goal of self-realization. Both of them have exhorted all spiritual seekers to treat these powers as filth and to be indifferent to it. <!-- / message --> This exchange can go on with no end. Time to bail out. To close, it is obvious that Hare Krishnas are ignorant of the merits of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. I suspect most Indians would not condemn Vivekananda as they are aware of what he accomplished. It is western Hare Krishnas who have little or no knowledge about Vivekananda. Actually, they should be grateful to Vivekananda for introducing Indian religion in the west, creating a receptive environment in a Christian for Hinduism - which was considered a Pagan religion and making way for others such as Prabhupada to follow him. If it were not for the efforts of Vivekananda and his illiterate master the people complaining here would not be Hare Krishnas at all! Contrary to what someone said above, Vivekananda did not lead a life of comfort. He was a Sanyasi, suffered hardships and died in his 30s. The HKs would not bother with Vivekananda if it were not for their founder instructing them to “smash” Ramakrishna/Advaita system for no reason other than pure envy on their success and frustration on the inability to match that success. There is nothing spiritual about this type of a negative attitude which is based solely on lay human emotions. The problem is the HK founder is now dead and cannot come back to correct his people to stop assuming negative attitudes and to learn be tolerant of people even if they disagree with them. Since he cannot come back from the dead, the HKs are helpless – there is no recourse out except to continue to condemn Vivekananda, Kundalini, Shaivism, Swaminarayan and everyone else – except for Jesus as that is an important part of drawing western disciples and funds. Om Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niranjan Posted February 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 To close, it is obvious that Hare Krishnas are ignorant of the merits of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. I suspect most Indians would not condemn Vivekananda as they are aware of what he accomplished. It is western Hare Krishnas who have little or no knowledge about Vivekananda. Actually, they should be grateful to Vivekananda for introducing Indian religion in the west, creating a receptive environment in a Christian for Hinduism - which was considered a Pagan religion and making way for others such as Prabhupada to follow him. If it were not for the efforts of Vivekananda and his illiterate master the people complaining here would not be Hare Krishnas at all! Contrary to what someone said above, Vivekananda did not lead a life of comfort. He was a Sanyasi, suffered hardships and died in his 30s You are absolutely correct . I agree with you. In fact , he had battled many times with the fanaticism of the Christian missionaries , saying that he was ready to accept Jesus Christ in a spirit of universality, but could the Christian missionaries in the same way accept his Krishna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 OMG.someone is asking a devotee about regious tolerance! well to put it simply we say that anyone can do whatever they please(free-will),follow any path, worship any god/God but when it comes to the teaching of sanatana dharma which is all based on sastra, there is NO COMPROMISE.If you follow a particular teacher and get bashed in trying to defend him, TOO BAD. Hahaha...what a funny thread.LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 While I can see where you're coming from, I'm surprised that you've decided to write such an offensive post. The disagreement with the philosophy of Swami Vivekananda that stems from one who has studied or heard the Sastra from an intelligent source is not limited to Western people. I'm not from the West, yet I strongly disagree with the philosophy expounded by Swami Vivekananda. Indeed, you will find many from India that do not accept his teachings. Acceptance or rejection of someone's teachings should be based on the authority of scriptures and not one's own speculation, for we are all born in ignorance ... ajnana-timirandhasya, and do not have the knowledge to discern right from wrong. That is why someone asked for quotes (I believe it was Sumedh) from the Sastra that established Swami Vivekananda's teachings. However, the Vivekananda proponent was unable to do so, indicating that many of Vivekananda's teachings originated from the Swami's own speculative imagination. It is on this basis that Vaisnavas reject Swami Vivekananda's teachngs and it has nothing to do with their like or dislike for him, for Vaisnavas are trained & instructed to see all entities with equal vision .... vidya-vinaya-sampanne brahmane gavi hastini suni caiva sva-pake ca panditah sama-darsinah ... "A Krsna conscious person does not make any distinction between species or castes. The brahmana and the outcaste may be different from the social point of view, or a dog, a cow, or an elephant may be different from the point of view of species, but these differences of body are meaningless from the viewpoint of a learned transcendentalist. This is due to their relationship to the Supreme, for the Supreme Lord, by His plenary portion as Paramatma, is present in everyone's heart. Such an understanding of the Supreme is real knowledge" Calling a great Acarya a dead person is very offensive. I hope that you will abstain from writing such offensive things for it will set you back in a major way in your quest for self-realization. I highly recommend that you read the pastime of Ambarish Maharaja from the Srimad Bhagavatam when you get a chance. This exchange can go on with no end. Time to bail out. To close, it is obvious that Hare Krishnas are ignorant of the merits of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. I suspect most Indians would not condemn Vivekananda as they are aware of what he accomplished. It is western Hare Krishnas who have little or no knowledge about Vivekananda. Actually, they should be grateful to Vivekananda for introducing Indian religion in the west, creating a receptive environment in a Christian for Hinduism - which was considered a Pagan religion and making way for others such as Prabhupada to follow him. If it were not for the efforts of Vivekananda and his illiterate master the people complaining here would not be Hare Krishnas at all! Contrary to what someone said above, Vivekananda did not lead a life of comfort. He was a Sanyasi, suffered hardships and died in his 30s. The HKs would not bother with Vivekananda if it were not for their founder instructing them to “smash” Ramakrishna/Advaita system for no reason other than pure envy on their success and frustration on the inability to match that success. There is nothing spiritual about this type of a negative attitude which is based solely on lay human emotions. The problem is the HK founder is now dead and cannot come back to correct his people to stop assuming negative attitudes and to learn be tolerant of people even if they disagree with them. Since he cannot come back from the dead, the HKs are helpless – there is no recourse out except to continue to condemn Vivekananda, Kundalini, Shaivism, Swaminarayan and everyone else – except for Jesus as that is an important part of drawing western disciples and funds. Om Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 While I can see where you're coming from, … Calling a great Acarya a dead person is very offensive. I hope that you will abstain from writing such offensive things for it will set you back in a major way in your quest for self-realization. I highly recommend that you read the pastime of Ambarish Maharaja from the Srimad Bhagavatam when you get a chance. I have a more-than-ample response to this. However, like I said earlier I bailed out of this discussion in my last post. The reason is, there is noting gained from dwelling too long on controversial topics. It takes away the mood of the majority people who are not interested in seeing such threads. I would not get into such discussions in the first place, but if I fail to do so, discussions on non-HK topics digress and become lop-sided due to the absence of adequate non-HK participation. My entry was solely to level the playing field a little bit and I think I have done that. People cannot hope to abuse the beliefs of others and remain unchallenged on a general discussion forum. If you cannot take it, then do not dish it out. If you call Vivekananda a fool, then it is only natural that someone else will label Prabhupada a moron in return. Om Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brajeshwara das Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 If someone offends you, your response is to offend them back? It may be the way of this material world, but this is isn't a 'natural' transcendental position. We should remember the exhalted persons we are speaking of here deserve our respect even when in fundamental disagreement, and act or refrain from acting accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts