Swami Vivekananda says women must grow in the footprints of Sita

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

To any man who knows anything about Indian history, that very statement proves that the whole thing was a fraud, because the temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them.

 

With all due respect to the great man that Swamiji was, he was possibly not aware what kind of effects an ill-researched statement may have in future.

 

That statement above is very controvertial and possibly incorrect. But the fact that it comes from Vivekananda, often people may consider it to be sacroscant and land up with wrong conclusions. Without a doubt, Swamiji was a spiritual Giant, but he was not a historian. He naively accepted most of the ideas about Indian history as propagated by western scholars.

 

Therefore, my advise, read lots and form your own opinions. When it comes to aspects of materialistic knowledge, NOTHING and NO ONE is beyond questioning.

 

-Regards

Rajarshi

 

The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Prasanth Jalasutram <jvrsprasanth wrote:

Prasanth Jalasutram <jvrsprasanth Swami Vivekananda says women must grow in the footprints of SitaTuesday, 25 August, 2009, 12:36 PM

 

THE SAGES OF INDIAVolume 3, Lectures from Colombo to Almora This mind is continually changing, always in a state of flux; it is finite, it is broken into pieces. How can nature tell of the Infinite, the Unchangeable, the Unbroken, the Indivisible, the Eternal? It never can.Even in our lives, in the life of every one of us here, there come moments of calmness, perhaps, when we see before us the death of one we loved, when some shock comes to us, or when extreme blessedness comes to us. Many other occasions there are when the mind, as it were, becomes calm, feels for the moment its real nature; and a glimpse of the Infinite beyond, where words cannot reach nor the mind go, is revealed to us. Consciousness is bound by the

senses. Beyond that, beyond the senses, men must go in order to arrive at truths of the spiritual world, and there are even now persons who succeed in going beyond the bounds of the senses. These are called Rishis, because they come face to face with spiritual truths.Any attempt to modernise our women, if it tries to take our women away from that ideal of Sita, is immediately a failure, as we see every day. The women of India must grow and develop in the footprints of Sita, and that is the only way.A great landmark in the history of religion is here, the ideal of love for love's sake, work for work's sake, duty for duty's sake, and it for the first time fell from the lips of the greatest of Incarnations, Krishna, and for the first time in the history of humanity, upon the soil of India. The religions of fear and of temptations were gone for

ever, and in spite of the fear of hell and temptation of enjoyment in heaven, came the grandest of ideals, love for love's sake, duty for duty's sake, work for work's sake.There was a book written a year or two ago by a Russian gentleman, who claimed to have found out a very curious life of Jesus Christ, and in one part of the book he says that Christ went to the temple of Jagannath to study with the Brahmins, but became disgusted with their exclusiveness and their idols, and so he went to the Lamas of Tibet instead, became perfect, and went home. To any man who knows anything about Indian history, that very statement proves that the whole thing was a fraud, because the temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet. That is Jagannath, and there was not one Brahmin there then, and yet we are told that

Jesus Christ came to study with the Brahmins there. So says our great Russian archaeologist.This one great Northern sage, Chaitanya, represented the mad love of the Gopis. Himself a Brahmin, born of one of the most rationalistic families of the day, himself a professor of logic fighting and gaining a word-victory — for, this he had learnt from his childhood as the highest ideal of life and yet through the mercy of some sage the whole life of that man became changed; he gave up his fight, his quarrels, his professorship of logic and became one of the greatest teachers of Bhakti the world has ever known — mad Chaitanya. His Bhakti rolled over the whole land of Bengal, bringing solace to every one. His love knew no bounds. The saint or the sinner, the Hindu or the Mohammedan, the pure or the impure, the prostitute, the streetwalker — all had a share in his love, all had a share in

his mercy: and even to the present day, although greatly degenerated, as everything does become in time, his sect is the refuge of the poor, of the downtrodden, of the outcast, of the weak, of those who have been rejected by all society. But at the same time I must remark for truth's sake that we find this: In the philosophic sects we find wonderful liberalisms. Source: http://en.wikisourc e.org/wiki/ The_Complete_ Works_of_ Swami_Vivekanand a/Volume_ 3/Lectures_ from_Colombo_ to_Almora/ The_Sages_ of_India

 

-- Om Namo Bhagavate Sri RamanayaPrasanth JalasutramLove And Love Alone

Looking for local information? Find it on Local

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rajarshi,

 

I think you make a very good point. You've raised something that has

made me stop to think many times. It seems to me that Swami Vivekananda

made many statements - especially about Hinduism and India - that could

be construed to be disparaging of other religions and cultures, and that

to me at least seemed a little unwarranted.

 

Whether this can be put down simply to naivete, or whether it served

some purpose which we do not see, and is now taken out of context, I

don't know. In either case I have yet to reconcile those statements with

the rest of his teachings.

 

Kind regards,

 

Samir

 

 

 

On 25/08/2009 11:46, rajarshi nandy wrote:

>

>

> Namaste

>

> /To any man who knows anything about Indian history, that very statement

> proves that the whole thing was a fraud, because the temple of Jagannath

> is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and

> re-Hinduised them. /

> //

> With all due respect to the great man that Swamiji was, he was possibly

> not aware what kind of effects an ill-researched statement may have in

> future.

>

> That statement above is very controvertial and possibly incorrect. But

> the fact that it comes from Vivekananda, often people may consider it to

> be sacroscant and land up with wrong conclusions. Without a doubt,

> Swamiji was a spiritual Giant, but he was not a historian. He naively

> accepted most of the ideas about Indian history as propagated by western

> scholars.

>

> Therefore, my advise, read lots and form your /own /opinions. When it

> comes to aspects of /materialistic/ knowledge, NOTHING and NO ONE is

> beyond questioning.

>

> -Regards

> Rajarshi

[Guest guest]

Namaste Amit and Rajarshi,

 

I remember having read the book called " Bharatiya Nari " (Translated version of

Vivekananda's work on Indian women " . The subject matter is the part of that

book.

 

Honestly, though i adore vivekananda so much, found it very hard to understand

the statements. there are few other quotes in the same book which i could not

reconcile with.

 

Only possible answer to such thing is - " Take everything with pinch of salt " . As

Narasimha Says - Everybody (Even Ramakrishna himself) can be deluded by

Mahaamaaya!!! she is the ultimate authority in the realm of Dualistic world and

capable of deluding everybody.

 

so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not digestable,

don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to accept it just because

they are the words from the mouth of saintly authority.

 

best reagards,

 

Utpal

 

 

, Samir Shah <solaris.smoke wrote:

>

> Namaste Rajarshi,

>

> I think you make a very good point. You've raised something that has

> made me stop to think many times. It seems to me that Swami Vivekananda

> made many statements - especially about Hinduism and India - that could

> be construed to be disparaging of other religions and cultures, and that

> to me at least seemed a little unwarranted.

>

> Whether this can be put down simply to naivete, or whether it served

> some purpose which we do not see, and is now taken out of context, I

> don't know. In either case I have yet to reconcile those statements with

> the rest of his teachings.

>

> Kind regards,

>

> Samir

>

>

>

> On 25/08/2009 11:46, rajarshi nandy wrote:

> >

> >

> > Namaste

> >

> > /To any man who knows anything about Indian history, that very statement

> > proves that the whole thing was a fraud, because the temple of Jagannath

> > is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and

> > re-Hinduised them. /

> > //

> > With all due respect to the great man that Swamiji was, he was possibly

> > not aware what kind of effects an ill-researched statement may have in

> > future.

> >

> > That statement above is very controvertial and possibly incorrect. But

> > the fact that it comes from Vivekananda, often people may consider it to

> > be sacroscant and land up with wrong conclusions. Without a doubt,

> > Swamiji was a spiritual Giant, but he was not a historian. He naively

> > accepted most of the ideas about Indian history as propagated by western

> > scholars.

> >

> > Therefore, my advise, read lots and form your /own /opinions. When it

> > comes to aspects of /materialistic/ knowledge, NOTHING and NO ONE is

> > beyond questioning.

> >

> > -Regards

> > Rajarshi

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

> so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not

> digestable,

> don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to accept it just

> because they are the words from the mouth of saintly authority.

 

After all, that is what Vivekananda himself did in his formative years! Do

not accept something unless you understand and *digest* it. Accumulating a

lot of undigested knowledge causes problems later, just as accumulating a

lot of undigested food in one's stomach does.

 

At the same time, be mindful of the fact that a spiritual giant's view may

be unpalatable to you because of your own limitations, i.e. you may be

missing something. Give the benefit of doubt and try to understand

respectfully.

 

Of course, when it comes to factual inaccuracies, it is a different matter.

If you know for sure that something a spiritual giant said was a factual

inaccuracy, you can of course dismiss and ignore it.

 

An active man like Vivekananda, who accomplished so much in a life of 39

years, may sometimes use wrong facts at his disposal based on the

understanding at his time, to advocate what he wanted to advocate. But,

blessed jnaanis and karma yogis like Vivekananda or Aurobindo would often

end up advocating correct views even if they use wrong facts occasionally to

support their views.

 

If I am not mistakened, the current temple at Puri was built around 1000 AD

or so. I am not sure of what existed in that specific place before.

 

Best regards,

Narasimha

 

Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

Spirituality:

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

 

 

-

" vedic_pathak " <vedic_pathak

 

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:58 AM

Re: Swami Vivekananda says women must grow in the

footprints of Sita

 

 

> Namaste Amit and Rajarshi,

>

> I remember having read the book called " Bharatiya Nari " (Translated

> version of Vivekananda's work on Indian women " . The subject matter is the

> part of that book.

>

> Honestly, though i adore vivekananda so much, found it very hard to

> understand the statements. there are few other quotes in the same book

> which i could not reconcile with.

>

> Only possible answer to such thing is - " Take everything with pinch of

> salt " . As Narasimha Says - Everybody (Even Ramakrishna himself) can be

> deluded by Mahaamaaya!!! she is the ultimate authority in the realm of

> Dualistic world and capable of deluding everybody.

>

> so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not

> digestable, don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to

> accept it just because they are the words from the mouth of saintly

> authority.

>

> best reagards,

>

> Utpal

>

> , Samir Shah <solaris.smoke wrote:

>>

>> Namaste Rajarshi,

>>

>> I think you make a very good point. You've raised something that has

>> made me stop to think many times. It seems to me that Swami Vivekananda

>> made many statements - especially about Hinduism and India - that could

>> be construed to be disparaging of other religions and cultures, and that

>> to me at least seemed a little unwarranted.

>>

>> Whether this can be put down simply to naivete, or whether it served

>> some purpose which we do not see, and is now taken out of context, I

>> don't know. In either case I have yet to reconcile those statements with

>> the rest of his teachings.

>>

>> Kind regards,

>>

>> Samir

>>

>> On 25/08/2009 11:46, rajarshi nandy wrote:

>> >

>> > Namaste

>> >

>> > /To any man who knows anything about Indian history, that very

>> > statement

>> > proves that the whole thing was a fraud, because the temple of

>> > Jagannath

>> > is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and

>> > re-Hinduised them. /

>> > //

>> > With all due respect to the great man that Swamiji was, he was possibly

>> > not aware what kind of effects an ill-researched statement may have in

>> > future.

>> >

>> > That statement above is very controvertial and possibly incorrect. But

>> > the fact that it comes from Vivekananda, often people may consider it

>> > to

>> > be sacroscant and land up with wrong conclusions. Without a doubt,

>> > Swamiji was a spiritual Giant, but he was not a historian. He naively

>> > accepted most of the ideas about Indian history as propagated by

>> > western

>> > scholars.

>> >

>> > Therefore, my advise, read lots and form your /own /opinions. When it

>> > comes to aspects of /materialistic/ knowledge, NOTHING and NO ONE is

>> > beyond questioning.

>> >

>> > -Regards

>> > Rajarshi

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Actually just to clarify, there is quiet a bit of controversy about the Puri temple. During the days of Swamji, the western scholars unequivocally stated that Puri was build on a Buddhist temple, however today, there is contrary evidences which says that it was not a temple built by destroying or converting another temple. Infact, there are some very old manuscripts that pass on through generations of the main priests of the Temple, which also shed some light on this fact. It is from one of that manuscripts it was found that the Temple was orginally built as a Bhairava Temple with the pradhan deities being Mahakali, Tara and Bhuvaneshwari. The whole area of the temple was designed as a Bhairavi Chakra, that is why the prasad of Puri is called Mahaprasad - beyond all rules (even one who is fasting can have the prasad of Puri).

 

To clarify, my mail was not at all a criticism of the man that Swamiji was. Without the slightest iota of doubt, he single handedly achieved what it would have taken a crowd of average calibre men thousands of years. He was a leader of men. And about his spiritual calibre, there is no question either. Thakur had himself certified Swamji, and Thakur's words on spirituality are like Gospel truths for me.

 

However, when it comes to judging/understanding material aspects of knowledge, it is always a changing reality, therefore best is to keep oneself updated. Respect the past, learn from the past and then use ones own reasoning to modify it for the present in the light of new evidences, if needed.

 

Same thing I find with Aghora books. Brilliant as they are, in places Vimalananda uses hyperboles or approximations to build his story, an intelligent reader will have to discern. That does not mean Vimalananda was incorrect, not at all, he is essentially correct in all things, but the specifics he would supplement as per teh need of the person he was speaking too. The problem with western style academics is that they are fixated with factual accuracy and do not understand the use of myth/hyperbole/story-telling as a way of passing knowledge (which is so essential in the Indian context). That is why they take every word as either true or false based on strict objective paramters and thus end up making ridiculous theories.

 

I hope I have clarified my stand.

 

 

-Regards

Rajarshi

 

 

The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra--- On Fri, 28/8/09, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote:

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr Re: Swami Vivekananda says women must grow in the footprints of Sita Date: Friday, 28 August, 2009, 7:48 AM

Namaste,> so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not > digestable,> don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to accept it just> because they are the words from the mouth of saintly authority.After all, that is what Vivekananda himself did in his formative years! Do not accept something unless you understand and *digest* it. Accumulating a lot of undigested knowledge causes problems later, just as accumulating a lot of undigested food in one's stomach does.At the same time, be mindful of the fact that a spiritual giant's view may be unpalatable to you because of your own limitations, i.e. you may be missing something. Give the benefit of doubt and try to understand respectfully.Of course, when it comes to factual inaccuracies, it is a different matter. If you know for sure that something a spiritual giant said was a factual

inaccuracy, you can of course dismiss and ignore it.An active man like Vivekananda, who accomplished so much in a life of 39 years, may sometimes use wrong facts at his disposal based on the understanding at his time, to advocate what he wanted to advocate. But, blessed jnaanis and karma yogis like Vivekananda or Aurobindo would often end up advocating correct views even if they use wrong facts occasionally to support their views.If I am not mistakened, the current temple at Puri was built around 1000 AD or so. I am not sure of what existed in that specific place before.Best regards,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - - "vedic_pathak" <vedic_pathak@ ><>Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:58 AM Re: Swami Vivekananda says women must grow in the footprints of Sita> Namaste Amit and Rajarshi,>> I remember having read the book called "Bharatiya Nari" (Translated > version of Vivekananda' s work on Indian women". The subject matter is the > part of that book.>> Honestly, though i adore vivekananda so much, found it very hard to > understand the statements. there are few other quotes in the same book > which i could not reconcile with.>> Only possible answer to such thing is - "Take everything with pinch of > salt". As Narasimha Says - Everybody (Even Ramakrishna himself) can be > deluded

by Mahaamaaya!! ! she is the ultimate authority in the realm of > Dualistic world and capable of deluding everybody.>> so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not > digestable, don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to > accept it just because they are the words from the mouth of saintly > authority.>> best reagards,>> Utpal>> , Samir Shah <solaris.smoke@ ...> wrote:>>>> Namaste Rajarshi,>>>> I think you make a very good point. You've raised something that has>> made me stop to think many times. It seems to me that Swami Vivekananda>> made many statements - especially

about Hinduism and India - that could>> be construed to be disparaging of other religions and cultures, and that>> to me at least seemed a little unwarranted.>>>> Whether this can be put down simply to naivete, or whether it served>> some purpose which we do not see, and is now taken out of context, I>> don't know. In either case I have yet to reconcile those statements with>> the rest of his teachings.>>>> Kind regards,>>>> Samir>>>> On 25/08/2009 11:46, rajarshi nandy wrote:>> >>> > Namaste>> >>> > /To any man who knows anything about Indian history, that very >> > statement>> > proves that the whole thing was a fraud, because the temple of >> > Jagannath>> > is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over

and>> > re-Hinduised them. />> > //>> > With all due respect to the great man that Swamiji was, he was possibly>> > not aware what kind of effects an ill-researched statement may have in>> > future.>> >>> > That statement above is very controvertial and possibly incorrect. But>> > the fact that it comes from Vivekananda, often people may consider it >> > to>> > be sacroscant and land up with wrong conclusions. Without a doubt,>> > Swamiji was a spiritual Giant, but he was not a historian. He naively>> > accepted most of the ideas about Indian history as propagated by >> > western>> > scholars.>> >>> > Therefore, my advise, read lots and form your /own /opinions. When it>> > comes to aspects of /materialistic/ knowledge, NOTHING and NO

ONE is>> > beyond questioning.>> >>> > -Regards>> > Rajarshi

See the Web's breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out Buzz.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Narasimha Garu,

 

>At the same time, be mindful of the fact that a spiritual giant's >view may be

unpalatable to you because of your own limitations, >i.e. you may be missing

something. Give the benefit of doubt and >try to understand respectfully.

 

Yes! it is possible that we may not understand something because of our own

limitations. it is equally possible that few things said by spiritual giants in

some context may not be applicable in present time & environment we live in(Your

example of Cooked and Raw rise is a guiding light for me).

 

There is no question of even an iota of disrespect when it comes to Naren &

Thakur, even few quotes are not digested.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Utpal

 

 

, " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> > so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not

> > digestable,

> > don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to accept it just

> > because they are the words from the mouth of saintly authority.

>

> After all, that is what Vivekananda himself did in his formative years! Do

> not accept something unless you understand and *digest* it. Accumulating a

> lot of undigested knowledge causes problems later, just as accumulating a

> lot of undigested food in one's stomach does.

>

> At the same time, be mindful of the fact that a spiritual giant's view may

> be unpalatable to you because of your own limitations, i.e. you may be

> missing something. Give the benefit of doubt and try to understand

> respectfully.

>

> Of course, when it comes to factual inaccuracies, it is a different matter.

> If you know for sure that something a spiritual giant said was a factual

> inaccuracy, you can of course dismiss and ignore it.

>

> An active man like Vivekananda, who accomplished so much in a life of 39

> years, may sometimes use wrong facts at his disposal based on the

> understanding at his time, to advocate what he wanted to advocate. But,

> blessed jnaanis and karma yogis like Vivekananda or Aurobindo would often

> end up advocating correct views even if they use wrong facts occasionally to

> support their views.

>

> If I am not mistakened, the current temple at Puri was built around 1000 AD

> or so. I am not sure of what existed in that specific place before.

>

> Best regards,

> Narasimha

>

> Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

> Spirituality:

> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

>

>

> -

> " vedic_pathak " <vedic_pathak

>

> Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:58 AM

> Re: Swami Vivekananda says women must grow in the

> footprints of Sita

>

>

> > Namaste Amit and Rajarshi,

> >

> > I remember having read the book called " Bharatiya Nari " (Translated

> > version of Vivekananda's work on Indian women " . The subject matter is the

> > part of that book.

> >

> > Honestly, though i adore vivekananda so much, found it very hard to

> > understand the statements. there are few other quotes in the same book

> > which i could not reconcile with.

> >

> > Only possible answer to such thing is - " Take everything with pinch of

> > salt " . As Narasimha Says - Everybody (Even Ramakrishna himself) can be

> > deluded by Mahaamaaya!!! she is the ultimate authority in the realm of

> > Dualistic world and capable of deluding everybody.

> >

> > so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not

> > digestable, don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to

> > accept it just because they are the words from the mouth of saintly

> > authority.

> >

> > best reagards,

> >

> > Utpal

> >

> > , Samir Shah <solaris.smoke@> wrote:

> >>

> >> Namaste Rajarshi,

> >>

> >> I think you make a very good point. You've raised something that has

> >> made me stop to think many times. It seems to me that Swami Vivekananda

> >> made many statements - especially about Hinduism and India - that could

> >> be construed to be disparaging of other religions and cultures, and that

> >> to me at least seemed a little unwarranted.

> >>

> >> Whether this can be put down simply to naivete, or whether it served

> >> some purpose which we do not see, and is now taken out of context, I

> >> don't know. In either case I have yet to reconcile those statements with

> >> the rest of his teachings.

> >>

> >> Kind regards,

> >>

> >> Samir

> >>

> >> On 25/08/2009 11:46, rajarshi nandy wrote:

> >> >

> >> > Namaste

> >> >

> >> > /To any man who knows anything about Indian history, that very

> >> > statement

> >> > proves that the whole thing was a fraud, because the temple of

> >> > Jagannath

> >> > is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and

> >> > re-Hinduised them. /

> >> > //

> >> > With all due respect to the great man that Swamiji was, he was possibly

> >> > not aware what kind of effects an ill-researched statement may have in

> >> > future.

> >> >

> >> > That statement above is very controvertial and possibly incorrect. But

> >> > the fact that it comes from Vivekananda, often people may consider it

> >> > to

> >> > be sacroscant and land up with wrong conclusions. Without a doubt,

> >> > Swamiji was a spiritual Giant, but he was not a historian. He naively

> >> > accepted most of the ideas about Indian history as propagated by

> >> > western

> >> > scholars.

> >> >

> >> > Therefore, my advise, read lots and form your /own /opinions. When it

> >> > comes to aspects of /materialistic/ knowledge, NOTHING and NO ONE is

> >> > beyond questioning.

> >> >

> >> > -Regards

> >> > Rajarshi

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Rajarshi,

 

> I hope I have clarified my stand.

 

You did not need to clarify your stand, for it was clear to me from the

beginning. Thanks for clarifying anyway.

 

Thanks for the interesting info on the Jagannath temple.

 

It is interesting that you say Thakur's words are like " Gospel " truths to you!

 

Your point on the story-telling style of expression is a good one. Knowledge

consisting of mere factual statements is dry and sometimes difficult to digest.

Story telling style of expressing knowledge personalizes it and adds the right

spices that promote its digestion. Though it makes knowledge easier to relate

to, understand and digest, the drawback is that it takes the background and

intellectual ability of an intended audience into account and a different kind

of audience may misunderstand some details.

 

Best regards,

Narasimha

 

Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

Spirituality:

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

 

 

---- rajarshi nandy <rajarshi14 wrote:

> Namaste

>

> Actually just to clarify, there is quiet a bit of controversy about the Puri

temple. During the days of Swamji, the western scholars unequivocally stated

that Puri was build on a Buddhist temple, however today, there is contrary

evidences which says that it was not a temple built by destroying or converting

another temple. Infact, there are some very old manuscripts that pass on through

generations of the main priests of the Temple, which also shed some light on

this fact. It is from one of that manuscripts it was found that the Temple was

orginally built as a Bhairava Temple with the pradhan deities being Mahakali,

Tara and Bhuvaneshwari. The whole area of the temple was designed as a Bhairavi

Chakra, that is why the prasad of Puri is called Mahaprasad - beyond all rules

(even one who is fasting can have the prasad of Puri).

>

> To clarify, my mail was not at all a criticism of the man that Swamiji was.

Without the slightest iota of doubt, he single handedly achieved what it would

have taken a crowd of average calibre men thousands of years. He was a leader of

men. And about his spiritual calibre, there is no question either. Thakur had

himself certified Swamji, and Thakur's words on spirituality are like Gospel

truths for me.

>

> However, when it comes to judging/understanding material aspects of knowledge,

it is always a changing reality, therefore best is to keep oneself updated.

Respect the past, learn from the past and then use ones own reasoning to modify

it for the present in the light of new evidences, if needed.

>

> Same thing I find with Aghora books. Brilliant as they are, in places

Vimalananda uses hyperboles or approximations to build his story, an intelligent

reader will have to discern. That does not mean Vimalananda was incorrect, not

at all, he is essentially correct in all things, but the specifics he would

supplement as per teh need of the person he was speaking too. The problem with

western style academics is that they are fixated with factual accuracy and do

not understand the use of myth/hyperbole/story-telling as a way of passing

knowledge (which is so essential in the Indian context). That is why they take

every word as either true or false based on strict objective paramters and thus

end up making ridiculous theories.

>

> I hope I have clarified my stand.

>

>

> -Regards

> Rajarshi

>

>

> The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra

>

> --- On Fri, 28/8/09, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote:

>

>

> Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr

> Re: Swami Vivekananda says women must grow in the

footprints of Sita

>

> Friday, 28 August, 2009, 7:48 AM

Namaste,

>

> > so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not

> > digestable,

> > don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to accept it just

> > because they are the words from the mouth of saintly authority.

>

> After all, that is what Vivekananda himself did in his formative years! Do

> not accept something unless you understand and *digest* it. Accumulating a

> lot of undigested knowledge causes problems later, just as accumulating a

> lot of undigested food in one's stomach does.

>

> At the same time, be mindful of the fact that a spiritual giant's view may

> be unpalatable to you because of your own limitations, i.e. you may be

> missing something. Give the benefit of doubt and try to understand

> respectfully.

>

> Of course, when it comes to factual inaccuracies, it is a different matter.

> If you know for sure that something a spiritual giant said was a factual

> inaccuracy, you can of course dismiss and ignore it.

>

> An active man like Vivekananda, who accomplished so much in a life of 39

> years, may sometimes use wrong facts at his disposal based on the

> understanding at his time, to advocate what he wanted to advocate. But,

> blessed jnaanis and karma yogis like Vivekananda or Aurobindo would often

> end up advocating correct views even if they use wrong facts occasionally to

> support their views.

>

> If I am not mistakened, the current temple at Puri was built around 1000 AD

> or so. I am not sure of what existed in that specific place before.

>

> Best regards,

> Narasimha

> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

> Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam

> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana

> Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom

> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net

> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org

> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

>

> -

> " vedic_pathak " <vedic_pathak@ >

> <>

> Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:58 AM

> Re: Swami Vivekananda says women must grow in the

> footprints of Sita

>

> > Namaste Amit and Rajarshi,

> >

> > I remember having read the book called " Bharatiya Nari " (Translated

> > version of Vivekananda' s work on Indian women " . The subject matter is the

> > part of that book.

> >

> > Honestly, though i adore vivekananda so much, found it very hard to

> > understand the statements. there are few other quotes in the same book

> > which i could not reconcile with.

> >

> > Only possible answer to such thing is - " Take everything with pinch of

> > salt " . As Narasimha Says - Everybody (Even Ramakrishna himself) can be

> > deluded by Mahaamaaya!! ! she is the ultimate authority in the realm of

> > Dualistic world and capable of deluding everybody.

> >

> > so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not

> > digestable, don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to

> > accept it just because they are the words from the mouth of saintly

> > authority.

> >

> > best reagards,

> >

> > Utpal

> >

> > , Samir Shah <solaris.smoke@ ...>

wrote:

> >>

> >> Namaste Rajarshi,

> >>

> >> I think you make a very good point. You've raised something that has

> >> made me stop to think many times. It seems to me that Swami Vivekananda

> >> made many statements - especially about Hinduism and India - that could

> >> be construed to be disparaging of other religions and cultures, and that

> >> to me at least seemed a little unwarranted.

> >>

> >> Whether this can be put down simply to naivete, or whether it served

> >> some purpose which we do not see, and is now taken out of context, I

> >> don't know. In either case I have yet to reconcile those statements with

> >> the rest of his teachings.

> >>

> >> Kind regards,

> >>

> >> Samir

> >>

> >> On 25/08/2009 11:46, rajarshi nandy wrote:

> >> >

> >> > Namaste

> >> >

> >> > /To any man who knows anything about Indian history, that very

> >> > statement

> >> > proves that the whole thing was a fraud, because the temple of

> >> > Jagannath

> >> > is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and

> >> > re-Hinduised them. /

> >> > //

> >> > With all due respect to the great man that Swamiji was, he was possibly

> >> > not aware what kind of effects an ill-researched statement may have in

> >> > future.

> >> >

> >> > That statement above is very controvertial and possibly incorrect. But

> >> > the fact that it comes from Vivekananda, often people may consider it

> >> > to

> >> > be sacroscant and land up with wrong conclusions. Without a doubt,

> >> > Swamiji was a spiritual Giant, but he was not a historian. He naively

> >> > accepted most of the ideas about Indian history as propagated by

> >> > western

> >> > scholars.

> >> >

> >> > Therefore, my advise, read lots and form your /own /opinions. When it

> >> > comes to aspects of /materialistic/ knowledge, NOTHING and NO ONE is

> >> > beyond questioning.

> >> >

> >> > -Regards

> >> > Rajarshi

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

This thread brought back a memory from my childhood,

which I had forgotten for so many years.

 

I recollect a very personal incident from my own life

in this regard. When I was a young boy, I used to read many books

such as Yogananda, etc. One day, I found a very old print of

Swami Vivekananda's collected works at a paper recyling shop.

With great interest I started reading the pages, till I came upon

a passage where Swamiji tackles Lord Krishna's historicity.

I managed to find this passage once again now, after many years, just because I

still remember some of his words very clearly.

 

Needless to say, a multitude of conflicts arose in my young impressionable mind,

as one great personality of India seemed to doubt Lord Krishna's existence

itself and I was not mature enough to deal with this conflict at that time.

 

Perhaps being a realized seer doesn't necessarily imply having excellent grasp

of material facts or analysis, something that we overlook easily at times. Note

for instance in the below paragraph, how Sri Vivekananda, ever the rationalist,

calls milk-ocean , curd-ocean, as fantastic creations of the brain. Perhaps they

are creations of the brain, or they perhaps are veiled pointers to some planes

of existence, since the puranas and vedas mostly talk in

covered terms.

 

 

Swamy Vivekananda on Lord Krishna from: Complete Works, Volume 4.

"

Then as to the second point in question, much doubt exists about the personality

of Krishna. In one place in the Chhândogya Upanishad we find mention of Krishna,

the son of Devaki, who received spiritual instructions from one Ghora, a Yogi.

In the Mahabharata, Krishna is the king of Dwârakâ; and in the Vishnu Purâna we

find a description of Krishna playing with the Gopis. Again, in the Bhâgavata,

the account of his Râsalilâ is detailed at length. In very ancient times in our

country there was in vogue an Utsava called Madanotsava (celebration in honour

of Cupid). That very thing was transformed into Dola and thrust upon the

shoulders of Krishna. Who can be so bold as to assert that the Rasalila and

other things connected with him were not similarly fastened upon him? In ancient

times there was very little tendency in our country to find out truths by

historical research. So any one could say what he thought best without

substantiating it with proper facts and evidence. Another thing: in those

ancient times there was very little hankering after name and fame in men. So it

often happened that one man composed a book and made it pass current in the name

of his Guru or of someone else. In such cases it is very hazardous for the

investigator of historical facts to get at the truth. In ancient times they had

no knowledge whatever of geography; imagination ran riot. And so we meet with

such fantastic creations of the brain as sweet-ocean, milk-ocean,

clarified-butter-ocean, curd-ocean, etc! In the Puranas, we find one living ten

thousand years, another a hundred thousand years! But the Vedas say, ?????????

?????? — " Man lives a hundred years. " Whom shall we follow here? So, to reach a

correct conclusion in the case of Krishna is well-nigh impossible.

 

 

It is human nature to build round the real character of a great man all sorts of

imaginary superhuman attributes. As regards Krishna the same must have happened,

but it seems quite probable that he was a king. Quite probable I say, because in

ancient times in our country it was chiefly the kings who exerted themselves

most in the preaching of Brahma-Jnâna. Another point to be especially noted here

is that whoever might have been the author of the Gita, we find its teachings

the same as those in the whole of the Mahabharata. From this we can safely infer

that in the age of the Mahabharata some great man arose and preached the

Brahma-Jnâna in this new garb to the then existing society. Another fact comes

to the fore that in the olden days, as one sect after another arose, there also

came into existence and use among them one new scripture or another. It

happened, too, that in the lapse of time both the sect and its scripture died

out, or the sect ceased to exist but its scripture remained. Similarly, it was

quite probable that the Gita was the scripture of such a sect which had embodied

its high and noble ideas in this sacred book.

 

 

 

 

, " vedic_pathak " <vedic_pathak wrote:

>

> Namaste Narasimha Garu,

>

> >At the same time, be mindful of the fact that a spiritual giant's >view may

be unpalatable to you because of your own limitations, >i.e. you may be missing

something. Give the benefit of doubt and >try to understand respectfully.

>

> Yes! it is possible that we may not understand something because of our own

limitations. it is equally possible that few things said by spiritual giants in

some context may not be applicable in present time & environment we live in(Your

example of Cooked and Raw rise is a guiding light for me).

>

> There is no question of even an iota of disrespect when it comes to Naren &

Thakur, even few quotes are not digested.

>

> Warm Regards,

>

> Utpal

>

>

> , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > > so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not

> > > digestable,

> > > don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to accept it just

> > > because they are the words from the mouth of saintly authority.

> >

> > After all, that is what Vivekananda himself did in his formative years! Do

> > not accept something unless you understand and *digest* it. Accumulating a

> > lot of undigested knowledge causes problems later, just as accumulating a

> > lot of undigested food in one's stomach does.

> >

> > At the same time, be mindful of the fact that a spiritual giant's view may

> > be unpalatable to you because of your own limitations, i.e. you may be

> > missing something. Give the benefit of doubt and try to understand

> > respectfully.

> >

> > Of course, when it comes to factual inaccuracies, it is a different matter.

> > If you know for sure that something a spiritual giant said was a factual

> > inaccuracy, you can of course dismiss and ignore it.

> >

> > An active man like Vivekananda, who accomplished so much in a life of 39

> > years, may sometimes use wrong facts at his disposal based on the

> > understanding at his time, to advocate what he wanted to advocate. But,

> > blessed jnaanis and karma yogis like Vivekananda or Aurobindo would often

> > end up advocating correct views even if they use wrong facts occasionally to

> > support their views.

> >

> > If I am not mistakened, the current temple at Puri was built around 1000 AD

> > or so. I am not sure of what existed in that specific place before.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Narasimha

> >

> > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

> > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

> > Spirituality:

> > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> >

> >

> > -

> > " vedic_pathak " <vedic_pathak@>

> >

> > Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:58 AM

> > Re: Swami Vivekananda says women must grow in the

> > footprints of Sita

> >

> >

> > > Namaste Amit and Rajarshi,

> > >

> > > I remember having read the book called " Bharatiya Nari " (Translated

> > > version of Vivekananda's work on Indian women " . The subject matter is the

> > > part of that book.

> > >

> > > Honestly, though i adore vivekananda so much, found it very hard to

> > > understand the statements. there are few other quotes in the same book

> > > which i could not reconcile with.

> > >

> > > Only possible answer to such thing is - " Take everything with pinch of

> > > salt " . As Narasimha Says - Everybody (Even Ramakrishna himself) can be

> > > deluded by Mahaamaaya!!! she is the ultimate authority in the realm of

> > > Dualistic world and capable of deluding everybody.

> > >

> > > so as Rajarshi has said, Think for your self. if something is not

> > > digestable, don't be sycophant to accept it - don't force you mind to

> > > accept it just because they are the words from the mouth of saintly

> > > authority.

> > >

> > > best reagards,

> > >

> > > Utpal

> > >

> > > , Samir Shah <solaris.smoke@> wrote:

> > >>

> > >> Namaste Rajarshi,

> > >>

> > >> I think you make a very good point. You've raised something that has

> > >> made me stop to think many times. It seems to me that Swami Vivekananda

> > >> made many statements - especially about Hinduism and India - that could

> > >> be construed to be disparaging of other religions and cultures, and that

> > >> to me at least seemed a little unwarranted.

> > >>

> > >> Whether this can be put down simply to naivete, or whether it served

> > >> some purpose which we do not see, and is now taken out of context, I

> > >> don't know. In either case I have yet to reconcile those statements with

> > >> the rest of his teachings.

> > >>

> > >> Kind regards,

> > >>

> > >> Samir

> > >>

> > >> On 25/08/2009 11:46, rajarshi nandy wrote:

> > >> >

> > >> > Namaste

> > >> >

> > >> > /To any man who knows anything about Indian history, that very

> > >> > statement

> > >> > proves that the whole thing was a fraud, because the temple of

> > >> > Jagannath

> > >> > is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and

> > >> > re-Hinduised them. /

> > >> > //

> > >> > With all due respect to the great man that Swamiji was, he was possibly

> > >> > not aware what kind of effects an ill-researched statement may have in

> > >> > future.

> > >> >

> > >> > That statement above is very controvertial and possibly incorrect. But

> > >> > the fact that it comes from Vivekananda, often people may consider it

> > >> > to

> > >> > be sacroscant and land up with wrong conclusions. Without a doubt,

> > >> > Swamiji was a spiritual Giant, but he was not a historian. He naively

> > >> > accepted most of the ideas about Indian history as propagated by

> > >> > western

> > >> > scholars.

> > >> >

> > >> > Therefore, my advise, read lots and form your /own /opinions. When it

> > >> > comes to aspects of /materialistic/ knowledge, NOTHING and NO ONE is

> > >> > beyond questioning.

> > >> >

> > >> > -Regards

> > >> > Rajarshi

> >

>