Ramkrishna paramhans, Vivekanand, Chaitany mahaprabhu

[Guest guest]

The story of the butcher is found in the Vana Parva where Markandeya instructs Yudhishtira on various subjects, including virtue. The "virtuous fowler" as Ganguly calls him is found in the Vana Parva, Section CCV in Ganguly's edition, "The Mahabharatha of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa". It can also be found in M.N.Dutt's version. I am told that the BORI also has it. Here are some interesting snippets from Ganguly's translation:

 

When asked by Kaushik, the Brahmana ascetic as to why the fowler was engaged in such a "sinful" profession, the fowler replied among many things, the following(From Ganguly's translation):

 

"The forsaking of one's own occupation is considered, O Brahmana, to be a sin, and the act of sticking to one's own occupation is without a doubt a meritorious act."

 

"Agriculture is considered to be a praiseworthy occupation, but it is well-known that even there, great harm is done to animal life; and in the operation of digging the earth with the plough, numberless creatures lurking in the ground as also various other forms of animal-life are destroyed. Dost thou not think so? O good Brahmana, Vrihi and other seeds of rice are all living organisms. What is thy opinion on this matter? Men, O Brahmana, hunt wild animals and kill them and partake of their meat; they also cut up trees and herbs; but, O Brahmana, there are numberless living organisms in trees, in fruits, as also in water; dost thou not think so? This whole creation, O Brahmana, is full of animal life, sustaining with food derived from living organisms. "

 

"Men, O Brahmana, while walking about hither and thither, kill numberless creatures lurking in the ground by trampling on them, and even men of wisdom and enlightenment destroy animal life in various ways by sleeping or reposing themselves. What has thou to say to this? The earth and the air all swarm to living organisms, which are unconsciously destroyed by men from mere ignorance. Is not this so? The commandment that people should not do harm to any creature, was ordained of old by men, who were ignorant of the true facts of the case. For, O Brahmana, there is not a man on the face of this earth, who is free from the sin of doing injury to creatures."

[Guest guest]

Please refer this:

 

Post-madhva vaishNava schools of shrI nimbarka, shrI vallabha, and shrI chaitanya have come under the

influence of shrI madhva. They have used concepts proposed by him, with slight changes in semantics.

Nimbarka’s concept of bheda and abheda comes very close to that of madhvAchArya’s, with slight changes

in terminology. Vallabha uses concepts similar to Ananda taratamya (gradation in bliss of souls in

salvation). In the Chaitanya School, madhvA’s influence can be seen in the works of rupa goswami, jiva

goswami and to a great extent in the works of shrI baladeva vidyAbhUshaNa

 

 

 

 

http://www.vmmp-usa.org/docs/madhva.pdf

 

From the above, it can be cleary know that ISCKON is of same lineage of madhva sampraday with slight differences. This is pdf was prepared by Viswa madva Sangha.

[Guest guest]

I was going through the link you have posted and have certain genuine doubts in it.

 

In the first chapter on the life of Madhva its mentioned that He met Vedavyasa.... (HOw is it possible to meet vyasa in the Kali yuga when vyasa belongs to Dwapara yuga?)

 

raghavan

[Guest guest]

 

http://www.vmmp-usa.org/docs/madhva.pdf

 

From the above, it can be cleary know that ISCKON is of same lineage of madhva sampraday with slight differences. This is pdf was prepared by Viswa madva Sangha.

 

 

Two points:

 

The differences between ISKCON and srI Ananda-tIrtha are more than "slight."

 

But yes, the ISKCON group does claim a paramparA which is descended from madhva. They are more than welcome to do so, so long as they do not claim they are representing madhva's doctrine. mAdhva leaders have endorsed this connection as well on historical grounds *only.*

 

I do not see where in the document you provided is the proof that the lineage is the same. But anyway, I do not have a problem with it. Only certain disgruntled individuals seem to have a problem with it and the opinions of the astha-matha swamis.

 

Raghu

 

p.s. The claim in the posting you quoted to the effect that all post-mAdhva vaishnavas have come under madhva's influence, is incorrect and most likely a presumption based on sectarian bias. Although I happen to believe tattvavAda is *the* correct understanding, unfortunately that does not change the fact that some individuals under the banner of tattvavAda have a tendency to make highly dubious statements motivated more by sectarian pride rather than rational examination of the facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

First, I strongly suggest yourself to read "The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna". He lived for love in flesh and blood. His mindset is the most beautiful one. He maintained "chlid" state to have relationship with universal mother to such an extent he could see his wife as mother kali. How many of us are equipped to see like that. In ISKON i see certain contempt for this great person. Possibly they may be rooted from their acharya's teachings who unfortunately hasnt read any of the works of Sri Ramakrishna's great teachings. As a devotee of this great saint i would like to end my opinion and i would like Sri Ramakrishna's grace to take over you all from here.

Sri Ramakrishna charanam

Siva, Columbus, OH

[Guest guest]

 

I was going through the link you have posted and have certain genuine doubts in it.

 

In the first chapter on the life of Madhva its mentioned that He met Vedavyasa.... (HOw is it possible to meet vyasa in the Kali yuga when vyasa belongs to Dwapara yuga?)

 

raghavan

 

 

 

How DUMB...Sri VedaVyasa is lord Narayana himself and he (his avtaar) is said to be immortal like Parashurama avtaar. P.S. Lord is enternal...without a beginning and an end. He is ever existant.

[Sanathan 0]

I'm not too good in English but I will try my best.

 

As vaishnavas you'd better avoid basing opinion on Kripal's work. He is follower of left-handed sexuall tantra who happens to have similar opinons on Sri Chaitanya's and Sri Ramakrishna's bhakti paths, centered around repressed sexuality. Read works of genuine spiritualists. They know what to criticize if they really had to criticize some great devotee.

This person is obesssed with sexuality and cannot comprehend ideal of brahmacarya. He sees mystical experiences through the prism of sexuality. It is common problem with materialistic people trying to grasp lives of great souls. They are terified with lack of sexuality in spiritual practices and are not abble to comprehend that even in a lives of ordinary devotees those feelings can easily be sublimated through steady discipline and bhakti. And I mean easily. Disciplined satvic life is all that we need tu turn the tiger of sexuality into mere moskito.

 

It is impossible for us to know for certain if Ramakrishna was being of divine origin and pure bhakta but after reading Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna and many books written by his contemporaries and closest disciples I cannot but admit that he was rare soul, true bhakta and possibly partial incarnation of Sri Vishnu. Now, we don't have to accept his divinity but there is absolutely no reason to insult and discredit such a great devotee on the basis of word written by ignorants such as Kripal. They may have been right about many bogus gurus like Sai Baba, Muktananda etc.but it's not like they were hard to hit. There are many bogus gurus but after you try to discredit few it can vecome an obsession. Finding faults with every guru, every spiritual organisation. At the end it becomes some perverted sort of religion. Gurus are not perfect, some made mistakes but were sincere devotees and their good deeds outweighted those few bad. Everyone makes mistakes except Krishna Himself.

Prabhupada made mistakes, Ramakrishna made mistakes too. He didn't even proclaimed himself to be a guru. He hated being called "master" He took care of people that came to him because he loved them. He didn't say "I will be your master, now come and bow before me." He was very humble. He had impersonal realization but didn't care much for it. Some of his disciples were following advaita path before they came to him but he discouraged them and said that advaitic ideal is just one part of Divine reality and that there are eternal forms of God that are not illusory. He did not forcibly tried to "convert" some hard boiled advaitins but instead guided therm along choosen path and instilled in them some bhakti feelings but he did not advocate buddhistic path of annihilation. His ideal was Sri Chaitanya but he respected sincere advaita students. Vivekananda was genuine follower of advaita but he represents Ramakrishna's teachings only partially. He admitted that he never fully understood Ramakrishna beacuse his experiences were out of reach of any of his disciples. He told to one of his disciples just before he died that he knows nothing about Ramakrishna and he feels like a small child compared to him.

 

I don't see Vaishnavas or anyone for that matters fully accepting Ramakrishna's ideal. For us it may take many lives to attain pure bhakti but he was able to experience many different states in one lifetime. I agree that Sri Chaitanya was avatar who demonstrated purest ideal of Bhakti, there is no need to learn about that from anyone else. From Ramakrishna's example we can learn about goals of different religions and approaches and how they relate to each other.They are not identical but each one possesses one part of the big picture.Some grasped bigger part but that doesn't not make the other worthless. Where the one ends the other begins.

 

You don't have to accept his divinity but you should accept his bhakti his humility and respect them and if you doubt about them read Kathamrita from page one to page thousand and something and you will doubt no more.

I am not Srila Prabhupada follower, I do not agree with some of his teachings( translations particulary) but I respect his devotion and purity and never speak lowly about him. Sometimes it is hard to resist temptation to point at someone but in case of such great departed souls whose lives were recorded and well observed (and all the hardest critics could find were few small dark spots) we should be very careful. If we feel urge to say something we should try our best to do it with respect. Sadhakas should not go around barking like a mad dogs. If we do we are no better than materialistic demons. If there are doubts about some guru ask his followers first, read his books, study his behaviour and if you find out that there are some major discrepancies warn those involved. Do it politely and people will listen. It is not easy being critical about religion. You should study a lot before even uttering a doubt. If we choose to follow way of Kripal and his likes people with respond with anger and hatred. War has been started with mere words and religion is most sensitive field. Not all are qualified to involve in such dialogue. Especcialy nowadays when you can discredit every major and minor religion, every saint and prophet by typing his name in web browser and surfing through hundreds of sites offering "different view." Sometimes we hastily accept something that suits are beliefs and could be used as "weapon" in dialogue with other religions although it is written by smallminded persons or even persons with evil intentions whose sources are questionable at best.

For myself , I accepted Ramakrishna as genuine after studying his teachings for over ten years. He was one of those rare saints who admitted their mistakes, he never pretended to know the asnwers to all questions but he knew what he experienced and described those experiences in simple language and his word have sound of Truth. To the point that you may feel offended by his simplicity in uttering such profound truths as I was many years ago.

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

It is impossible for us to know for certain if Ramakrishna

 

 

Not immpossible, Pure Bhakti means serving God, not becoming One with God.

[Sanathan 0]

So, if God wants you to realize impersonal aspect your bhakti becomes impure? Bhakta will not desire to become one with the God. Only ignorant nad materialistic person will enter spiritual life to become God. It is perverted ideal and I doubt that this is idea of imperonalism found in Upanishads. That was not Ranmakrishna's ideal. He was given yogic experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and that's all. And thank God he was given that experience and explained it properly. This was just one of many experiences.

He said that God gives to his bhaktas whatever he wants them to experience, even if they do not want to enjoy impersonal sometimes it is given to them just to understand this aspect. He ven prayed "Please don't make me unconscious with impersonal knowledge." It just came to him. How can we know why? Only God knows what was His plan with Ramakrishna but if we use our intelligence we can come to some logical conclusions instead of illogical exclusions.

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Just because somebody is famous for etc etc thing, doesn't mean we should follow them like sheep.

[Guest guest]

"Just because somebody is famous for etc etc thing, doesn't mean we should follow them like sheep. "

 

I don't think anyone is questioning this.

[Sanathan 0]

I absoultely agree. We should never follow guru just beacause he is famous among worldy- minded. But if he was respected and beloved by serious sadhakas who spent many years living beside him and found him to be genuine God-lover, then we should at least restrain from insulting. Peeople are known to follow blindly gurus just becasue they belonged to certain sampradaya, ignoring obvious misinterpretation of scriptures. It doesn't mean they weren't sincere bhaktas and good gurus, they both made some mistakes in judgement as we are all sometimes prone to do.

 

Our motives are not always pure, be it bhakta or guru but how many will admit that they were wrong before their disciples. I believe that gurus sometimes act humble when they decide to, not when it is needed.

Although, it is better to make mistakes while loving god and trying to become better bhakta then live "perfect" lives pretending to love God.

 

I am aware of the fact that Sri Ramakrishna will never be accepted by vaishnavas as ideal of pure bhakti. He doesn't need to be anyway. I would say that the greatest and purest ideal of bhakti was demonstrated by Sri Chaitanya.

But you should not call him "mayavadi" who just wanted to "become God" or to merge with God.

It is not an insult, it's just incorect. But to hear vaishnavas call him pedophile and mentaly ill person prone to hallucinations makes me sick. This bad habit among some vaisnhavas should be stopped by your authorities wherever and whenever it occurs.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

I don't know. I think most follow somebody because they don't know any better. I know many people amonsgt my cousins who follow SaiBaba, they goto Swami Narayana, think Ramarkishna was some great person [but have no clue who he actually is or what teachings he gave]. They follow like blind and gagged sheep. It's actually very sad situation. Unless somebody comes along and tells you 'what is what'. You'd never know. We are like babies. We need Pure Vaishnavas to guide us. Otherwise we are wasting our time. I used to think Sai Baba was an incarnation, thought RamaKrishna was great devotee of Rama and Krishna. The only people these people can fool are Sudras etc. Since everybody in this age is a Sudra, they don't have a hard time doing what they do. Thats why its ESSENTIAL there is Pure devotees to guide us. But I guess people want to be misgudied. Still its Vaishnavas job, to see everything is done right. A person may be great, in material eyes like Sai Baba, Ramakrishna etc, even Gandhi. But what can they actually do for us? If you want half-truth then go for it.!

[Sanathan 0]

Sai Baba claims to be poorna avatar. Krishna Himself. Sai Baba's devotees are generally not very well versed in scriptures. There are many of them in country where I live and they are total ignorants whern it comes to vedic knowledge. Most of them are good simple folk, doing lot of social work seva etc. but Sai Baba exploits their ignorance. I talked to one of his devotees and mentioned Ramakrishna. She said "Oh Ramakrishna, he was such a great person." I thought she actually studied life of Ramakrishna but after asking a few qiuestions she admitted that she only saw his picture and he looked "so sweet". Enough said.

 

Now, I know that vaishnavas like to believe that their religion holds complete truth while others follow half truths.It's quite easy to follow basic impulse when it comes to feeling superior. I will not argue about that. You may be right but I sincerely doubt. I do not agree with some interpretations and translations of Srimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita coming from Gaudiya lineage but such argumentations with ISKCON bhaktas always proved fruitless. Anyway, I do agree with greatest part and believe that they are much better than those of pure advaitins.

Especcialy American Vedanta centers (which are are actually Vivekananda's) , they are loosley based on Sri Ramakrishna's teachings and often misinterpret them from pure advaita standpoint. You can see much clearer when you are not part of some spiritual organisation. When you enter, I believe after few years you stop questioning motives and accept interpretations of their leaders. Perhaps it is modern age sindrom beacuse people are often so egotistic before accpeting guru, their egos become such a burden. They are only looking for someone to hand him this burden ASAP and then guru steps in and relief is instantaneous. They do not spend years in studying , observing and questioning. I get impression from reading vedic scriptures that sadhakas of ancient times were very humble but at the same time very demanding. If they encountered a doubt about teaching, guru or even God they would ask about it without hesitation.

 

Today we are so embarassed to even utter a doubt as soon as we enter some spiritual organisation. I've seen this sindrom at work especcialy with Sai Baba devotees.

 

But I encountered this same mentality in ISKCON and Ramakrishna centers. Ramakrishna's devotees advocating practices strictly forbidden by Ramakrishna , long time ISKCON members knowing nothing about Sri Chaitanya life, not even reading Caritamrita or Bhagavatam and what to say about GALVA. Today I speak with eager vaishnava preaching brahmacarya and extolling Srila Prabhupada and tommorow he is "gay" member of GALVA speaking of Srila Prabhupada views as "conservative" and "victorian" as if his his guru was small child not knowing about situation in a "real world". Fanatical followers easily turn to other extreme. Genuine gurus would profit most from inquiring, intelligent and critical devotees who are eager to follow strict discipline and renounce but at the same time watch guru's steps carefully , not allowing him to slip. But how many gurus would apprecciate such a devotee?

They're too busy being "perfect".

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Quote-

Today we are so embarassed to even utter a doubt as soon as we enter some spiritual organisation. I've seen this sindrom at work especcialy with Sai Baba devotees.

===

 

I think that if you have a doubt, and it keeps reocurring. You got to be a little intelligent as well. I hate it also when I say something to somebody, and they keep asking the same question over and over again. But also sometimes you have a really good [lol] doubt. Then it's like that person who cried wolf 3 times, nobody listens. So in that situation better keep your mouth shut, grab hold of Lord Nityananda feet and don' let go. Cause then you have nowhere left to run haribol!

 

 

[mahoney 0]

Is the ultimate goal being an Akshara(Brahman) or being an Uttama(Purushottama) or is it a mixture of both Akshara and Uttama. Please answer this ASAP!!!

[Sanathan 0]

It depends of what school of thought you choose to follow. Visisthadvaita, advaita, dvaita or Buddhistic which differs from Shankaracarya's advaita though many believes that they are identical.

I would say that the ultimate goal of jiva is accepting Krishna's will. I think that Ramakrishna said that God gives the impulse, desire, to the souls immersed in non-dual Brahman state if he wants them to come down to earth and serve Him in humanity. This clearly indicates that someone put them in this state and can bring them down from it. But that doesn't mean that Krishna enjoys taking away hard earned fruit of someone's sadhana be it personal or impersonal (remember Jaya and Vijaya). I believe He needs them to accomoplish some mission and help humanity to better understand teachings of Sanathana Dharma.

Then again, if you study Upanishads you will find different concept of Brahman. I would be inclined to believe that this is the genuine one, which differs from that of modern advaitins. Personally, I think we shouldn't dwell too much on ultimate goals using our limited minds as many advaita students do. Better try our best to serve Krishna, lead pure and disciplined lives and leave rest to His will. If you try too hard to grasp the ultimate Truth with all aspects your head may fall off, as Yajnavalkya said to his wife Gargi in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:)

 

[Guest guest]

I appreciate very much your thought Sanathan ji, about the deviation of present days Ramakrishna missions teachings from original Ramakrishna.

As a bengalee Vaishnava I know how much love Ramakrishna possessed for Gaurasundara and how frequently he used to visit all Gaudiya Vaishnava temples with Sarada Ma. He even used to visit regularly ShyamSundar Temple at Kharadaha established by Great Virabhadra Goswami , Son of Nityananda.

 

Ramakrisna used to visit regularly to one vaishnava devotee's house at Eriyadaha , Dhakhisineswar kolkata only to see picture Mahaprabu.

 

But his devotion to Mahaprabhu is missing to Ramakrishna Mission's preching as Ramakrishna mission is founded by Vivekananda who has injected Advaitin thought.

[sambya 0]

it is highly unwise to comment on someone without reading properly about him.i would like to ask those who derogate ramkrishna as to how many books on him or his sayings have they actually read. none, i can bet.

 

i would humbly request all such persons to actually read about him and his sayings .im sure that you would come to differ once you have finished doing that.he was indeed one of the greatest mystics that india has ever produced.

 

he had proper bonafide succession(puri sampradaya of sankaracharya).he was not just a kali devotee as it is generally portrayed.in fact if you read through the 'gospel of ramakrishna' you will find more references of chaitanya and krishna than kali.

 

and when he said that only harinaam wont help he also added that longing and crying for god is to be accompanied with it.why is that not mentioned in the post???

 

it is absolutely useless to srgue with such people who derogate him.do these guys know his list of admirers and followers??rabindranath tagore,mahatma gandhi,netaji subhas chandra bose,max mueller,romain rollan,indira gandhi,jwaharlal nehru,aldous huxley,christopher isherwood, leo tolstoy,sarvapalli radhakrishnan,sree aurobindo to name a few that i can remember.were these people dodoheads to accept him without verification?

 

and also his theory that yato mat tato pat is very true indeed.opposite would mean one mat and one pat(only one exclusive way to truth).so if you dont believe yato mat tato pat you must be a follower of the opposite.dont you think that this sounds so horribly fanatical like the medieval christian missionaries????

 

please read at least a few of his sayings before blasphemising him.ignorace is the cause of hatred(in fact all vices).

 

haribol.

[Ravindran Kesavan 0]

 

Ramakrishna paramhans is not a paramahamsa

 

first of all he does not belong to any school or traditon

 

if one does not shows to be a good student he cannot be a master

 

even krsna, to sow the way, accepts a spiritual master

 

so ramakrsna is not qualified even to open the mouth.. what to speak of discussing harinama

 

hari, is not material, he has not dychotomy between image, substance and name

 

the vigraha of hari is hari

the name of hari is hari

if hari is everything... harinama is everything

 

ramakrsna is simply a little cheater

 

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa has many gurues in many traditions. He was an initiate of Dakshina Kali mantra , For advida he had Totapuri, For tantra sadanas he had Brahmani Vaishnavi, Even he is trained in muslim path with a sufi guru . He tested many religious paths . Everything awakened hios kundalini and let to the same realization. That is how he realised that all religions are means of god realization.

Besides, Goddess Kali was his major guru. And He has grand Mystical experiences. What more qualification he require to be a spiritual master?

He is a true Paramahamsa.

 

K.Ravindran

[Amlesh 1]

He is a Paramhansa...

No Doubt about that.

[amitaqa 0]

Before saying anything about any sadguru, one must have that much knowledge to understand his teachings. It is like a school student lectures on philosophy.

Please read, understand and then speak.