Desicritics Comments on Ramakrishna: A Lover of God

Comment by Ledzius

Fri, 6 Mar 2009 02:17:05 EST

Desh 32- "I have heard this story a lot of times and I have also read Swami Vivekananda's lectures (arguably Ramakrishna's chosen pupil) where he calls Mohammad a Hallucinating Military Genius, which, I believe is the most accurate definition I have read given the history and tearing away the religious fervour." Man, you did a one-up on me here! "The singular lesson from Vasistha and Krishna is that enlightenment is about Realization... NOT Achievement. So, in that sense, EVERY person, rock etc are enlightened... they just don't realize it. Thats all." I would like to try whatever you were smoking when you wrote this..

Comment by Citizen

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 23:41:05 EST

All: indian society is the world's nastiest in terms of its fanatic belief in hinduism and hindian indians' day dreaming along with nasty brahmin caste. indian idiots who call them selves BRAHMINS are british time servents so became or born with little lighter skin in the northern area, according to some people. indian society in whole with their NAZI hindian rule is going to be a long time sin for the people who live in ASIA. All have to be careful dealing with hindian indian terrorists who kill innocents in their neiboring countries like sri lanka! Love, Citizen.

Comment by Desh

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 22:28:22 EST

Ok, Kerty - you have to read Vasistha and JK together to get to know who is iconoclast and who is not. Read the chapters on Self Effort (Purushartha) to know what Vasistha says.. and the chapter on Rani Lila to know what "Goddess Saraswati" says about Gods and Gurus. There are three things: Rituals, Ideologies, and Philosophy that one must be clear about. Rituals and Ideologies is religion as it is practiced. Philosophy forms an initial part of any religion but rarely understood. I believe that philosophy should be viewed apart from religion. Whatever philosophy is profound and empowering, should be explored further. Now, you would ask what is profound? Well, listen to two songs "ek do teen.. char paanch che" and "Humne dekhi hai in aankhon ki mehekti khushboo". You know which one is profound. Why does the latter become so "profound" while the former is not? What a poet writes is the culmination of the thoughts that he passed on the way to that one line that he wrote!! So, when you read a poem - what is written is important.. but what the poet thought BUT did NOT write is critical indeed. Those thoughts were also the ones that this guy rejected on the way. And when you read Vasistha and argue just as Ram vehemently argued with him (read Prahlad's story to know what I am saying)... then you realize why that philosophy is so high up there. Gita has a similar vein. As does Ashtvakra Gita. Now, about JK. I am convinced that the greatest thinkers like Krishna, Vasistha and JK were totally RUTHLESS in their articulation of thoughts. I will get into this later sometime but JK's thoughts are RIGHT in line with Vasistha and Krishna. For that you will have to read all three simultaneously to understand what I am saying. Cheers, -desh

Comment by kerty

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:24:04 EST

Desh "I have read Yoga Vasistha, Gita, Swami Vivekananda and J. Krishnamurti thoroughly and carefully" If there is no use of religion or scriptures, why rely on these people either? Why use them as crutches to explore God or truth? Why you left out Huge Heffener and Carl Marx? "Religion is the personification of the ego one has in his or her Guru or Master or Prophet." You got it upside down. It is individualism-centric enlightenment cults that create personification of ego in self, Gurus, saviors and prophets, often their ideologies of de-spritualization masquerade as religions. Why is Ramakrishna Paramhansa not a personification of ego as many revere him as a Guru? You got to be kidding mentioning the iconoclast J. Krishnamurthy in the same sentence with Gita and Yoga Vasistha. The difference between Moghul marauders and people like Jadu and Ramakrishna is that the former dismantled the physical edifice of religious infrastructure, the later helped dismantle the remaining edifices of religion from within. ""Naam dene waale Guru to chappe chappe par milte hain.. mujhe wo Guru milwao jo mera naam mujhse le le."" Lots of people get confused by Murthi Pooja too. Some mistake it as idol worship and consider it the lowest form of faith and superstitions. Rituals are so easy to caricature and ridicule. They reinforce the stereotypes at cursory look. But that only betrays ignorance and deep-rooted antagonism. The word 'religion' has originated in Semitic traditions, and lot of stigma is attached to it the way monotheism has used it. It has become a refuge of imperialistic, totalitarian, expansionist, materialistic ideologies masquerading as religions. End product of such religions is not spiritualism but materialism and empires. That is why religion needs to be restored to its true mandate that only genuinely theistic traditions can restore. If Hinduism gives up on it, religions will only fall in hands that can only strengthen anti and materialistic ideologies that are hostile to any exploration of truth and God or god-conscious civilization.

Comment by Amitabh Mitra

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:20:03 EST

Desh Bhai, great writing and great thinking Bhaskar, I enjoyed the sumptuous meals at the Mission

Comment by Desh

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:22:11 EST

"The Raison d'etre of Religion is the realization of God and Truth - and not merely at individual level. " Well, I can only relate a story from J. Krishnamurti's pathbreaking speech in Holland where he dissolved his Order. The Devil and his friend were walking on a road.. when a man infront of them would bend down and pick something up. The friend asked the Devil.. what is he doing? The Devil replied "He is picking up Truth". The friend was alarmed "This must be a tough place for you!".. The Devil smiled and replied "Wait till he organizes it!" Religion is NOT about truth. And thats the sad thing that the Abrahamic "Tribal cults" brought us to. Even someone as great as Jesus was reduced to a egotist with a tribal mind. I have read Yoga Vasistha, Gita, Swami Vivekananda and J. Krishnamurti thoroughly and carefully, apart from other folks, and I can say what I see in all those streams. There is absolutely no difference between what Vasistha taught Ram, and what Krishna taught Arjun and what Krishnamurti refused to teach his followers. :) They all said the EXACT same thing.. although their messages were as revolutionary as it could possibly get. Religion is the personification of the ego one has in his or her Guru or Master or Prophet. Nothing more. Religion has only increased the average EGO in people.. not reduced it. As I usually tell a close one I know who follows a Guru who his "Naam" or Mantra to his followers: "Naam dene waale Guru to chappe chappe par milte hain.. mujhe wo Guru milwao jo mera naam mujhse le le." This craving to give a distinction to one's followers, this identity giving.. is what creates an issue in the spiritual pursuit. Of course, at the mundane level, it happens and often some Gurus do end up motivating people to think on their own and eventually land where they should.. but that is accidental. Worse are those religions and ideologies, that deliberately try and harm the non-believer. That is the lowest a religious mindset can possibly get to. But oh well... -desh.

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:04:20 EST

Desh: "Kerty, whenever I read Gita.. I feel a certain "frustration" and urgency in Krishna's words..." i feel quite relaxed whenever I read the Gita...

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:01:10 EST

Kerty: "Glad you recognize that 'rock' too are enlightened!" rock and roll too, but only the likes of freddie mercury, mick jagger etc.

Comment by kerty

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:53:17 EST

Desh 'The truth is that true and honest exploration of God or Truth is not possible in religious traditions." Isn't there tacit embrace of monotheism/materialism and rejection of religion, God and Truth implicit in such dogma? The Raison d'etre of Religion is the realization of God and Truth - and not merely at individual level. How can one reject them and still remain intellectually honest while making claims about exploration of God or Truth? It amounts to snake oil salesmanship. Its like selling rejection of economics as a path to explore material wealth and prosperity. It can not work. It can only hoodwink people and open up society for pursuits that have nothing to do with exploration of God, Truth or Religion.

Comment by Desh

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:13:23 EST

Kerty: Further - the monotheistic nonsense that has propped up and caught the imagination of the world - that you mention is because of dishonesty in spiritual search and laziness of using plain logic. I have tried to tackle it here God and Misleading Semantics. The truth is that true and honest exploration of God or Truth is not possible in religious traditions.. but this journey happens in only two ways: Differentiation and Integration: Calculus and Nirvana. For that one needs unrelenting honesty. That is absent from monotheistic traditions of Hinduism and outside. -desh.

Comment by Desh

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:47:54 EST

Kerty: Thanks for your comments. Here are my comments: 1. I think Vedantist semantic is misleading. Thoroughly. Why? Read Yoga Vasistha - it clearly points to the next "Yuga" when Krishna will come and give the message of Gita and will have the same message as in Vasistha Yoga. He also talks of many different schools of philosophy including Samkhya - which first really brought Dvait-waad into the Hinduism - and in my view spiritually diluted the highly profound tradition that the Rishis until then had. Arya Samaj was later to be a much changed/deteriorated form of Samkhya Yoga theory.. when it had gone from atheistic to theistic dwaitva-waad. Having said that, Krishna is mentioned in Chandogyopnishad as having come before it and was taught Vedas by Rishi Ghor Angiras. So, it stands to reason that between Vedas and Upanishads.. came GITA. THAT is the greatness of Gita. It changed the entire discourse of profound thought in Hinduism. Vedantists are traditionally said to be those who hold Upanishads as central and go beyond Vedas. But Upanishads really got their motivation and inspiration from the Gita. We often recite the famous "Karmanaya Vaadika raste...." (Do your Karma and don't LUST (and not care) after the result.)... but how many of us even read the Shlokas leading upto that point? Read those carefully and see what they say. I have laid them out here - http://www.drishtikone.com/?q=blog/bhagwad-gita-and-why-was-sri-krishna-so-critical-vedas Kerty, whenever I read Gita.. I feel a certain "frustration" and urgency in Krishna's words... to go beyond the ordinary.. the mundane. It is so painful to see that what he said.. as arguably the greatest Vedic scholar of all times.. was lost in useless semantics! -desh

Comment by Morris

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:57:51 EST

Desh, Thank you. I understand what you are saying and I agree. As you said "Enlightenment is NOT a function of the RITUAL or the SCRIPTURE. That is why most Saints call Religion useless" Such is the experience of Hindu realized saints. My question was what did non-Hindu saints think. I have difficulty understanding kerty. Perhaps we got to go back and start from why we need religions to begin with in order to understand him.

Comment by Kerty

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:57:03 EST

Desh "Enlightenment is NOT a function of the RITUAL or the SCRIPTURE. That is why most Saints call Religion useless." That is why most of such saints have failed the society and done not much for the religion. Focus of religion and its rituals is not confined to be individual-centric. There are many entities in a society besides the 'Individual' that need to achieve enlightenment and religion seeks to bind the 'Individual' to them. What such sects of individualism have done is to undermine and sink all that while offering salvation to the individual, to the few of them. You can chart the decline of Indian civilization to rise of these individual-centric enlightenment sects. "The singular lesson from Vasistha and Krishna is that enlightenment is about Realization... NOT Achievement. So, in that sense, EVERY person, rock etc are enlightened... they just don't realize it. Thats all." Glad you recognize that 'rock' too are enlightened! The point is that realization is not meant for 'individual' alone. You can not reduce the religion to enlightenment of the 'Individual' alone. If you understand this basic mandate of religion, than you will understand damage that vedantism and sects of abstract consciousness have brought to religion and civilization of India. Sanatana Dharma and Indian civilization have declined with the rise of Vedantism. It atomizes and engineers anarchy, it reduces to individualism and engineers crash of institutions built around individual, it reduces art of living and way of life to abstract, philosophical mental exercises - few individuals may manage to gain enlightenment, but rest of society is left in the dark and loses out. And than desperate people are left to chase these few saviors giving rise to cults of saints and saviors. It is poor imitation of semitism. "Ramakrishna's enlightenment was NOT predicated on following a religious ritual.. but realizing the God in him." Why should everybody else care for his personal indulgences and gratifications? Isn't he preaching to give up religion and its rituals to realize God? Its like preaching people to quit jobs and stop working and go to government or some source to get sustenance - such scam can only dismantle the productive economy, and leave them poorer. "For example to say that Hinduism is a great path to enlightenment is a dangerous thing... for before Adi Shankara, Hinduism had degenerated into Tantric black magic." Where is the proof of such tall claims. Any practice can degenerate from time to time, because of any number of time-space-circumstance factors. Any practice can undergo abuses. To generalize that that is the only thing going on at any time is pure propaganda. "He was instrumental in eliminating all that nonsense and bringing it back to its spiritual roots." He might have needed to assert philosophical foundations of Hinduism in order to combat philosophical bent of Buddhism, but this abstract philosophical consciousness actually weakened the civilizational foundation of Hinduism. You can correlate the rise of monotheist metaphysics as a byproduct/middle-path of Buddhist vs Vedic paradigm. Ever since, Religions of India have lost the center stage, lost ground, and remained second fiddle to worst that theologies and ideologies have to offer. It is same monotheistic mataphysics that has led to pure materialistic metaphysics and eventual fall of theistic religions. You can see kabrastan of religions all around and only irreligious minds would see it as triumph of spiritualism.

Comment by kaffir

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:20:58 EST

Good points, Desh. These discussions sometimes devolve into paralysis of analysis as to what some saint said about the smell of the flower, how strong was it, why he said so, and what did the academics write about that person's description of the smell of the flower, based on what, and so on, and so on. What's forgotten in all this back-and-forth is that we all are capable of smelling the flower for ourselves and reaching our own conclusions, but hardly any take that step to approach a flower and try to smell it for ourselves. While it's not impossible, I have my doubts that enlightenment can be achieved only through intellectual discourse. It's like learning to swim by reading tutorials, or by listening to others talk about swimming.

Comment by Desh

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:45:58 EST

Kerty/Morris and all: This discussion is going all over the place. There is an issue with what Ramakrishna Paramhans said that is difficult to appreciate in normal parlance. I have heard this story a lot of times and I have also read Swami Vivekananda's lectures (arguably Ramakrishna's chosen pupil) where he calls Mohammad a Hallucinating Military Genius, which, I believe is the most accurate definition I have read given the history and tearing away the religious fervour. Now, to the question of Ramakrishna. Enlightenment is NOT a function of the RITUAL or the SCRIPTURE. That is why most Saints call Religion useless. Real Vedantists - if you want to call them that - for Rishi Vasistha was much prior to all that.. and was clear of the advaitist philosophy.. [as was Krishna (who in my view critiqued the blind following of Vedas and the deeds mentions in it)] - said clearly that God and Guru are irrelevant. Its your own personal effort that really takes you "there". The singular lesson from Vasistha and Krishna is that enlightenment is about Realization... NOT Achievement. So, in that sense, EVERY person, rock etc are enlightened... they just don't realize it. Thats all. Now, if that be true, then Ramakrishna's enlightenment was NOT predicated on following a religious ritual.. but realizing the God in him. If he thought that religious ritual was giving him any more "clarity" then I think I would instantly demote him to the lesser Saints. Paths are immaterial in the final analysis... from the Spiritual standpoint. Now, there is a what I call the "Mind/Creation Standpoint" as well. That is where we all live in. And most Saints, in my personal view, have messed up the world trying to relate what is at the Spiritual level to the Mind/Creation level. What is true at the Infinite level is NOT true of the Finite level. When Ramakrishna talked of all religions being same - he probably talked from the spiritual standpoint and not the ritualistic or philosophical standpoint. ANd I believe that is the failure of such Saints... they make pronouncements that do not distinguish between practices and give the impression as if the entire "System" is fine. For example to say that Hinduism is a great path to enlightenment is a dangerous thing... for before Adi Shankara, Hinduism had degenerated into Tantric black magic. He was instrumental in eliminating all that nonsense and bringing it back to its spiritual roots. Similarly, there are certain traditions in broad Islamic pantheon - like Sufism - that are spiritual in its philosophy (advaitism)... but that does not mean that Wahabi/Salafi traditions are Gods gift to mankind! One has to differentiate and speak clearly when one is talking at the "Mind/Creation" level where we all exist. -desh.

Comment by Morris

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:24:10 EST

Prophet Mohamad did not speak final words for Judasim or Christianity. He spoke final words for muslims only and they would like all of us to agree with them. I don't think Mohamad knew existence of Hinduism or for that matter any faiths other than Judaism and Christianity. Well I don't know who is enlightened saint. But it is generally recognized that Ramkrishna was. Similarly Ramana Maharshi was. But they were Hindu. Are there any in other faiths similarly recognized? I thought the ones I listed are. I copied from KALYAN #6. Are'nt they?

Comment by Ledzius

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 23:17:32 EST

The only thing I can say for sure is that the God of Islam is the same as that of Judaism or Christianity. Why? Because Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam himself, has said that. But there has been no such statements connecting Islam and Hinduism coming from the authorities of either religion.

Comment by Ledzius

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 23:11:34 EST

What's your definition of an "enlightened saint"? Someone who parrots your viewpoint? And why would you consider what they said is the truth? Do you really believe they had supernatural powers to actually verify that all religions lead to the same God? It is now easy to see why new age gurus like Deepak Chopra or Sri Sri Ravi Shankar are doing extremely well. They deliver what their audience wants to hear. It's nothing more than mass delusion.

Comment by Morris

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:41:48 EST

Ledzius "So you don't go by the original authorities of the mainstream religions," It is not that I do not go by the original authorities of the mainstream religions, I know that they are clear about it that there is only one path and they have it. I think most people agree that that is absurd. Authorities cannot cannot say so. But whatever enlighened saints say will have backing of their own eperience. It is likely that those who are enlightened may say that all paths lead to the same God based on their experience inspite of their scripture telling them otherwise. Authorities will not dare to so. No one has come forward to tell us what the saints of other faiths thought about different paths and whether they lead to the same God.

Comment by BD

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 03:11:09 EST

no, obviously nothing at all, kerty, lol, thank you, this has been indeed very edifying :) cheers bd

Comment by Ledzius

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 03:07:35 EST

Morris - "For Hindus it is easy to say that because their scriptures tell them so." Huh, is there any mention of Islam or Christianity in any of the Hindu scriptures? If there is, then pardon my ignorance. "Authorities of other religions will not agree that all religions lead to the same God. That is contrary to their teaching. But I am interested to learn whether enlightened saints of other faiths came to a similar conclusion as those of Hindu faith. What did MEISTER ECKERT, or ST THERESA of AVILA, or AL HALLAJ or AL BASADIIt say about that. Did they try other religions? It is important to find out what they thought not the authorities." So you don't go by the original authorities of the mainstream religions, but the interpretations of those who came centuries later. Thanks for making that clear. If Sri Sri Ravi Shankar were to claim today that the Aum Shinrikyo cult and Hinduism fundamentally lead to the same realisation of God, are we supposed to believe that?

Comment by Kerty

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 03:04:36 EST

BD ""One really have to be a village idiot to buy such claptrap at a face value." you didnt mean that people were gullible?" That was in reference to "You really do not need a full fledged scholarly paper to know what he was..." and people who are willing to be taken in by a certified lunatic and his dubious claims. People can be ignorant, half-baked, crazy, gullible and what not. But what has that got to do with Maya? As if you have found some clinching argument in it.

Comment by BD

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 02:06:35 EST

ah! then when you said this, "One really have to be a village idiot to buy such claptrap at a face value." you didnt mean that people were gullible? and quite interesting you point to relevance of the topic, lol no worries, I see where you are coming from. thanks for the comments.

Comment by Kerty

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 02:02:08 EST

BD "kerty, you said that hindu's were gullible, that's maya no?" That was Kalyan's comment, not mine. And he didn't use the word Maya. That is your interpretation. Being gullible is not Maya or illusion or imaginary, its is an actual state of being. The word maya has many meanings in common parlance, and none of us were discussing religious or philosophical meaning of maya as it is not relevant to the topic.

Comment by kerty

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 01:14:03 EST

Morris "for those who have experienced reality they know that once you are there the religion is irrelevant. That is why they try different religions and still exprience the same thing." That is where my mango analogy applies. Without mango tree, (which by itself is bark and leaves and not edible) there can be no mangoes. So you don't discard mango tree once you have had your feed of the mangoes. If a person can't understand even this basic simple truth, than that person is still half-baked, and not fully wise and self-realized. Religion provide infrastructure, and just because you are done with it, you don't pull it down so no body else can use it. Once you are fully rich, you may not need to work to make a living, but that does not mean you give up money, and have no use of money. Similarly, once you become self-realized, you may not need rigorous spiritual/religious exercises to gain enlightenment, but it does not mean one has no more use of religion. The enlightenment leads to Bhakti, where one falls in love with some facets of religion rather than renounce the religion. Religion becomes more relevant to such persons and they dedicate their life to it. Religion never becomes irrelevant. Those who claim so are fraud, probably trying to break free and invent their own cults. Similarly, claims that all religions give the same realizations/experiences once you are fully self-realized is also a fraud because it is built on another fraudulent claim that religions become irrelevant after one becomes self-realized. Religions becoming irrelevant is not the same thing as religions giving same realizations/experiences. After you have arrived at Mumbai, you can not claim to others that there is no difference between a bicycle, car, plane, bullock cart, horse or a donkey heading towards any directions, that they are all same, and they all will take them to Mumbai, that all directions ultimatrely reach to Mumbai. People would call it a fraud. "I don't think one needs a religion to experience God, Divine or Reality." Reality can be shaped any number of ways. Life can be lived any number of ways. Humanity can subsist at any denominators - animal, savage, Rakshasa, human, divine, anarchy, civilized. To make humanity divine and god-conscious, religion is needed. Just as you would need education and laws to civilize humanity.