08-10-2006, 04:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Singhi Kaya+Aug 7 2006, 09:21 PM-->QUOTE(Singhi Kaya @ Aug 7 2006, 09:21 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The next two neo-Hindu Radical Universalists that we witness in the history of 19th century Hinduism are Ramakrishna (1836-1886) and Vivekananda (1863-1902). Though Vivekananda was a disciple (shishya) of Ramakrishna, the two led very different lives. Ramakrishna was born into a Hindu family in Dakshineshwar. In his adult life, he was a Hindu temple priest and a fervently demonstrative devotee of the Divine Mother. His primary object of worship was the goddess Kali, whom he worshipped with intense devotion all of his life. Despite his Hindu roots, however, many of Ramakrishna's ideas and practices were derived, not from the ancient wisdom of classical Hinduism, but from the non-Vedic religious outlooks of Islam and liberal Christianity. Though he saw himself as being primarily Hindu, Ramakrishna also resorted to worshipping in mosques and churches, and believed that all religions aimed at the same supreme destination. He experimented with Muslim, Christian and a wide variety of Hindu practices, blending, mixing and matching practices and beliefs as they appealed to him at any given moment. In 1875, Ramakrishna met Keshub Chandra Sen, the then leader of the neo-Hindu Brahmo Samaj, and formed a close working relationship with him. Sen introduced Ramakrishna to the close-knit community of neo-Hindu activists who lived in Calcutta, and would in turn often bring these activists to Ramakrishna's satsanghas.
Throughout his remarkable life, Ramakrishna remained illiterate, and wholly unfamiliar with both classical Hindu literature and philosophy, and the authentic teachings of the great acharyas who served as the guardians of those sacred teachings. Despite the severely obvious challenges that he experienced in understanding Hindu theology, playing upon the en vogue sentiment of religious universalism of his day, Ramakrishna ended up being one of the most widely popular of neo-Hindu Radical Universalists. The fame of Ramakrishna was to be soon eclipsed, however, by that of his most famous disciple<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Deserves to be quoted again ...
Being from bengal myself I know first hand how Ramkrishnaism has destroyed original hindu thought for everyone in that region. everyone from traditionists to outside mainstream tantrikas all feel obliged to look upto him to draw support. Thus everything gets limited by his fantastic version of religion. In a weird union we find people who are both left minded yet religious in the ramakrishna way.
Vivekananda was a great personality but was limited in his idea due to sraddha towards a weak guru.
[right][snapback]55166[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are right, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda practiced and taught Snatan Dharm not popular Hinduism. If there is One God , then He is the God of all i.e Universal God and The religion to realize Him require Universal thought, hense Univeralism. We dont own God, even though He is ours.
I belive Ramakrishna gave the explanation of Islamic worship of Allah by giving example of beautifull Palace and He talked about Christ not of churchianity.
Any one contradicting and undermining the Universal "one who see Self in all , and all in Self" cannot be a Snatani and the follower of Vedas. Snatan Dharm consnsits of principles not of people or personalities , hense drawing boundary lines is like practising semetic exclusiveness. Who so ever the author, canot be a wellwisher of Snatani Hunoods. To "Know" God has to be Universal ,anything less is no Divine or worth knowing .
Throughout his remarkable life, Ramakrishna remained illiterate, and wholly unfamiliar with both classical Hindu literature and philosophy, and the authentic teachings of the great acharyas who served as the guardians of those sacred teachings. Despite the severely obvious challenges that he experienced in understanding Hindu theology, playing upon the en vogue sentiment of religious universalism of his day, Ramakrishna ended up being one of the most widely popular of neo-Hindu Radical Universalists. The fame of Ramakrishna was to be soon eclipsed, however, by that of his most famous disciple<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Deserves to be quoted again ...
Being from bengal myself I know first hand how Ramkrishnaism has destroyed original hindu thought for everyone in that region. everyone from traditionists to outside mainstream tantrikas all feel obliged to look upto him to draw support. Thus everything gets limited by his fantastic version of religion. In a weird union we find people who are both left minded yet religious in the ramakrishna way.
Vivekananda was a great personality but was limited in his idea due to sraddha towards a weak guru.
[right][snapback]55166[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are right, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda practiced and taught Snatan Dharm not popular Hinduism. If there is One God , then He is the God of all i.e Universal God and The religion to realize Him require Universal thought, hense Univeralism. We dont own God, even though He is ours.
I belive Ramakrishna gave the explanation of Islamic worship of Allah by giving example of beautifull Palace and He talked about Christ not of churchianity.
Any one contradicting and undermining the Universal "one who see Self in all , and all in Self" cannot be a Snatani and the follower of Vedas. Snatan Dharm consnsits of principles not of people or personalities , hense drawing boundary lines is like practising semetic exclusiveness. Who so ever the author, canot be a wellwisher of Snatani Hunoods. To "Know" God has to be Universal ,anything less is no Divine or worth knowing .