In response to some aspects of Singhi Kaya's post # 36.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sri Ramakrishna was indeed not educated in the letters, but the author seems to imply that being an illiterate is a major hurdle on the path of spirituality and it actually caused Ramakrishna to deviate from the "authentic teachings of the great acharyas". I wish, author had also posted some examples of where his teachings (and that of Sri Swami Vivekananda) are contradictory to the classical and authentic teachings - to ilustrate his point.
According to traditional Hindu wisdom, all the Vidya is classified under Para and Apara. Para-vidya is laukik knowledge body, created by humans, and requires formal learning and instructions to gain it. Apara-vidya is paar-laukik, and does not requires cassical learning or learning of shastras. Apara vidya is gained by the practical sadhana under the grace of Guru or God - and while shastras may help in Sadhana, they are not a must.
Furthermore, Sanatan Dharma has left no ambiguity in pointing to the greatness of the "Experiencing" and "Knowing" rather than "Learning". "Bodh" is the goal not "Panditya". "Gyan" not "Vidvatta" (although Vidvatta as by-product of Sadhana does come by). Obviousely many great sages which Hindu dharma has produced were both learned as well as enlightened - like Ashtavakra, Adi Shankar, Thiru Valluvar. But on the other side, many saints were simply men of knowledge though not Panditya - just see the Bhaktamaal for examples of such gurus. Would you deny the greatness of Kabir as Guru just because he was not literate and had not learnt the Shastras? He says for himself "Masi Kagad Chhooyo nahi, kalam gahi nahi haath" (never touched ink paper or pen) and yet just take a glimpse of his literature to see the great synthesis of complex system of Hath Yog and Raj Yog. There is no contradiction between what he teached and Bhagvad Gita / Upanishads.
What does Upanishad say for people who value learning over gyan: maha-mooDham. Here is one quote:
andham tamah pravishanti ye vidyamupasate
tato bhooya iv te tamo ya u vidyayaam rataah.
(In short, they fall to deep darkness, who only worship learning)
Let me also remind you the famous anecdote of Sri Adi Shankar, who when encountered an old brahmin reciting Sanskrit, said "Bhaj Govindam Moodh Mate".
Coming back about Sri Ramakrishna. Yes he was an illiterate, but he was indeed a great sage, who simplified the spiritual sadhana for the modern age and modern men. Indeed he was simple and extremely intense and one might mistake him for a mad man. By looking at him when Vivekananda met for the first time, indeed he may have been very confused when he asked "have you seen God?". Remember Narendra was a man of great learning already - very well versed in vedanta thought. But one glimpse and when he heard the answer, "Yes I have seen God and I can show you too", all confusion must have been over.
Every religion has different layers of practice in it to offer. Largely, these layers are - cultural-traditional-ritualistic layer, theological-philosophical layer, and at core the spiritual layer. Spiritual content of the religion is the saar - the satva, and the core, while other layers are only to guard it. But with time, naturally, like all systems, religion also ossifies - and from time to time people get entangled in ritualistic, or cultral or philosophical layers and ignore the core of religion - the spirituality. Spiritual leaders, in those times, help us come back to the right path. (sambhavami yuge yuge). Krishna, Buddha, Mahaveer, Shankar, various Bhakta-Gurus and Sant-gurus of middle ages like Kabir, Nanak and lately Ramakrishna indeed served that purpose.
About boundaries. Indeed, true religion should not know any bundaries. Whole universe is one for the true religion. One that has "boundaries" can not be real religion. "Eko Brahma Dwiteeyo Naasti", "Ekam Satyam, Vipraah Bahudhaa vadanti", "All paths lead unto me like all rivers to the ocean - Krishna".
So when Manssor - a muslim - experiences Samadhi and says "Anal-Haq" which literally means "Aham Brahmasmi", will you just deny him saying he is faking Samadhi? (In fact Mansoor was indeed crusified by Mullas of Iran).
Among many, there is one huge difference between Hindu Sanatan Dharma and Abrahamic religions. Abrahamic religions - 1) reject change 2) reject all other religions as invalid. Hindu religion 1) accepts change brught to it by saints from time to time. Did not, while Jews crucified Jesus, Hindus worshipped Gautam Buddha? 2) accepts teachers of other faiths as valid and remains respectful or at least indifferent.
Now dont get me wrong. I am not saying we become muslims or christians. On the contrary. I am saying we become even better Hindus, even richer and even more spiritual. But I am indeed convinced we have to preserve the "universal" nature of our faith and fight the petty boundaries, which may naturally get created because of the present day conflicts with Islamists and Christianism.
Back to Ramakrishna and what Singhi Kaya has posted about him. I only wish we had more "data" rather than "conclusions", so that we can faithfully analyse what he is trying to say. Like what exactly are his teachings that contradict the "authentic" wisdom.
Let me just remind what Swami Vivekananda had said: "Whenever Hindus start feeling ashamed of their ancestor and start rejecting them, know that the end is near."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sri Ramakrishna was indeed not educated in the letters, but the author seems to imply that being an illiterate is a major hurdle on the path of spirituality and it actually caused Ramakrishna to deviate from the "authentic teachings of the great acharyas". I wish, author had also posted some examples of where his teachings (and that of Sri Swami Vivekananda) are contradictory to the classical and authentic teachings - to ilustrate his point.
According to traditional Hindu wisdom, all the Vidya is classified under Para and Apara. Para-vidya is laukik knowledge body, created by humans, and requires formal learning and instructions to gain it. Apara-vidya is paar-laukik, and does not requires cassical learning or learning of shastras. Apara vidya is gained by the practical sadhana under the grace of Guru or God - and while shastras may help in Sadhana, they are not a must.
Furthermore, Sanatan Dharma has left no ambiguity in pointing to the greatness of the "Experiencing" and "Knowing" rather than "Learning". "Bodh" is the goal not "Panditya". "Gyan" not "Vidvatta" (although Vidvatta as by-product of Sadhana does come by). Obviousely many great sages which Hindu dharma has produced were both learned as well as enlightened - like Ashtavakra, Adi Shankar, Thiru Valluvar. But on the other side, many saints were simply men of knowledge though not Panditya - just see the Bhaktamaal for examples of such gurus. Would you deny the greatness of Kabir as Guru just because he was not literate and had not learnt the Shastras? He says for himself "Masi Kagad Chhooyo nahi, kalam gahi nahi haath" (never touched ink paper or pen) and yet just take a glimpse of his literature to see the great synthesis of complex system of Hath Yog and Raj Yog. There is no contradiction between what he teached and Bhagvad Gita / Upanishads.
What does Upanishad say for people who value learning over gyan: maha-mooDham. Here is one quote:
andham tamah pravishanti ye vidyamupasate
tato bhooya iv te tamo ya u vidyayaam rataah.
(In short, they fall to deep darkness, who only worship learning)
Let me also remind you the famous anecdote of Sri Adi Shankar, who when encountered an old brahmin reciting Sanskrit, said "Bhaj Govindam Moodh Mate".
Coming back about Sri Ramakrishna. Yes he was an illiterate, but he was indeed a great sage, who simplified the spiritual sadhana for the modern age and modern men. Indeed he was simple and extremely intense and one might mistake him for a mad man. By looking at him when Vivekananda met for the first time, indeed he may have been very confused when he asked "have you seen God?". Remember Narendra was a man of great learning already - very well versed in vedanta thought. But one glimpse and when he heard the answer, "Yes I have seen God and I can show you too", all confusion must have been over.
Every religion has different layers of practice in it to offer. Largely, these layers are - cultural-traditional-ritualistic layer, theological-philosophical layer, and at core the spiritual layer. Spiritual content of the religion is the saar - the satva, and the core, while other layers are only to guard it. But with time, naturally, like all systems, religion also ossifies - and from time to time people get entangled in ritualistic, or cultral or philosophical layers and ignore the core of religion - the spirituality. Spiritual leaders, in those times, help us come back to the right path. (sambhavami yuge yuge). Krishna, Buddha, Mahaveer, Shankar, various Bhakta-Gurus and Sant-gurus of middle ages like Kabir, Nanak and lately Ramakrishna indeed served that purpose.
About boundaries. Indeed, true religion should not know any bundaries. Whole universe is one for the true religion. One that has "boundaries" can not be real religion. "Eko Brahma Dwiteeyo Naasti", "Ekam Satyam, Vipraah Bahudhaa vadanti", "All paths lead unto me like all rivers to the ocean - Krishna".
So when Manssor - a muslim - experiences Samadhi and says "Anal-Haq" which literally means "Aham Brahmasmi", will you just deny him saying he is faking Samadhi? (In fact Mansoor was indeed crusified by Mullas of Iran).
Among many, there is one huge difference between Hindu Sanatan Dharma and Abrahamic religions. Abrahamic religions - 1) reject change 2) reject all other religions as invalid. Hindu religion 1) accepts change brught to it by saints from time to time. Did not, while Jews crucified Jesus, Hindus worshipped Gautam Buddha? 2) accepts teachers of other faiths as valid and remains respectful or at least indifferent.
Now dont get me wrong. I am not saying we become muslims or christians. On the contrary. I am saying we become even better Hindus, even richer and even more spiritual. But I am indeed convinced we have to preserve the "universal" nature of our faith and fight the petty boundaries, which may naturally get created because of the present day conflicts with Islamists and Christianism.
Back to Ramakrishna and what Singhi Kaya has posted about him. I only wish we had more "data" rather than "conclusions", so that we can faithfully analyse what he is trying to say. Like what exactly are his teachings that contradict the "authentic" wisdom.
Let me just remind what Swami Vivekananda had said: "Whenever Hindus start feeling ashamed of their ancestor and start rejecting them, know that the end is near."