05-17-2005, 02:37 AM
Carl,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In this fallen condition, I wouldn't want to try to artificially imitate the gentle disposition of the saintly persons. I thought the tadpole bit had an element of humour in it, and was a good way of communicating that I was annoyed by the combative fusillade. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't worry! No one will mistake you as a saint even if you tried to imitate a saintly person. You introduced the combative tone by making false and vituperative allegations against Sri Ramakrishna. As far as I can see you are still continuing.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->About the incident in Kolkata and the "Bengal Vaishnavs", note that there's a lot of stuff in Bengal that goes by the name of "Vaishnavism". As I indicated earlier, that was the case even during the time of Lord Chaitanya, and He pointed it out.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I expected some such remark from you. You naturaaly talk down Vaishnavas who differ from your view.Bhagavandas Babaji actually saw and met Sri Ramakrishna and accepted that Sri Ramakrishna was as great as Lord Chaitanya. So naturally your sectarian mind rejects Bhagavandas Babaji as a Vaishnava.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I will always try to do better. But in this case you're right only about the <i>absurdity</i> bit, which was also exactly my point. Sri Ramakrishna has said that he has experimented successfully with "all 64 types" of Tantra, and he called one or two such schools as "Vaishnava". Lord Chaitanya had already designated them as apasampradaya 400 years before. The sect that Sri Ramakrishna associated with included a female teacher (Yogeshwari?) and female companions. It involves psyching oneself into believing one is a woman, a gopi, dressing like a gopi, and enacting scenes of conjugal love, including massages, and more. I think you know what some schools of Tantra involve. And you're right, it is absurd to go to a semi-tantric sect to "experiment" with Vaishnavism. So your question is better directed at the RK mission.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your ignorance is showing, Carl. Yogeshwari was not leading a sect and did not have female companions. Yogeshwari was all ALONE when she met Sri Ramakrishna and taught Sri Ramakrishna all the 64 Tantric schools. Sri Ramakrishna NEVER called a Tantric school Vaishnava. If he did say that PLEASE GIVE AN EXACT REFERENCE FROM A BENGALI ORIGINAL SOURCE. Your insinuation that Sri Ramakrishna took part in massage and more is also false. In fact the exact opposite is true. Yogeswari marvelled at Sri Ramakrishna's self control. This is one of the reasons why Yogeswari called him an Avatara.
I do not have to ask RK mission. I already know. You really have to know before you throw mud at others.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is significant therefore, that even Swami Vivekananda had utter disgust for "Vaishnavas", whom he referred to as "sex perverts". Surely, he could not have been referring to bona fide "Rupanugas", i.e. those coming down in the parampara of Rupa and the other 5 Goswamis of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, because they were (and are) puritanical in their behaviour.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Swami Vivekananda NEVER uttered disgust for ALL Vaishnavas. Again you are making false claims. Give an EXACT REFERENCE if you feel you are right.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But if you've been reading my posts, you will note that I wanted to tie any argument on this thread to the central theme -- the cost/benefit and the effect on theology in the drive for "Hindu unity". But I have already started responding to <b>sunder</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Judging by your writing, your drive for Hindu unity will be still born.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In this fallen condition, I wouldn't want to try to artificially imitate the gentle disposition of the saintly persons. I thought the tadpole bit had an element of humour in it, and was a good way of communicating that I was annoyed by the combative fusillade. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Don't worry! No one will mistake you as a saint even if you tried to imitate a saintly person. You introduced the combative tone by making false and vituperative allegations against Sri Ramakrishna. As far as I can see you are still continuing.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->About the incident in Kolkata and the "Bengal Vaishnavs", note that there's a lot of stuff in Bengal that goes by the name of "Vaishnavism". As I indicated earlier, that was the case even during the time of Lord Chaitanya, and He pointed it out.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I expected some such remark from you. You naturaaly talk down Vaishnavas who differ from your view.Bhagavandas Babaji actually saw and met Sri Ramakrishna and accepted that Sri Ramakrishna was as great as Lord Chaitanya. So naturally your sectarian mind rejects Bhagavandas Babaji as a Vaishnava.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I will always try to do better. But in this case you're right only about the <i>absurdity</i> bit, which was also exactly my point. Sri Ramakrishna has said that he has experimented successfully with "all 64 types" of Tantra, and he called one or two such schools as "Vaishnava". Lord Chaitanya had already designated them as apasampradaya 400 years before. The sect that Sri Ramakrishna associated with included a female teacher (Yogeshwari?) and female companions. It involves psyching oneself into believing one is a woman, a gopi, dressing like a gopi, and enacting scenes of conjugal love, including massages, and more. I think you know what some schools of Tantra involve. And you're right, it is absurd to go to a semi-tantric sect to "experiment" with Vaishnavism. So your question is better directed at the RK mission.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your ignorance is showing, Carl. Yogeshwari was not leading a sect and did not have female companions. Yogeshwari was all ALONE when she met Sri Ramakrishna and taught Sri Ramakrishna all the 64 Tantric schools. Sri Ramakrishna NEVER called a Tantric school Vaishnava. If he did say that PLEASE GIVE AN EXACT REFERENCE FROM A BENGALI ORIGINAL SOURCE. Your insinuation that Sri Ramakrishna took part in massage and more is also false. In fact the exact opposite is true. Yogeswari marvelled at Sri Ramakrishna's self control. This is one of the reasons why Yogeswari called him an Avatara.
I do not have to ask RK mission. I already know. You really have to know before you throw mud at others.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is significant therefore, that even Swami Vivekananda had utter disgust for "Vaishnavas", whom he referred to as "sex perverts". Surely, he could not have been referring to bona fide "Rupanugas", i.e. those coming down in the parampara of Rupa and the other 5 Goswamis of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, because they were (and are) puritanical in their behaviour.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Swami Vivekananda NEVER uttered disgust for ALL Vaishnavas. Again you are making false claims. Give an EXACT REFERENCE if you feel you are right.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But if you've been reading my posts, you will note that I wanted to tie any argument on this thread to the central theme -- the cost/benefit and the effect on theology in the drive for "Hindu unity". But I have already started responding to <b>sunder</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Judging by your writing, your drive for Hindu unity will be still born.