07-26-2005, 11:18 PM
<b>mitradena</b> & <b>vijnan_anand</b>,
<b>I DO NOT approve of Jeffrey Kripal's stinking piece of "psychoanalysis".</b> That post of mine was simply quoting another person's response to an equally ridiculous critique of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. In that quote, I only highlighted the parts that I was in agreement with, after verification.
Also, my criticism has been restricted to Vivekananda, and not Sri Ramakrishna himself. Sri Ramakrishna is rather vague and contradictory on points of philosophy, very difficult to comprehend, and very easily <i>misunderstood</i>. Personally, I humbly respect Sri Ramakrishna as a sadhu, but cannot summon the confidence to treat him as guru. I also respect Vivekananda, simply for his youthful dedication to spiritual life. But Vivekananda's attempts to "integrate" all sorts of philosophy in vogue at the time is certainly a concoction that needs to be discussed openly. That tactic may have served some social purpose at the time, but if allowed to congeal into dogma, it will be devastating for the long-term spiritual health of Hinduism. <b>If you like, you can investigate the decadence of Persian Zoroastrianism and the philosophical hodge-podge it got into, especially after the Greek invasion lead by Alexander. Lots of parallels with India and Hinduism.</b>
In short, I have nothing against the Ramakrishna Mission or ANY sect. My only concern is that they show some intellectual honesty when they discuss philosophy. <b>They should clearly admit that theirs is a NEO-Vedantic or NEO-Advaitic philosophy. But all too often, these people try to pass themselves off as "Vedanta" or "Advaita" whenever they can get away with it. </b>
As for my assertions that Vivekananda's philosophy is simply lifted from the tremendously popular writings of the Paris clique -- which was taught in British-Indian schools throughout the 1800's -- you can verify it for yourself by reading those philosophers.
<b>mitradena</b>,
Who said that ISKCON has not criticized Christianity and Islam? In fact, there are many very scathing criticisms of the dogmatic aspects of these institutionalized religions. Srila Prabhupada was particularly concerned about the near-total degeneration of these faith-systems. He also said that the countries that needed God-consciousness most were the communist countries, and the Islamic countries(!). And he made all these statements in <b>full public view</b>. While appreciating the good, he never hesitated to criticize the bad.
And how can you say they are cowards? These guys put their lives on the line to go preaching in very hostile environments. They do it all the time, despite several incidents. Refer their trials and tribulations in Poland, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kyrghyzstan, and even the USA.
OTOH, it is the relativistic Neo-Vedantic institutions like the RK Mission that go out of their way to accommodate other doctrines. Ramakrishna Missions often display the crucifix and the Islamic crescent on their facade. But in their books, Vivekananda says that Muhammad is an "imperfect yogi". Isn't this double-faced? Does ISKON ever do that?? No. One thing that I liked about ISKCON was their candour about everything -- from doctrinal disagreements to their legal problems in court.
You have only taken some statements on websites that were "tolerant" in nature, and reached the wrong conclusion. The same acceptance of commonalty is extended to all sects, Buddhist and Hindu. In the Gaudiya sect, Shankara is venerated as "acharya", and his service to the cause of Vedic dharma is acknowledged, while the other Vaishnava sects are not so generous. Similarly, Sri Chaitanya praised the Buddha's mission in putting an end to the abuse of the Vedas by a corrupt Brahmanical order. <b>But the major part of popular criticism is still reserved for the mayavadis and the atheists because of their denial of Ishvara, and their relativism. In that sense, the mayavadi position is far more dangerous and deviant than the dogmatic quirks of Churchianity and Islamism, which are at least positively monotheistic.</b>
Lastly, ISKCON members really have no problems calling themselves Hindu, as long as they are sure their specific doctrines are highlighted, and not lost in the swarming milieu of <b>heterodox</b> philosophies. In fact, about 20 years ago, an ISKCON swami helped convene the first international Hindu sangha.
But perhaps because of repeated incidents of other Hindu sects protesting Vaishnava intransigence on philosophical matters, ISKCON decided to blur the lines a little. <b>However, an unprecedented coming-together of the various Vaishnava sampradayas is underway in India now. Vaishnavism, as an organized, dynamic movement, has been dormant for centuries now.</b> If this bloc forms, then the academic definitions of "mainstream Hinduism" will be forced to acknowledge the historical reality of Vaishnava doctrine and its purity, rather than certain marginal, "new-age" concoctions.
<b>I DO NOT approve of Jeffrey Kripal's stinking piece of "psychoanalysis".</b> That post of mine was simply quoting another person's response to an equally ridiculous critique of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. In that quote, I only highlighted the parts that I was in agreement with, after verification.
Also, my criticism has been restricted to Vivekananda, and not Sri Ramakrishna himself. Sri Ramakrishna is rather vague and contradictory on points of philosophy, very difficult to comprehend, and very easily <i>misunderstood</i>. Personally, I humbly respect Sri Ramakrishna as a sadhu, but cannot summon the confidence to treat him as guru. I also respect Vivekananda, simply for his youthful dedication to spiritual life. But Vivekananda's attempts to "integrate" all sorts of philosophy in vogue at the time is certainly a concoction that needs to be discussed openly. That tactic may have served some social purpose at the time, but if allowed to congeal into dogma, it will be devastating for the long-term spiritual health of Hinduism. <b>If you like, you can investigate the decadence of Persian Zoroastrianism and the philosophical hodge-podge it got into, especially after the Greek invasion lead by Alexander. Lots of parallels with India and Hinduism.</b>
In short, I have nothing against the Ramakrishna Mission or ANY sect. My only concern is that they show some intellectual honesty when they discuss philosophy. <b>They should clearly admit that theirs is a NEO-Vedantic or NEO-Advaitic philosophy. But all too often, these people try to pass themselves off as "Vedanta" or "Advaita" whenever they can get away with it. </b>
As for my assertions that Vivekananda's philosophy is simply lifted from the tremendously popular writings of the Paris clique -- which was taught in British-Indian schools throughout the 1800's -- you can verify it for yourself by reading those philosophers.
<b>mitradena</b>,
Who said that ISKCON has not criticized Christianity and Islam? In fact, there are many very scathing criticisms of the dogmatic aspects of these institutionalized religions. Srila Prabhupada was particularly concerned about the near-total degeneration of these faith-systems. He also said that the countries that needed God-consciousness most were the communist countries, and the Islamic countries(!). And he made all these statements in <b>full public view</b>. While appreciating the good, he never hesitated to criticize the bad.
And how can you say they are cowards? These guys put their lives on the line to go preaching in very hostile environments. They do it all the time, despite several incidents. Refer their trials and tribulations in Poland, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kyrghyzstan, and even the USA.
OTOH, it is the relativistic Neo-Vedantic institutions like the RK Mission that go out of their way to accommodate other doctrines. Ramakrishna Missions often display the crucifix and the Islamic crescent on their facade. But in their books, Vivekananda says that Muhammad is an "imperfect yogi". Isn't this double-faced? Does ISKON ever do that?? No. One thing that I liked about ISKCON was their candour about everything -- from doctrinal disagreements to their legal problems in court.
You have only taken some statements on websites that were "tolerant" in nature, and reached the wrong conclusion. The same acceptance of commonalty is extended to all sects, Buddhist and Hindu. In the Gaudiya sect, Shankara is venerated as "acharya", and his service to the cause of Vedic dharma is acknowledged, while the other Vaishnava sects are not so generous. Similarly, Sri Chaitanya praised the Buddha's mission in putting an end to the abuse of the Vedas by a corrupt Brahmanical order. <b>But the major part of popular criticism is still reserved for the mayavadis and the atheists because of their denial of Ishvara, and their relativism. In that sense, the mayavadi position is far more dangerous and deviant than the dogmatic quirks of Churchianity and Islamism, which are at least positively monotheistic.</b>
Lastly, ISKCON members really have no problems calling themselves Hindu, as long as they are sure their specific doctrines are highlighted, and not lost in the swarming milieu of <b>heterodox</b> philosophies. In fact, about 20 years ago, an ISKCON swami helped convene the first international Hindu sangha.
But perhaps because of repeated incidents of other Hindu sects protesting Vaishnava intransigence on philosophical matters, ISKCON decided to blur the lines a little. <b>However, an unprecedented coming-together of the various Vaishnava sampradayas is underway in India now. Vaishnavism, as an organized, dynamic movement, has been dormant for centuries now.</b> If this bloc forms, then the academic definitions of "mainstream Hinduism" will be forced to acknowledge the historical reality of Vaishnava doctrine and its purity, rather than certain marginal, "new-age" concoctions.