07-27-2005, 02:53 AM
Our friend Carl is getting better and better in his polemics. I will discuss
a few points here.
On Kripal:
^^^^^^^^^^
First he writes
in another thread:
"Jeffrey J. Kripal's intriguing work Kali's Child: The Mystical and The Erotic
in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna deconstructs the Ramakrishna myth
revealing little more than an unorthodox tantric sexuality at the basis of his
life, sayings, practices, and even literary styles of his biographers."
When challenged he writes:
"I DO NOT approve of Jeffrey Kripal's stinking piece of "psychoanalysis". 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."
Does this mean that our friend Carl thinks that Ramakrishna indulged in
Tantric sexuality? Does that mean that Carl actually read the original Bengali
sources in order to verify Kripal's concoctions? After alleging that
Ramakrishna indulged in tantric sexuality our friend Carl does a U-turn
and writes:
"Personally, I humbly respect Sri Ramakrishna as a sadhu, but cannot summon
the confidence to treat him as guru."
Does this mean that Carl respects a Tantric sexual adept as a sadhu? It could
be that Carl has no choice since a large number of ISCKON Gurus have been
accused of Vaishnava "love" towards women and children.
on Brahman
^^^^^^^^^^^
"In both the Tantra traditions and Neo-Vedanta, the Brahman conception suffers
from spiritual mutability since both traditions maintain real individual can
literally dissolve its identity into a monistic perfection, as in the
bhedabheda doctrine. For whatever reason, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and modern
proponents like Sinha have never bothered to address standing objections as
they re-introduced the concept of spiritual mutability. "
Is our ISCKON friend Carl right that Neo-Vedanta makes Brahman mutable? Let
us take a look at what Ramakrishna actually said about Brahman:
****************************************************************************************
"Brahman is beyond vidya and avidya, knowledge and ignorance. It is beyond
maya, the illusion of duality.
The world consists of the illusory duality of knowledge and ignorance. It
contains of knowledge and devotion, and also attachment to 'lust and greed';
righteousness and unrighteousness; good and evil. But Brahman is unattached
to these. Good and evil apply to the jiva, the individual soul, as do
righteousness and unrighteousness; but Brahman is not at all affected by
them.
One man may read the Bhagavata by the light of the lamp, and another may
commit a forgery by that very light; but that lamp is unaffected. The sun
sheds its light on the wicked as well as on the virtous. You may then ask,
'How, then can one explain misery, and sin and unhappiness?' The answer is
that these apply to the jiva. Brahman is unaffected by them. There is poison
in a snake; but though others may die if bitten by it, the snake itself is
not affected by the poison.
What Brahman is cannot be described. All things in the world - the Vedas, the
Puranas, the Tantras, the six systems of philosophy - have been defiled, like
food that has been touched by the tongue. Only one thing has not been defiled
in this way, and that is Brahman. No one has ever been able to say what
Brahman is.
Brahman is beyond word and thought. It is said in the Vedas that Brahman is
of the nature of Bliss. It is Satchidananda. In Samadhi one attains the
knowledge of Brahman - one realizes Brahman. In that state reasoning stops
altogether, and man becomes mute. He has no power to describe the nature of
Brahman."
******************************************************************************************
Does it appear to you that Ramakrishna is making Brahman mutable? Ramakrishna
is saying that Brahman is unattached and unaffected. Would a changing Brahman
be unattached and unaffected? Our friend Carl will say that Ramakrishna makes
Brahman mutable somewhere else. Let me give another saying of Ramakrishna:
*************************************************************************************
"No one can say with finality that God is only 'this' and nothing else. He
is formless and again He has forms. For the bhakta He assumes forms. But He
is formless for the jnani, that is, for him who looks on the world as a mere
dream. The bhakta feels that he is one entity and the world as another.
Therefore God reveals Himself to him as a Person. But the jnani - the
Vedantist, for instance - always reasons, applying the process of 'Not this,
not this'. Through this discrimination he realizes, by his inner perception,
that the ego and the universe are both illusory, like a dream. Then the jnani
realizes Brahman in his own consciousness. He can not describe what Brahman
is.
Do you know what I mean? Think of Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute, as a shoreless ocean. Through the cooling influence as it were, of
the bhakta's love, the water has frozen at places into blocks of ice. In
other words, God now and then assumes various forms for His lovers and reveals
Himself to them as a Person. But with the rising of the sun of knowledge,
the blocks of ice melt. Then one doesn't feel any more that God is a Person,
nor does one see God's forms. What He is can not be described. Who will
describe Him? He would do so disappears. He cannot find his 'I' anymore.
If one analyzes oneself, one doesn't find any such thing as 'I'. Take an
onion, for instance. First of all peel off the red outer skin; then you find
thick white skins. Peel these off one after the other, and you won't find
anything inside.
In that state a man no longer finds the existence of his ego. And who is there
left to seek it? Who can describe how he feels in that state - in his own Pure
Consciousness - about the real nature of Brahman? There is a sign of Perfect
Knowledge. Man becomes silent when It is attained. Then the 'I', which may be
likened to the salt doll, melts in the ocean of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute and becomes one with It. Not the slightest distinction is left."
*****************************************************************************************
Is Ramakrishna making Brahman mutable in the above quote? Our mutual friend
Carl will point out to the statement,"God now and then assumes various forms
for His lovers and reveals Himself to them as a Person." According to our
friend Carl, God assuming forms for His lovers implies change. But does it?
What does Ramakrishna say after saying that God assumes forms. He says,"But
with the rising of the sun of knowledge, the blocks of ice melt. Then one
doesn't feel any more that God is a Person, nor does one see God's forms."
What Ramakrishna is saying is that the experience of Brahman depends on the
spiritual level of the spiritual aspirant. As long as a man has his ego,
he will experience Brahman to be personal and different. When a man transcends
his ego then the same man will have the Advaita experience. It is NOT as Carl
claims that Ramakrishna makes Brahman mutable. Ramakrishna is saying that
the experience of Brahman mutates depending on the spiritual level of the
aspirant. As I said before a little learning is dangerous.
on Vivekananda's philosophy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"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.
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."
Is Carl right that Vivekananda's attempt to integrate all sorts of philosophy
(1) a mere concotion, (2) a dogma that will be devastating and (3) simply
lifted from tremendously popular writings of the Paris clique.
Let us investigate these charges. Vivekananda gave a theoretical basis to
Ramakrishna's utterances on Brahman. If you reread Ramakrishna's sayings
posted previously you will see that Ramakrishna says that the experience of
Brahman depends on the spiritual level of the aspirant. When a purified
aspirant retains his ego then he experiences Brahman as different from him.
When a purified aspirant transcends his ego then he experiences the Advaita
experience. Vivekananda gave a philosophical basis to these sayings in his
ladder theory. In the ladder theory an aspirant gradually transcends his ego
after purification of his mind and thus first experiences Brahman as different
then experiences Brahman in the Vishsitadvaita sense and finally when he
completely transcends his ego has the Advaita experience. If you say that
this is a pure concotion then you have to say that Ramakrishna made all this
up. If you say this is a dogma then you have to prove that these experiences
are not reproducible. Vivekananda says that these experiences are indeed
experienced by the aspirant. If you say that Vivekananda simply lifted his
ladder theory from the Paris clique then you have to show that the Paris
clique came up with the ladder theory. What is true is that Vivekananda's
philosophical position, a reconciliation of dvaita, Vishistadvaita and
Advaita, is merely an academic version of Ramakrishna's position.
>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. 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.
I laughed a lot at out friend Carl's pious claim that he is not against any
sect. Is our friend right that Ramakrishna mission should admit that theirs
is a neo-Vedantic or neo-Advaitic philosophy and should not pass themselves
as Vedanta or Advaita? Again the answer is a firm No! Ramakrishna mission
has published both Ramakrishna and Vivekananda's teachings. You can easily
see that by reading the Ramakrishna Kathamrita and Vivekananda's Complete
Works available in the www.vedanta.com web site. If you actually read the
texts, instead of our friend Carl who has most probably not read them, you
will see that RKM uses both neo-Vedanta and Vedanta terms synonymously.
RKM literature makes it quite clear that Ramakrishna reconciled the various
Vedantic systems and that Ramakrishna gave the correct interpretation of
Vedanta. Since a follower of Ramakrishna thinks that Ramakrishna's
interpretation of Vedanta is the correct interpretation, why should such a
person not claim that he is talking of Vedanta? Did Ramanujacharya say that
his system is Vishistadvaita? Did Chaitanya say that his system is not
Vedanta? Why should Ramakrishna mission say that its system is not Vedanta?
a few points here.
On Kripal:
^^^^^^^^^^
First he writes
in another thread:
"Jeffrey J. Kripal's intriguing work Kali's Child: The Mystical and The Erotic
in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna deconstructs the Ramakrishna myth
revealing little more than an unorthodox tantric sexuality at the basis of his
life, sayings, practices, and even literary styles of his biographers."
When challenged he writes:
"I DO NOT approve of Jeffrey Kripal's stinking piece of "psychoanalysis". 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."
Does this mean that our friend Carl thinks that Ramakrishna indulged in
Tantric sexuality? Does that mean that Carl actually read the original Bengali
sources in order to verify Kripal's concoctions? After alleging that
Ramakrishna indulged in tantric sexuality our friend Carl does a U-turn
and writes:
"Personally, I humbly respect Sri Ramakrishna as a sadhu, but cannot summon
the confidence to treat him as guru."
Does this mean that Carl respects a Tantric sexual adept as a sadhu? It could
be that Carl has no choice since a large number of ISCKON Gurus have been
accused of Vaishnava "love" towards women and children.
on Brahman
^^^^^^^^^^^
"In both the Tantra traditions and Neo-Vedanta, the Brahman conception suffers
from spiritual mutability since both traditions maintain real individual can
literally dissolve its identity into a monistic perfection, as in the
bhedabheda doctrine. For whatever reason, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and modern
proponents like Sinha have never bothered to address standing objections as
they re-introduced the concept of spiritual mutability. "
Is our ISCKON friend Carl right that Neo-Vedanta makes Brahman mutable? Let
us take a look at what Ramakrishna actually said about Brahman:
****************************************************************************************
"Brahman is beyond vidya and avidya, knowledge and ignorance. It is beyond
maya, the illusion of duality.
The world consists of the illusory duality of knowledge and ignorance. It
contains of knowledge and devotion, and also attachment to 'lust and greed';
righteousness and unrighteousness; good and evil. But Brahman is unattached
to these. Good and evil apply to the jiva, the individual soul, as do
righteousness and unrighteousness; but Brahman is not at all affected by
them.
One man may read the Bhagavata by the light of the lamp, and another may
commit a forgery by that very light; but that lamp is unaffected. The sun
sheds its light on the wicked as well as on the virtous. You may then ask,
'How, then can one explain misery, and sin and unhappiness?' The answer is
that these apply to the jiva. Brahman is unaffected by them. There is poison
in a snake; but though others may die if bitten by it, the snake itself is
not affected by the poison.
What Brahman is cannot be described. All things in the world - the Vedas, the
Puranas, the Tantras, the six systems of philosophy - have been defiled, like
food that has been touched by the tongue. Only one thing has not been defiled
in this way, and that is Brahman. No one has ever been able to say what
Brahman is.
Brahman is beyond word and thought. It is said in the Vedas that Brahman is
of the nature of Bliss. It is Satchidananda. In Samadhi one attains the
knowledge of Brahman - one realizes Brahman. In that state reasoning stops
altogether, and man becomes mute. He has no power to describe the nature of
Brahman."
******************************************************************************************
Does it appear to you that Ramakrishna is making Brahman mutable? Ramakrishna
is saying that Brahman is unattached and unaffected. Would a changing Brahman
be unattached and unaffected? Our friend Carl will say that Ramakrishna makes
Brahman mutable somewhere else. Let me give another saying of Ramakrishna:
*************************************************************************************
"No one can say with finality that God is only 'this' and nothing else. He
is formless and again He has forms. For the bhakta He assumes forms. But He
is formless for the jnani, that is, for him who looks on the world as a mere
dream. The bhakta feels that he is one entity and the world as another.
Therefore God reveals Himself to him as a Person. But the jnani - the
Vedantist, for instance - always reasons, applying the process of 'Not this,
not this'. Through this discrimination he realizes, by his inner perception,
that the ego and the universe are both illusory, like a dream. Then the jnani
realizes Brahman in his own consciousness. He can not describe what Brahman
is.
Do you know what I mean? Think of Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute, as a shoreless ocean. Through the cooling influence as it were, of
the bhakta's love, the water has frozen at places into blocks of ice. In
other words, God now and then assumes various forms for His lovers and reveals
Himself to them as a Person. But with the rising of the sun of knowledge,
the blocks of ice melt. Then one doesn't feel any more that God is a Person,
nor does one see God's forms. What He is can not be described. Who will
describe Him? He would do so disappears. He cannot find his 'I' anymore.
If one analyzes oneself, one doesn't find any such thing as 'I'. Take an
onion, for instance. First of all peel off the red outer skin; then you find
thick white skins. Peel these off one after the other, and you won't find
anything inside.
In that state a man no longer finds the existence of his ego. And who is there
left to seek it? Who can describe how he feels in that state - in his own Pure
Consciousness - about the real nature of Brahman? There is a sign of Perfect
Knowledge. Man becomes silent when It is attained. Then the 'I', which may be
likened to the salt doll, melts in the ocean of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute and becomes one with It. Not the slightest distinction is left."
*****************************************************************************************
Is Ramakrishna making Brahman mutable in the above quote? Our mutual friend
Carl will point out to the statement,"God now and then assumes various forms
for His lovers and reveals Himself to them as a Person." According to our
friend Carl, God assuming forms for His lovers implies change. But does it?
What does Ramakrishna say after saying that God assumes forms. He says,"But
with the rising of the sun of knowledge, the blocks of ice melt. Then one
doesn't feel any more that God is a Person, nor does one see God's forms."
What Ramakrishna is saying is that the experience of Brahman depends on the
spiritual level of the spiritual aspirant. As long as a man has his ego,
he will experience Brahman to be personal and different. When a man transcends
his ego then the same man will have the Advaita experience. It is NOT as Carl
claims that Ramakrishna makes Brahman mutable. Ramakrishna is saying that
the experience of Brahman mutates depending on the spiritual level of the
aspirant. As I said before a little learning is dangerous.
on Vivekananda's philosophy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"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.
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."
Is Carl right that Vivekananda's attempt to integrate all sorts of philosophy
(1) a mere concotion, (2) a dogma that will be devastating and (3) simply
lifted from tremendously popular writings of the Paris clique.
Let us investigate these charges. Vivekananda gave a theoretical basis to
Ramakrishna's utterances on Brahman. If you reread Ramakrishna's sayings
posted previously you will see that Ramakrishna says that the experience of
Brahman depends on the spiritual level of the aspirant. When a purified
aspirant retains his ego then he experiences Brahman as different from him.
When a purified aspirant transcends his ego then he experiences the Advaita
experience. Vivekananda gave a philosophical basis to these sayings in his
ladder theory. In the ladder theory an aspirant gradually transcends his ego
after purification of his mind and thus first experiences Brahman as different
then experiences Brahman in the Vishsitadvaita sense and finally when he
completely transcends his ego has the Advaita experience. If you say that
this is a pure concotion then you have to say that Ramakrishna made all this
up. If you say this is a dogma then you have to prove that these experiences
are not reproducible. Vivekananda says that these experiences are indeed
experienced by the aspirant. If you say that Vivekananda simply lifted his
ladder theory from the Paris clique then you have to show that the Paris
clique came up with the ladder theory. What is true is that Vivekananda's
philosophical position, a reconciliation of dvaita, Vishistadvaita and
Advaita, is merely an academic version of Ramakrishna's position.
>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. 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.
I laughed a lot at out friend Carl's pious claim that he is not against any
sect. Is our friend right that Ramakrishna mission should admit that theirs
is a neo-Vedantic or neo-Advaitic philosophy and should not pass themselves
as Vedanta or Advaita? Again the answer is a firm No! Ramakrishna mission
has published both Ramakrishna and Vivekananda's teachings. You can easily
see that by reading the Ramakrishna Kathamrita and Vivekananda's Complete
Works available in the www.vedanta.com web site. If you actually read the
texts, instead of our friend Carl who has most probably not read them, you
will see that RKM uses both neo-Vedanta and Vedanta terms synonymously.
RKM literature makes it quite clear that Ramakrishna reconciled the various
Vedantic systems and that Ramakrishna gave the correct interpretation of
Vedanta. Since a follower of Ramakrishna thinks that Ramakrishna's
interpretation of Vedanta is the correct interpretation, why should such a
person not claim that he is talking of Vedanta? Did Ramanujacharya say that
his system is Vishistadvaita? Did Chaitanya say that his system is not
Vedanta? Why should Ramakrishna mission say that its system is not Vedanta?