05-17-2005, 12:16 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Carl+May 14 2005, 12:24 PM-->QUOTE(Carl @ May 14 2005, 12:24 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me give you an example (at the risk of re-starting a flame war): Sri Ramakrishna claimed to be an incarnation of Lord Chaitanya (among other avataras). So he based his claim to God-hood on the established glory of a preceding avatar. Lord Chaitanya's avatar-hood was demonstrated not only in lila, but also backed by scripture. But now if I were to accept Gadadhar Chatterjee aka Ramakrishna as an incarnation of Chaitanya, then I would logically seek to find the similarity and continuity in the message and gospel of Chaitanya and Ramakrishna. I declare I will hand my head on a platter to anyone in the world who can show the <i>slightest</i> similarity in the gospels of Sri Ramakrishna and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu! In fact, Chaitanya Himself designated 13 specific run-offs as apasampradaya (deviant Vaishnav cults), and Sri Ramakrishna claims to have experimented with "Vaishnavism" precisely under one such cult, under a female Tantrik guru. But such inconveniences are glossed over. In fact, Vivekananda preached quite a different theology than his "guru" Ramakrishna did, though he used his guru's fame and his godbrothers support to found the RK Math. How that is explained, I do not know, though I have heard that guru-bhoga and guru-tyaga are very serious offences in Vedic culture. <i>The point of this example is to show that, in putting together a patchwork ideology, serious damage can be done to the glory of the bona fide religious tradition on which it bases its glory.</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carl,
I am very impressed by the fact that you are oozing with love for everyone, calling Sundarji and others tadpoles among other things. This is exactly the behavior I would expect from a true disciple of Lord Chaitanya.
Any way. I would like to point out a few mistakes you have made in your enthusiastic Ramakrishna bashing:
1. Sri Ramakrishna NEVER claimed that he was an incarnation of Lord Chaitanya. Others may have said that about him. Let me give you a concrete example. Sri Ramakrishna once visited a Vaishnava meeting in Kolutala, Kolkata. An empty seat meant for Lord Chaitanya is kept in such meeting. Sri Ramakrishna went into Samadhi listening to the Kirtana and while in Samadhi stood on the seat meant for Lord Chaitanya. After the meeting was over this incident created an uproar among Vaishnavas. Some supported Sri Ramakrishna while others opposed him. Bhagavandas Babaji, the then leader of the Bengal Vaishnavas, became angry when he heard about the incident and abused the person for daring to stand in the seat meant for Lord Chaitanya. At that time Bhagavandas Babaji did not know Sri Ramakrishna. Some months later there was a meeting between Bhagavandas Babaji and Sri Ramakrishna. When Bhagavandas Babaji realized that it was Sri Ramakrishna who had done that deed, Bhagavandas Babaji apologised to Sri Ramakrishna for abusing him. Later on Bhagavandas Babaji told his disciples that Sri Ramakrishna was the only person living at that time who could indeed stand on Lord Chaitanya's seat. So it was the then Vaishnava leader of Bengal who said that Sri Ramakrishna was as great as Lord Chaitanya. If you don't like this you should ask around as to why Bhagavandas Babaji said such a thing.
2. You claim that Ramakrishna experimented with one such "Vaishnava cult" with a female Tantrika Guru. The absurdity of this claim is self evident. One doesn't go to a TANTRIKA Guru to indulge in deviant Vaishnava practices. Come on Carl, you can do better than this.
3. You are again claiming that Vivekananda preached a different theology than Ramakrishna. This is of course a false charge and I have pointed this out earlier.
BY THE WAY Carl I saw that you keep running out of time whenever you are challenged (for example Sundarjis' challenge regarding Mandukya Upanishad). Would you ever have the time when you are challenged?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carl,
I am very impressed by the fact that you are oozing with love for everyone, calling Sundarji and others tadpoles among other things. This is exactly the behavior I would expect from a true disciple of Lord Chaitanya.
Any way. I would like to point out a few mistakes you have made in your enthusiastic Ramakrishna bashing:
1. Sri Ramakrishna NEVER claimed that he was an incarnation of Lord Chaitanya. Others may have said that about him. Let me give you a concrete example. Sri Ramakrishna once visited a Vaishnava meeting in Kolutala, Kolkata. An empty seat meant for Lord Chaitanya is kept in such meeting. Sri Ramakrishna went into Samadhi listening to the Kirtana and while in Samadhi stood on the seat meant for Lord Chaitanya. After the meeting was over this incident created an uproar among Vaishnavas. Some supported Sri Ramakrishna while others opposed him. Bhagavandas Babaji, the then leader of the Bengal Vaishnavas, became angry when he heard about the incident and abused the person for daring to stand in the seat meant for Lord Chaitanya. At that time Bhagavandas Babaji did not know Sri Ramakrishna. Some months later there was a meeting between Bhagavandas Babaji and Sri Ramakrishna. When Bhagavandas Babaji realized that it was Sri Ramakrishna who had done that deed, Bhagavandas Babaji apologised to Sri Ramakrishna for abusing him. Later on Bhagavandas Babaji told his disciples that Sri Ramakrishna was the only person living at that time who could indeed stand on Lord Chaitanya's seat. So it was the then Vaishnava leader of Bengal who said that Sri Ramakrishna was as great as Lord Chaitanya. If you don't like this you should ask around as to why Bhagavandas Babaji said such a thing.
2. You claim that Ramakrishna experimented with one such "Vaishnava cult" with a female Tantrika Guru. The absurdity of this claim is self evident. One doesn't go to a TANTRIKA Guru to indulge in deviant Vaishnava practices. Come on Carl, you can do better than this.
3. You are again claiming that Vivekananda preached a different theology than Ramakrishna. This is of course a false charge and I have pointed this out earlier.
BY THE WAY Carl I saw that you keep running out of time whenever you are challenged (for example Sundarjis' challenge regarding Mandukya Upanishad). Would you ever have the time when you are challenged?