05-17-2005, 01:56 AM
<b>gangajal</b> prabhu,
Greetings.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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--> BTW, I'm not a "true disciple" of anyone yet. Just trying to feel my way around.
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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-->Inshallah, yes. 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>.
Firstly, it makes more sense to me to conduct theological debate around <i>concepts</i>, rather than <i>scattered and isolated quotes</i>, because concepts are the building blocks of a philosophy. So I started with the very fundamental concept of maya in my last post.
Secondly, for future reference, do remember that the Upanishads should be taken in toto. Isolated quotes about the existence of Brahman and Brahman-realization are non-arguments, simply because no Vaishnava denies the existence of either. The Vaishnava theology is inclusive of this. But it says that there is much more beyond this. The most mature fruit of the Veda is the understanding and realization of rasa.
Time permitting, I hope to come back and take up sunder's questions in more detail later. Midterm week + internship pressure.
Greetings.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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--> BTW, I'm not a "true disciple" of anyone yet. Just trying to feel my way around.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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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-->Inshallah, yes. 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>.
Firstly, it makes more sense to me to conduct theological debate around <i>concepts</i>, rather than <i>scattered and isolated quotes</i>, because concepts are the building blocks of a philosophy. So I started with the very fundamental concept of maya in my last post.
Secondly, for future reference, do remember that the Upanishads should be taken in toto. Isolated quotes about the existence of Brahman and Brahman-realization are non-arguments, simply because no Vaishnava denies the existence of either. The Vaishnava theology is inclusive of this. But it says that there is much more beyond this. The most mature fruit of the Veda is the understanding and realization of rasa.
Time permitting, I hope to come back and take up sunder's questions in more detail later. Midterm week + internship pressure.