05-17-2005, 11:06 AM
gangajal, once again I'll try and answer:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Swami Vivekananda NEVER uttered disgust for ALL Vaishnavas.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I didn't say he was speaking of ALL Vaishnavas. But the fact that he was referring to such apasampradayas as "Vaishnava" shows a lack of familiarity with the pronouncements of authorities like Lord Chaitanya. And Vivekananda's stamping such deviant sects as "Vaishnava" has been carried into several textbooks on "Hinduism", especially in the West. This is the sort of thing I was complaining about originally, that the RK mission has set itself up as an information-booth about "Hinduism", when it is ill-qualified to do so.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You claim that Mithya means false and therefore all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Er, my friend, in those lines I was stating the shunyavadi theory that I was arguing AGAINST. Did you read the full sentence?? It ends with "according to THEIR simplistic explanations". <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> After that I wrote 2 paras about what my understanding of maya is. Bro, if you want to attempt theological debate on an internet BB, you should try to read complete sentences before jumping up to criticize, or "laughing aloud"...
That shunyavadi theory (which you yourself have just mocked) is to be found in <i>several</i> books published by <i>initiated swamis</i> of the RK mission. You may verify this for yourself. You will also not deny the fact that there is no philosophical consistency within the RK mission, and many brannches are more-or-less independent. Further, several long-time initiates of the RK mission whom I know have echoed such shunyavadi notions. It is quite surprising to me, especially since Sri Ramakrishna himself has explained maya in more enlightened terms that Chaitanya mahaprabhu popularized in Gauda desh.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->First off, the RK mission's published books claiming Sri Ramakrishna is an avatara of Lord Chaitanya is not based on this unknown personage Bhagavandas, but on the pronouncements of Sarada devi, Sri Ramakrishna's wife. She is reported to have observed his ecstacies and said, "Just like Chaitanya, he is an avatara of God". Also, in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, he says "I am Nimai". He also said at other times, "I came as Rama, I came as Krishna". So let's leave it at that. In any case, <i>don't side-track the issue with unverifiable quibbles</i>. The point I was making was this -- <i>please demonstrate to me any similarity or continuity between the teachings of Lord Chaitanya and that of Sri Ramakrishna.</i> The Chaitanya Charitaamrita (and the writings of the Goswamis) are available. And the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna is available. The Gospel book is full of anecdotes, parables and analogies that Sri Ramakrishna related which were originally spoken by Chaitanya mahaprabhu (but no acknowledgement is made of the source). But apart from the patchy storytelling, the whole plot is quite different. I invite you to read both books, the Gospel, and Chaitanya Charitamrita.
About Sri Ramakrishna's experiments with Tantra: It is a touchy subject and the RK mission rarely publicizes it because the Indian public is rather conservative. But we know what Tantra involves. And of course it involves self-control. I didn't say otherwise. No need to be defensive. My only point was that this part has nothing to do with Chaitanya Vaishnavism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Swami Vivekananda NEVER uttered disgust for ALL Vaishnavas.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I didn't say he was speaking of ALL Vaishnavas. But the fact that he was referring to such apasampradayas as "Vaishnava" shows a lack of familiarity with the pronouncements of authorities like Lord Chaitanya. And Vivekananda's stamping such deviant sects as "Vaishnava" has been carried into several textbooks on "Hinduism", especially in the West. This is the sort of thing I was complaining about originally, that the RK mission has set itself up as an information-booth about "Hinduism", when it is ill-qualified to do so.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You claim that Mithya means false and therefore all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Er, my friend, in those lines I was stating the shunyavadi theory that I was arguing AGAINST. Did you read the full sentence?? It ends with "according to THEIR simplistic explanations". <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> After that I wrote 2 paras about what my understanding of maya is. Bro, if you want to attempt theological debate on an internet BB, you should try to read complete sentences before jumping up to criticize, or "laughing aloud"...
That shunyavadi theory (which you yourself have just mocked) is to be found in <i>several</i> books published by <i>initiated swamis</i> of the RK mission. You may verify this for yourself. You will also not deny the fact that there is no philosophical consistency within the RK mission, and many brannches are more-or-less independent. Further, several long-time initiates of the RK mission whom I know have echoed such shunyavadi notions. It is quite surprising to me, especially since Sri Ramakrishna himself has explained maya in more enlightened terms that Chaitanya mahaprabhu popularized in Gauda desh.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->First off, the RK mission's published books claiming Sri Ramakrishna is an avatara of Lord Chaitanya is not based on this unknown personage Bhagavandas, but on the pronouncements of Sarada devi, Sri Ramakrishna's wife. She is reported to have observed his ecstacies and said, "Just like Chaitanya, he is an avatara of God". Also, in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, he says "I am Nimai". He also said at other times, "I came as Rama, I came as Krishna". So let's leave it at that. In any case, <i>don't side-track the issue with unverifiable quibbles</i>. The point I was making was this -- <i>please demonstrate to me any similarity or continuity between the teachings of Lord Chaitanya and that of Sri Ramakrishna.</i> The Chaitanya Charitaamrita (and the writings of the Goswamis) are available. And the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna is available. The Gospel book is full of anecdotes, parables and analogies that Sri Ramakrishna related which were originally spoken by Chaitanya mahaprabhu (but no acknowledgement is made of the source). But apart from the patchy storytelling, the whole plot is quite different. I invite you to read both books, the Gospel, and Chaitanya Charitamrita.
About Sri Ramakrishna's experiments with Tantra: It is a touchy subject and the RK mission rarely publicizes it because the Indian public is rather conservative. But we know what Tantra involves. And of course it involves self-control. I didn't say otherwise. No need to be defensive. My only point was that this part has nothing to do with Chaitanya Vaishnavism.