[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Why thsi Ramakrishan-Vivekanand bashing?
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: Why thsi Ramakrishan-Vivekanand bashing?
-
From: susarla@owlnet.rice.edu (H. Krishna Susarla)
-
Date: 26 Jan 1995 19:11:10 GMT
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Thu Jan 26 13: 58:54 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University
-
References: <3g3vl7$c84@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
In article <3g3vl7$c84@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, vgr@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (G. R. Vishwanath) says:
>
>Additionally, many RK admirers (like me) look at RK and Vivekanand
>as almost-God. From my point of view, these two are thus allowed
>liberties which you or i may not have. Krishna had 16000 wives,
Krishna could also lift Govardhana Hill with one finger. Can your
Ramakrishna do that? Krishna could display the Viswaroopa. Can your
Ramakrishna do that? Krishna slew demons which were too powerful for
even the demigods to handle. Can your Ramakrishna do that?
Krishna's lovers were His pure devotees. He did not demand that
relationship with them. That was the particular relationship with the
Lord they chose to have. All relationships with God are completely
spiritual, and do not accrue karmic reaction, though they may look
similar to material relationships. The difference is that relationships
with Krishna are permanent, while relationships in the material world
are not. Mundane people, who can only conceive of a loving relationship
with God in terms of their own, limited, experience, mistake the Lord's
pastimes with the gopis to be material and thus perverted. When these
people then say that they, too, are permitted to engage in similar activities
for their own material desires, I will be happy to remain silent after I
see them successfully emulate all of the Lord's other pastimes as well.
>
>Meat-eating is not the most damaging flaw. RK would probably
>say that it is the ego, "the little I" which is the biggest flaw
That's right. There are all these "little I's" who say,"my opinion is
important, more important than what scriptures say." This is known as
false ego.
>traditionally have been so. As an aside, i find that as a general rule
>people who have been veggies since birth seldom make a song and dance
>about their vegetarianism.
>
I note that people who are largely ignorant of scriptures, (especially
those who follow RK/V) pretend to follow them and then preach exactly
the opposite of what they say. Even when confronted with the contradiction,
they continue with their speculating and philsophizing, thinking themselves
to be great scholars and so on. Continuing in this matter, they do not
find self-realization; they simply continue to build up false ego.
I remember reading that Ravana tried to give all sorts of scriptural
arguments to justify his abducting of Sita. Of course, he was speculating,
instead of listening to a bona fide spiritual master. This is exactly what
happens when people think they can simply interpret scripture on their own.
>
>>constantly tried to kill him). And these events were in
>>more enlightened ages; how can anyone expect the material world
>>to be kind to the devotees in this degraded age of Kali?
>
>Don't whine. You give respect, you will get it back.
>
The kind of 'respect' I might be able to get from a ramakrishnaite, of
the variety of "Yes we accept your religion, even though we know that God
is really an impersonal void and your devotion is just a path prescribed
for ignorant people" is condescending. I don't need any of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Hari Krishna Susarla - "Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, -
- susarla@owlnet.rice.edu - become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me and -
- Rice University - worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, -
- Class of 1995 - surely you will come to Me." -
- Biochemistry - - Bhagavad-Gita 9.34 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
