ramkisno at HOTMAIL.COM
Thu Jul 18 18:07:54 CDT 2002
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:02:21 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Ashish Chandra wrote:
>> This is a very simplistic view, in my opinion.
>Perhaps, but the question you should be asking is, is it true?
I don't know what the truth exactly is but I can tell you that there was no
race to brand everything and anything as Advaita in Bengal of the 19th
century. So your assertion is not entirely correct. How true it is
partially, I don't know. It is your opinion and let us leave it at that.
>From my side, I think the strongest anti-Advaita philosophical movement
started in Bengal as well.
>> If it helps a seeker to
>> follow Sri Ramkrishna, he/she may do so. If it does not, he/she may not.
>Again how do you know what "helps" and what doesn't unless you have some
>standard to follow? Or if you mean a seeker should follow whatever "feels
>good" regardless of what is right then isn't that just another form of
Yes, that is sort of what I am saying. And no I don't think that would be
sensualism because the path is hard enough to frustrate the best of us. So
I don't think anyone follows a saint for a feel-good factor. If so, that
saint rejects that person. Perhaps you wish to extract the reason and logic
out of every single teaching you come across. That is niether good nor bad.
That is simply your way. I am really satisfied with believing first and
then asking the questions. Because I have tried asking the questions first
and then believing and it wasn't getting me anywhere.
>So what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what Ramakrishna said,
>you are just going to put him up on a pedestal? I think this is more
>disrespectful than anything I have said. If Ramakrishna said the world is
>satya then it must have been for a good reason. Don't you want to know
>why? Saying the world is satya versus saying it is mithya makes a
>hell of a lot of difference in its implications for sadhana. And if it
>turns out that he was a tantric instead of a Vedantin, would that be such
>a horrible thing?
Tantric practices may be good for some people and not good for others. In
either case, it does not make Tantra bad or good. To some it may be exactly
what Advaita is to you and for others, it may be what Advaita is to
What I am saying is there is no one way for everyone. You never choose your
Guru. He chooses you. And you just don't know what you have to do to get
Him to do that apart from following the basic dharmas of being good and
speaking the truth. That is what my experience has been so far. There is no
need to debate the heck out of whether Sri Ramakrishna said the world was
real or not. He could have said it in passing or as a joke or to teach
someone a specific lesson.
Maybe if you meet Sri Ramakrishna one day, he will tell you what will help
Of course, this is my opinion and it can be easily tossed out by you. But I
believe it because it helps me to think in such a way. At least now it
does. I don't know the future and niether do you.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list