Ramakrishna and Vivekananda
ramakris at EROLS.COM
Sat Mar 13 13:08:22 CST 1999
Ashish Chandra <achandra at WNMAIL.WNDEV.ATT.COM> wrote:
>Vivekananda had met with in Varanasi where he had sworn that "he
>return to the city unless he made its society follow him like a dog".
>he did. So please don't try and classify what Vivekananda and
>were and were not. You are no authority.
But you are such an authority that I should accept all these
statements? So all the pundits in Varanasi followed him like a dog,
did they? Did they go back or lie in a kennel en masee outside
Vivekanandas home? I suggest that you go an verify this story with
someone in Varanasi. I would bet an even $100 that the pundits will
have a good laugh on hearing this.
>I suggest that this has nothing to do with advaita-l. Hosts of
>disciples of Ramanuja or Madhva were convinced that only they had
>God. So does it mean, we discuss their teachings here? Mr Vivekananda
>Centre is going on and on about "prophets". sha.nkara was not a
>"prophet" who claimed new insights. He puported to interpret only the
>age-old upanishhads. Those interpretations are what we are here to
>discuss. If Vivekananda or Ramakrishna have useful insights about
>these, please post them. Otherwise please start Vivekananda-l or
>Ramakrishna-l to discuss the views of Vivekananda or Ramakrishna.
>Did you even bother to find out what this was written in regards to.
>written in regards to Maya. And I had written that most of us just
>it while actually KNOWING what it is. That is why I had said that a
>important because Vivekananda did not get the answers from people who
And pray what has this do with mAyA? Everyone knows a guru is
important. What I said was simple: just because Vivekananda accepted
Ramakrishna as a guru doesn't mean Ramakrishna was an advaitin. Many
of Ramakrishna's statements are irreconcilable with advaita. Kindly
learn to follow a thread before replying. Of course for a person
(namely your kind self) who thinks prakR^iti is composed of a
substrate of purushha-s, Ramakrishna could certainly be called an
>Why don't you let Jaladhar defend himself. Pretty much everyone has
>what he said. And no one is making any personal attacks so I think it
>you who should be advised not to go about pontificating to others.
Thanks. And frankly, this is it. Welcome to my kill-file.
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
List archives : http://listserv.tamu.edu/archives/advaita-l.html
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list