A modern saint who has the guidance of Ramakrishna lives in the Devi Mandir in the Bay Area. This is a link to the website.
www.shreemaa.org/drupal/
www.shreemaa.org/drupal/
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
-
Re: sri ma
Mon, May 7, 2007 - 7:19 PMWhat do you mean by "the guidance of Ramakrishna?" If you say it's a direct transmission from Ramakrishna, then you and the whoever told you this are deluded. At best, it can be a direct transmission from the Ramakrishna that Sri Ma has constructed in her heart, and at worst, it's the usual pathological nuttiness of another lame guru who believes they are special because they've come to self-realization. -
-
Unsu...
Re: sri ma
Tue, May 8, 2007 - 3:31 PMRamakrisna doesn't think he is dead. I don't either. He talks to Shree Maa. I don't know what could be simpler. Some people call these ascended masters. It's been years since I did an extensive exploration of the site, but an account of the guidance may still be on there.
I remember some accounts of Ramakrisha's messages, but my memory is vague.
I don't remember anything about transmissions on the site. I don't think any of what you have said applies.
If you have already checked out the site and you think Shree Maa is a pathological nut I think the site speaks quite well for itself.
Why do you think it would be a delusion to receive a transmission from someone who has ascended or done maha samadhi?
Jack -
-
Re: sri ma
Tue, May 8, 2007 - 4:00 PM> Why do you think it would be a delusion to receive a transmission from someone who has ascended or done maha samadhi?
*****
Because gurus die just like everyone else, and the Upanishads make clear the nondual truth that we are not the personalities we believe ourselves to be. This is just as true for a Ramakrishna as it is for a homeless guy in the Tenderloin.
Ascension and ascended masters are nothing more than superstitious fluff.
If Shree Maa believes that Ramakrishna talks to her in a voice she hears in her head, she's at best a little bit nutty, and at worst, just what I said before: another case of psychopathology masquerading as spiritual wisdom. -
-
Unsu...
Re: sri ma
Tue, May 8, 2007 - 6:02 PMI haven't read anything about Shree Maa hearing a voice in her head.
Did Avatars believe they they had dualishtic personalities? Did Ramakrishna believe he had a dualistic personality? I don't regard Ramakrishna as having a dualistic personality.
Certainly, as Ramapasad has said, "No limited vessel can cross a shoreless sea."
Returning to this shoreless sea can be a matter of choice.
Jack -
-
Re: sri ma
Tue, May 8, 2007 - 7:22 PM> Did Ramakrishna believe he had a dualistic personality?
*****
Anybody alive has a "dualistic personality," insofar as a sense of one's being in the world is a survival trait.
Ramakrishna was self-realized. This means he had a direct, ongoing understanding of his true nature. However, he was also a queer little man with many unusual personality quirks. Self-realization does not obliterate personality, it obliterates the personality's enslavement of identity. You are still the you you were before, only now you just know that you aren't.
> Returning to this shoreless sea can be a matter of choice.
*****
"Returning to this shoreless sea" is a horribly misguided statement, regardless of who made it. The fact is that we are ALWAYS the "shoreless sea" at every fricking moment of our lives, no matter what we are doing or who we believe we are doing it.
It's not ever about going anywhere, Jack, despite what you may believe. It's a sudden uncovering of what is recognized as an ONGOING truth. You see that you've always seen that, even when you believed that you didn't.
Having an idea of having to go somewhere to get to where you've always been is a bit like driving to the next state for the milk; completely unnecessary. -
-
Re: sri ma
Tue, May 8, 2007 - 8:33 PM>>Having an idea of having to go somewhere to get to where you've always been is a bit like driving to the next state for the milk; completely unnecessary.
unless they don't have your brand where you live, hehe!
(actually I pretty much agree with everything you've said, although with the fact that we DO have egos that differ there are different ways of realizing that Truth)
-
Re: sri ma
Wed, May 9, 2007 - 9:37 AM. >>Having an idea of having to go somewhere to get to where you've always been is a bit like driving to the next state for the milk; completely unnecessary.
I don't think that having the idea tht you have to "go get ", is any worse than thinking the Truth only has one handle. -
-
Unsu...
Re: sri ma
Wed, May 9, 2007 - 1:15 PMNone of us has ever left, but the metaphor is sometimes functional.
She cuts down all conflicting concepts within mind, silences mental conflict, takes the physical manifestation to herself, and makes a garland of perplexity. No one understands her, no one.
With that in mind I am leaving this turbulence. I'm not worried about whether or not anyone thinks I am still with it even thought a case can also be made for that.
Jack -
-
Unsu...
Re: sri ma
Wed, May 9, 2007 - 5:30 PMIn case it might same someone time with the sight I have posted they are networked with the Bihar school of yoga and are only interested in Vedic tantra. Other forms of tantra will not be found there. The Bihar school is all over india, and they are also in England. But they only choose to talk about what they are focused on, nothing else. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: sri ma
Sun, May 13, 2007 - 6:57 AMre Jody's post:
> Why do you think it would be a delusion to receive a transmission from someone who has ascended or done maha samadhi?
*****
Because gurus die just like everyone else, and the Upanishads make clear the nondual truth that we are not the personalities we believe ourselves to be. This is just as true for a Ramakrishna as it is for a homeless guy in the Tenderloin.
Ascension and ascended masters are nothing more than superstitious fluff.
If Shree Maa believes that Ramakrishna talks to her in a voice she hears in her head, she's at best a little bit nutty, and at worst, just what I said before: another case of psychopathology masquerading as spiritual w
Sri Ramakrishna's path is a Deistic path. It is a path which believes in God. It is a path which believes that souls are immortal, that reincarnation exists and all the traditional Hindu theology.
It is fine if these are not your beliefs. But to say that Sri Ramakrishna is "just another person" is clearly not part of the belief system of his path.
I have seen that there are a few Atheist tribes on Tribe Net. Perhaps you would enjoy participating in those.
In traditional Hindus ashrams, it is forbidden for residents to engage with atheists. That kind of doubt is viewed as a destructive force.
Not that one should blindly follow rote rules. I am not saying that. But I am saying that someone who actively promotes an atheistic agenda is typically unwelcome in these communities and paths.
I am sure you were not aware of this etiquette, but that is the nature of these paths. I am sure it was not your intention to throw doubt into people or consciously disrupt the pursuit of Sri Ramakrishna's path and mission. But, respectfully, that is the tradition.
I am sure that everyone here is exposed to many views in the world, including Atheistic ones. If they want to participate in those kinds of discussions, they, like yourself, can always interact on those Atheistic boards.
I mean, you wouldn't join a Christian board and feel entitled to say that you think Christ wasn't the Messiah? Why would the same not hold true here?
Tat Twam Asi
-
-
Re: sri ma
Sun, May 13, 2007 - 8:31 AM> I have seen that there are a few Atheist tribes on Tribe Net. Perhaps you would enjoy participating in those.
*****
Why would that be? I'm not an atheist.
> But I am saying that someone who actively promotes an atheistic agenda is typically unwelcome in these communities and paths.
*****
Your misunderstanding of my "agenda" is noted.
> I am sure it was not your intention to throw doubt into people or consciously disrupt the pursuit of Sri Ramakrishna's path and mission.
*****
As an initiate and member of the Ramakrishna lineage, I choose to comment on how Ramakrishna is interpreted, apparently in a manner in which you do not approve. Too bad for you.
> Why would the same not hold true here?
*****
Because the person who runs this tribe understands where I'm coming from, and you are the victim of exactly what I'm trying to expose, an institutional ignorance among pie-in-the-sky bhaktas whose heads are full of superstitious nonsense. -
-
Re: sri ma
Sun, May 13, 2007 - 3:51 PM>>As an initiate and member of the Ramakrishna lineage
I was tempted to mention this but decided to let Jody disclose it when he felt it was right, as it is his personal information.
sheds new light on how some people will choose to interpret his statements, eh?
>>the person who runs this tribe understands where I'm coming from
this is the case. there is room for everyone's views here as long as they are respectful of Ramakrishna. if being directly in the line of transmission from Sri Ramakrishna does not indicate this, I don't know what does. there are many different ways to view things and many different paths. you guys are free to disagree on the interpretation of RK's teachings, or even argue about it. but before assuming someone is an atheist, know the facts. a case could (and was, at the time of Adi Shankara) be made for VEDANTA being glossed atheism, but I doubt anyone here with knowledge of history would deny that Vedanta is a part of Ramakrishna's legacy - that would be fallacious. whether or not you choose to focus on that aspect of the man is entirely up to you. -
-
Re: sri ma
Mon, May 14, 2007 - 8:55 AMcommenting within the text...
*****
>Why would that be? I'm not an atheist.
So, you believe, as Ramakrishna's disicples did, that he is a full Incarnation of God and fully identified with God, that he was God Himself in human form?
>> (Jon previously) But I am saying that someone who actively promotes an atheistic agenda is typically unwelcome in these communities and paths.
*****
>Your misunderstanding of my "agenda" is noted.
Oh, I am sorry...and what exactly is your position on the soul and God?
> I am sure it was not your intention to throw doubt into people or consciously disrupt the pursuit of Sri Ramakrishna's path and mission.
*****
>As an initiate and member of the Ramakrishna lineage, I choose to comment on how Ramakrishna is interpreted, apparently in a manner in which you do not approve. Too bad for you.
"Too bad for you?"
I thought this was a debate, not a spitting contest....
> Why would the same not hold true here?
*****
>Because the person who runs this tribe understands where I'm coming from, and you are the victim of exactly what I'm trying to expose, an institutional ignorance among pie-in-the-sky bhaktas whose heads are full of superstitious nonsense.
So, you admit that your purpose is to "expose" something.
How interesting. Most of us come to Tribe Net to share, not to "expose" anything. To exist in a community of love and fellowship. But, apparently, you do have an agenda, and it is related to "superstitious nonsense."
Which supersititious nonsense, exactly? That God exists? That Sri Ramakrishna was God?
How can you be part of any Sri Ramakrishna lineage if you do not believe that Sri Ramakrishna was an Avatar/ God. That is as necessary as a Christian believing Christ was a Messiah.
You have confirmed what I asserted. -
-
Re: sri ma
Mon, May 14, 2007 - 9:27 AM> So, you believe, as Ramakrishna's disicples did, that he is a full Incarnation of God and fully identified with God, that he was God Himself in human form?
*****
Of course not. They were all the victims of ridiculous Hindu superstition.
> Oh, I am sorry...and what exactly is your position on the soul and God?
*****
We are all Brahman, all the time, regardless of whether we know this directly or not.
> But, apparently, you do have an agenda, and it is related to "superstitious nonsense."
*****
Precisely. The superstitious nonsense you believe about self-realization is preventing your own from coming to light. You are a classic victim of occluding ideology, those beliefs which prevent self-realization by creating erroneous expectations about self-realization.
> How can you be part of any Sri Ramakrishna lineage if you do not believe that Sri Ramakrishna was an Avatar/ God. That is as necessary as a Christian believing Christ was a Messiah.
*****
Ramakrishna was no more God than anyone else. He was a human being like the rest of us, albeit one that was a spiritual savant, as well as being a queer little man. -
-
Re: sri ma
Mon, May 14, 2007 - 9:49 AM>> So, you believe, as Ramakrishna's disicples did, that he is a full Incarnation of God and fully identified with God, that he was God Himself in human form?
*****
>Of course not. They were all the victims of ridiculous Hindu superstition.
Powerfully crafted assertion, but with what proof? And what is "Hindu superstition?" What does that mean? It sounds like you do not believe in the supernatural.
>> Oh, I am sorry...and what exactly is your position on the soul and God?
*****
>We are all Brahman, all the time, regardless of whether we know this directly or not.
Brahman is another term for God. You are defining the term with the term, a circular logical construction.
What does Brahman mean?
>> But, apparently, you do have an agenda, and it is related to "superstitious nonsense."
*****
>Precisely. The superstitious nonsense you believe about self-realization is preventing your own from coming to light. You are a classic victim of occluding ideology, those beliefs which prevent self-realization by creating erroneous expectations about self-realization.
How do you know what I believe? You don't. But, yes, I do believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. I believe that Sri Ramakrishna and the other Avatars were also omnipotent and omniscient.
You make a very accusatory statement, that I am " a victim of occluding theology." How so? What is your proof? Is anyone who believes in the miracles of Christ or Sri Ramakrishna deluded? Is that not the definition of faith? To believe in what is unknowable? Is that not the first tenet of religion? So, yes, I have faith. I believe in things that are not provable. That is my right, that is my right under the US law and its freedom of religion, that is my birthright as a child of God.
As far as my beliefs creating expectations, you do not know if I can transcend expectation or not. That is an assumption. I can assert. I can deny. I can go beyond assertion and denial.
>> How can you be part of any Sri Ramakrishna lineage if you do not believe that Sri Ramakrishna was an Avatar/ God. That is as necessary as a Christian believing Christ was a Messiah.
*****
Ramakrishna was no more God than anyone else. He was a human being like the rest of us, albeit one that was a spiritual savant, as well as being a queer little man.
This statement is completely antithetical to Sri Ramakrishna and the Sri Ramakrishna mission. If I reported this statement to any Sri Ramakrishna center, you would be asked to leave. You cannot consider Christ to be an ordinary human being and remain in the Church. Neither can you consider the same about Sri Ramakrishna and remain in his mission.
And the little quip about him being a "queer little man" is uncalled for and undignified. Churchill mocked Gandhi, did not make his statements true. Mocking is itself an act of self-obstruction. It is a default out of reflective judgment and into dismissal. And so without proof.
-
-
Re: sri ma
Mon, May 14, 2007 - 9:56 AM> And what is "Hindu superstition?"
*****
The usual nonsense about siddhis.
> What does Brahman mean?
*****
The basis of all being as it exists as pure, undifferentiated consciousness. It's by this carrier wave of awareness that you are able to have this conversation.
> How do you know what I believe?
*****
I know you believe that saints are omniscient. That is superstitious nonsense.
> If I reported this statement to any Sri Ramakrishna center, you would be asked to leave.
*****
Please do if you feel you should.
> And the little quip about him being a "queer little man" is uncalled for and undignified.
*****
It's the truth.
> And so without proof.
*****
It's in the original Bengali Kathamrita, not the censored and bowdlerized version that Nikhilananda produced.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
