commenting within the text...


>>I don't know about that - implication and clarity don't go hand in hand and if he were to have considered SRK a saint then I would think that all of SRK's teachers would be included as well, and their teachers, and theirs....

Gandhi felt Swami Vivekananda was a fully realized saint. He said as much. Since Swami Vivekananda considered Sri Ramakrishna a saint, it is not only a clear logical thread to assume that Gandhi felt so, there is no other possible conclusion. By saying that he felt Swami Vivekananda was a fully realized being it directly implies that his judgment is beyond repute. Therefore, it implies that Swami Vivekananda's opinions are that of a perfected being. Since Swami Vivekananda viewed Sri Ramakrishna as a saint, it implies that Gandhi sanctioned Sri Ramakrishna as well.


>>for me personally, the most important one of SRK's many teachers was the Brahmani Bhairavi... but that just shows where I choose to focus.

What is it about this saint that attracts you? If I recall, she initiated him into various Tantric practices. It is the Tantra which interests you or this saint?


>for others it may be Totapuri. there are many aspects to the man who appeared as Ramakrishna.

And Paul said...some say I hold with Peter and others say I hold with Paul...but we all hold with Christ. One God, One Path, One teacher.



<< (Jon's previous comments) I think that the Tantra is a kind of advanced "aversion therapy." In the sense that one enters into the sexuality in order to conquer it.

>I have to strongly disagree.

On what specific basis do you disagree? There are many passages in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna which imply this. Many!

>you have probably heard the sayings "yoga and bhoga", "mukti and bhukti", yes?

I am familar with "yoga and bhoga" I am familiar with mukti, but not bhukti

>the point is that all things are sacred, including sex.

Hardly so, sir. Yoga and bhoga refers to opposites. There are opposites. Not everything is equal. In some non-dualistic practices, the aspirant takes on this "attitude" but it does not refer to the inherent underlying truth. This is why Sri Ramakrishna said, I could take this
and throw it away and take that and throw it away, but truth I could not throw away.

Everything can lead to the Infinite, since all things derive from the Infinite. There is the Infinite in a worm and in Christ, as Swami Vivekananda said..."the worm under your feet and the Nazarene are brothers." But, this again is part of the non-dualistic attitude in certain kinds of Jhana Yoga practices. It does not mean they are equal. They are only equal if you personally attain to a level of transcendental vision. And unless we have personally walked on water (or have the ability to do so), we aren't quite there yet.

>we make false distinctions between what is good and bad, pure and impure,

certainly some people make false distinctions, but not everyone.

>and this is what Tantra aims to obliterate. yes, some people choose to focus too much on the sexual aspects of Tantra, which is why it is gaining such popularity in the West but the point is not to "conquer" sex - it is to lose false distinctions and the attachment that we associate with it.

agreed, I never implied otherwise

>if you study shastra, you find that many Rishis were married.

I am quite aware of this. But this can be misunderstood to be a freedom to simply do as you please. That is not Yoga.

>Shiva and Shakti are in eternal copulation, creating and destroying universes.

I am not sure what exactly is meant by Shiva and Shakti in copulation. I think part of it is about the relationship between man and woman and the Divine. But I would not assume that I have Shiva's knowledge of the universe and what every symbol of Him means.

>let us consider the rather shocking image of Chinnamasta, one of the Dasa Mahavidyas. She is standing on Rati and Kama engaged in copulation. now, is this saying to us that She has somehow "triumphed" over sexuality?

this seems a rather rhetorical point. Sri Ramakrishna said directly that the Tantra allowed him to conquer sexuality. Why continue to bring up the matter? Go find the quotes in the Gospel, they are there...tons of them.

>the three streams of blood from her neck symbolize the three Nadis and the overflow of Kundalini.

Fine but this is not academia, where you can read about ideas and then know the concepts. Have you had the Kundalini course through you? If you had, you would have the 8 Yogic powers, including the ability to walk on water. If you can't walk on water, you can't say that you have full knowledge of what the Kundalini means.


>you can take this at least two ways:

1) She is stomping all over the sexual act and that is why She is awakened Kundalini

2) sex is a valid and fertile ground for the upward movement of Kundalini!


why do you assume that only these two things are possible? Only fully illumined saints are omniscient. I had the Kundalini move in me, once. No one truly knows what fear is until that happens. And that was just the tiniest drop. What the saint's experience? Who knows?
But whatever it is, it is certainly beyond our own experience and often beyond our own comprehension.

>I would suggest that folks consider both of these interpretations and make their own choice. I think my stance is probably pretty clear. As much as I respect Ramakrishna (hey, I made a Tribe for Him!),

Thanks for making the Tribe. It is good that you wish to manifest Sri Ramakrishna.

>I do not believe that the marriage of RK and Sri Sarada Devi is a model for the perfect male/female interaction.

Well, who said it is supposed to be a model for average folks? Maybe it is a model when the next Avatar shows up. But we are not even ants compared to Sri Ramakrishna. Like Christ said, "the man who thinks of another woman commits adultery." Or like Sri Ramakrishna's disciple Swami Shivananda said...that if he had one negative thought, it would take him six months to regain his spiritual height.

We ordinary folks have next to no connection with the height of these Infinite beings. Who can live six months without a single thought of jealousy, anger, hatred, etc.??? Apparently, the great saints do. We have more in common with dogs than with them.

>while Ramakrishna may have succeeded in many of his endeavors, the Bhairavi was never able to fully teach Him the lessons of Tantra.

Absurd! Please quote ANY source which says this! Totapuri, who was a Tantric Yogi said that Sri Ramakrishna realized in a few days what it had taken him a lifetime to achieve. And the Brahmani said that Sri Ramakrishna was an Avatar of God. That indicates that she viewed his spiritual height as superior to her own. So, if he was an Avatar and she was not, how did he fail to attain anything she attained?


>Sri Ramakrishna was a great, God-realized man IMHO but His teachings are not complete in and of themselves(again, IMHO),

Well, the implication of God-realization is full identification with God. Fully God realized saints have fully surrendered their own will. Everything they do is in full accordance with God's will. That is what the term means. So, it is not possible that they or their teachings are not complete. That is what it means to go beyond karma and sin. They attain a realm of perfection.

In what specific way and in what specific teaching do you find him incomplete?


>and many things can be taken from them. a good way to illustrate this is in the difference between what the householders and the monks were taught during His life. I feel that when Nikhilananda translated the Kathamrita into English they should not have called it the GOSPEL of Sri Ramakrishna -

Sri Ramakrishna did not title the book. Among his disciples, the only one to achieve full Enlightenment was Swami Vivekananda. So, all the others still had some possibility of flaw. With perhaps the exception of Swami Brahmananda. I don't understand those states of high perfection, because I am not in them. But I have heard, from another God-realised soul, that there are different levels of the experiences.
Some saints only attain perfection in the meditation state itself, others can act with that perfection in all activities.

>because the word gospel in our language is considered to be something you do not question. but if you look at the ENTIRE history of Hindu thought, scriptural interpretation and commentary are an integral part of the religion.

this is a very academic "paper" view of theology. And a very black and white view of what it is. A poem is. It lives. You either feel and know the poem or you don't. If you feel and know the truth of a spiritual statement, you know the truth. If you analyze it, you are only giving a best guess. "Hinduism" is a term coined by a conquering army, a derivation of the word "Indus" and a derogatory term. The more proper term is Vedanta. Vedanta is the expression of a long line of saints. Truth exists in all that expression. There is no "improvement" from interpretation. The only thing interpretation can do is re-phrase things to make them more understandable to a new generation.

If Christ used the term "gentleness of a lamb" - it means more to a culture who lives on farms and has had direct experience with the qualities of a baby sheep. But the term means less to someone with no direct connection to physically having interacted with a lamb. And so it is that throughout history, the words of the saints have been re-phrased to make them more easily understandable to new generations. There is no need beyond the original Vedas. But, to really understand them, you have to understand many things - including ancient culture, warrior culture, tribal culture, historical India and etc. etc. etc. Otherwise, the metaphors don't make sense. But they are describing the same experience that was done by more modern saints. The commentary does not and can not "add" anything. This fact also is stated by both Swami Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna..