The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

[dwai]

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is an iconic figure in Modern Indian history and in the Revival of Hindu Dharma, as well as popularization of Advaita Vedanta.

 

His words and teachings have inspired millions of people over several decades in and outside of India.

 

Enjoy...

 

http://www.belurmath.org/gospel/

 

[Jetsun]

I have been meaning to read the Gospel of Ramakrishna, apparently he worked his way through all of the main religious teachings and discovered they all lead to the same place, so he could teach as fluidly and deep about Christianity and Islam as well as Hinduism. 

Edited February 24, 2016 by Jetsun

[dwai]

I have been meaning to read the Gospel according to Ramakrishna, apparently he worked his way through all of the main religious teachings and discovered they all lead to the same place, so he could teach as fluidly and deep about Christianity and Islam as well as Hinduism. 

This is however the "Gospel of Ramakrishna". I don't believe Sri Ramakrishna made any commentary on Jesus' Gospel. He did practice every major religion (Vaishnavism, Islam, Christianity) and said they all lead to the same non-dual Brahman. However, he also posited the ladder theory. Saying all are rungs of a ladder that leads to Brahma-jnana. 

[Jeff]

This is however the "Gospel of Ramakrishna". I don't believe Sri Ramakrishna made any commentary on Jesus' Gospel. He did practice every major religion (Vaishnavism, Islam, Christianity) and said they all lead to the same non-dual Brahman. However, he also posited the ladder theory. Saying all are rungs of a ladder that leads to Brahma-jnana. 

 

The issue/danger with such a perspective is that one often extrapolates their own view onto other traditions.  Can one practice every major religion when there are significant differences in the views... unless one views those differences from within their own "box"?

[Jetsun]

This is however the "Gospel of Ramakrishna". I don't believe Sri Ramakrishna made any commentary on Jesus' Gospel. He did practice every major religion (Vaishnavism, Islam, Christianity) and said they all lead to the same non-dual Brahman. However, he also posited the ladder theory. Saying all are rungs of a ladder that leads to Brahma-jnana. 

 

Yeah sorry I meant Gospel of Ramakrishna I don't mean he was commentating on the Gospels.

 

 

The issue/danger with such a perspective is that one often extrapolates their own view onto other traditions.  Can one practice every major religion when there are significant differences in the views... unless one views those differences from within their own "box"?

 

I think he approaches them from their own perspective, to see if they work, rather than overlaying his own concepts onto them. There is bound to be some of that overlay no matter what in every spiritual path we enter whether it is culturally native or not, but if one is coming from beginners mind to some extent the impact of that can be reduced. 

[dwai]

The issue/danger with such a perspective is that one often extrapolates their own view onto other traditions.  Can one practice every major religion when there are significant differences in the views... unless one views those differences from within their own "box"?

Well...people say Sri Ramakrishna was different and already a fully enlightened Advaita Vedantin. Also deeply versed in Shakta tantra (being a Kali worshipper). 

 

Some people might crinkle their noses at the thought of someone being a pure non-dualist and yet worshipping a deity. But I would say, they don't understand Advaita well enough. Advaita doesn't posit absolute either/or positions. Reading small parts of the vast body of work that is Advaita will lead one to interpret it as such (statements such as Brahma Satyam jagan mithya), but is not the case, when viewed in the correct, more holistic perspective.

 

To not belabor the point I was trying to make (and promptly forgot), I echo Jetsun's view.

Edited February 24, 2016 by dwai

[3bob]

 obviously different paths (religions) do not all lead to the same realization per and going by the different founders of those paths... so I think Ramakrishna meant well but he is stepping on other paths in multiple ways when he should just stick with own his sect(s) within Sanatana Dharma, although its fine to show  appreciation for other paths. 

Edited February 24, 2016 by 3bob

[Jetsun]

 obviously different paths (religions) do not all lead to the same realization per and going by the different founders of those paths... so I think Ramakrishna meant well but he is stepping on other paths in multiple ways when he should just stick with own his sect(s) within Sanatana Dharma, although its fine to show  appreciation for other paths. 

 

The only way to really know if they lead to the same place is to walk the paths experientially like Ramakrishan did, otherwise it is just a intellectual comparison. 

[Jeff]

Well...people say Sri Ramakrishna was different and already a fully enlightened Advaita Vedantin. Also deeply versed in Shakta tantra (being a Kali worshipper). 

 

Some people might crinkle their noses at the thought of someone being a pure non-dualist and yet worshipping a deity. But I would say, they don't understand Advaita well enough. Advaita doesn't posit absolute either/or positions. Reading small parts of the vast body of work that is Advaita will lead one to interpret it as such (statements such as Brahma Satyam jagan mithya), but is not the case, when viewed in the correct, more holistic perspective.

 

To not belabor the point I was trying to make (and promptly forgot), I echo Jetsun's view.

 

I also do not wish to belabor the point, but how would a "fully enlightened Adviata Vedantin" posit such a position.  That all traditions are the same as his...?

[dwai]

I also do not wish to belabor the point, but how would a "fully enlightened Adviata Vedantin" posit such a position.  That all traditions are the same as his...?

Because for him the end of seeking is in realizing that everything is Brahman/Atman. And all sincere forms of worship will take the seeker to that point. If not in one life-time, over many such lifetimes.

 

Did i mention that this rankles people of other traditions (even within the Sanatana/Hindu dharma traditions)? Doesn't mean he is wrong or was not fully enlightened. Typically they get angry because they feel that their "system" is slighted by the ladder analogy. That somehow they are spiritually "less" advanced than the Advaitin.

 

My theory is that they feel "slighted" so they transfer it to their "system". Essentially there are ego-attachments to their system/theory.

 

That said, unlike say Ramana Maharishi, Sri Ramakrishna advocated the Bhakti path for most people. He believed that most people don't have the capacity needed to do direct inquiry. He too, like Adi Shankara, suggested that devotion is the way for most people. With the suggestion that after certain period of bhakti and austerity etc, by the Grace of God, they would be enlightened. 

 

I'm just stating my understanding of the historical facts

[Jeff]

Because for him the end of seeking is in realizing that everything is Brahman/Atman. And all sincere forms of worship will take the seeker to that point. If not in one life-time, over many such lifetimes.

 

...

 

Which basically sums up my point...

[dwai]

Which basically sums up my point...

So do you agree or disagree?

[Jeff]

So do you agree or disagree?

 

If you mean the Ramakrishna position that all religions are rungs of a ladder that leads to Brahma-jnana, then I would probably disagree.  But, that would ultimately depend on how one would define Brahma-jnana.

 

How about you?

[dwai]

If you mean the Ramakrishna position that all religions are rungs of a ladder that leads to Brahma-jnana, then I would probably disagree.  But, that would ultimately depend on how one would define Brahma-jnana.

 

How about you?

Honestly I've not reached Sri Ramakrishna's level. So I'll trust him and Adi Shankar's statements on this matter that true seekers would indeed be successful. 

 

However, looking at how many people fight and divide based on these other religions, I would also like to add that I wonder what constitutes a "true seeker"?  Is a true seeker one who is most sincere seeker (who truly and completely follows the spirit of these monotheistic traditions - as opposed to the literal word)?

Or is a true seeker who follows the word most literally?

 

Brahma-jnana is the realization of Brahman/Atman. Nothing else...very simple (based on the glimpses I've had). Yet, it is very hard to stabilize. Most people I know tend to go in and out of it...being "enlightened" this minute, and not another minute

[Jeff]

Honestly I've not reached Sri Ramakrishna's level. So I'll trust him and Adi Shankar's statements on this matter that true seekers would indeed be successful. 

 

However, looking at how many people fight and divide based on these other religions, I would also like to add that I wonder what constitutes a "true seeker"?  Is a true seeker one who is most sincere seeker (who truly and completely follows the spirit of these monotheistic traditions - as opposed to the literal word)?

Or is a true seeker who follows the word most literally?

 

Brahma-jnana is the realization of Brahman/Atman. Nothing else...very simple (based on the glimpses I've had). Yet, it is very hard to stabilize. Most people I know tend to go in and out of it...being "enlightened" this minute, and not another minute

 

If it is something that you go "in and out of", then is that not defining a state? And if a state, how do you know if there is not a state beyond that state?

[dwai]

If it is something that you go "in and out of", then is that not defining a state? And if a state, how do you know if there is not a state beyond that state?

Hi Jeff,

 

That defines "two states". One of absorption and one of separation. In the absorption state there is no "other" as there is only one. Nothing to refine further. In the separation state, there are "levels" - total separation, partial separation (and various degrees of separateness)...

Imho if one feels there is a beyond to the Non-dual state, then they are not at the non-dual state. That's why I said, it is a matter of stabilizing this state. 

 

So much so, I have stopped trying. I just follow my teacher's guidance and use the path of devotion and practice of nei gong, taijiquan along with mantra meditation. At one point I was walking around with a constant state of connectedness...where my small self was under the wing of the greater Self. It lasted for a few months. But samsara reduces the connectedness/absorption. When I told my teacher about this he said when the energies stabilize in your body and you let go of your bondages, you will be able to stay in this state. 

[Jeff]

Hi Jeff,

 

That defines "two states". One of absorption and one of separation. In the absorption state there is no "other" as there is only one. Nothing to refine further. In the separation state, there are "levels" - total separation, partial separation (and various degrees of separateness)...

Imho if one feels there is a beyond to the Non-dual state, then they are not at the non-dual state. That's why I said, it is a matter of stabilizing this state. 

 

So much so, I have stopped trying. I just follow my teacher's guidance and use the path of devotion and practice of nei gong, taijiquan along with mantra meditation. At one point I was walking around with a constant state of connectedness...where my small self was under the wing of the greater Self. It lasted for a few months. But samsara reduces the connectedness/absorption. When I told my teacher about this he said when the energies stabilize in your body and you let go of your bondages, you will be able to stay in this state. 

 

Hi Dwai,

 

With respect to you and your teacher, for your "one" or non dual state being the end/highest (or done), I offer the following for your consideration...

 

TTC CHAPTER 42 (SFH version)

 

The Dao begot one,

one gave birth and then there was two.

Two begot three.

And so the Ten Thousand Things were formed.

 

The Ten Thousand Things each contain Yin and Yang.

They are in harmony by having both of these forces.

 

From this, the forces are divided still;

for the Male has more Yang and the Female has more Yin.

So they are different. By coming together, they beget another life.

So the Ten Thousand Things depend on these forces.

 

When the forces are upset and out of balance,

so the Earth and the Ten Thousand Things will suffer.

Know the balance and all will be well.

.......

 

Consider knowing the Dao also...

 

Best,

Jeff

[3bob]

Ramakrishnas Atman realization does not echo that of Jesus (duality of heaven and hell) that of historic Buddha and no eternal Self, Mohammed and kill the infidels, etc., etc. etc. obviously R.K. did not renounce Sanatana Dharma once and for all and truly join any of the religions I've mentioned... thus he has no right to say they all the lead to same place without insulting them all since none of their founders ever made such a contradicting statement.  If he wants to speak from the Sanatana Dharma pov that is  fine but it is not of what other religious founders said.

Edited February 25, 2016 by 3bob

[dwai]

Hi Dwai,With respect to you and your teacher, for your "one" or non dual state being the end/highest (or done), I offer the following for your consideration...TTC CHAPTER 42 (SFH version)The Dao begot one, one gave birth and then there was two. Two begot three. And so the Ten Thousand Things were formed. The Ten Thousand Things each contain Yin and Yang. They are in harmony by having both of these forces. From this, the forces are divided still; for the Male has more Yang and the Female has more Yin. So they are different. By coming together, they beget another life. So the Ten Thousand Things depend on these forces. When the forces are upset and out of balance, so the Earth and the Ten Thousand Things will suffer. Know the balance and all will be well........Consider knowing the Dao also... :)Best,Jeff

Semantics. Brahman is non different from Dao.

[dwai]

 

Ramakrishnas Atman realization does not echo that of Jesus (duality of heaven and hell) that of historic Buddha and no eternal Self, Mohammed and kill the infidels, etc., etc. etc. obviously R.K. did not renounce Sanatana Dharma once and for all and truly join any of the religions I've mentioned... thus he has no right to say they all the lead to same place without insulting them all since none of their founders ever made such a contradicting statement. If he wants to speak from the Sanatana Dharma pov that is fine but it is not of what other religious founders said.

it sounds arrogant but it is a spiritual reality. Some cannot go beyond duality. So they should worship with complete devotion and faith.

 

That's what he said. Whether someone likes it or not is a different matter. If you don't like what he has to say, don't read his words...very simple. No point arguing about it. You can't get him to recant his statements now, can you?

[3bob]

In speaking for himself he should have made it 100% clear that he was not implying something per the founders of other religions based on some kind "new age" correlations. For instance Sat Guru does not walk around saying all Buddhists (etc.) are Hindu's - they just don't know it yet, nor a does a wise Buddhist Lama walk around saying all Hindus (etc.) are Buddhists - they just don't know it yet, to do so would be a form of grave intrusion and trespass - like it or not, argue it or not.  (and as you very well know more than most anyone else here that the first and foundational law of Hinduism is non-violence which I'd say includes non-trespass and non-intrusion (excepting for types of self- defense) 

 

Om

[Jeff]

Semantics. Brahman is non different from Dao.

 

For many who have realized the one emerging and establishing itself (from the Dao), it is not simple semantics, but a fundamental difference of perspective. Here you can see another version of the same...

 

50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

-Gospel of Thomas

 

It is this same point, that sent Buddha on his (different) way...

[dwai]

In speaking for himself he should have made it 100% clear that he was not implying something per the founders of other religions based on some kind "new age" correlations. For instance Sat Guru does not walk around saying all Buddhists (etc.) are Hindu's - they just don't know it yet, nor a does a wise Buddhist Lama walk around saying all Hindus (etc.) are Buddhists - they just don't know it yet, to do so would be a form of grave intrusion and trespass - like it or not, argue it or not. (and as you very well know more than most anyone else here that the first and foundational law of Hinduism is non-violence which I'd say includes non-trespass and non-intrusion (excepting for types of self- defense)

 

Om

I doubt if the sad-guru can even claim to be iota of what Sri ramakrishna was. And I like what he says (jaggj vasudev) for the most part.

 

Look I'm not going to say more on this topic. sometimes we think political correctness warrants whitewashing historical events and facts. But it is dishonest to do so.

 

Sri ramakrishna never tried to convert anyone. He was a mystic and lived a most modest live (some would say one of penury) as a priest in a temple. Neither did swami vivekananda (who was instrumental to bringing Hindu dharma to the west) try or want to convert anyone. In fact they said you should stick to your own religion and make the most of it if you can.

Edited February 25, 2016 by dwai

[dwai]

For many who have realized the one emerging and establishing itself (from the Dao), it is not simple semantics, but a fundamental difference of perspective. Here you can see another version of the same...50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"-Gospel of ThomasIt is this same point, that sent Buddha on his (different) way...

You might think the Buddha said something, but that doesn't mean he actually did. There are many interpretations of the Buddha's teachings. Theravada, Mahayana, etc.

 

Advaita vedantins tend to come to similar conclusions as Sri ramakrishna did, based on their experiences. That said, the nondual experience is very confusing to begin with.

 

Nondual doesn't mean literally one, it means no duality. So even syntax we use (dualistic constructs) can't do justice to what that (nondual) really is.

Bear with me as I try to explain my understanding of this topic --

 

Does the absence of duality mean singularity? I don't think so. To consider something to be singular, there has to be a concept of what is non-singular. If the concept of non-singular exists then that is not non-dual. Ergo, non-dual is not singular.

 

In non-Dual, there IS no other. Since there is no other, there is no self either. Vedantins call it the Brahman. When they experience non-duality, they realize that their self doesn't exist in the everyday sense. So they say Brahman and Atman (Self) are non different.

 

So the idea that the Dao is beyond Brahman is due to a flaw in dualistic logic being applied, where the Brahman is falsely being conflated to One (as opposed to two). But the Brahman is not only not "one", but also outside the domain of duality itself. Labels, concepts, thoughts and language don't mean anything therefore. And cannot be used to either describe it or label it.

 

From the Dao de Jing we know, the Dao that is named is not the real Dao. So Dao and Brahman are non different.

Edited February 25, 2016 by dwai

[Jeff]

You might think the Buddha said something, but that doesn't mean he actually did. There are many interpretations of the Buddha's teachings. Theravada, Mahayana, etc.

 

Advaita vedantins tend to come to similar conclusions as Sri ramakrishna did, based on their experiences. That said, the nondual experience is very confusing to begin with.

 

Nondual doesn't mean literally one, it means no duality. So even syntax we use (dualistic constructs) can't do justice to what that (nondual) really is.

Bear with me as I try to explain my understanding of this topic --

 

Does the absence of duality mean singularity? I don't think so. To consider something to be singular, there has to be a concept of what is non-singular. If the concept of non-singular exists then that is not non-dual. Ergo, non-dual is not singular.

 

In non-Dual, there IS no other. Since there is no other, there is no self either. Vedantins call it the Brahman. When they experience non-duality, they realize that their self doesn't exist in the everyday sense. So they say Brahman and Atman (Self) are non different.

 

So the idea that the Dao is beyond Brahman is due to a flaw in dualistic logic being applied, where the Brahman is falsely being conflated to One (as opposed to two). But the Brahman is not only not "one", but also outside the domain of duality itself. Labels, concepts, thoughts and language don't mean anything therefore. And cannot be used to either describe it or label it.

 

From the Dao de Jing we know, the Dao that is named is not the real Dao. So Dao and Brahman are non different.

 

While I understand your logic, I see it differently and believe we are describing two different principles/concepts. But maybe our challenge is in my understanding of Brahman.  Is not Brahman, the highest reality, beyond which no other (self) exists? And hence, Brahman "exists"; and with Atman=Brahman, it is kind of like extrapolating it to the concept of infinity?