The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

[Jeff]

In the Dao/Brahman, opposites don't have any meaning. There is no other. There is no stillness, there is no motion. There is no existence or non-existence as we know it. But something makes the appearances happen. Whatever that may be, is still not Dao/Brahman. 

 

I think no one can truly tell why appearances, forms, motion occur out of the Dao/Brahman. Only two make sense to me. Dao/Brahman are conscious and full of pure joy (and therefore of unconditioned love). And the joy and love is what provides the impetus for creation to occur. As the Kashmir Shaivites say "spanda" is a result of the joy of Satchidananda or Shiva.

 

I agree that in both the Dao and Brahman, opposites have no meaning and that there is no other... Just not with your perspective that the Dao and Brahman are the same.  

 

Also, now you have introduced another concept with KS and Shiva.  Are you also saying that Shiva = Brahman = Dao?

[dwai]

I agree that in both the Dao and Brahman, opposites have no meaning and that there is no other... Just not with your perspective that the Dao and Brahman are the same.

 

Also, now you have introduced another concept with KS and Shiva.  Are you also saying that Shiva = Brahman = Dao?

As viewed in the context of Kashmir Shaivism, yes

In the context of Southern Indian Shaiva Siddhantas, no.

Edited February 25, 2016 by dwai

[dwai]

Haha...such is the way of discussions...we have travelled quite far from the introduction of the Gospel of Sri RamaKrishna Paramahamsa in the OP

[Jeff]

As viewed in the context of Kashmir Shaivism, yes

In the context of Southern Indian Shaiva Siddhantas, no.

 

Only meant as viewed by you...?

[dwai]

Only meant as viewed by you...?

Well...to those who can discern

[Jeff]

Haha...such is the way of discussions...we have travelled quite far from the introduction of the Gospel of Sri RamaKrishna Paramahamsa in the OP

 

Yes, I apologize. If you wish, feel free to delete all of my stuff in the thread.

[dwai]

Yes, I apologize. If you wish, feel free to delete all of my stuff in the thread.

No no, not at all...I was just making an observation. I try to avoid such "academic" discussions because they don't do anything towards our spiritual growth. And also because, well, i don't really know much anymore. 

[dawei]

I didn't want to interject too much as it seems to stray from the OP... but I provided a link which seems to touch on your point:

 

I think no one can truly tell why appearances, forms, motion occur out of the Dao/Brahman. Only two make sense to me. Dao/Brahman are conscious and full of pure joy (and therefore of unconditioned love). And the joy and love is what provides the impetus for creation to occur. As the Kashmir Shaivites say "spanda" is a result of the joy of Satchidananda or Shiva.

 

I will say that my very basic and limited understanding of Brahman is more like ultimate reality...  and that is not Dao.  instead, Dao is more like the principle or basis of ultimate reality.

 

Not in the context that I was using, remember I said they were the same, not both existent.  I was talking about the emergence of the "One" from the Dao. Or as I originally stated from the GOT verse 50...

 

I think that my link suggests Brahman is more like the "One"... thus, it could not be synonymous with Dao.

 

But I will accept if I don't understand Brahman correctly or the link.  

[dwai]

I didn't want to interject too much as it seems to stray from the OP... but I provided a link which seems to touch on your point:

 

 

I will say that my very basic and limited understanding of Brahman is more like ultimate reality...  and that is not Dao.  instead, Dao is more like the principle or basis of ultimate reality.

 

 

I think that my link suggests Brahman is more like the "One"... thus, it could not be synonymous with Dao.

 

But I will accept if I don't understand Brahman correctly or the link.  

That is not what I read in the paper. I think the paper was presenting a position very much like my own

[3bob]

considering someone wasn't going to say anything further this went a lot further?

 

Again, there is a major difference if a mystic or anyone else says something close to, "I believe all religions end up in the same realization" compared to them saying something close to, "the truth is all religions end up in the same realization" which directly implies per their experience that they know better than the founders of those religions and are saying so without permission from the keepers of those religions.  Such an error is so obvious it's hard to understand why anyone would not see it?   Btw, Hindu sects have a great deal in common but they do not (or are not supposed to) step on each other or make proclamations that they all lead to the same realization. (for again that would be a trespass on a sects beliefs )  

Edited February 27, 2016 by 3bob

[dwai]

considering someone wasn't going to say anything further this went a lot further?

 

Again, there is a major difference if a mystic or anyone else says something close to, "I believe all religions end up in the same realization" compared to them saying something close to, "the truth is all religions end up in the same realization" which directly implies per their experience that they know better than the founders of those religions and are saying so without permission from the keepers of those religions. Such an error is so obvious it's hard to understand why anyone would not see it? Btw, Hindu sects have a great deal in common but they do not (or are not supposed to) step on each other or make proclamations that they all lead to the same realization. (for again that would be a trespass on a sects beliefs )

Hi 3Bob,

 

I won't question your right to your opinion. Needless to say, in India today, the Ramakrishna Mission is a highly respected group and Sri Ramakrishna highly revered.

 

[3bob]

Again, and another example: if I say, " I believe that the teachings of Upanisads are of the deepest truth for me" - then it's really no biggy against anyone else and their beliefs.... but if I say, "all religions end up under the truth of the Upanisads because I know so"  then I'm stepping on everyone else.  (to say the least)   Frankly I don't care what any famous Guru or Swami says if they trespass per the gist of this very short example.

[dwai]

Again, and another example: if I say, " I believe that the teachings of Upanisads are of the deepest truth for me" - then it's really no biggy against anyone else and their beliefs.... but if I say, "all religions end up under the truth of the Upanisads because I know so" then I'm stepping on everyone else. (to say the least) Frankly I don't care what any famous Guru or Swami says if they trespass per the gist of this very short example.

I'm sure he didn't mean to hurt egos...he was beyond all that. He just stated his experiences. If someone takes offense, it's more from their ego than anything else.

[Wilhelm]

Huh!  Thanks for the link.  I've only heard stories of Ramakrishna and never read him directly.  Does someone have a favourite passage/anecdote/chapter?  I'll start at the beginning myself, but there sure is a lot here!

 

Note sure whether it really happened or not, but I like this story of Vivekenanda and Ramakrishna:

[3bob]

an interesting talk but again not on base since there is householder dharma and renunciant dharma, and even a group of renunciants still have some dharma in taking care of and doing basic human work,  (say around their monastery and in working with the community that largely supports them)