|
|
Post by Reefs on May 19, 2019 6:00:01 GMT -5
I haven't seen a Ramakrishna thread here. And he isn't listed on spiritualteachers.org either. I guess that's because people almost exclusively associate him with the bhakti yoga tradition, which I think isn't entirely correct. From my perspective, he actually does have something to offer for the Advaita crowd and belongs right there with Ramana***** and Niz***** in the 5-star teachers section (aka "the classics").
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 19, 2019 6:17:16 GMT -5
Rituals
R: When, hearing the name of Hari or Rama once, you shed tears and your hair stands on end, then you may know for certain that you do not have to perform such devotions as the sandhya any more. Then only will you have a right to renounce rituals; or rather, rituals will drop away of themselves. Then it will be enough if you repeat only the name of Rama or Hari, or even simply Om. The sandhya merges in the Gayatri, and the Gayatri merges in Om.
Mahendranath Gupta, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Chapter 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 19, 2019 6:26:54 GMT -5
God with and without form
R: Well, do you believe in God with form or without form?
M: (to himself: How can one believe in God without form when one believes in God with form? And if one believes in God without form, how can one believe that God has a form? Can these two contradictory ideas be true at the same time? Can a white liquid like milk be black?) Sir, I like to think of God as formless.
R: Very good. It is enough to have faith in either aspect. You believe in God without form; that is quite all right. But never for a moment think that this alone is true and all else false. Remember that God with form is just as true as God without form. But hold fast to your own conviction.
Mahendranath Gupta, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Chapter 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 21, 2019 8:35:53 GMT -5
God with form (1)
M: Sir, suppose one believes in God with form. Certainly He is not the clay image!
R: But why clay? It is an image of Spirit.
M: But, sir, one should explain to those who worship the clay image that it is not God, and that, while worshiping it, they should have God in view and not the clay image. One should not worship clay.
R: That's the one hobby of you Calcutta people - giving lectures and bringing others to the light! Nobody ever stops to consider how to get the light himself. Who are you to teach others?
He who is the Lord of the Universe will teach everyone. He alone teaches us, who has created this universe; who has made the sun and moon, men and beasts, and all other beings; who has provided means for their sustenance; who has given children parents and endowed them with love to bring them up. The Lord has done so many things - will He not show people the way to worship Him? If they need teaching, then He will be the Teacher. He is our Inner Guide.
Suppose there is an error in worshiping the clay image; doesn't God know that through it He alone is being invoked? He will be pleased with that very worship. Why should you get a headache over it? You had better try for knowledge and devotion yourself.
Mahendranath Gupta, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Chapter 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 21, 2019 8:47:17 GMT -5
This reminds me of what Meister Eckhart said, that those who blaspheme against God, praise God. And the more they blaspheme, the more they praise God. It's one of those statements that had been condemned as heretical by Pope John XXII.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2019 21:33:27 GMT -5
This reminds me of what Meister Eckhart said, that those who blaspheme against God, praise God. And the more they blaspheme, the more they praise God. It's one of those statements that had been condemned as heretical by Pope John XXII. two words: (1) Carl (2) Sagan.  Object to "God" with enough focus for a few generations and you wind up with .. "The Universe". Trace that cultural movement backward far enough and you'll find a modern day villain in the thick of it: the historical Rocky Balboa.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 25, 2019 0:16:52 GMT -5
God with form (2)
R: You were talking of worshiping the clay image. Even if the image is made of clay, there is need for that sort of worship. God Himself has provided different forms of worship. He who is the Lord of the Universe has arranged all these forms to suit different men in different stages of knowledge.
The mother cooks different dishes to suit the stomachs of her different children. Suppose she has five children. If there is a fish to cook, she prepares various dishes from it - pilau, pickled fish, fried fish, and so on - to suit their different tastes and powers of digestion.
Mahendranath Gupta, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Chapter 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 25, 2019 0:32:44 GMT -5
two words: (1) Carl (2) Sagan. Object to "God" with enough focus for a few generations and you wind up with .. "The Universe". Trace that cultural movement backward far enough and you'll find a modern day villain in the thick of it: the historical Rocky Balboa. Eckhart - Sagan - Descartes? I think you've lost me there.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 25, 2019 1:21:04 GMT -5
two words: (1) Carl (2) Sagan. Object to "God" with enough focus for a few generations and you wind up with .. "The Universe". Trace that cultural movement backward far enough and you'll find a modern day villain in the thick of it: the historical Rocky Balboa. Eckhart - Sagan - Descartes? I think you've lost me there. Carl was most definitely a blasphemer. But he didn't invent the blasphemy, he was a product of his cultural conditioning. Trace the cultural conditioning backward and you come to Renee, who wrote something like (this is by memory) "at some point, the serious seeker of truth has to question every belief of his that can be questioned". Carl's blasphemy is quite sublime, and is a hint to anyone in the trance as to the fact of the infinite, and an inspiration to anyone who would seek God's love. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 27, 2019 11:03:08 GMT -5
Meditation
M: How, sir, may we fix our minds on God?
R: Repeat God's name and sing His glories, and keep holy company; and now and then visit God's devotees and holy men. The mind cannot dwell on God if it is immersed day and night in worldliness, in worldly duties and responsibilities; it is most necessary to go into solitude now and then and think of God. To fix the mind on God is very difficult, in the beginning, unless one practices meditation in solitude. When a tree is young it should be fenced all around; otherwise it may be destroyed by cattle.
To meditate, you should withdraw within yourself or retire to a secluded corner or to the forest. And you should always discriminate between the Real and the unreal. God alone is real, the Eternal Substance; all else is unreal, that is, impermanent. By discriminating thus, one should shake off impermanent objects from the mind.
Mahendranath Gupta, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Chapter 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2019 9:25:27 GMT -5
How to live in the world
M: How ought we to live in the world?
R: Do all your duties, but keep your mind on God. Live with all — with wife and children, father and mother — and serve them. Treat them as if they were very dear to you, but know in your heart of hearts that they do not belong to you.
A maidservant in the house of a rich man performs all the household duties, but her thoughts are fixed on her own home in her native village. She brings up her master's children as if they were her own. She even speaks of them as 'my Rama' or 'my Hari'. But in her own mind she knows very well that they do not belong to her at all.
If you enter the world without first cultivating love for God, you will be entangled more and more. You will be overwhelmed with its danger, its grief its sorrows. And the more you think of worldly things, the more you will be attached to them.
First rub your hands with oil and then break open the jack-fruit; otherwise they will be smeared with its sticky milk. First secure the oil of divine love, and then set your hands to the duties of the world.
But one must go into solitude to attain this divine love. To get butter from milk you must let it set into curd in a secluded spot: if it is too much disturbed, milk won't turn into curd. Next, you must put aside all other duties, sit in a quiet spot, and churn the curd. Only then do you get butter.
Further, by meditating on God in solitude the mind acquires knowledge, dispassion, and devotion. But the very same mind goes downward if it dwells in the world. In the world there is only one thought: 'woman and gold'.
The world is water and the mind milk. If you pour milk into water they become one; you cannot find the pure milk any more. But turn the milk into curd and churn it into butter. Then, when that butter is placed in water, it will float. So, practice spiritual discipline in solitude and obtain the butter of knowledge and love. Even if you keep that butter in the water of the world the two will not mix. The butter will float.
Mahendranath Gupta, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Chapter 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2019 9:36:01 GMT -5
Carl was most definitely a blasphemer. But he didn't invent the blasphemy, he was a product of his cultural conditioning. Trace the cultural conditioning backward and you come to Renee, who wrote something like (this is by memory) "at some point, the serious seeker of truth has to question every belief of his that can be questioned". Okay, now I see why you like Jed and Renee despite my repeated warnings. Carl's blasphemy is quite sublime, and is a hint to anyone in the trance as to the fact of the infinite, and an inspiration to anyone who would seek God's love. I'm not familiar with what Sagan taught about God. I thought he was just an astronomer. So what exactly is Carl's blasphemy? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2019 10:28:32 GMT -5
Carl was most definitely a blasphemer. But he didn't invent the blasphemy, he was a product of his cultural conditioning. Trace the cultural conditioning backward and you come to Renee, who wrote something like (this is by memory) "at some point, the serious seeker of truth has to question every belief of his that can be questioned". Okay, now I see why you like Jed and Renee despite my repeated warnings. Carl's blasphemy is quite sublime, and is a hint to anyone in the trance as to the fact of the infinite, and an inspiration to anyone who would seek God's love. I'm not familiar with what Sagan taught about God. I thought he was just an astronomer. So what exactly is Carl's blasphemy? I can't think of Sagan as anything but an atheist (I take that to mean what laughter is saying). But I'd say the universe was in some way sacred to him...he was in awe of the universe... I think his wife was a proponent of Earth as Gaia. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2019 13:02:22 GMT -5
Carl was most definitely a blasphemer. But he didn't invent the blasphemy, he was a product of his cultural conditioning. Trace the cultural conditioning backward and you come to Renee, who wrote something like (this is by memory) "at some point, the serious seeker of truth has to question every belief of his that can be questioned". Okay, now I see why you like Jed and Renee despite my repeated warnings. Carl's blasphemy is quite sublime, and is a hint to anyone in the trance as to the fact of the infinite, and an inspiration to anyone who would seek God's love. I'm not familiar with what Sagan taught about God. I thought he was just an astronomer. So what exactly is Carl's blasphemy? Carl was an atheist, which is about as blasphemous as blasphemy gets.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2019 8:52:45 GMT -5
Carl was an atheist, which is about as blasphemous as blasphemy gets. Well, from Ramakrishna's perspective, atheism and science are just two of the most recent (or in vogue) ways of praising God, that's all. And there has to be a place for that as he explained with his different powers of digestion metaphor. And in that sense, they are also not so different form worshiping clay images, actually. |
|
