Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 .... >> >This isn't to imply he wasn't a saint. Ramakrishna was gay with >a preference for adolescent boys as well as being a very great >saint, .... Do you suppose that someone thought to be an enlightened sage can be considered a saint despite his abusing children merely because he is not personally connected to the acts, but commits them while "abiding in Self"? Or would you say that the sage is only abusing himself, or abusing illusory children, therefore criticism is specious, or that acts in samsara don't count? Can a saint not be known by his/her acts? I may be hung up in egoic illusion, but what on earth would lead me to have any regard at all for a "saint" who molested children is beyond my current understanding. Nothing, I'd say. Of course, one might say that the misery such a person brings to others might move them closer to realization as a result of disillusion with phenomena. I wouldn't see that, on balance, as sufficiently positive, but someone might. _______________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 In a message dated 12/14/01 2:15:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, jodyrrr writes: << In addition, there is the example of the current Sai Baba, who has quite a rep for endearing himself to young men. Well, ha ha, according to the accounts l read, SB didn't really *endear* himself to the young men. The ones l read about felt abused and this led to SB losing a great many disciples. This isn't to say that it is right in terms of social morality, just that it exists and has always existed, and I imagine it will continue to exist. However, if we were to hold Ramakrishna as an example of this sort, he would make at most a very mild case. According to one of his biographers, Ramakrishna really didn't act on his desires to the extent that many do, and it is quite clear that Ramakrishna struggled with his tendencies most of his adult life. >> Hey, l thought l knew the dirt on most of the saints, but l'd never heard about Ramakrishna's problems in this regard and must say l'm disappointed. Could you please provide your references (names of authors, books and publishers)? l'd like to check this out. jerrysan rinpoche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 In a message dated 12/14/01 6:05:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, harsha-hkl writes: << In any case, there are probably other forums better suited for discussions of this nature. >> Oh I hope not! And respectfully disagree, Harsha. Jody's, Bruce's and Dan's comments have been enormously helpful to me today. Right in the middle of a spiritually rapturous morning, I snapped at my husband. Contradictory moments like these drive me absolutely crazy though I know it's a waste of time trying to understand them. Being reminded of the difference between what is in time and what is out of time was a great relief. Thanks to all. Holly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 , "Gubster Bug" <gubsterbug@h...> wrote: > ... >> > >> This isn't to imply he wasn't a >> saint. Ramakrishna was gay with >> a preference for adolescent boys >> as well as being a very great saint, .... > > Do you suppose that someone thought to > be an enlightened sage can be considered > a saint despite his abusing children > merely because he is not personally > connected to the acts, but commits them > while "abiding in Self"? Nope. It has nothing to do where one is "abiding." Everyone abides in the Self at all times, regardless of what they as individuals are doing. Without the Self there is no consciousness. The Self is present for all the good and bad that human beings experience. It it no closer to or has no preference for either. > Or would you say that the sage is only > abusing himself, or abusing illusory > children, therefore criticism is > specious, or that acts in samsara don't > count? Can a saint not be known by > his/her acts? What I'm saying is that the definition of what constitutes a saint isn't based on the actual lives of the saints as much as it is peoples' ideas about their lives, and these ideas are the result of the phenomenon known as hagiography. > I may be hung up in egoic illusion, but > what on earth would lead me to have any > regard at all for a "saint" who molested > children is beyond my current > understanding. Nothing, I'd say. You are welcome to your own definition of sainthood. Ramakrishna's preference for adolescent partners is unusual only in that there are rigid societal prohibitions against it. Among men who prefer same sex partners it is more common than many would care to admit, for good reason. There are many figures in human history that have displayed this preference as well. In addition, there is the example of the current Sai Baba, who has quite a rep for endearing himself to young men. This isn't to say that it is right in terms of social morality, just that it exists and has always existed, and I imagine it will continue to exist. However, if we were to hold Ramakrishna as an example of this sort, he would make at most a very mild case. According to one of his biographers, Ramakrishna really didn't act on his desires to the extent that many do, and it is quite clear that Ramakrishna struggled with his tendencies most of his adult life. > Of course, one might say that the misery > such a person brings to others might > move them closer to realization as a > result of disillusion with phenomena. I > wouldn't see that, on balance, as > sufficiently positive, but someone might. It is presumptive to hold that such a relationship always results in misery. I understand that this is the politically correct stance on this issue, but it certainly isn't true in every case. I'm not trying to apologize for this kind of behavior, and I agree that victimization of this sort can be very damaging to both parties. I can also understand how one could easily come to the conclusion that such a person couldn't possibly be a saint. However, this relies on a set of notions about sainthood that doesn't hold up against the reality of at least some acknowledged saint's lives. The point I'm trying to make is that the expectations that are created by these whitewashes we call the "lives of the saints" fall nowhere near the actual reality of who they were as people in many cases. What a saint has come to know and what those who came after decide to believe about what s/he knew are almost never accordance with one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 Bodidharma was asked by the king, "What is the most holy truth?" Bodhidharma replied, "In this vast emptiness, what is to be called 'holy'?" sometimes translated as: "Vast emptiness, nothing holy" Echoing Krishnamurti, I wonder: Why do you look for saints to revere? They're probably more neurotic than most, and just distract you from looking clearly into "what is" ... Namaste, Dan > > ... >> > > > >> This isn't to imply he wasn't a > >> saint. Ramakrishna was gay with > >> a preference for adolescent boys > >> as well as being a very great saint, .... > > > > Do you suppose that someone thought to > > be an enlightened sage can be considered > > a saint despite his abusing children > > merely because he is not personally > > connected to the acts, but commits them > > while "abiding in Self"? > > Nope. It has nothing to do where one is > "abiding." Everyone abides in the Self > at all times, regardless of what they as > individuals are doing. Without the Self > there is no consciousness. The Self is > present for all the good and bad that > human beings experience. It it no closer > to or has no preference for either. > > > Or would you say that the sage is only > > abusing himself, or abusing illusory > > children, therefore criticism is > > specious, or that acts in samsara don't > > count? Can a saint not be known by > > his/her acts? > > What I'm saying is that the definition > of what constitutes a saint isn't based > on the actual lives of the saints as > much as it is peoples' ideas about their > lives, and these ideas are the result of > the phenomenon known as hagiography. > > > I may be hung up in egoic illusion, but > > what on earth would lead me to have any > > regard at all for a "saint" who molested > > children is beyond my current > > understanding. Nothing, I'd say. > > You are welcome to your own definition of > sainthood. > > Ramakrishna's preference for adolescent > partners is unusual only in that there > are rigid societal prohibitions against > it. Among men who prefer same sex partners > it is more common than many would care > to admit, for good reason. There are > many figures in human history that > have displayed this preference as well. > > In addition, there is the example of the > current Sai Baba, who has quite a rep > for endearing himself to young men. > > This isn't to say that it is right in > terms of social morality, just that it > exists and has always existed, and I > imagine it will continue to exist. > > However, if we were to hold Ramakrishna > as an example of this sort, he would make > at most a very mild case. According to one > of his biographers, Ramakrishna really > didn't act on his desires to the extent > that many do, and it is quite clear that > Ramakrishna struggled with his tendencies > most of his adult life. > > > Of course, one might say that the misery > > such a person brings to others might > > move them closer to realization as a > > result of disillusion with phenomena. I > > wouldn't see that, on balance, as > > sufficiently positive, but someone might. > > It is presumptive to hold that such a > relationship always results in misery. > I understand that this is the politically > correct stance on this issue, but it > certainly isn't true in every case. > > I'm not trying to apologize for this kind > of behavior, and I agree that victimization > of this sort can be very damaging to both > parties. I can also understand how one > could easily come to the conclusion that > such a person couldn't possibly be a saint. > > However, this relies on a set of notions > about sainthood that doesn't hold up against > the reality of at least some acknowledged > saint's lives. The point I'm trying to make > is that the expectations that are created by > these whitewashes we call the "lives of the > saints" fall nowhere near the actual reality > of who they were as people in many cases. > > What a saint has come to know and what those > who came after decide to believe about what s/he > knew are almost never accordance with one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 , GCWein1111@a... wrote: [snip] > Well, ha ha, according to the accounts l read, SB didn't really *endear* > himself to the young men. The ones l read about felt abused and this led to > SB losing a great many disciples. I imagine there are many who didn't feel "endeared" by Sai Baba, but doubtless there are some that do, and Sai Baba probably feels he is being endearing to them. [snip] > Hey, l thought l knew the dirt on most of the saints, but l'd never heard > about Ramakrishna's problems in this regard and must say l'm disappointed. > Could you please provide your references (names of authors, books and > publishers)? l'd like to check this out. > > jerrysan > rinpoche "Kali's Child: The Mystical and Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Sri Ramakrishna" by Jeff Kripal University of Chicago Press http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226453774/qid=1008371086/sr=1- 1/ref=sr_1_6_1/103-2790199-3234202 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 There's a biography on R. published a few years ago. You can search Amazon for it... At 05:58 PM 12/14/01 -0500, GCWein1111 wrote: > Hey, l thought l knew the dirt on most of the saints, but l'd never heard >about Ramakrishna's problems in this regard and must say l'm disappointed. >Could you please provide your references (names of authors, books and >publishers)? l'd like to check this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 jodyrrr [jodyrrr] You are welcome to your own definition of sainthood. Ramakrishna's preference for adolescent partners is unusual only in that there are rigid societal prohibitions against it. ************************** Hi Jody, I have not read the book you cited and am not familiar with this at all. I read Ramakrishna's Gospel when I was very young and it records Ramakrishna's words and behavior accurately I believe. For those who are not familiar with the Indian culture of 1800s and 1900s (and even now), it is easy to misinterpret behavior among men if looking at it from a western perspective. It was not uncommon in India, when I was growing up for boys or men (who were good friends) to hold hands when walking or even show affection by hugging or caressing hair. It did not imply anything at all! Nothing that I read in Ramakrishna's gospel would lead me to the same conclusion that it evidently has led this other scholar. In any case, there are probably other forums better suited for discussions of this nature. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 , "Harsha" <harsha-hkl@h...> wrote: > > jodyrrr [jodyrrr@h...] > > You are welcome to your own definition of > sainthood. > > Ramakrishna's preference for adolescent > partners is unusual only in that there > are rigid societal prohibitions against > it. > ************************** > Hi Jody, > > I have not read the book you cited and > am not familiar with this at all. > > I read Ramakrishna's Gospel when I was > very young and it records Ramakrishna's > words and behavior accurately I believe. > For those who are not familiar with the > Indian culture of 1800s and 1900s (and > even now), it is easy to misinterpret > behavior among men if looking at it from > a western perspective. > > It was not uncommon in India, when I was > growing up for boys or men (who were > good friends) to hold hands when walking > or even show affection by hugging or > caressing hair. It did not imply > anything at all! Nothing that I read in > Ramakrishna's gospel would lead me to > the same conclusion that it evidently > has led this other scholar. > > In any case, there are probably other > forums better suited for discussions of > this nature. > > Love to all Harsha Hi Harsha. I understand completely the reluctance to see the life of a great saint reflected in the context of a disagreeable sexual preference. However, until you have read the book, you do not have the complete picture. Kripal makes his case not on a Westerner's misunderstanding of Indian male affection, but on a rereading of the Gospel in the original Bengali. Nikhilananda left out a number of passages in his translation that very clearly indicate Ramakrishna's tendencies. Kripal's book has garnered much admiration in the Academy of Religious Studies, and it has made the study of Ramakrishna much more prevalent in the religious studies community. My point in bringing this up is to illustrate the fact that Self realization does not result in cookie-cutter sainthood, and that the actual lives of the saints can be quite different from the traditional rendering of them. As such, I believe it to be entirely on topic here. In fact, I believe it to be vitally important that people understand that the great saints are just as human as the rest of us. Despite the disagreeable nature of the illustration, the story of Ramakrishna makes this case. However, it is not my intention to create discord on the list, so I'll leave it to you to censor my activity as you see fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 Hbarrett47 [Hbarrett47] Friday, December 14, 2001 9:30 PM Re: Re: Digest Number 1514 In a message dated 12/14/01 6:05:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, harsha-hkl writes: << In any case, there are probably other forums better suited for discussions of this nature. >> Oh I hope not! And respectfully disagree, Harsha. Jody's, Bruce's and Dan's comments have been enormously helpful to me today. Right in the middle of a spiritually rapturous morning, I snapped at my husband. Contradictory moments like these drive me absolutely crazy though I know it's a waste of time trying to understand them. Being reminded of the difference between what is in time and what is out of time was a great relief. Thanks to all. Holly ********************************** Thanks Holly. Glad to serve! OK Guys! Go at it one more time! :-). Love Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2001 Report Share Posted December 15, 2001 In a message dated 12/14/01 5:33:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, jodyrrr writes: << My point in bringing this up is to illustrate the fact that Self realization does not result in cookie-cutter sainthood, and that the actual lives of the saints can be quite different from the traditional rendering of them. True enough. They CAN be quite different. As such, I believe it to be entirely on topic here. In fact, I believe it to be vitally important that people understand that the great saints are just as human as the rest of us. Despite the disagreeable nature of the illustration, the story of Ramakrishna makes this case. >> Hmmm .... l'm not so sure about this. l feel uncomfortable with a statement that lumps "the great saints" into one category, both in terms of who they are and how human they supposedly are in the lives they led (or lead). lt's awfully hard to deny the demands and limitations of the human body/mind, but l'd like to think that truly great saints have evolved to an uncommon degree in transcending these limitations -- in being free. lndeed, if they haven't, l think we have to question their greatness as a saint, or whether they in fact even qualify as a saint at all. l would like to believe that a great saint such as Ramana was NOT as "human as the rest of us" in the way he related to fear, grasping, anger, guilt,etc -- what we think of as "human" frailties -- and in possessing a transcendent wisdom that would inform his daily thoughts and actions. l'm not necessarily drawing a bold line of demarcation between "us" and "them" -- we may each have that potential -- but rather am referring to what l feel is the essence of sainthood. A being such as Ramakrishna, even if he had the tendency to which you have referred, could perhaps still have been a great saint if he approached this affliction with the highest degree of honesty (with himself and others) and consideration for all involved. This, as l understand it, is not the case with Sai Baba, whose conduct as a whole has been fraudulent, self aggrandizing and abusive. jerrysan rinpoche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2001 Report Share Posted December 15, 2001 In a message dated 12/14/01 3:10:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, jodyrrr writes: << "Kali's Child: The Mystical and Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Sri Ramakrishna" by Jeff Kripal University of Chicago Press >> Thank you, Jody. l'll look forward to reading this. jerrysan rinpoche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2001 Report Share Posted December 15, 2001 > ... Jody's, Bruce's and Dan's > comments have been enormously helpful to me today. Right in the middle of a > spiritually rapturous morning, I snapped at my husband. Contradictory > moments like these drive me absolutely crazy though I know it's a waste of > time trying to understand them. Yah - trying too hard to understand a moment like that, just makes for another moment that is hard to understand :-) Being reminded of the difference between > what is in time and what is out of time was a great relief. Thanks to all. And thanks for your reminder, it came just in time ... Out of time, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2001 Report Share Posted December 15, 2001 , Hbarrett47@a... wrote: > Right in the middle of a spiritually rapturous morning, I snapped > at my husband. Contradictory moments like these drive me > absolutely crazy though I know it's a waste of time trying to > understand them. Dear Holly, He's your husband. That's your job. David (snap dragon) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2001 Report Share Posted December 15, 2001 , GCWein1111@a... wrote: > l would like to believe that a great saint such as Ramana was NOT as "human > as the rest of us" in the way he related to fear, grasping, anger, guilt,etc > -- what we think of as "human" frailties -- and in possessing a transcendent > wisdom that would inform his daily thoughts and actions. I would like to believe that there is a Santa Clause. A wise man once said, I forget who, oh yes it was me, "Show me a hero and I'll show you a myth." David (mythological) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2001 Report Share Posted December 16, 2001 In a message dated 12/15/01 1:38:59 PM Mountain Standard Time, david.bozzi writes: << He's your husband. That's your job. >> This made me laugh out loud! Actually, I don't think my husband would disagree with you. Thanks, David. Love, Holly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.