Was Ramakrishna a jIvan-mukta?

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "profvk" <profvk> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Readers would also agree, I hope, that Ramakrishna also fits in

> with the detailed description (posted by me earlier) of a jIvan-

> mukta given by Sankara in his viveka-cUDAmaNi .

>

> praNAms to all advaitins.

> Profvk

 

Let me preface this statement and assure all that I believe

Ramakrishna to be one of the greatest saints of the modern era.

That said, here is an excerpt from your post:

 

No recollection of the past, no thinking of the

future, and indifference to the present because of

non-attachment - these are the qualities of this

jIvan-mukta.

 

Ramakrishna clearly had a recollection of the past, as he

told many stories of his youth and sadhana. There were times

when he was concerned that people were getting the wrong idea

about him. He was also clearly anguished when Vivekananda,

(then known as Narendra), didn't come around to see him.

 

I'm not denying Ramakrishna's status as an Incarnation or

Jivanmukti. The point I'm trying to make is that even

Jivanmuktis are human, and they behave as all humans do.

 

This isn't to deny Sankara either, just to state that there

are exceptions to every rule. Most importantly though, is

the fact that when we take a human body, we must accept the

frailties it brings. Everyone in a body, dacoit or saint,

is subject to the human condition.

 

--jody.

 

[snip]

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Jodi:

 

We always find our intellect to be the greatest

resource for learning and understanding. But intellect

also has great potential for creating

misunderstandings and misinterpretations. One of the

advantages of being a member of any spiritual mailing

list such as advaitin is the opportunity to get

corrected when the intellect becomes astray. We are

also quite fortunate to get those friendly warnings

from the fellow members when we misunderstand Advaitic

terminology. The ongoing discussion on the

terminology of Jivanmukta is an excellent example to

illustrate the advantages and pitfalls of the human

instrument known as intellect.

 

Now let us focus back to the question, whether

Ramakrishna is a Jivanmukta according to the advaitic

terminology spelled out by Gita Chapter 2 and also by

the learned members of the list - Sadanandaji and

ProfVK. The answer is yes, yes and yes provided we

agree to subdue our intellect. We should forgo legal

analysis and instead should find a spiritual solution

through contemplation. Let me explain what I mean.

 

Profvk states:

 

"No recollection of the past, no thinking of the

future, and indifference to the present because of

non-attachment - these are the qualities of this

jIvan-mukta."

 

You have stated:

 

"Ramakrishna clearly had a recollection of the past,

as he told many stories of his youth and sadhana.

There

were times when he was concerned that people were

getting the wrong idea about him. He was also clearly

anguished when Vivekananda, (then known as Narendra),

didn't come around to see him."

 

All you have stated is your perception or the

perception of others (just like a lawyer in a court)

about Ramakrishna. Also it is your perception that

Ramakrishna did not meet the guidelines stated by

Profvk. We all know that 'Truth' is beyond our

perception. We should conduct more enquiries before

jumping into conclusions. In all probability such

enquiries will never end!

 

For example, "Recollection of the past" should not be

literally interpreted to mean that a Jivanmukta is

forbidden to tell stories of the past. The statement

is quite subtle and it refers to attachment to the

past. Ramakrishna was quite detached while telling

stories.

 

Conclusions:

My discussion also fall into the category of legal

argument and my apologies for taking this route. It

just shows my limitation!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ram Chandran <ramvchandran> wrote:

> Hari Om Jodi:

 

[snip]

> Now let us focus back to the question, whether

> Ramakrishna is a Jivanmukta according to the advaitic

> terminology spelled out by Gita Chapter 2 and also by

> the learned members of the list - Sadanandaji and

> ProfVK. The answer is yes, yes and yes provided we

> agree to subdue our intellect. We should forgo legal

> analysis and instead should find a spiritual solution

> through contemplation. Let me explain what I mean.

 

Ramakrishna *never* told Vivekananda to subdue anything.

He allowed Narendra to bring the full force of his intellect

to bear on whatever Narendra cared to bear it on. On

many occasions, it was Ramakrishna himself who bore the

brunt of Vivekananda's legal-like inquiry.

 

So, I disagree wholeheartedly with the statement we should

subdue the intellect. I think Sankara would say the same

thing. That is, Sankara never suggested that we subdue

our intellect. In fact, the whole enterprise of discrimination

is dependent on it.

> Profvk states:

>

> "No recollection of the past, no thinking of the

> future, and indifference to the present because of

> non-attachment - these are the qualities of this

> jIvan-mukta."

>

> You have stated:

>

> "Ramakrishna clearly had a recollection of the past,

> as he told many stories of his youth and sadhana.

> There

> were times when he was concerned that people were

> getting the wrong idea about him. He was also clearly

> anguished when Vivekananda, (then known as Narendra),

> didn't come around to see him."

>

> All you have stated is your perception or the

> perception of others (just like a lawyer in a court)

> about Ramakrishna. Also it is your perception that

> Ramakrishna did not meet the guidelines stated by

> Profvk. We all know that 'Truth' is beyond our

> perception. We should conduct more enquiries before

> jumping into conclusions. In all probability such

> enquiries will never end!

 

Truth is not beyond perception. It is directly

perceived in those blessed with Self realization. In

fact, Truth exists *as* a perception for those so

blessed.

 

I will agree however, that it is merely my *opinion*

that Ramakrishna didn't meet the requirements Sankara

provided by way of Profvk. Let me restate that I believe

Ramakrishna to be a Jivanmukti, but I also maintain

that there are no hard, fast rules that fit every case.

Ramakrishna illustrates this beautifully.

> For example, "Recollection of the past" should not be

> literally interpreted to mean that a Jivanmukta is

> forbidden to tell stories of the past. The statement

> is quite subtle and it refers to attachment to the

> past. Ramakrishna was quite detached while telling

> stories.

 

Fair enough. Your interpretation is adequate. I would

counter that "recollection of the past" is exactly the

act of telling stories. There is nothing forbidden

a Jivanmukta. In fact, he/she can do whatever they want.

To be a Jivanmukta implies *total* and *complete* freedom,

hence the expectation that they may behave like madmen

at times.

 

Again, the point is simple. Jivanmuktas come in all

shapes and sizes. They are as individual in terms of

their individual existences, as snowflakes are. That is,

you will always find exceptions to the rule, and you can

always expect your Jivanmuktas to be quite human.

> Conclusions:

> My discussion also fall into the category of legal

> argument and my apologies for taking this route. It

> just shows my limitation!

>

> regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

 

There is an ancient tradition in India known as punditry.

That's all we are doing here. We have chosen positions based

on personal belief and conviction and we are defending them.

It happens in Advaitic ashrams all over India. There is

nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion, and as you pointed

out above, I will be the beneficiary more than anyone else

when my arguments are shown to be incorrect.

 

Thanks for sticking with this Ram.

 

Take care.

 

--jody.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, jody wrote:

> advaitin , Ram Chandran <ramvchandran> wrote:

> > Hari Om Jodi:

>

> [snip]

>

> > Now let us focus back to the question, whether

> > Ramakrishna is a Jivanmukta according to the advaitic

> > terminology spelled out by Gita Chapter 2 and also by

> > the learned members of the list - Sadanandaji and

> > ProfVK. The answer is yes, yes and yes provided we

> > agree to subdue our intellect. We should forgo legal

> > analysis and instead should find a spiritual solution

> > through contemplation. Let me explain what I mean.

>

> Ramakrishna *never* told Vivekananda to subdue anything.

> He allowed Narendra to bring the full force of his intellect

> to bear on whatever Narendra cared to bear it on. On

> many occasions, it was Ramakrishna himself who bore the

> brunt of Vivekananda's legal-like inquiry.

>

> So, I disagree wholeheartedly with the statement we should

> subdue the intellect. I think Sankara would say the same

> thing. That is, Sankara never suggested that we subdue

> our intellect. In fact, the whole enterprise of discrimination

> is dependent on it.

 

 

True Jody i too feel that its through our intellect that we realise that

'not this' 'not this'. But i guess its not our intellect which urges us to

say 'not this' 'not this'. Its some pious feeling within us which tells

us that it can't be true, this doesn't make sense. and its our own self

which tells us 'not this' 'not this'. Only that which IS can say 'not

this' 'not this'.

 

 

Intution or thoughts are the projections on to self itself.

 

 

But we have possessiveness, lust, shortcomings, anger and ego in us. And

there is always a chance that our decision will get coloured by these

that's why we can't trust our intellect.

 

Lets ask our self do i have a thought of possessing something, do i have

lust, why is there anger in me. And any of these are there in me then my

decisions will always be coloured by these.

 

>

> > Profvk states:

> >

> > "No recollection of the past, no thinking of the

> > future, and indifference to the present because of

> > non-attachment - these are the qualities of this

> > jIvan-mukta."

> >

> > You have stated:

> >

> > "Ramakrishna clearly had a recollection of the past,

> > as he told many stories of his youth and sadhana.

> > There

> > were times when he was concerned that people were

> > getting the wrong idea about him. He was also clearly

> > anguished when Vivekananda, (then known as Narendra),

> > didn't come around to see him."

> >

> > All you have stated is your perception or the

> > perception of others (just like a lawyer in a court)

> > about Ramakrishna. Also it is your perception that

> > Ramakrishna did not meet the guidelines stated by

> > Profvk. We all know that 'Truth' is beyond our

> > perception. We should conduct more enquiries before

> > jumping into conclusions. In all probability such

> > enquiries will never end!

>

> Truth is not beyond perception. It is directly

> perceived in those blessed with Self realization. In

> fact, Truth exists *as* a perception for those so

> blessed.

>

> I will agree however, that it is merely my *opinion*

> that Ramakrishna didn't meet the requirements Sankara

> provided by way of Profvk. Let me restate that I believe

> Ramakrishna to be a Jivanmukti, but I also maintain

> that there are no hard, fast rules that fit every case.

> Ramakrishna illustrates this beautifully.

>

 

 

> > For example, "Recollection of the past" should not be

> > literally interpreted to mean that a Jivanmukta is

> > forbidden to tell stories of the past. The statement

> > is quite subtle and it refers to attachment to the

> > past. Ramakrishna was quite detached while telling

> > stories.

>

> Fair enough. Your interpretation is adequate. I would

> counter that "recollection of the past" is exactly the

> act of telling stories. There is nothing forbidden

> a Jivanmukta. In fact, he/she can do whatever they want.

> To be a Jivanmukta implies *total* and *complete* freedom,

> hence the expectation that they may behave like madmen

> at times.

>

> Again, the point is simple. Jivanmuktas come in all

> shapes and sizes. They are as individual in terms of

> their individual existences, as snowflakes are. That is,

> you will always find exceptions to the rule, and you can

> always expect your Jivanmuktas to be quite human.

 

 

Jody recently i heard one story. Let me share it with you. Once a teacher

and student were heading towards a bank of river. A woman approaches them

and asks if they can help her in crossing the river. Teacher lets her sit

on his shoulders and all of them start crossing the river. All this time

disciple was very much perturbed what is master doing. He is not supposed

to even touch a woman and here he taking her across the river on his

shoulders. When they reached the other side of the river. Master leaves

the woman on the bank and boith teacher and student start heading towards

their destination. Student was still very much perturbed. When he could

hold no more he asked the teacher that master you are supossed to touch a

woman and here you took her across the river on your shoulders. Master

said laughinlgly i left the woman on the bank of river and you are still

carrying her.

 

 

Let me share some quotes of Pujya Gurudev.

 

 

If we assume that life is like a cinema where we have come after having

bought a ticket, we shall find that everything around is going on like a

movie. But one has to keep in mind that one is here only for one show and

one has to go back. This is the feeling of unattachment.

 

 

 

Unattachment also does not mean that one becomes feelingless to the

sorrows and pains of others. This is not spiritualism. Spiritualism means

experiencing the omnipresence of the soul. Then no one can be a stranger,

and if someone is in pain, one too feels the pain. This is actual

spiritualism.

 

 

Religion is forced upon you when you are born and that is why

you are a Hindu, muslim or a christian. But spiritualism cannot be forced

upon anyone. Spiritualism is the complete flowering of life. It happens

when one becomes free of anger and egotism.

 

 

And anger and egotism can go only through total devotion. But

devotion cannot be instilled from outside. From the outside only hypocrisy

can come.

 

>

> > Conclusions:

> > My discussion also fall into the category of legal

> > argument and my apologies for taking this route. It

> > just shows my limitation!

> >

> > regards,

> >

> > Ram Chandran

>

> There is an ancient tradition in India known as punditry.

> That's all we are doing here. We have chosen positions based

> on personal belief and conviction and we are defending them.

> It happens in Advaitic ashrams all over India. There is

> nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion, and as you pointed

> out above, I will be the beneficiary more than anyone else

> when my arguments are shown to be incorrect.

>

> Thanks for sticking with this Ram.

>

> Take care.

>

> --jody.

>

 

 

Jody i fully agree with the thoughts of Sadanandaji on evaluation of

Spiritual Giants. Pujya Guurdev too have said the same about judging a

Guru. If a disciple can judge or know a Guru then disciple no more remains

a disciple for then he himself will become a Guru.

 

 

love,

Anurag

[Guest guest]

advaitin , <anurag@s...> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Lets ask our self do i have a thought of possessing something, do i

have

> lust, why is there anger in me. And any of these are there in me

then my

> decisions will always be coloured by these.

 

Again, not to deny Ramakrishna's status as an Jivanmukta, but he

displayed anger on more than one occasion.

 

[snip]

> Jody recently i heard one story. Let me share it with you. Once a

teacher

> and student were heading towards a bank of river. A woman

approaches them

> and asks if they can help her in crossing the river. Teacher lets

her sit

> on his shoulders and all of them start crossing the river. All this

time

> disciple was very much perturbed what is master doing. He is not

supposed

> to even touch a woman and here he taking her across the river on his

> shoulders. When they reached the other side of the river. Master

leaves

> the woman on the bank and boith teacher and student start heading

towards

> their destination. Student was still very much perturbed. When he

could

> hold no more he asked the teacher that master you are supossed to

touch a

> woman and here you took her across the river on your shoulders.

Master

> said laughinlgly i left the woman on the bank of river and you are

still

> carrying her.

 

I would never question my guru doing whatever he wants with whomever,

and he's a swami. That is, I believe my guru to be fully capable of

making whatever decision he wants to, including a decision

to renounce being a swami and becoming a householder. This would

not affect my love and admiration for him in the slightest.

 

The story illustrates that the devotee shouldn't have expectations

about the behavior of his guru, not necessarily that he is incapable

of questioning or understanding his guru. At least that is my take.

 

[snip]

> Jody i fully agree with the thoughts of Sadanandaji on evaluation of

> Spiritual Giants. Pujya Guurdev too have said the same about

judging a

> Guru. If a disciple can judge or know a Guru then disciple no more

remains

> a disciple for then he himself will become a Guru.

>

>

> love,

> Anurag

 

I appreciate your sentiment Anurag. However, Ramakrishna welcomed

all to test him. I'd fall on that side of the issue. Look at how

rigorously Vivekananda questioned him, even to the point of open

ridicule. Ramakrishna had no problem with it, in fact he joined

in on the fun of it. Vivekananda became convinced of Ramakrishna's

authenticity not because Ramakrishna said he was above a critical

analysis, but because Ramakrishna withstood the critique, all the

while expressing his divinity for all to see, and such experiential

evidence was beyond reproach.

 

--jody.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, jody wrote:

> advaitin , <anurag@s...> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > Lets ask our self do i have a thought of possessing something, do i

> have

> > lust, why is there anger in me. And any of these are there in me

> then my

> > decisions will always be coloured by these.

>

> Again, not to deny Ramakrishna's status as an Jivanmukta, but he

> displayed anger on more than one occasion.

 

 

I guess some time back there was posting by Ram Chandraji (if i

remember it correctly) about anger. Displaying the positive teaching

aspects of anger and telling when can anger be positive.

 

 

One can get angry in order to protect Dharma. One is not getting angry

because one has been violated. Rather it for others that one is doing it.

Getting Angry to protect ones Ego is wrong.

 

 

Anything does in favour of Dharma is right and brings one closer to Atmaa.

 

 

I read a quote some time back which said that -

 

As such everyone has the quality of getting angry but few know when,

why, how and in what amount.

 

>

> [snip]

>

> > Jody recently i heard one story. Let me share it with you. Once a

> teacher

> > and student were heading towards a bank of river. A woman

> approaches them

> > and asks if they can help her in crossing the river. Teacher lets

> her sit

> > on his shoulders and all of them start crossing the river. All this

> time

> > disciple was very much perturbed what is master doing. He is not

> supposed

> > to even touch a woman and here he taking her across the river on his

> > shoulders. When they reached the other side of the river. Master

> leaves

> > the woman on the bank and boith teacher and student start heading

> towards

> > their destination. Student was still very much perturbed. When he

> could

> > hold no more he asked the teacher that master you are supossed to

> touch a

> > woman and here you took her across the river on your shoulders.

> Master

> > said laughinlgly i left the woman on the bank of river and you are

> still

> > carrying her.

>

> I would never question my guru doing whatever he wants with whomever,

> and he's a swami. That is, I believe my guru to be fully capable of

> making whatever decision he wants to, including a decision

> to renounce being a swami and becoming a householder. This would

> not affect my love and admiration for him in the slightest.

>

 

 

Your unconditional love is held high.

 

> The story illustrates that the devotee shouldn't have expectations

> about the behavior of his guru, not necessarily that he is incapable

> of questioning or understanding his guru. At least that is my take.

 

 

Yes it one sense did say what you said about expectation of behaviour.

He can question. He can try to understand but not judge for he is still a

disciple. The main emphasis of the story was to show who carries the

past and in what sense. It emphasized what does carrying of past mean.

 

 

>

> [snip]

>

> > Jody i fully agree with the thoughts of Sadanandaji on evaluation of

> > Spiritual Giants. Pujya Guurdev too have said the same about

> judging a

> > Guru. If a disciple can judge or know a Guru then disciple no more

> remains

> > a disciple for then he himself will become a Guru.

> >

> >

> > love,

> > Anurag

>

> I appreciate your sentiment Anurag. However, Ramakrishna welcomed

> all to test him. I'd fall on that side of the issue. Look at how

> rigorously Vivekananda questioned him, even to the point of open

> ridicule. Ramakrishna had no problem with it, in fact he joined

> in on the fun of it. Vivekananda became convinced of Ramakrishna's

> authenticity not because Ramakrishna said he was above a critical

> analysis, but because Ramakrishna withstood the critique, all the

> while expressing his divinity for all to see, and such experiential

> evidence was beyond reproach.

>

> --jody.

 

 

A Guru can only advise his student. If the disciple wants to test him he

is always available for that and Guru is never against it. His only

purpose is to make him learn soon. But then disciple too will have to go

through the examination .

 

 

After Swami Vivekananda has tested him he surrendered completely in to the

feet of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa.

 

 

love,

Anurag