Neo-Hinduism - What Is It?

[sant]

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>In 1861, Bhairavi Brahmani, an orange robed, middle-aged female ascetic appeared at Dakshineshwar. She carried with her the Raghuvir Shila, a stone icon representing Ram and all Vaishnava deities. She was throughly conversant with the texts of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and practiced Tantra. According to the Bhairavi, Ramakrishna was experiencing phenomena that accompany mahabhava—the supreme attitude of loving devotion towards the divine and quoting from the bhakti shastras, she said that other religious figures like Radha and Chaitanya had similar experiences. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

my be shakt nonsense again.

Just like brahma vishnu mahesh turning into women.

to your information tantrics are sahajiyas right so they have sex and do raas just like shiv shakti practices.This is not even vedic.

I dont think you shakts or ramakrishna valued krishna bhakti.

In his opinion he equated demidoddes kali with brahman

ive already

told his bhakti which he did to remove sexual thoughts.The highest form of prema to krishna was to be done to remove sexual thoughts.His bhakti-

3 days he served ram like hanuman then ram merged into him, practised islam mohamed merged into him,etc. you know all this. something might have been written wrong about him maybe some tantrics may have written something false..tantrics and sahajis their ways are not very good.

[raghu]

 

You are wrong. Sri Ramakrishna is considered an Avatar of Vishnu. Rama and Krishna combined. Maa Bhairavi Brahmani convened a meeting of Pundits to prove that Sri Ramkrishna was an avatar.

 

Quotes from Wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna

 

 

If Swaminarayan can worshiped in Swaminarayan temples why not Sri Ramakrishna?

 

It seems that most sampradayas have an "avatar" of someone. However, it is in the Neo-Hinduism schools in which the guru's "avatar" status is used as proof of his teachings, i.e. once he is declared an avatar by popular vote, his teachings do not need to be scrutinized according to teachings of shastra.

 

 

The term Sanatana Dharma has been used by different organizations to mean different things. And many people claim that Chiristianity, Islam and Judaism are part of Sanatana Dharma.

 

Not "many people." These unscholarly assertions of Radical Universalism are characteristics of Neo-Hinduism.

 

 

The Ramakrishna Movement is based on the principle of spreading Vedanta, the essence of Hinduism. Upanishidic Hinduism.

 

Ramakrishna Movement actually has little if anything to do with Vedanta. Certainly they invoke Vedantic concepts to lend their philosopy an air of legitimacy, but in the Ramakrishna Movement we do not find the rigorous tradition of Vedantic inquiry that is found in classical Vedanta schools. More to the point, the Ramakrishna people do not have their own commentary on Vedanta-sutra, which makes it hard to consider them as Vedantins. When it comes to Vedantic commentaries, they tend to publish commentaries of Sri Sankaracarya and to a lesser extent Sri Ramanuja, although they do not have a parampara link to either.

 

 

We are all aware that Hinduism based on Upanishads is different from the Puranic Hinduism. Since the Upanishads are part of the Vedas, this Hinduism has equal if not more Vedic authority than the Puranas/Itihasas.

 

I'm not exactly sure what this means. Scholars like Madhva and Ramanuja have based their philosopy on Upanishads, and have quoted from Puranas to the extent that they are consistent with shrutis. Even Sri Sankaracharya has done this. So far, I'm not really clear on who you are referring to by the term "Puranic Hinduism" beyond the general reference to "Shaivas, Shaktas, Vaishnavas." But there are Vaishnavas who do have a rigorous Vedantic tradition just as I am sure there are some Shaivas (Kashmir Vishishtadvaitic Shaivism?) who do as well. These thinkers have more right to call themselves followers of "Vedic Hinduism" than anyone here.

 

It's easy to decry Puranas and "Puranic Hinduism" based on comments made in academic literature or by Neo-Vedantins, but when these pronouncements come from people who do not themselves study Vedanta/Vedas/etc it is hard to take them too seriously.

 

regards,

 

Raghu

[sant]

 

i never said its not tantra . its a deformed and corrupted version of tantra ! just like sahajiya is a corrpted version of vaisnavism .

 

no did ramakrishna say this you only are saying this.

Sahjiya is not vaishnavism,serving the lord is not copying him and doing raaas lila.The definition of vaishnav is given in puraans as i can remeber it means one who serves the lord.

[krishnaleela]

 

krishnaleela you have not yet answered what is your defination of avataar .

 

what are the key determining points of avataar ?

 

 

 

I don’t know. If we place faith in the puranas, then we know of Vishnu’s avatars for example.

 

Personally, I am not supporting any attempt at propagating guru-personalities as deities, avatars, etc. by any Hindu organization (including the earlier ones that are usually better in this regard). It should be entirely within the sampradaya, and never part of its attempt at reaching the general public. Personalities of the puranas are a different matter – they entered the Indian psyche in an earlier era, without the backing of sanghas, missions, organizations, etc. This distinction should not be muddled with “What is your definition of avatar?” since the process of determining such is entirely subjective or faith-based on others doing it.

 

When modern Hindu organizations do this with their gurus, they run into the dangers, similar to Christianity. It depends on the checks and balances. I pointed out how the traditions of Shankaracharya, Madhva, Ramanuja, etc. did this. The personality is presented as upholder o f the Vedic dharma, rightly interpreting the Upanishads – which they do with systematic commentaries and not “my guru knows it all himself” (raghu points this out). Moreover they are not presented as the central objects of worship – this is another critical point. Only those who actually follow that sampradaya are confronted with the potential need of regarding the guru as avatar.

 

Organizations like of Swaminarayan, Chaitanya and Sri Ramakrishna propagate their guru as avatar to the general public. This is the critical moving-away from previously held standards. (I wish this is not the case, but that does not matter). Now we have to ask, to what extent are there still checks and balances? From my own perspective, I feel a bit secure with Swaminarayan since they strongly identify themselves as a Hindu and Indian organization – that is not compromised in some universalist lingo. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas, as I understand, are thorough as far as being a Vedantic tradition – so the tradition can strictly speaking be evaluated against others on the basis of what they say of SCRIPTURES. (Of course, I get scared by the attempts at some corners to separate themselves from Hinduism; but let that be). Moreover, I already mentioned that saying “my guru is incarnation of the personal God Krishna” is a very strong link with Hinduism (again leaving out the "some corners").

 

With Ramakrishna Math, I feel these checks and balances are not there. My article was an attempt at focusing on how these organizations are running into dangers.

[chandu_69]

 

. Moreover they are not presented as the central objects of worship – this is another critical point. Only those who actually follow that sampradaya are confronted with the potential need of regarding the guru as avatar.

 

Organizations like of Swaminarayan, Chaitanya and Sri Ramakrishna propagate their guru as avatar to the general public. This is the critical moving-away from previously held standards. (I wish this is not the case, but that does not matter).

 

This is THE critical point.

[sambya]

 

Personalities of the puranas are a different matter – they entered the Indian psyche in an earlier era, without the backing of sanghas, missions, organizations, etc.

 

just because they entered earlier doesnt make them valid . and there might not have been any backing of religous institutions of modern type , but surely there was extensive backing by his followers , mutts , sanghas , emperors , kings and preachers . the backing was always there . the source of this backing have changed .

 

take chaintanya for example . in charitamrita , krishnadas repeatedly warns the dangers of not believing in avatarhood of mahaprabhu . this is clear backing by followers ( although i believe in mahaprabhu's avatarhood).

 

 

since the process of determining such is entirely subjective or faith-based

 

to this i agree......

 

 

Organizations like of Swaminarayan, Chaitanya and Sri Ramakrishna propagate their guru as avatar to the general public. This is the critical moving-away from previously held standards.

 

does that mean you dont support this claim of gaudiya's of chaitanya being god ?

 

 

The Gaudiya Vaishnavas, as I understand, are thorough as far as being a Vedantic tradition – so the tradition can strictly speaking be evaluated against others on the basis of what they say of SCRIPTURES. (Of course, I get scared by the attempts at some corners to separate themselves from Hinduism; but let that be)

 

gaudiya vaishnavas are in fact less vedantic than ramakrishna mission . though im not saying this to defend any organisation . because an organisation has nothing to do with spirituality or its upkeep . but im just showing you the misconceptions . inspite of using sweet terms like bhaktivedanta and stuff gaudiya vaishnva is more puranic than vedantic . at least i have never heard of brahmasutra being teached or preached anywhere in gaudiya world or mayapur till date . all over their preachings they use the word vaishnvas to decribe themselves . they would never ever use the word hindu . in fact there is clear doubt and unwillingness to use the second word!

 

ramakrishnamission on other hand lays stress on this monistic explanation of vedanta of sankaracharya and identify themselves as hindu as well . obviously they do have a greater attraction for advaitic version of hinduism . they celebrate shivaratri , durgapuja ,kalipuja, holi , jannashtami , ramnavami etc . every ekadsi day is observed with elaborate ramnaam sankirtan . only at one point of time they did try to break away from the hindu tag and get themselves a minority status tag from court of law . this was when the newly formed communist government in bengal tried to transfer all the existing schools and properties of this institution in its name . a minority status would protect them from this danger . however the court rejected their plea and ruled them pure hindu and this property grab was rejected for the fear of public resentment .

 

and they always use the word hindu while preaching or describing about themseves !!

 

 

 

 

With Ramakrishna Math, I feel these checks and balances are not there. My article was an attempt at focusing on how these organizations are running into dangers.

 

"phalena parichiyate "- you know me by the fruits i shall bear , said the tree when asked what tree it was !

 

its been more than 100 years and ramakrishna mission is still intact without scandals , gossips , falldowns , bla bla bla ( the list is long) and stuff like that .

 

 

what about chaitanya mahaprabhu . he expressedly said that he is an ordinary jiva and yet his followers deified him even during his lifetime and preache his glories ? what do you think of that ? does gaudiyas face a danger ? dont come up with puranic 'proofs' to proove his avatarhood , they were additions of course !

 

there is lot of problem in determining avatar . if puranas are the only source then what about the later day interpolations ? im not saying that every guru out there is an avatar . but can you say that such and such person is the last avatar ? that would be denial of the famous gita verse . does glani of dharma not exist today ? or can it not exist in future ?

[sambya]

raghu , my answers ??

[krishnaleela]

 

just because they entered earlier doesnt make them valid . and there might not have been any backing of religous institutions of modern type , but surely there was extensive backing by his followers , mutts , sanghas , emperors , kings and preachers . the backing was always there . the source of this backing have changed .

 

 

 

take chaintanya for example . in charitamrita , krishnadas repeatedly warns the dangers of not believing in avatarhood of mahaprabhu . this is clear backing by followers ( although i believe in mahaprabhu's avatarhood).

 

 

I am not saying they are valid as avataaras. We don't know the exact process of how the names of Rama, Krishna, etc spread (until more recent times); likely there was backing from kings etc but "surely" is not knowledge. In particular, the Sangha aspect, I think, has historical evidence only starting with Buddha. Our process had occurred in a different era, and any reference to the personalities including their avatarahood has to be based on faith in Hindu smrithis.

 

In the recent cases of Chaitanya, this means faith in Krishnadas and with Sri Ramakrishna, faith in Bhairavi Brahmani as well as suggestions of the saint himself. It does not matter that I agree or not with Chaitanya being an avataar; it will amount to faith in testimony.

 

My focus is entirely about the appropriateness for their organizations to propagate this aspect; and the impact of this trend on Hinduism. Before Chaitanya (notably), this faith aspect in the Guru's avatarahood (and him/her being the organization's object of worship) was not pushed by any of the known 'Vedanta-sanghas' in this specific manner. Now we are finding a wide variety of sanghas seeking to do so. I already said that I do not support this aspect, independent of which organization is doing so, and that this should be a private aspect within the organization.

 

The problem is: when one does it, why not everyone else? If the Gaudiyas do so, why not RKM, SaiBaba, and so on? I am not particular about defending the Gaudiyas; but I focus on the latter group which is more recent in origin and in which the process is much more in development and application stage. I am not questioning their calibre as monastic organizations nor their adherence to Vedanta (cancel my suggestions to that effect; that is a secondary issue here). It is because the RKM is strong that I want them to ask "Is this direction necessary?" Must they combine their Vedanta with an avataara theory, that justifies propagating their guru as central deity? Can they not follow the precedent of the earlier Vedanta-sanghas - why are they working hard to create this guru-centralizing character in the devotional context of their sampradaya - that is fast becoming a central aspect in 'every' sprouting Hindu organization preaching universalist-vedanta? It is a double game that is difficult to assail for the flawed side always is brushed aside by pointing to the other.

 

By the way, here is what a monk of the Order told me sometime back:

 

 

In our view Sri Ramakrishna is the Yuga-avatar and thus the message of ETERNAL RELIGION is best manifested in his life for the present times. We, following the footsteps of Swami Vivekananda, that following the Ideal of the life and teachings of Sri Ramakrishna - wherein we see the harmony of Bhakti-Jnana-Karma & Raja-Yoga - human beings can practically follow the path of emancipation. Sri Ramakrishna is, as told by Swami Vivekananda, "Sarva-Dharma-Swarup & Avatar-Varishtha". So we worship Him; the practicalization of His message is seen in the life of Sri Sarada Devi, the Holy Mother and Swami Vivekananda was, as told by Sri Ramakrishna and as per his own declaration, the Voice of Sri Ramakrishna.

 

There is no conflict with any sect of so-called main-stream (?) Hinduism; we do worship Rama, Krishna, Kali, Durga, Shiva, Buddha, Jesus too, on special occasions.

 

 

I feel this devotional perspective of one's guru should be within the organization, belonging to the followers. The RKM which is basing itself on Vedanta should not be using this type of assertive Bhakthi-conclusions about its guru to deify him to the general public. This was not done by the matha of Shankara (Ramanuja, etc) whose scriptural analysis the RKM is also standing on. It is a feature that is characteristic of abrahamic faiths and gives the organization that makes such assertions of its guru the same type of fanatical appearance. The last sentence in that quote shows the universalist-message coming along with the highly sectarian viewpoint before it - this is the genuine "check and balance" of neo-Hinduism: a fool-proof package.

 

(In later communication, he also told me sincerely that " Sri Ramakrishna, like any other great world teacher like Sankara or Buddha has given advice according to the need, temperament etc" But this does not negate the problem in consideration.)

 

As for these neo-organizations identifying themselves as Hindu, perhaps in India that is the case. Outside this is a questionable side; usually the only commital term that comes in view is Vedanta. One has to infer that they are not against Hindu-identity. I am aware of a Hindu telling a monk that she told a Christian that RKM (or at least his center) is not a "Hindu" organization and the monk keeping silent. There are always (practicality, universality) arguments to justify everything; but in practical terms, such things make a big difference. (Anyway this is a secondary issue; I did not want to make it the focus of my primary contention about guru-deification.)

[sambya]

every organisation has deficiencies and orthodoxy . infact they are the characteristical elements that help it to exist . when vivekananda was thinking of establisheing the order he said " to do or not to do " . he was fully aware of the limitations that bind true spirituality in any organisation and at the same time was also aware of the necessity to have an organisation to keep the teachings and philosophy intact .

 

after so many years , there is a wide scope of speculation that how much RKM has adhered to its original philosophy inspite of its wide success .

 

actually the problem that you are speaking of is already there in our psychology . we love to speak and preach about the charcters we love . and what to say if they become 'god' in our belief . the more you follow or love any ideal or his philosophy , the more you shall be inclined to shout his glories . this is precisely what has happened before in all such cases of these avatara and also what is happening with ramakrishna mission now . just the way krishna was glorified , or still better chaitanya was glorified , shakkaracharya was glorified . history didnt show us any organization or any group of followers that didnt preach their respective cherished ideals or beliefs . therefore it is absolutely incorrect to accuse RKM individually of intentional propagation of new god . here gaudiya vaishnavas are also equally to blame . they did what RKM is doing now ! ramakrishna and chaitanya both denied their divinity and yet they are propagated as god .

 

its strange that you are not being able to see the similarities between gaudiya and ramakrishna movement in this matter and proceeding to accuse RKM only .

 

 

I am not particular about defending the Gaudiyas; but I focus on the latter group which is more recent in origin and in which the process is much more in development and application stage.

if you are not concerned with defending gaudiyas then bring them down to discussion instead to focussing only on the 'latter group' . you state that these ' latter groups ' are in ' developement and application stage ' . but that means that they are less influential than the former groups which are already sound established and hence more 'dangerous' to society . i think you should concentrate on these old grups which already have its roots deep inside our society than some small groups in infancy .

 

 

and from the qoute that you gave the monk began the words with -- " in our veiw ................" . now obviously these words implies that it is their own ideology and belief and has nothing to do with people's veiw . its not an attempt to convert people to their veiw . its a summary describing their own veiw . the entire quote was not atall preachy or meant for eduacting people . it was a mere stating what their belief system is .

 

why should that bother anyone unless he/she doesnt want the believers of that faith to stop practising their beliefs ?!!!!! things do make sense hpwever if we assume the person to dislike the very concept of ramakrishna as god and disbelieve in freedom of faith !!

 

you said:

 

The last sentence in that quote shows the universalist-message coming along with the highly sectarian viewpoint before it - this is the genuine "check and balance" of neo-Hinduism: a fool-proof package.

 

but nowhere in that qoute was anything negetive being said towards any other beliefs or faiths . sectarian means adhering to dogmatic limits of a faith . although RKM guys have formed a sect but they did not become dogmatic to the least . infact it is gaudiya sampradaya who is dogamtic and sectarian in their famous exclusion of all other contemporary hindu leaders and even other vaishnava sub-faiths . infact devotion to krishna and krishna alone is considered the best .

how can you miss that sectarianism unless you have intentional aprroach to demean RK and RKM ?

 

 

 

outside india RKM centres are usually called vedanta centres (the term is purely hindu one) . and if you are aware of the recent changes there , those institutions are slowly accquiring a more colourfull 'hindu' ambience than the previously serious meditative atmoshphere , in wake of the recent boom in number of indians living abroad who use these places like temples for socio religious gatherings .

 

from whatever you have written in the last few posts its evident that your dislike is not for so much for neo-hinduism as for ramakrishna philosophy and his subsequent deification . thats okay and your opinion , but why not be a bit more direct in approach ?

 

by the way , what do think of mahaprabhu's case and why do you think it is different from that of RK ?

[raghu]

The Non-Hindu Origins of Radical Universalism

 

(by Frank Morales)

 

Radical Universalism is neither traditional nor classical. Its origins can be traced back to the early 19th century. It is an idea not older than two centuries. Its intellectual roots are not even to be found in Hinduism itself, but rather are clearly traced back to Christian missionary attempts to alter the genuine teachings of authentic Hinduism. Radical Universalism was in vogue among 19th century British-educated Indians, most of who had little accurate information about their own Hindu intellectual and spiritual heritage. These Westernized Indians were often overly eager to gain acceptance and respectability for Indian culture from a Christian European audience who saw in Hinduism nothing more than the childish prattle of a brutish, colonized people. Many exaggerated stereotypes about Hinduism had been unsettling impressionable European minds for a century previous to their era. Rather than attempting to refute these many stereotypes about Hinduism by presenting Hinduism in its authentic and pristine form, however, many of these 19th-century Christianized Indians felt it was necessary to instead gut Hinduism of anything that might seem offensively exotic to the European mind. Radical Universalism seemed to be the perfect base notion upon which to artificially construct a "new " Hinduism that would give the Anglicized 19th-century Indian intelligentsia the acceptability they so yearned to be granted by their British masters.

 

We encounter one of the first instances of the Radical Universalist infiltration of Hinduism in the syncretistic teachings of Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833), the founder of the Brahmo Samaj. A highly controversial figure during his life, Roy was a Bengali intellectual who was heavily influenced by the teachings of the Unitarian Church, a heterodox denomination of Christianity. In addition to studying Christianity, Islam and Sanskrit, he studied Hebrew and Greek with the dream of translating the Bible into Bengali. A self-described Hindu "reformer, " he viewed Hinduism through a colonial Christian lens. The Christian missionaries had told Roy that traditional Hinduism was a barbaric religion that had led to oppression, superstition and ignorance of the Indian people. He believed them. More, Roy saw Biblical teachings, specifically, as holding the cherished key to altering traditional Hindu teachings to make them more acceptable to India's colonial masters. In his missionary zeal to Christianize Hinduism, he even wrote an anti-Hindu tract known as The Precepts of Jesus: The Guide to Peace and Happiness. It was directly from these Christian missionaries that Roy derived the bulk of his ideas, including the anti-Hindu notion of the radical equality of all religions.

 

In addition to acquiring Radical Universalism from the Christian missionaries, Roy also felt it necessary to Christianize Hinduism by adopting many Biblical theological beliefs into his neo-Hindu "reform " movement. Some of these other non-intrinsic adaptations included a rejection of Hindu panentheism, to be substituted with a more Biblical notion of anthropomorphic monotheism; a rejection of all iconic worship ( "graven images " as the crypto-Christians of the Brahmo Samaj phrased it); and a repudiation of the doctrine of avataras, or the divine descent of God. Roy's immediate successors, Debendranath Tagore and Keshub Chandra Sen, attempted to incorporate even more Christian ideals into this neo-Hinduism invention. The Brahmo Samaj is today extinct as an organization, but the global Hindu community is still feeling the damaging effects of its pernicious influence.

 

The next two neo-Hindu Radical Universalists that we witness in the history of 19th century Hinduism are Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886) and Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902). Though Vivekananda was a disciple (shishya) of Ramakrishna, the two led very different lives. Ramakrishna was born into a Hindu family in Dakshineshwar. In his adult life, he was a Hindu temple priest and a fervently demonstrative devotee of the Divine Mother. His primary object of worship was the Goddess Kali, whom he worshiped with intense devotion all of his life. Despite his Hindu roots, however, many of Ramakrishna's ideas and practices were derived, not from the ancient wisdom of classical Hinduism, but from the non-Vedic religious outlooks of Islam and liberal Christianity.

 

Though he saw himself as being primarily Hindu, Ramakrishna believed that all religions aimed at the same supreme destination. He experimented briefly with Muslim, Christian and a wide variety of Hindu practices, blending, mixing and matching practices and beliefs as they appealed to him at any given moment. In 1875, Ramakrishna met Keshub Chandra Sen, the then leader of the neo-Hindu Brahmo Samaj. Sen introduced Ramakrishna to the close-knit community of neo-Hindu activists who lived in Calcutta, and would in turn often bring these activists to Ramakrishna's satsangas. Ramakrishna ended up being one of the most widely popular of neo-Hindu Radical Universalists.

 

Swami Vivekananda was arguably Ramakrishna's most capable disciple. An eloquent and charismatic speaker, Vivekananda will be forever honored by the Hindu community for his brilliant defense of Hinduism at the Parliament of World Religions in 1893. Likewise, Vivekananda contributed greatly to the revival of interest in the study of Hindu scriptures and philosophy in turn-of-the-century India. The positive contributions of Vivekananda toward Hinduism are numerous and great indeed. Notwithstanding his remarkable undertakings, however, Vivekananda found himself in a similarly difficult position as other neo-Hindu leaders of his day were. How to make sense of the ancient ways of Hinduism, and hopefully preserve Hinduism, in the face of the overwhelming onslaught of modernity? Despite many positive contributions by Vivekananda and other neo-Hindus in attempting to formulate a Hindu response to the challenge of modernity, that response was often made at the expense of authentic Hindu teachings. Vivekananda, along with the other leaders of the neo-Hindu movement, felt it was necessary to both water down the Hinduism of their ancestors, and to adopt such foreign ideas as Radical Universalism, with the hope of gaining the approval of the European masters they found ruling over them.

 

While Ramakrishna led a contemplative life of relative isolation from the larger world, Swami Vivekananda was to become a celebrated figure on the world religion stage. Vivekananda frequently took a somewhat dismissive attitude to traditional Hinduism as it was practiced in his day, arguing (quite incorrectly) that Hinduism was too often irrational, overly mythologically oriented, and too divorced from the more practical need for social welfare work. He was not much interested in Ramakrishna's earlier emphasis on mystical devotion and ecstatic worship. Rather, Vivekananda laid stress on the centrality of his own idiosyncratic and universalistic approach to Vedanta, what later came to be known as "neo-Vedanta."

 

Vivekananda differed slightly with Ramakrishna's version of Radical Universalism by attempting to superimpose a distinctly neo-Vedantic outlook on the idea of the unity of all religions. Vivekananda advocated a sort of hierarchical Radical Universalism that espoused the equality of all religions, while simultaneously claiming that all religions are really evolving from inferior notions of religiosity to a pinnacle mode. That pinnacle of all religious thought and practice was, for Vivekananda, of course, Hinduism. Though Vivekananda contributed a great deal toward helping European and American non-Hindus to understand the greatness of Hinduism, the Radical Universalist and neo-Hindu inaccuracies that he fostered have also done a great deal of harm as well.

 

In order to fully experience Hinduism in its most spiritually evocative and philosophically compelling form, we must learn to recognize, and reject, the concocted influences of neo-Hinduism that have permeated the mass of Hindu thought today. It is time to rid ourselves of the liberal, Christian-inspired reformism that so deeply prejudiced such individuals as Ram Mohan Roy over a century ago. We must free ourselves from the anti-Hindu dogma of Radical Universalism that has so weakened Hinduism, and re-embrace a classical form of Hinduism that is rooted in the actual scriptures of Hinduism, that has been preserved for thousands of years by the various disciplic successions of legitimate acharyas, and that has stood the test of time. We must celebrate traditional Hinduism. The neo-Hindu importation of Radical Universalism may resonate with many on a purely emotional level, but it remains patently anti-Hindu in its origins, an indefensible proposition philosophically, and a highly destructive doctrine to the further development of Hinduism.

[raghu]

This is an excerpt from website run by followers of Advaita philosophy. In this series of essays, the Advaitin admirers take up the problem of Neo-Advaita. I post this only to show that Neo-Hinduism, Neo-Vedanta, etc is not singled out merely by certain sectarian groups. On the contrary, even Advaitins with their relatively "non-sectarian" outlook are very concerned about the legitimacy of Neo-Advaita and the way it has usurped all modern day dialog on Hinduism.

 

from http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neo_advaita.htm

 

 

 

There are also two significant dangers regarding the Neo-Advaita ‘movement’. Firstly, there is the clear possibility of charlatans who, having read a little or heard the fundamental elements of ‘descriptions’ of reality, can devise a few ‘routines’ of their own and then advertise themselves on the circuit. Providing that they are good speakers/actors, it is certainly possible to make a living from deceiving ‘seekers’ in such a way, without ever giving away their true lack of knowledge or the fact that they are no nearer any ‘realisation’ than their disciples.

 

Secondly, seekers themselves may be deluded into a belief that some specious realisation has been obtained when, in fact, all that has happened is that they have come to terms with some psychological problem that had been making life difficult. The ending of such suffering could well be seen as a ‘liberation’. Of course, such a thing would not be at all bad – it simply would have nothing to do with enlightenment. Indeed, such people might well go on to become teachers in their own right, not charlatans in the true sense of the word, since they genuinely believe that ‘realisation’ has taken place.

 

The use of the language of non-duality (e.g. avoiding use of the word ‘I’) cannot be relied upon to mean that the ego of such a speaker is dead. Indeed, an ego can quite happily put up with non-reference to itself when it thinks it is ‘realised’ whilst everyone else is not! (And conversely, of course, there is no need or desire to avoid the use of the word ‘I’ in the absence of an ego.)

 

This is not to say that these dangers do not also exist in traditional Advaita but it might at least be argued that someone who has spent many years studying scriptures, reading and attending classes etc. must at least not be in it just for the money! Also, several thousand years of traditional teachings have emphasised that preparation, in the form of acquiring knowledge of the truth, is of value. Such characteristics as renunciation, discrimination and self-restraint etc. are also advocated, topics which are most unlikely to be mentioned at the meetings with any Neo-Advaitin teacher. And is it surprising that many of the attendees of Neo-Advaita satsangs are simply not interested in any of this? Why bother to listen to all of the preparatory stuff when you can get the final message straight away? ‘Don’t bother telling me about arithmetic, I want to learn quantum mechanics!’

[sambya]

raghu , as you are evading the questions when it is so contextual and relevent to the topic , i assume that you lack answers to the same and also admit that this theory of neo-hinduism has certain imperfections that you dare not confront .

[Kali_Upasaka]

This thread has been started with the basic idea of mounting an attack on the Sri Ramakrishna Movement and Advaita in general.

 

Why this attack?

 

Sri Ramakrishna said "There are as many ways as there are Men".

 

Hinduism accepts all religious paths as valid paths. It is not tolerance, but acceptance.

 

 

Modern Vedanta

 

The term "modern Vedanta" is sometimes used to describe the interpretation of Advaita Vedanta given by Swami Vivekananda of the Ramakrishna order of monks. He stressed that:

 

* Although God is the absolute reality, the world has a relative reality. It should therefore not be completely ignored.

* Conditions of abject poverty should be removed; only then will people be able to turn their minds toward God.

* All religions are striving in their way to reach the ultimate truth. Narrow sectarian bickering should therefore be abandoned, and religious tolerance should be practiced — between different Hindu denominations, as well as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

 

Vivekananda traveled to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, and became an influential figure in synthesising Eastern and Western thought. He played a major role in the spread of Vedanta to Western nations. His travel to the West was criticised by some orthodox Hindus. His proponents claim that he made Vedanta living, by understanding how it could be applied to the modern world, and by investing it with his own spirit. For Vivekananda, Vedanta was not something dry or esoteric, but a living approach to the quest for self-knowledge.

 

In his interpretation of Advaita (as in Shankara's), there is still a place for Bhakti (devotion). Monks of the Ramakrishna order suggest that it is easier to begin meditation on a personal God with form and qualities, rather than the formless Absolute, of which everyone is said to be part. Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are viewed as obverse and reverse of the same coin.

 

It is this non-sectarian and acceptance of all religions as valid paths which is under attack here.

 

The Ramakrishna Mission is the largest Hindu organization in the world and is growing from strength to strength especially among the younger generation Of Hindus in India.

 

The Ramakrishna Movement has faced many such attacks in newspapers/magazines before the internet age.

 

According to Wikipedia

 

 

Most of the Hindu movements, with the exception of the Hare Krishna movement, reflect a more Smarta-like ideology.

I do not think there is any point in replying to the individual posts. This discussion has become Vithanda Vada.

 

This will be my last post in this thread.

[krishnaleela]

 

every organisation has deficiencies and orthodoxy . infact they are the characteristical elements that help it to exist . when vivekananda was thinking of establisheing the order he said " to do or not to do " . he was fully aware of the limitations that bind true spirituality in any organisation and at the same time was also aware of the necessity to have an organisation to keep the teachings and philosophy intact .

 

after so many years , there is a wide scope of speculation that how much RKM has adhered to its original philosophy inspite of its wide success .

 

 

Yes. This is a young organization still and I believe formative. If we point out to certain "fault", those in charge can still make required changes if necessary. The above sort of justification is not an excuse.

 

 

actually the problem that you are speaking of is already there in our psychology . we love to speak and preach about the charcters we love . and what to say if they become 'god' in our belief . the more you follow or love any ideal or his philosophy , the more you shall be inclined to shout his glories . this is precisely what has happened before in all such cases of these avatara and also what is happening with ramakrishna mission now . just the way krishna was glorified , or still better chaitanya was glorified , shakkaracharya was glorified . history didnt show us any organization or any group of followers that didnt preach their respective cherished ideals or beliefs . therefore it is absolutely incorrect to accuse RKM individually of intentional propagation of new god . here gaudiya vaishnavas are also equally to blame . they did what RKM is doing now ! ramakrishna and chaitanya both denied their divinity and yet they are propagated as god .

 

 

The spiritual organization that RKM is, run by monks, has some standards; my argument is that this manner of glorification needs a careful reassessment. If what we say has any merit, it can be regarded for itself, rather than comparing with others to justify ourselves.

 

As for Gaudiyas, I sincerely say I am not thinking about them, except at these particular forums. I do not deny that they share this blame; I already said that they were the first to begin this trend. However I am not concentrating on them, for lack of knowledge about them or their impact on Hinduism as a whole - and further reasons mentioned below.

 

 

if you are not concerned with defending gaudiyas then bring them down to discussion instead to focussing only on the 'latter group' . you state that these ' latter groups ' are in ' developement and application stage ' . but that means that they are less influential than the former groups which are already sound established and hence more 'dangerous' to society . i think you should concentrate on these old grups which already have its roots deep inside our society than some small groups in infancy .

 

 

Former group on this issue is only the gaudiyas; but I expect the RKM to be more reasonable to listen to these arguments. The other older organizations may have other "faults" but that should not be mixed here in a compare-contrast to justify.

 

 

 

and from the qoute that you gave the monk began the words with -- " in our veiw ................" . now obviously these words implies that it is their own ideology and belief and has nothing to do with people's veiw . its not an attempt to convert people to their veiw . its a summary describing their own veiw . the entire quote was not atall preachy or meant for eduacting people . it was a mere stating what their belief system is .

 

why should that bother anyone unless he/she doesnt want the believers of that faith to stop practising their beliefs ?!!!!! things do make sense hpwever if we assume the person to dislike the very concept of ramakrishna as god and disbelieve in freedom of faith !!

 

 

No. I have said many a time, that a devotee's belief in guru's divinity is his/her private affair. My contention is that this "We believe SRK is God", as a statement of the organization, is underlying justification for "Therefore, we will tell the world so..." That is the only reason this quote is sectarian, in the context of the public-deification, which I am claiming is to be reanalysed by RKM.

 

 

 

but nowhere in that qoute was anything negetive being said towards any other beliefs or faiths . sectarian means adhering to dogmatic limits of a faith . although RKM guys have formed a sect but they did not become dogmatic to the least .

 

 

Again, see previous lines. They are not sectarian if seen as a devotee's private adoration of his guru. As an organization, to say "SRK is the Yuga-avatara, ... avatara-varishtha"... "the message ... is best manifested in his life...", "...following the Ideal of ...SRK, ... human beings can practically follow the path of emancipation", "the practicalization of His message is seen in ... Sri Sarada Devi", such statements are dogmatic, beyond argument, based on personal faith. Therefore when the organization flaunts such views, it can fall back on them to justify its public guru-deification, which is the main issue - SRK already being the yuga-avatar, there is no fault in making him the central deity for public worship.

 

No. RKM is not dogmatic in general. But this issue, where Vedanta is mixed with an avatara theory to make the guru into the public-God of the organization, has to be seen carefully, and such statements indicate an underlying foundation - not for the nondogmatic universalist-Vedanta side but in terms of the other.

 

 

from whatever you have written in the last few posts its evident that your dislike is not for so much for neo-hinduism as for ramakrishna philosophy and his subsequent deification . thats okay and your opinion , but why not be a bit more direct in approach ?

 

 

No. While I am not particular about fighting with gaudiyas (who I may agree are far too dogmatic to reason with), I regard RKM as the best prototype for neo-hindu organizations basing themselves on a universalist Vedanta philosophy. They are the "first" in this category, and arguably, the supreme/leaders in quality as well. Most of their monks are no doubt superlative. Hence being so, and since I am somewhat familiar with them, I am directing my 'attack' on this issue on them. The others like of Satya Sai Baba, Sri Sri Ravi shankar, and so on, are in my opinion 'less-in-stature' compared to RKMission; they are coming later and seem to be following RKM in many a regard. But simply because I focus on RKM, it does not mean I am wanting to show this as a singular fault of RKM.

 

 

by the way , what do think of mahaprabhu's case and why do you think it is different from that of RK ?

 

I don't think it is different, except the historical times when his name was propagated were likely different. I am more aware of the present times - "the world is much smaller" and people far-more deliberate as far as running global organizations. When the Gaudiyas did their guru-deification, we can also perhaps point to their sectarianism/dogmatism etc and that itself is a measure-stick for their dismissal from consideration. Neo-hinduism, as in universalist Vedanta, has a good knowledge of history to not repeat such faults blatantly, also present a very-nondogmatic picture of themselves - hence I am calling into question their desire to follow the same path as the gaudiyas as opposed to Vedanta-Orders before (on this specific issue). Possibly the Bengal-connection may have played into the origins; but today this is becoming a 'universal' Hindu-organization phenomena.

 

(Don't think I am only saying this. I have read RKM monk writing the very same thing regarding the abuse of 'avataara-theory' by Hindu organizations.)

 

(I am not identifying Gaudiyas with ISKCON, BTW).

 

As for greatness of SRK vs Mahaprabhu, that is not this topic - I said the focus for me is on their organizations....

[chandu_69]

As said by krishnaleela RKM is managed by people who have some standards.But the abuse of Avataric concept is serious in lesser known groups.

 

After the success of rkm numerous groups with dubious promoters have exploited this concept and abused many people.

 

It is my feeling that Organisations of repute like RKm should take the lead and put a stop to this abuse and destroy this concept of avathar as a commodity to be exploited.

[raghu]

 

This thread has been started with the basic idea of mounting an attack on the Sri Ramakrishna Movement and Advaita in general.

 

No, this thread was started with the basic idea of telling the truth and setting the record straight regarding what traditional Hinduism is. Not surprisingly, the Neo-Hinduism followers do not like it because it interferes with their virtual monopoly on Hinduism dialog in the popular media.

 

 

Sri Ramakrishna said "There are as many ways as there are Men".

 

Hinduism accepts all religious paths as valid paths. It is not tolerance, but acceptance.

 

The idea that "all religious paths" are "valid paths" is incomprehensible and not accepted by any intelligent or even semi-intelligent homo sapien. Just see the stupidity of such a belief - if Islam is a "valid path," then even the suras which direct Muslims to murder non-believers are also valid. Razing Hindu temples to the ground and abducting Hindu women is also valid, as per your claims.

 

As far as your far-fetched claim that "Hinduism accepts all religious paths as valid paths," you and I both know that this statement can only stand if you redefine "Hinduism" to include only the last 2 centuries of Neo-Vedantic free thinkers and exclude everyone previous to them. Of course, that is not what most people think of when they think "Hinduism" - hence the dishonesty in arrogating to "Hinduism" the ideas like Radical Universalism which are NOT a part of traditional Hinduism.

 

You have previously quoted Kumarila Bhatta and his refutation of Buddhism. So, he did not accept Buddhism, as you have admitted - is he a Hindu? Your own definition of "Hinduism" is so absurd that it excludes the very Hindus you yourself have previously alluded to.

 

Atheism and moral relativism are the logical consequences of a belief system that tells you that all religious paths are valid.

 

 

The Ramakrishna Mission is the largest Hindu organization in the world and is growing from strength to strength especially among the younger generation Of Hindus in India.

 

Popular vote is not a measure of validity. Christianity and Islam are also very popular.

 

 

This will be my last post in this thread.

 

Good riddance. We need to keep this thread up only for those who can have an intelligent discussion based on facts and evidence. Those who can only restate their tired old refrain over and over again need to go elsewhere.

[krishnaleela]

 

No. While I am not particular about fighting with gaudiyas (who I may agree are far too dogmatic to reason with), ... When the Gaudiyas did their guru-deification, we can also perhaps point to their sectarianism/dogmatism etc and that itself is a measure-stick for their dismissal from consideration.

 

Sorry for above.

 

In retrospect, I should not have indulged in above to this extent to make my case on RKM. My knowledge of Gaudiya Vaishnavas is far less.

[Kali_Upasaka]

The starter of this thread has been posting in many threads now.

 

A glance at the posts is revealing.

 

A new thread

 

(for Vaishnavas) Is Shiva God?

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/453499-vaishnavas-shiva-god.html

 

There are some members here who do not even accept Shiva as GOD. Of course they will not even condescend to consider DEVI.

 

So the starter of this thread does not even consider Shiva as God. He rejects Saivism. Now how about Sakthism and the worship of innumerable folk deities/village Gods/Goddesses? These are all part of the living Hinduism.

 

He does not even accept the Gods/Goddesses of Hinduism.

 

So how do we expect him to accept that all religious paths are valid paths.

 

Again the following two posts by him in another thread is revealing

 

 

I'm not worried about the actual facts of the Mahabharata war. What worries me more is this trend of Christians coming here in the guise of "seekers" and posting thinly veiled criticisms of Hinduism disguised as questions. If you at least knew what you were talking about, it might be possible to actually have an intelligent conversation with you. But since you insist on misrepresenting the facts (i.e. your carefully chosen description of the battle as a "slaughter"), one can only conclude that you are incapable of exerting even a modicum of intellectual honesty.

 

 

 

Perhaps you have not grasped this yet, but Mr. "Singh" is not interested in any answers. His questions are deliberately worded so as to evoke anger and scorn. No matter what you say, he will twist it around and make it sound like his original hypothesis still holds. Imagine a guy asking questions and covering his ears while singing, "LaLaLaLaLa!" at the top of his voice - he is another Christian born-again type who thinks he has found the answers in the Bible and can only explain away the existence of superior and more intelligent belief systems if he denounces them.

 

So if you question anything you are branded a Christian or worse.

 

The last post does apply in this case.

 

The starter of this thread and the author of the web site and article quoted here are not interested in any answers.

 

According to the author of this thread only his interpretation of a particular stream of Vaishnavism ( not endorsed by all members of the group) is the classical Hinduism.

 

All the others are Neo- Hindus.

 

A similar claim has been made by the Wahabi Muslims about Islam in their fight against Sufi and other forms of tolerant Islam.

 

A post from another member from the above thread sums up the case

 

 

Again it is my humble request not to indulge in all these silly topics.

No one can gain anything out of it.

Rather discuss on Bhakta's charitra from which we all can learn something...

Please.....

.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

The term ‘Hinduism’ is most elastic. It includes a number of sects and cults, allied, but different in many important points. Hinduism has, within its fold, various schools of Vedanta; Vaishnavism, Saivism, Saktism, etc. It has various cults and creeds. Hinduism accommodates all types of men. It prescribes spiritual food for everybody, according to his qualification and growth. This is the beauty of this magnanimous religion. This is the glory of Hinduism. Hence there is no conflict among the various cults and creeds. The Rig-Veda declares: "Truth is one; sages call it various names- Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti." The Upanishads declare that all the paths lead to the same goal, just as cows of variegated colours yield the same white milk. Lord Krishna says in the Gita: ‘Howsoever men approach Me, even so do I welcome them, for the path men take from every side is Mine." All diversities are organized and united in the body of Hinduism.

Hinduism provides food for reflection for the different types of thinkers and philosophers all over the world. All sorts of philosophy are necessary. What appeals to one may not appeal to another, and what is easy for one may be difficult for another. Hence the need for different standpoints. All philosophies of Hinduism are points of view. They are true in their own way. They take the aspirant step by step, stage by stage, till he reaches the acme or the pinnacle of spiritual glory. Sanatana-Dharmists, Arya-Samajists, Deva- Samajists, Jainas, Buddhists, Sikhs and Brahmo-Samajists are all Hindus only, for they rose from Hinduism, and emphasized one or more of its aspects.

-- Swami Sivananda of Rishikesh who has authored more than 200 books on Hinduism. There is a bridge named after him called Sivananda bridge in Rishikesh in recognition of his services to the poor.

[chandu_69]

The tantrums of Kali_upasaka is the result of the post number 116

 

 

The idea that "all religious paths" are "valid paths" is incomprehensible and not accepted by any intelligent or even semi-intelligent homo sapien. Just see the stupidity of such a belief - if Islam is a "valid path," then even the suras which direct Muslims to murder non-believers are also valid. Razing Hindu temples to the ground and abducting Hindu women is also valid, as per your claims.

 

The stupidity of his guru is exposed in bright and searing light

 

Here is the stupidity in his own words

 

 

Sri Ramakrishna said "There are as many ways as there are Men".

 

Hinduism accepts all religious paths as valid paths. It is not tolerance, but acceptanc

[sant]

Kali upasak intentions here are to prove tantrics as vedik and to equate shaktisms countless devis with krishna.Isnt that true sir

[ranjeetmore]

 

Tell me why should a person who is a follower of Purva Mimansa and the Karma Kanda of the Vedas ( which pre dates all the Acharyas) and who recites ( with proper intonation as it has been recited for thousands of years by the Vedic Brahmins) all the Sukthas of the Vedas in praise of different Gods, follow any of the new doctrines like Advaita, Bhakti et al?

 

Purva Mimansa is very clear that you reap the benefits of your karmas. There is no supreme GOD who can do anything to change it.

 

This is classical Ancient Hinduism. The original stuff. Brahminical Authority. Brahminism it was called before they made it Hinduism.

 

http://www.indianetzone.com/9/purva_mimamsa_philosophy.htm

 

 

purva mimansa is a farce.Kaitava.It is fraud.

 

There is a reason why all the acharyas have commented on the Brahm sutra.For the Vedanta alone satisfies the question to the eternal search for happiness/bliss/ananda.

 

None of the darshand sastras have this aspect.That's why they are never considered as scriptures leading to the supreme truth.

 

The vedanta commentaries,especially acintya bheda abheda solve all problems.

[ranjeetmore]

 

just because they entered earlier doesnt make them valid . and there might not have been any backing of religous institutions of modern type , but surely there was extensive backing by his followers , mutts , sanghas , emperors , kings and preachers . the backing was always there . the source of this backing have changed .

 

take chaintanya for example . in charitamrita , krishnadas repeatedly warns the dangers of not believing in avatarhood of mahaprabhu . this is clear backing by followers ( although i believe in mahaprabhu's avatarhood).

 

 

 

you cannot possibly equate gauranga's avatarhood with sai baba etc...

 

obviously His avtaarhood has backing...But there is a difference...Al His associates themselves are incarnations of various didvine personalities from vaikuntha.

 

Ramakrsihna accepted this.He sang,"Krsna has come as Gaura,Baladeva as nityananda,Narada as srivasa...Oh when will I cry chanting gaura gaura !!"

 

You go to navadvipa.There are still shotriya brahm nishta mahatmas crying gaura gaura.

Sri Visvanatha...such a great mahatma,fully versed in the vedas,upanishads,vedanta,etc is dancing in front of gaura.

 

Gaura's is not your ordinary lay man's claim to avataarhood.He comes with baggage.He comes,undeniably,with the purest form of bhakti.He comes with no nonsense establshment of Sri Krsna as Supreme Godhead.He comes with such big big associates...mahatmas of such stature that even the 'avataras' are put to shame...Plus He displays Mahabhava.

 

 

Sai baba,etc ??

 

No offense but they seem lacklustre.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gaudiya vaishnavas are in fact less vedantic than ramakrishna mission . though im not saying this to defend any organisation . because an organisation has nothing to do with spirituality or its upkeep . but im just showing you the misconceptions . inspite of using sweet terms like bhaktivedanta and stuff gaudiya vaishnva is more puranic than vedantic . at least i have never heard of brahmasutra being teached or preached anywhere in gaudiya world or mayapur till date . all over their preachings they use the word vaishnvas to decribe themselves . they would never ever use the word hindu . in fact there is clear doubt and unwillingness to use the second word!

 

ramakrishnamission on other hand lays stress on this monistic explanation of vedanta of sankaracharya and identify themselves as hindu as well . obviously they do have a greater attraction for advaitic version of hinduism . they celebrate shivaratri , durgapuja ,kalipuja, holi , jannashtami , ramnavami etc . every ekadsi day is observed with elaborate ramnaam sankirtan . only at one point of time they did try to break away from the hindu tag and get themselves a minority status tag from court of law . this was when the newly formed communist government in bengal tried to transfer all the existing schools and properties of this institution in its name . a minority status would protect them from this danger . however the court rejected their plea and ruled them pure hindu and this property grab was rejected for the fear of public resentment .

 

and they always use the word hindu while preaching or describing about themseves !!

 

 

 

 

gaudiyas are less vedantic ????

 

Srila Vedavyasa COMMENTED ON HIS OWN BRAHM SUTRA-Bhagavatam.

 

Bhagavatam is the essence of all.especially vedanta.

 

Shankaracharya accepted,"The incarnation of Lord Narayana stated that Sri Krsna awarded Golok to putana."

 

Veda vyasa whispered in shakracharyas' ear awhat ???

 

No.That's silly.Sri Shankaracharya is referring to Bhagavatam...written by Vedavyasa.His original commentary on the vedanta.

 

 

So gaudiyas and nimbarkis are perhaps as vedantic as anyone can get.

[ranjeetmore]

 

 

 

 

So as per the above definition Chaitanya Maha Prabhu and Swaminarayan are not Avataras. I do not know about Swaminarayan. But about Chitanya Maha Prabhu I am sure he was an Avatara.

 

 

 

Your sure he is an avatara from Ramakrishna's shadow...

 

the followers of ramkrshna do have reverence for 'avtaara' but the notion about how an avataar is,springs from their constant nonsense speculation,and not as per the bhagavtam....

 

Ramakrishna's 'avataarhood' was not recognised even by his most 'exalted' disciple- vivekananda.

 

Ramakrsihna's teachings would even make shankaracharya beat his head against the wall,of this,there is no doubt.

 

 

***

 

Ramakrishna :

 

"Bhagavan,Bhagavatam and Bhakta are one."

 

(this actually references the secretive doctrine of bhakti...that Bhagavan,His parshads and His leelas all live within Him..even the bhakta is one with bhagavan...this is intimate knowledge.Now obviously..ramakrishna's followers spun a disastrous web around this statement.)

 

"Shankara chants the name of Rama when He is on the plane of duality(or whatever nonsense that is.)"

 

he constantly sang that Narada is Srivasa,Baladeva is Nityananda but not ONCE...not ONCE did he sing that Sadashiva has come as advaita...for that would mean bhavani has come as His wife.

 

or did his rascal devotees not note it down ????

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

purva mimansa is a farce.Kaitava.It is fraud.

 

There is a reason why all the acharyas have commented on the Brahm sutra. For the Vedanta alone satisfies the question to the eternal search for happiness/bliss/ananda.

 

None of the darshand sastras have this aspect.That's why they are never considered as scriptures leading to the supreme truth.

 

The vedanta commentaries,especially acintya bheda abheda solve all problems.

 

You call the oldest Philosophy of Hinduism as a farce. There are millions of Hindus following Purva Mimansa. You do not accept the other systems of Philosophy like Sankhya, Yoga and others.

 

This is the reason why I wrote about this discussion about Neo Hindus right from inception. Purva Mimnasa people could call acintya bheda abheda as neo-Hindu since it came at least a thousand years later.

 

When the goals are not the same how can the paths be the same. The goals of the different Philosophies and even Sampradhayas with the same Philosophy are different.

 

Mukthi, Moksha, Vikundam, Siva Logam, Swargam et al. Then most of the people pray to GOD for material benefits. Just look at the threads in this forum. Who are we to say that what is correct and who is correct? Is this not a doctrinaire approach?

 

Then there are millions of Hindus who do not belong to any Sampradhaya. There are Gods/Goddesses who do not belong to the Puranic lore.

 

Do we say that these are not Hindus?

 

The same argument has been used for the last two hundred years by the Christian Missionaries to convert Hindus. They tell the tribals and Dalits that their Gods and practices are not accepted by the caste Hindus.

 

By dividing the Hindus into Neo_Hindus and many Gods/Goddesses as Demi_Gods or worse, and questioning the very existence of Hinduism we are helping the Christian Missionaries in their conversion.

 

The Ramakrishna movement has been acting as a bulwark against the onslaught of the Christian missionaries in India.

 

As it is in the West yoga is now generally being accepted as different from Hinduism. But in India it is considered part of Hinduism and most of the Hindus think it to be part of Hinduism.

 

May be this would please some members but not the vast majority of the Hindus who live in India.

 

I am a Indian Hindu and proud to be an Indian and a Hindu. We do have a Bhakthi called Desa Bhakthi.