[Sri Ramakrishna] Message vs. Messenger

[Guest guest]

Dear Brad

 

(1) Your first email with the suggestion about making it possible

to get more information about the list members is an interesting

idea. Some members may feel happy with this but many may

feel this to be an intrusion. It would be nice to know a

bit more about some of the list members (if they agree to it).

I am happy to incorporate this information in a tabular form

on our website. Some of our members have their own

websites (like Dr Shah and Swami Yogeshanada). Earlier

last year, we had requested list members to let us have details of

their websites. Some of these sites are already linked to our

home page http://www.vivekananda.btinternet.co.uk/home.htm

 

If any list member wishes to add their own Website details

to this page - we will be happy to do so. Just email the

details to us.

 

Further to your more detailed questions: - I have attemped

some replies as under:-

 

>Message vs. Messenger

 

> Dear jay:

>

> " Buddha was the spiritual messenger for the East and Vivekananda is the

> spiritual messenger for the West "

>

> You used this quote (source uncited) in your recent postscript message. It

> has caused two questions to " surface " : 1) What is the message? and 2) Who

is

> the messenger?

 

> I guess my questions revolve around my belief that, without Ramakrishna,

> there would have been no Vivekananda. I notice your organization is

called,

> " Vivekananda Center, " while the List you started is called the

" Ramakrishna

> List. " I also noticed in your recent and rewarding message about your

talks

> to Westerners, that you (apparently) focus on sharing Vivekananda, rather

> than Ramakrishna.

 

Message is 'contemporary spirituality'

 

Messanger is 'Sri Ramakrishna'.

 

Swami Vivekananda said something like:-

If there is any good thing I have said or achieved

let the credit go to My master - it is all his.

All the mistakes I have made are mine.....

 

I think this will answer some of your other questions.

Vivekananda was very unusual in that he almost

snuffed out his own individuality in order to be a perfect

conduit for his masters work. At some of my public

talks I praise Vivekananda very strongly and do not

make a mention of Sri Ramakrishna. In a strongly

Sri Ramakrishna oriented audience; you can imagine

what this will do! At one meeting I added.....

 

Some may get worried that I do not even mention Sri Ramakrishna.

The reason is simple.... I do not know where Sri Ramakrishna ends

and where Vivekananda begins. I want the devotees to show me

the demarcation line. There is no such line. Vivekananda is the

mouthpiece of Sri Ramakrishna. He is nothing but Sri

Ramakrishna in full flow.....

 

 

> Lastly, it is interesting that the Ramakrishna Mission does not appear to

> wish to create a " Messiah " out of Sri Ramakrishna, even though He is

> considered an Incarnation. Also, it appears the " Ramakrishna movement " (if

I

> may coin this term, in order to describe such organizations as yours and

the

> Vedanta Societies in America) is equally happy in sharing Vivekananda with

> the world, along with or even to a greater degree than Ramakrishna.

 

Again an interesting observation Brad, Vivekananda

did not want to turn Sri Ramakrishna into a Messiah

figure. He stands as the unifying figure between

many faiths and many sectarian bodies within those faiths.

How can He be turned into the head of another religion or another

sectarian body? That would defeat the purpose. There is

a second interesting point to be made. Religions in the past

have relied heavily on 'personalities'. What else do we have?

With Ramakrishna we see a gentle shift.... a shift from personality

driven ideal to a principle driven ideal. Hence Sri Ramakrishna

is not depicted as a cult figure or the head

of a 'one more' sectarian movement.

 

You have asked many interesting questions. There

are many others on the list who, I am sure will like

to contribute to this interesting dialogue.

 

jay

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr.Brad,

I think you should read the biographies of both Bhagvan Ramakrishna and Swami

Vivekanada with more depth.Your doubts will be clarified then.

There is nothing like who is more great in spirituality.

 

With best regards,

Karthik

 

 

On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 Brad Stephan wrote :

> Dear jay:

>

> " Buddha was the spiritual messenger for the East and

> Vivekananda is the

> spiritual messenger for the West "

>

> You used this quote (source uncited) in your recent

> postscript message. It

> has caused two questions to " surface " : 1) What is the

> message? and 2) Who is

> the messenger?

>

> I " discovered " Sri Ramakrishna three years ago, and

> have been reading

> everything about Him I could find ever since. I also

> have the complete works

> of Vivekananda on cd, but have yet had the opportunity

> to " crack it open. "

> However, I have read Swamiji's address to the World

> Parliment of Religions.

> (Is it correct that Swamiji, himself, never wrote a

> word of his " works, " but

> they were all transcribed by others from his

> extemporaneous talks?)

>

> I guess my questions revolve around my belief that,

> without Ramakrishna,

> there would have been no Vivekananda. I notice your

> organization is called,

> " Vivekananda Center, " while the List you started is

> called the " Ramakrishna

> List. " I also noticed in your recent and rewarding

> message about your talks

> to Westerners, that you (apparently) focus on sharing

> Vivekananda, rather

> than Ramakrishna.

>

> Lastly, it is interesting that the Ramakrishna Mission

> does not appear to

> wish to create a " Messiah " out of Sri Ramakrishna, even

> though He is

> considered an Incarnation. Also, it appears the

> " Ramakrishna movement " (if I

> may coin this term, in order to describe such

> organizations as yours and the

> Vedanta Societies in America) is equally happy in

> sharing Vivekananda with

> the world, along with or even to a greater degree than

> Ramakrishna.

>

> I'll stop here, and hope this opens some interesting

> and enlightening (for

> me, at least) discussion.

>

> God Bless Us All,

> Brad