Guest guest Posted September 28, 2003 Report Share Posted September 28, 2003 This message came to the Sri Ramakrishna List from Sourav. We are sharing our response. " sourav dey " i sometimes wonder whether swami vivekananda was also free from ego totally, as ws thakur. it seems from swamiji's words that he was very much concious about his own high stature and relied on philosophy of " I " rather than " HE " . pl. help me to find an answer to it. sourav. " sourav dey " <souravmadhur@ ----Our response-------------------------- Dear Sourav Your question is understandable. Some of Swami Vivekananda's brother disciples including Swami Saradananda have commented that when they came across Naren in his pre-monastic days, they too thought that his behaviour verged on 'arrogant'. Later on they recognised that this was indicative of a 'very self assured stance'. Outwardly he appears as hard as steel but inwardly he was found to be as soft as a flower. Sri Ramakrishna on the other hand appears very soft on the outside but is uncompromising and very hard on the inside. Once we told youngsters in our class in London that the best way to make a distinction between the two is to think of : - Vivekananda as a Candy with Soft centre (hard on the outside yet very soft inside) And of Sri Ramakrishna as a Whole-nut Chocolate bar (soft on the outside but hard inside). : ) jay Vivekananda Centre London Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2003 Report Share Posted September 29, 2003 Ramakrishna , " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda@b...> wrote: > This message came to the Sri Ramakrishna List from Sourav. > We are sharing our response. > > " sourav dey " > i sometimes wonder whether swami vivekananda was also free from ego totally, > as ws thakur. it seems from swamiji's words that he was very much concious > about his own high stature and relied on philosophy of " I " rather than > " HE " . > pl. help me to find an answer to it. > sourav. " sourav dey " <souravmadhur@ Namaste, This is a most unfortunate perspective, little borne out by a serious study of the Gospel, or by Swamiji's own words. The 'key' to Swamiji's work was in Thakur's hands; he was born to achieve a certain mission, just as Shankaracharya was. The ego of a realized person is like the 'burnt rope', it ties neither the one carrying it, nor others. Thakur himself said that this is also called 'vidyA-mAyA', as opposed to 'avidyA-mAyA', and it is retained for the benefit of teaching others. Swamiji responded to his brother-disciples' objections about the way he was presenting Vedanta in USA/UK, that he had to present it 'the way Thakur made him speak', and it was not his choice! His castigations of the Hindus followed the same forthright manner - that they had got mired in a 'religion of the kitchen', and not true spirituality, and the decline had started with the use of the word 'mlechchha' ! Swamiji was described by Thakur as 'an unsheathed flaming sword of Knowledge'. Swamiji's esteem for Thakur echoes in his words: " He could create ten-thousand Vivekanandas in the wink of the eye, if he wanted to " ! Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2003 Report Share Posted September 29, 2003 Naamaste, Thank you for the inputs.I don't actually want to compare them, but what really is astonishing for me is that Swamiji seldom said volumes on thakur. Swamiji himself told to believe in oneself more than god, and later he himself realized that he was just a puppet in the hand of thakur, which he himself admitted to ma. Thakur always told that He (GOD) is doing everything and not people, the people don't have that affordability or power to do even a very trivial thing without His wish. Ma also expressed the same feeling. But Swamiji never advocated that message. Instead he advocated on self rather than God. But where is self without God? If Self is God then why we are talking about self,leaving God all alone? Swamiji advocated that it is we who are doing. Don't you think that we the common people, if we think in the manner of self and self alone, it would elevate our aham or ego? Is it not better to translate our egos into " follower ego " as " I am His son, His follower... " like thakur said. That could only minimize our evil egos.Swamiji told to save ourselves by ourselves . Who are we to save us? He is our saviour, our resort. If Swamiji is advocating " self elevation " or " self confidence " then, my friend, there is a tinge of aham in every confidence that " I can do, I can manage " . Isn't that a serious impediment to the realization of God? Who I am? We common people always mix up confidence, strength, courage, boldnes with aham,and when it hurts we feel restles and agitated. It is out of my range or capacity to question Swamiji, but as a common man I feel much more satisfied with thakur's words which are seldom contradictory unlike Swamiji's. I would be obliged if anyone help me in this regard. jai ma jai thakur sourav. Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote: Ramakrishna , " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda@b...> wrote: > This message came to the Sri Ramakrishna List from Sourav. > We are sharing our response. > > " sourav dey " > i sometimes wonder whether swami vivekananda was also free from ego totally, > as ws thakur. it seems from swamiji's words that he was very much concious > about his own high stature and relied on philosophy of " I " rather than > " HE " . > pl. help me to find an answer to it. > sourav. " sourav dey " <souravmadhur@ Namaste, This is a most unfortunate perspective, little borne out by a serious study of the Gospel, or by Swamiji's own words. The 'key' to Swamiji's work was in Thakur's hands; he was born to achieve a certain mission, just as Shankaracharya was. The ego of a realized person is like the 'burnt rope', it ties neither the one carrying it, nor others. Thakur himself said that this is also called 'vidyA-mAyA', as opposed to 'avidyA-mAyA', and it is retained for the benefit of teaching others. Swamiji responded to his brother-disciples' objections about the way he was presenting Vedanta in USA/UK, that he had to present it 'the way Thakur made him speak', and it was not his choice! His castigations of the Hindus followed the same forthright manner - that they had got mired in a 'religion of the kitchen', and not true spirituality, and the decline had started with the use of the word 'mlechchha' ! Swamiji was described by Thakur as 'an unsheathed flaming sword of Knowledge'. Swamiji's esteem for Thakur echoes in his words: " He could create ten-thousand Vivekanandas in the wink of the eye, if he wanted to " ! Regards, Sunder 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.