Sri Ramakrishnas attitude to devotees.

September 2, 2004

Dear Friends,

The question our dear friend Chellamani has raised requires some deep thinking.

Why should a man of God, an Avatar who is compassion itself, treat his disciples

according to merit? In his eyes everyone should be the same for, being a man of

vision, he sees the atman lurking within everyone.

This question has been tackled in the epic Ramayana when critics questioned

Rama's action of crying for Sita, or killing Bali etc. It was explained that

when God appears on earth as a human being he has to take upon himself the

frailties of mankind. In the Mahabharata also we see Lord Krishna behaving as an

ordinary mortal at times seemingly swayed by anger or passions. In the Gita it

is written that when God incarnates he takes the help of maya. Does that mean

that he comes under the sway of maya? Probably yes.

There is a saying in Bengali, which Thakur often quoted, " panchabhuter mare

brahma pode kande " . Even the creator becomes a plaything in the hands of the

five elements when he falls into the trap of maya. We have the instance of

Vishnu incarnating as a pig and then becoming so immersed in his " pig family

matters " that he did not have any desire to return to Baikuntha!

Secondly we must not forget that Thakur came with the object of being a world

teacher. He knew that even a slight flaw on his part could be wrongly

interpreted and become an excuse to indulge in sensuality in the name of

religion. So he was extra cautious in his every action. Again Thakur never had

the intention of destroying any prevailing custom but sought to build on the

existing structure he found upon his arrival. So he behaved in a manner that

would be deemed proper at his time.

We must also be aware of the fact that Thakurs health had taken a severe beating

because of his intense spiritual impetus. As a result his nervous system had

become over sensitive. Even during his healthy days he physically felt intense

pain if he was touched by any immoral person or when his body came in touch with

money. He used to compare the pain with the sting of a thousand scorpions.

Naturally he was unwilling to subject his body to such pain, not because of his

own self preservation, but for the benefit of his devotees. We must remember his

words days before he left the body, " It would have served a great purpose had

this body survived some more time but Mother will not let it be. She knows that

many (wicked?) people will come to whom I may unwillingly reveal all the

secrets. " He also revealed that his disease was because he had to absorb all the

evil deeds of Girish Ghosh.

However it is wrong to assume that Thakur did not have compassion for the fallen

souls. We have already cited the case of Girish Babu. There are numerous such

instances. Once a reformed prostitute, emboldened by Thakurs assuring words,

touched his feet. As expected Thakur jumped up in extreme pain and hurried to

pour ganges water on his feet. But he also realised that his action had

depressed the woman. So he sang songs for her to uplift her spirit and lovingly

asked her to offer pranams from afar if she were to visit him again.

We also know that he used to stick his neck out while travelling in a carriage

just because he wanted as many people as possible to see his face and become

liberated. He often lamented that, " God is today roaming like a beggar in the

narrow streets of Calcutta for the sake of his devotees but no one cares! " He

was referring to his numerous visits to Calcutta often without invitation to

enquire about his devotees. People who had come once or twice to visit him and

did not bother to go to him thereafter.

And, most important, if Thakur did not have compassion then why did he have to

take on a human body and incarnate on earth?

In my next mail I'll try to discuss Holy Mother's point of view on the same

issues.

Love & Regards,

Jagannath.

Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Enter now.

September 2, 2004

Dear all,

I wish to raise a topic - more for my enlightenment

rather than for mere arguing.

Man takes birth and rebirths and it is supposed to be

guided largely by Karma law. i am not going into the

merits of the law itself as it can be a separate topic

of discussion. i am coming to something else:

Assume there are 2 individuals; both are pious, pure

minded, noble and have enormous good deeds behind

them. the only significant difference in their

attitude is this:

Person A thinks that he should be born again and again

and prays to God that he should eb blessed with measn,

opportunity, power or resources tos erve the mankind

in all possible ways.

Person B always prays that he shoudl be liberated from

the sansaric birth-rebirth cycle and he should see the

end of the world forever.

Now the question arises : whose thought process or

attitude is better, nobler or of higher altitude ? or

in other words, who is a greater peson ?

I sincerely feel that person A is supoerior becasue

even in seeking liberation there is a subtle

underlying selfishness inherent !! Again here i wish

to quote Swamiji : 'That one who lives for others

alone live'

Views of learned brothers'/sisters' insights are

requested.

jai sri ramamkrishna,

Chellamani

September 3, 2004

Dear Friend,

I completely agree with Jaganath. but I also have some thoughts on this issue.

Guru maharaj has kept the " Pure Satva Guna " to return to this world to keep

alive. This is one of the reasons why he can't allow the wicked people to touch,

feed him. " Pure Satava Guna " can't accept the impurities.

If you carefully see the devotees of guru maharaj, all are not pure souls.

But he accepted them all.

since his body itself is transformed in to " pure Satva " , it is very hard for

him to accept every thing from every body, because he had to keep his body This

shows his empathy towards all of us.

Thanks

Shankar

Jagannath Chatterjee <jagchat01 wrote: