Replies to queries in digest no: 1893.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

One thing I wish to emphasise before coming to the subject. I may have the

ability to compose mails on subjects pertaining the Holy Trio but that does not

mean that I have understood them better than the others have. I myself go

through my own mails and those of others to learn from them and measure my

performance vis a vis the views I and the others put forward. Writing mails is

an intellectual achievement, not necessarily a spiritual one. I don't want to

fall into the pitfall of becoming a pandit and thus strengthening my ego rather

than obliterating it. I say this in all humility.

 

Mr Chellamani. Namaskar. There is essentially not much of a difference between

persons A and B. The person A wishes to remain within the samsara (i.e. the

cycle of births and death) to help others. He may be granted his wish if he so

qualifies. And again person B may desire liberation but maybe sent back again by

the will of Providence so that he may serve mankind as he qualifies for the

same. We see examples of person A in the lineage of the Dalai Lama and the

Panchen Lama. We see person B in the direct disciples of Thakur who attain

liberation but have to come whenever Thakur brings them along with him. They

have no choice really.

 

Manoj, we cannot talk of Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa Samadhi in the case of Thakur.

He himself mentioned his position when he talked of the small child being formed

of the formless and descending towards earth. Thakur was always in samadhi. As

Swami Saradananda beautifully put it, " We mortals have to struggle so hard to

raise our minds a little above the mundane level and there we saw Thakur who had

to struggle so much to bring his mind down to converse with us " . Thakur was in

perennial yoga with mother so much that he negated his own existence by

referring to his body as the container where Mother dwelled. So he was always in

samadhi. Similiar was the case with Gautama Buddha and Ramana Maharshi. When

people argued with Ramana to show him his real form he simply disappeared

meaning that he had really no existence separate from the undivisible self.

 

Uday, thank you for sharing this wonderful incident with us. Recently I read in

the books of Annie Besant that when we dream of holy people it does not mean

that they descend from their levels to convey their message but that the

intensity of our prayers takes us momentarily to their level. Many people have

similiarly had darshan of Holy Mother a notable one being Mrs Gupta of the Sri

" M " trust who was assured of recovery and also instructed that she bring out the

manuscripts on Sri " M " in print. Sri recovered and did so. In Bhubaneswar a

devotee had darshan of the Holy Mother just prior to his open heart surgery

assuring him that all would be fine.

 

Shankar, yes it is beacause of Thakurs body being pure sattwa that he felt so

much pain on being touched by impure people. Holy Mother describes how radiant

and extraordinarily soft his body was. Thakur was looked after mainly by Raja

Maharaj and Latu Maharaj as they were extraordinarily pure in body and mind.

Thakur also did not mind Swami Premananda serving him as he was a part of Sri

Radha.

 

Sourav, you are right in saying that Thakur had come to teach samsari people how

to live in Samsara. The problem is every section of people feel that Thakur had

come just for their sake. Similiarly every devotee of Thakur who met him felt

that Thakur loved him more than anyone else! It is true that most of the

sannyasis of the Ramakrishna Order have joined after reading the Kathamrita. It

is also true that the Kathamrita is the constant companion of every sadhu in the

Order. So I will not argue with you. However when I said Sri Ma I meant Sri " M "

and not Ma or the Holy Mother.

 

Srinivas, I do not know what frame of mind our dear Swamiji was when he made

that comment about Jesus. As far as I know he was travelling in a ship when this

thought struck him. But Thakur had a darshan of Jesus. In fact he described

Jesus as having a flat nose. Very few know that there are descriptions of Jesus

having a flat nose. So we cannot say that there was no Jesus. He certainly was.

 

Love & regards to all,

Jagannath.

 

 

 

 

Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.