Dharma Pravartak Morales?

July 21, 2005

The enclosed short extract is part of a detailed response to the article by Frank Morales on Radical Universalism that attempted to slight Swami Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna. His article suggested that these spiritual giants are responsible for watering down Hinduism and they do not represent the authentic face of Hinduism.

The enclosed response came from Chittaranjan Naik. It is a very well thought out, crisp & sharp rebuttal to the article of this so called Dharma Pravartak - Morales.

At the end of his article Morales acknowledges that his article received tremendous encouragement and support by: Swami Dayananda Sarasvati, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra and Dr. David Frawley. We wonder if these individuals would like to distance themselves from the likes of Morales after this debacle?

As a response to this Morales article the Vivekananda Centre London has already submitted an article on Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda for publication in the next issue of Hinduism Today.

regards jay Vivekananda Centre London

====Short extract from a detailed response by C Naik. Italics refer to Morales's article=========

Ramakrishna and the Irruption of Hindu Universalism

In his attempt to negate Radical Universalism, Dr. Morales also degrades and belittles the Hindu saint, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, who was perhaps the greatest living proof of Hindu Universalism.

The next two neo-Hindu Radical Universalists that we witness in the history of 19th century Hinduism are Ramakrishna (1836-1886) and Vivekananda (1863-1902).

Throughout his remarkable life, Ramakrishna remained illiterate, and wholly unfamiliar with both classical Hindu literature and philosophy, and the authentic teachings of the great acharyas who served as the guardians of those sacred teachings. Despite the severely obvious challenges that he experienced in understanding Hindu theology, playing upon the en vogue sentiment of religious universalism of his day, Ramakrishna ended up being one of the most widely popular of neo-Hindu Radical Universalists.

These are careless words. Do we recognize whom we are here sitting in judgment over? Which pole of the paradox that was Sri Ramakrishna are we speaking of? Is it of the Ramakrishna that was nothing but a flute through which Reality poured forth its Divine Music? Or is it of the Living Reality that filled the mortal frame through and through till there was nothing here but the Life of the Universe pulsating in the frame?

Do we recognise that there was no Ramakrishna, the man? That there was only Sri Ramakrishna, the artless child, and Sri Ramakrishna, the Unfathomable Reality?

This is Living Waters, not the arid desert of academy! The future of Hinduism is not determined by academic papers, but by the living founts of its living saints!

Religion is not archaeology; it is Life. The saint of Dakshineswar was not just a man; he was an irruption of epiphany into the flowing waters of Hinduism!

Did someone say that Sri Ramakrishna was not familiar with the authentic teachings of the great Acharyas? The authentic Self needs no teachings! It is the Reality that is spoken of in the Vedas! Have we not heard of the doctrine of Pratyabhijna? Sri Ramakrishna recognized within his Self what others strive to learn from without!

This world has come out of the Self; where shall ye find its truth if not in the recognition of Self? The Self is all this. Saints like Ramakrishna are not influenced from outside; they recognise each thing outside as the play of Eternity inside!

The play of Eternity is Kaala, Time! She is Kali who moves it; She is Eternity moving. She it was that filled Sri Ramakrishna!

Does anyone still say that Sri Ramakrishna was unfamiliar with the authentic teachings of Hindu religion? With what authority do we impugn the very life of Hindu religion? Are we blind to the fact that this child of God, this illiterate rustic from an unknown Indian village, was a blaze of jnyana-shakti that reduced great Hindu scholars into the likes of kindergarten students? Have we not heard of his meetings with Pundit Ishwara Chandra Vidyasagar and Pundit Shashadhar? The child of Kali might have been a simple and artless person, but the discriminative Sword of Kali never failed him. From where indeed did words like these arise in Sri Ramakrishna:

“No one can say that God is only ‘this’ and nothing else. He is formless, and again He has forms. For the bhakta, He assumes forms. But He is formless for the jnani, that is, for him who looks on the world as a mere dream. The bhakta feels that he is one entity and the world another. Therefore God reveals Himself to him as a Person. But the jnani – the Vedantist, for instance – always reasons, applying the process of ‘not this, not this’. Through his discrimination he realizes, by his inner perception, that the ego and the universe are both illusory, like a dream. Then the jnani realizes Brahman in his own consciousness. He cannot describe what Brahman is.

“Do you know what I mean? Think of Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute, as a shoreless ocean. Through the cooling influence, as it were, of the bhakta’a love, the water has frozen at places into blocks of ice. In other words, God now and then assumes various forms for His lovers and reveals Himself to them as a Person. But with the rising of the sun of Knowledge, the blocks of ice melt. Then one doesn’t feel anymore that God is a Person, nor does one see God’s forms. What He is cannot be described. Who will describe Him? He who would do so disappears. He cannot find his ‘I’ any more.

“In that state a man no longer finds the existence of his ego. And who is there left to seek it? Who can describe how he feels in that state – in his own Pure Consciousness – about the real nature of Brahman? Once a salt doll went to measure the depth of the ocean. No sooner was it in the water than it melted. Now who was to tell its depth?

“There is a sign of Perfect Knowledge. Man becomes silent when it is attained. Then the ‘I’ which may be likened to the salt doll, melts in the ocean of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute and becomes one with It. Not the slightest trace of distinction is left.”

Tell me, Sir, you who say that Sri Ramakrishna wasn’t familiar with the authentic teachings of Hinduism, what these authentic teachings are. Before you dare to measure the words of the saint, quote me those words of Sri Ramakrishna (giving also the sources of your information) that you find so discordant with the authentic teachings of Hinduism. We shall then see who it is that is unfamiliar with the authentic teachings of Hinduism!

Unlike the lives of ancient and medieval saints that come down to us through the mists of legendary stories, we are fortunate to have the life of Sri Ramakrishna recorded in fairly accurate detail. But it is clear that Dr. Morales has not bothered to read them before writing his paper. How else does one account for such callous words as these?

Sri Ramakrishna’s universal vision was not, as Dr. Morales claims, due to the influence of the Brahmo Samaj or Keshab Sen. Sri Ramakrishna was influenced by only one thing, and that one thing was God! It speaks out of the pages of his biographies – if one cares to read them! In conclusion, we would like to state that Dr. Morales fails to provide a single argument to substantiate his claims - he merely gives us his blinkered opinions instead. Dr. Morales is welcome to outline the biography of Sri Ramakrishna and show us that his dogmatic opinions have a base, but until then we are fully justified in classifying the words of Dr. Morales as a work of pure fiction.

Swami Vivekananda and the Will to Heroism Not being content with his apostasy against Sri Ramakrishna, Dr. Morales proceeds to give us his warped opinions about the great Hindu lion-heart, Swami Vivekananda:

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 some 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 authentic 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.

This is how Romain Rolland describes the man that Dr. Morales accuses of stooping to gain the approval of European masters:

“His pre-eminent characteristic was kingliness. He was a born king and nobody ever came near him either in India or America without paying homage to his majesty.”

“It was impossible to imagine him in the second place. Wherever he went, he was the first. Even his master Ramakrishna, in a vision which I have related, represented himself with regard to his disciple as child beside a great Rishi. It was in vain that Vivekananda refused to accept such homage, judging himself severely and humiliating himself – everybody recognized in him at sight the leader, the anointed of God, the man marked with the stamp of power to command. A traveller who crossed his path in the Himalayas without knowing who he was, stooped in amazement, and cried, ‘Shiva’ … It was as if his chosen God had imprinted His name upon his forehead.”

When Vivekananda, the unknown Indian monk, began his speech in the Parliament of Religions, the whole assembly rose up unbidden, and they knew not why! If there is one trait of Vivekananda that comes across consistently from all his biographies, it is this: he never stooped to the opinions of anyone, be it a saint of a European master! Vivekananda walked like an unsheathed sword. He abhorred hypocrisy and never hesitated to strike down any form of sham. This trait of Vivekananda has been recorded uniformly in all his biographies, and it echoes in these words that he once spoke to his sannyasi brethren:

“Bravery is the highest virtue. Dare to speak the whole truth always, to all without distinction, without equivocation, without fear, without compromise. Do not trouble about the rich and great. The Sannyasin should have nothing to do with the rich. To pay respects to the rich and hang on to them for support is conduct which becomes a public woman.”

Dr. Morales suffers from some kind of delusion in saying that Vivekananda diluted Hinduism to cater to foreign masters! Vivekananda was a fire! A fire doesn’t bow down; it burns, it roars, it reduces everything that stands before it to ashes! To say that he wilfully watered down authentic Hindu teachings to gain the approval of European masters is not only false, but it is blatantly offensive to the Hindu who regards Vivekananda as a man in the mould of the raja-rishi, Visvamitra.

Only in selfless service can vairagya take root and make one worthy to take on Vedanta, the conquest of the last barrier of the soul. These words of Vivekananda still ring in our ears today:

“If you seek your own salvation, you will go to hell. It is the salvation of others that you must seek…. and even if you have to go to hell in working for others, that is worth more than to gain heaven by seeking your own salvation….. Sri Ramakrishna came and gave his life for the world. I will also sacrifice my life; you also, every one of you, should do the same. All these works and so forth are only a beginning. Believe me, from the shedding of our blood will arise gigantic, heroic workers and warriors of God who will revolutionize the whole world.”

<snip>

July 21, 2005

Is it so important to be labeled " Hindu " ?

Angel

<snip> Angel can you kindly delete the previous message(s) when you reply. In

this instance we have edited it out.........jay

Vivekananda Centre wrote:

>The enclosed short extract <snip>

July 21, 2005

I doubt that Morales has read the biography of RamKrishna Paramhans or the works of Swami Viveknanda (if so very little)

Time and again I have heard people link spirituality with how literate you are and how much they know about scriptures. They couldn't be more wrong.

I have met many monks who are illiterate but you can feel the charge of spirituality by being in their presence. Their love for god being much more intense. I have also met vedanta acharayas and other learned monks but feel nothing, no spirituality.

I once met a very learned monk (a top graduate of Baneras hindu university). He told me that all I have done all these years is a exercise of the mind, nothing else

I have done a little search on the home page of Morales and other sites, but cannot find the names of the great spiritual leaders who gave him the title Dharma Pravatak or at least the name of his Guru. sorry for being nosy but, I am keen to know.

Vijay

July 22, 2005

not necessary

bhaskar

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 Angel Norris wrote :

>Is it so important to be labeled " Hindu " ?

>

>Angel

July 25, 2005

namaste.

is the problem with " label " or " hindu " ?

if the problem is with " label " , one should grow beyond " labels " and it is

not same as " label-lessness " .

if the problem is with " hindu " , then it becomes a " political issue " !!

regards,