Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Homo rishi

Expand Messages
  • jasonjamesmorgan
    Hello Jody, I take it we both recognize that Sri Ramakrishna is an avatar. So if I were to accept this translation of yours, what would I learn? How does
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 11, 2005
      Hello Jody,

      I take it we both recognize that Sri Ramakrishna is an avatar. So if
      I were to accept this translation of yours, what would I learn? How
      does your conception of this Rishi, differ from mine?

      I cannot accept that he had sexual tendancies. Whether they are with
      women or men, makes no difference to me.

      Honestly, the Master was so honest and pure, if he did have sexual
      desires, would he not have expressed them?

      So, the way I understand the situation, you accept these things, and
      still love and respect the master. That is awsome. I however tend
      to believe the inner circle.

      I also wonder, Swami Vivikananda was so head strong, and it took many
      meetings with the master to fully surrendor to him, I dont see him
      suffering sexual advances, and still respecting him.

      Anyways, I assume you love and respect the master. Am I correct?
      If so, how would your conception differ from mine? If you take it I
      believe his disciples translations.

      Namaste
      Om Namah Shivaya
      Jason James Morgan
    • jodyrrr
      ... You would learn that saints are people too, with all the foibles and tendencies of the rest of us. You would learn that desire is not a boogie-man,
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 11, 2005
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, jasonjamesmorgan
        <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello Jody,
        >
        > I take it we both recognize that Sri Ramakrishna is an avatar. So if
        > I were to accept this translation of yours, what would I learn? How
        > does your conception of this Rishi, differ from mine?

        You would learn that saints are people too, with all the
        foibles and tendencies of the rest of us. You would learn
        that desire is not a boogie-man, despite Ramakrishna's
        constant propaganda against women and gold.

        Ramakrishna was a human man, an intelligent yet educationally
        ignorant one. If he had desires for same sex relationship,
        even for young teen men, it doesn't impact his avatarship
        one bit, AFAIC.

        But the I believe that God is a freak. Ramakrishna expresses
        that perfectly.

        > I cannot accept that he had sexual tendancies. Whether they are with
        > women or men, makes no difference to me.

        Of course not. You've bought deep into the hagiography.
        Many of my fellow Vedanta Society members feel the exact
        same way. I did too. But I had suspicions, Kripal's book
        confirmed them, and I came to see that sex of any kind has
        as much to do with the Self as my dog's butt.

        > Honestly, the Master was so honest and pure, if he did have sexual
        > desires, would he not have expressed them?

        He did. But only echos of them were recorded.

        > So, the way I understand the situation, you accept these things, and
        > still love and respect the master. That is awsome. I however tend
        > to believe the inner circle.

        Like many others. But that inner circle all had reason to not
        reveal this dimension of Ramakrishna's life. In the context of
        his recorded words, he is made out to be a hypocrite. But if you'd
        note, Ramakrishna was always preaching about heterosexual sex,
        not homosexual sex.

        The danger in the hagiography is that one is led to believe
        that self-realization renders one sexless, or that one must be
        sexless to come to self-realization. Both are completely false
        assertions, despite what Ramakrishna preached to the boys.

        > I also wonder, Swami Vivikananda was so head strong, and it took many
        > meetings with the master to fully surrendor to him, I dont see him
        > suffering sexual advances, and still respecting him.

        Oh please! Ramakrishna made several advances recorded in
        the Bengali Kathamrtra. They just didn't get translated in
        Nikhilananda's English version.

        > Anyways, I assume you love and respect the master. Am I correct?

        Absolutely.

        > If so, how would your conception differ from mine? If you take it I
        > believe his disciples translations.

        As I said, the boys have kept a lot out of their writing.
        However, M left some of it in. That's what the research is
        based on.

        My whole problem with the hagiography is that it gives us
        an absolutely unattainable model. The de-mystified Ramakrishna,
        while being a somewhat tragic figure, points to a very
        important truth: that everyone is human, and self-realization
        is not limited to people who are little more than caricatures
        of history.

        --jody.

        > Namaste
        > Om Namah Shivaya
        > Jason James Morgan
      • jasonjamesmorgan
        Hello, I will take a look, maybe I will wait for the third version of this book. I will also ask around to see what others think. What do you think of his
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 11, 2005
          Hello,

          I will take a look, maybe I will wait for the third version of this
          book. I will also ask around to see what others think.

          What do you think of his bhavamukha?

          And I still dont know what hagiography means. LOL I guess I learn
          something new everyday, I will look it up.

          You have expanded my understanding of the Master. Even if I dont buy
          into this. Thanks.

          I salute you.
          JJM
        • jodyrrr
          ... There probably won t be a third edition. The Ramakrishna devotional community has made life very difficult for Kripal. As far as he and the Academy are
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 11, 2005
            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, jasonjamesmorgan
            <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello,
            >
            > I will take a look, maybe I will wait for the third version of this
            > book. I will also ask around to see what others think.

            There probably won't be a third edition. The Ramakrishna
            devotional community has made life very difficult for Kripal.
            As far as he and the Academy are concerned, it's a dead issue.

            But as far as others thinkĀ—if you ask devotees, they will
            deny it as even as a very remote possibility. People make their
            ideas of their spiritual heroes a part of their own self image.
            It literally becomes a part of who they are in the world.
            They just can't even imagine something that varies from that
            internalized image, especially something like a preference
            for young teen boys.

            As horrible as that sounds, that kind of desire is hardwired.
            People with those tendencies are compelled by them. People
            don't decide their sexual preferences. They're mostly born
            with them, IFAM.

            > What do you think of his bhavamukha?

            Ramakrishna was certainly a spiritual savant, much more than
            many modern bigtime gurus. But he was also a queer little man.
            That's why I love him, just as much if not more than for his
            substantial spiritual gifts.

            > And I still dont know what hagiography means. LOL I guess I learn
            > something new everyday, I will look it up.

            It's the package of stories that form around the biography
            of a saint.

            > You have expanded my understanding of the Master. Even if I dont buy
            > into this. Thanks.
            >
            > I salute you.
            > JJM

            Maybe you don't need to buy into this. But I needed to share
            the fact that there's another view of Ramakrishna, one which
            is seemingly diametrically opposed to what the devotees have
            learned from the Math, and one which has made all the difference
            in my own spiritual life.

            I'm not trying to convince you, Jason. I'm just saying others,
            including myself, are convinced. The lesson from my perspective
            is again: saints are just like you and me. They have all the
            same faults more or less, but those faults get buried in time,
            replaced by idealized nonsense. That is hagiography.

            --jody.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.