Anonymous said... on Sept. 14, 2008:
its definitely more appreciable to posses both the knowledge of ploughing and reading bhagavat,but being well versed in suchlike issues u must be aware that if an individual truly attain to enlightment he cannot bear to engage in any mundane material activities any more.why do we till soil etc?to earn for a living,isnt it?then is it possible for one who have actually felt dat this world is an illusion n temporary to perform bread earning chores?to do dat would amount to hypocrisy.wat is meant by ramakrishna is dat one should try to hear about god from such a person who have seen god,rather than one who have merely gulped up some scriptures.remember the parrot of rabindranath's 'tota kahini'?try n get in the spirit of the sayings rather than dissecting at it.
REPLY
1. The survival of human race depends on the mundane activities like ploughing, harvesting, dairying, bee-keeping. In a strict sense and true spirit, they cannot be termed mundane; they are to be termed divine. Imagine for a moment: If the farmer strikes (like employees in some sectors) against sowing seeds or the dairy keeper sells away his cattle to a kabela unable to maintain them, we shall starve. The Godmen will also starve and shout at the top of their voice. Their God does not come and save them.
2. A person who is well versed in philosophy and attainment cannot live like a parasite on the society, asking the devotees to pay not only his own cart fares, house rents, but also feed his disciples and entourage.
3. Kabir, though a saintly personality, earned his livelihood by weaving cloth. Bammera Potana who translated Bhagavata Purana into Telugu earned his livelihood by ploughing his field. They never considered that weaving and ploughing were mundane.
4. Even a person who realised that this world is temporary, has to work to earn his livelihood, unless he is physically frail.
5. Plants make their own food through photosynthesis as long as they live. All animals in this creation depend for their food on other animals and/or ultimately on plants. In this respect of self-support, plants are ahead of humans, both philosophically and practically.
6. What hypocrisy will there be in working for one's own livelihood?
7. Ramakrishna himself falls under the category of the persons who claim that they have seen God, for which there is no proof. Though Swami Vivekananda claimed that Shri Ramakrishna showed him (Vivekananda) the God just by touch, Vivekananda's experience could have been an illusion or Vivekananda himself might have created the incident to glorify his preceptor, out of great infatuation for his Guru.
8. The whole Shri Ramakrishna's divine stories could have been a sham. This doubt is not being raised by me. It was raised by Swami Brahmananda himself, the first President of Belur Math, and a senior co-disciple of Swami Vivekananda. Proof for this, you can see in the discussion Vivekananda made in his letter dated Oct. 18, 1895 addressed to Swami Brahmananda. I quote from it:
" ... Sir, granted that Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was a sham, granted that it has been a very serious mistake, indeed, to take refuge in him, but what is the way out now? What if one life is spent in vain, but shall a man eat his own words? Can there be such a thing as having a dozen husbands? Any of you may join any party you like, I have no objection, no, not in the least, but travelling this world over I find that save and except his circle alone, everywhere else thought and act are at variance. For those that belong to him, I have the utmost love, the utmost confidence. I have no alternative in the matter. Call me one-sided if you will, but there you have my bona fide avowal. If but a thorn pricks the foot of one who has surrendered himself to Shri Ramakrishna, it makes my bones ache. All others I love; you will find very few men so unsectarian as I am; but you must excuse me, I have that bit of bigotry. If I do not appeal to his name, whose else shall I? It will be time enough to seek for a big Guru in our next birth; but in this, it is that unlearned Brahmin who has bought this body of mine for ever.
I give you a bit of my mind; don't be angry, pray. I am your slave so long as you are his — step a hair's breadth outside that, and you and I are on a par. All the sects and societies that you see, the whole host of them, inside the country or out, he has already swallowed them all, my brother. ..."
9. Reading scriptures at least enables a person to know what is contained in them. For knowing what is in the scriptures, invariably we have to read them and dissect them, compare the contents with what is written in other scriptures to find out the truth. Weeping for God or asking others to weep for God, sitting on beds and carpets gifted by others, do not imply that a person has seen God and entitle such person to ask others to hear from persons who have seen God rather than hear from those who gulped from scriptures. The belief that the other person who had read scripture gulped them without understanding them tantamounts to speaking with prejudice.
I trust that I tried my best to satisfy your comment.
(to continue editing).
No comments:
Post a Comment