Swami Vivekananda

[Viraja]

Namaste everyone,

I am motivated to start a new thread on Swamiji since I was interested in reading about him in another thread (Murti puja is not idol worship) and only some partial information is given there, I want to know more about swamiji. This is not the wikipedia type of information I need, rather, an intellectual appreciation or lack thereof of swamiji's life and mission with reasons.

I studied in Ramakrishna Mission schools and when young, great amount of respect was instilled in my young mind for swamiji. The way he took to renunciation while still young, the way he was the chosen disciple of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, who upon giving initiation to Swami Vivekananda, is said to have placed his right hand over Vivekananda's head which immediately took Swami Vivekananda to a state of deep meditation, the way Swami's opening address at USA gained a roaring applause immediately, etc, have all been given adequate stress when at school that in my mind Swamiji is nothing short of a 'LION' of a man. Very importantly, I was greatly touched by Swamiji's response to Sri Ramakrishna's advanced throat Cancer when one day when Sri Ramakrishna was about to throw up, Swami Vivekananda caught it in his very own hands. I am also touched by the emotional turmoil and sorrow that sisters such as Sister Niveditha (sorry if incorrect) took to , upon Swamiji's demise.

That is the reason why I want to hear both factors about him - factors that applaud Swamiji as a great spiritualist as well as factors that seem to suggest he watered down Sanathana Dharma to fit the needs of a Western audience so as to gain more converts or popularity or both.

If you are one of those who knows Swamiji well either way, please respond!

TIA!

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakam: Hinduism Today did a longer article on him last winter. Here's the link. It explores both 'sides'.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules...hp?itemid=5344

Aum Namasivaya

[Jeffery D. Long]

Vannakam: Hinduism Today did a longer article on him last winter. Here's the link. It explores both 'sides'.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules...hp?itemid=5344

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste!

I wrote a substantial portion of that article. Thank you, Eastern Mind, for sharing it.

I will write more on this topic in a day or so, as requested.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Idol worship and advaita.

Vivekananda adopted Advaita as base. According to Advaita, Idol worship is only practiced to stabilize the mind as according to Gita (18.61), God is inside our heart.

When we go to temple, we join hands, bow head and close eyes. right? now why do we close eyes, when we visit temple to have darshan.

The symbolic meaning is that the same God whom you are worshipping is inside you, but it is very difficult to understand this. Worshipping god in human form is also easy rather than in kurma avatar. that's why we hardly see temples of boar and kurma avatar of Vishnu.

Darshan means to know and not to see. Bhagavan in Gita ways that one who knows and not one who sees my karma and birth as divine. Even by seeing you actually know a thing.

e..g if you see a saree, you get the knowledge that 'this is saree'.

So according to Advaita, God is omnipotent and nirAkAra, it is difficult to grasp the formless God, as we believe that we are body and body has a definite shape and form. Hence Idol worship is introduced, so that students can progress in spirituality, rather than just hold on to thoughts and lofty ideals, but fail to apply and live up to these ideals.

Uddava Gita explains idol worship.

According to Advaita, the when god is inside us and outside us i.e. omnipresent, advanced meditators are told to either meditate on OM or practice Neti-Neti. Please note that OM is nirAkAra. There is no temple dedicated to deity 'OM'

Please visit this link for more details about reason behind idol worship.

----

Swami Vivekananda

I have not read Vivekananda, but a person whom I personally Respect says that, Vivekananda did what he had to do.

During his time, people were either becoming atheist or they converted to another religion. As far as Christianity is concerned, it is not unknown that Christian missionaries used to bribe poor, needy people to convert to Christianity. In return they used to give them basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter. They set up schools, and taught that their religion and way of living is superior then ours. Rational, free thinking. was stressed. Here on the one hand, our culture which is knowledge oriented was perishing. No one wanted Moksha. No one was practicing dharma. Only artha and kama were left. Earn and enjoy was all left. Evils in society was gaining and poople were saturated. They wanted to come out of this suffocation. Hence people accepted foreign culture blindly.

Vivekananda saw the system of working and did the same. He preached seva as prime. Encouraged unity, service, opening of schools and hospitals. i.e. adopted same model that Christians were using. He called Hindus and saved them from conversion or becoming athiest. Freedom struggle was already going one. Unity was needed. On the other hand, Vivekananda went to America and his chicago speech and his other attempts made west to respect Hindu / Indian Culture. What is the use of great tradition if it is not practiced. First is to get freedom with spirituality and religion as backbone.

Maybe this is the reason why Vivekananda is popular among Freedom Fighters. What Vivekananda did was 'need of the hour'

Presenting Hinduism in foreign land the way the people understand is logical and acceptable. The core teachings should remain the same.

Swamiji did not want western coverts. First job was to make Hindus Hindus and stop Hindus to convert to an athiest. With appraise from west, Indians gave importance to his philosophy.

---

Stressing on one part does not mean other parts are automatically refuted

Other Than this, when someone is stressing on one thing, it does not mean that other things are automatically negated. e.hg. if Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana Maharshi focussed more on meditation, it does not mean that they dis approve Shastras.

Sri Ramakrishna infact gave AshTAvakra Gita to (Narendranath) Swami Vivekananda.

---

Sri Ramana Maharshi also created his own shastras that are not intended to replace, but complement traditional shastras. There were some devotees who would only be satisfied when they got answers of shastras. For them, After Realization, Sri Ramana Maharshi read them. He is said to have referred some works on Swami Vivekananda like Raj Yog, apart from traditional shastras.

Sri Ramana Maharshi translated Vivek Chudamani into Tamil when Tamil translation was out of print. Apart from this He also emphasized many shastras.

---

Coming back to Vivekananda, as I have said when one focuses on one part, it does not refute another.

e.g. Husband says to wife, "I Love you"

Does this mean, "I hate my mother, I hate my daughter, I hate my sister"

Why is study of Shastras necessary?

the ultimate state is Self Realization, but one cannot abide in Self, so one has to meditate But to meditate, one should know one what and how to meditate. Hence Shastras are necessary as they show direction and give clarity.

If you want to visit America,you can

1. See the map of USA yourself
2. Talk to the one who has already visited America
3. Visit yourself

3rd option is the best. But guidance is necessary, hence, 2nd option (Guru) is necessary. But his way should be tried as tested. shastras are collection of experiences of innumerable saints since time immemorial. Hence the way of shastras is time tested and still effective and hence should be taken as an authority.

But the main goal is to meditate and realize and the last vasana i.e. shastra vAsanA as Sri Adi Shankara said in Vivek Chudamani has also to be renounced.

but to practice freely, one should not be obstructed in learning.

Now in Britisher's rule, our culture and religion was targeted and their culture and religion was projected as better and superior. In this case, how one can change study if one doubts the whole of hindu system and become athiest. So there was a need to stop this drive. Best way was to develop respect for Hinduism in eyes of westerners. Hence Vivekananda went to U.S.A, Europe, etc and said in a way that could be understood, grasped and appreciated by Westerners.

Using the opponent logic to explain and convey the meaning is an old method which our traditional acharyas like Adi Shankara and other Vaishnav Acharyas used.

You use their logic, find faults within it and correctly portray the meaning of the e.g.

Saints do not initiate any work by themselves

Swami Vivekananda actually did not want to spread anything. During Last days, Sri Ramakrishna asked Narendranath, what did he wished. Narendranath replied, "I want to sit in samadhi for many days at a stretch". Sri Ramakrishna replied, "you have such a low level of thoughts, you will have to do the divine work". Later he got experience of Samadhi and few minutes before living physical body, Sri Ramakrishna by TraTaka gave all the powers (siddhis) to Vivekananda.

If you observe, even Adi shankara did not want to have verbal duels. It was upon orders of his Guru GovindapAda that he preserved Shastras and wrote commentaries. It was upon Orders of Bhagavan Shiva that he wrote commentary on Brahma Sutra. Later at 16 years of age after meeting to Veda Vyas and discussing and Brahma Sutra for some days, he prayed to Ved Vyas to stay with him for one muhurata so that he could leave his body in his presence. Upon Blessings of Ved Vyas, his life was extended for 16 more years and then upon Veda Vyas's orders he went began his dig-vijaya yAtrA.

Since these great souls never take initiative upon themselves, they are not attached to the work they are doing.

---

MithyA, mAyA and anitya

After one is mature, one can easily adopt the correct meaning of mithyA as illusion. But for beginners it is difficult to accept that this world is merely an illusion. Hence Adi shankara in Tatva Bodh defines nitya and anitya.

Nitya means one which is atman i.e. eternal

anitya means one which is not atman i.e. not eternal.

Kindly note that here, the word illusion is not mentioned and mAyA is separately defined in Tatva Bodh.

I have attempted to explain these concepts on my site here

---



Aum

Amrut

[Amrut]

Namaste!

I wrote a substantial portion of that article. Thank you, Eastern Mind, for sharing it.

I will write more on this topic in a day or so, as requested.

Namaste,

Nice Article Prof Jeffery

Aum

Amrut

[Viraja]

What I think is that, Amrut ji, that Sri Ramakrishna's realization of god and his influence over Swami Vivekananda would have an impact on Swamiji's thoughts (and thereby his actions and speech). I have read Sri Ramakrishna's biography and it is stated in there that he realized god as an immense sheath of light of many colors that came in from all directions and merged into himself. This and how Swamiji must have felt when he got initiated by Sri Ramakrishna, all must have had an influence on Swamiji's perception of god and of murti worship. For example, if we consider Sri Ramalinga Adigalar, who realized god only as light and is said to have merged into it, it is said that his main teaching is that worship of god with forms in unnecessary. I am not saying we should all start thinking so because Adigalar realized god that way, but the way he realized god would definitely influence his perception of various modes of worship - and so also for Swami Vivekananda.

EMji, thanks for posting the wondering article by Jeffery ji and Jeffery ji, thanks for a detailed article on Swamiji and his works. I am half-way through reading it and I find the article easy to read, and covering Swamiji's mission and the circumstances surrounding his spiritual development pretty thoroughly.

Thank you, folks.

[Amrut]

What I think is that, Amrut ji, that Sri Ramakrishna's realization of god and his influence over Swami Vivekananda would have an impact on Swamiji's thoughts (and thereby his actions and speech). I have read Sri Ramakrishna's biography and it is stated in there that he realized god as an immense sheath of light of many colors that came in from all directions and merged into himself. This and how Swamiji must have felt when he got initiated by Sri Ramakrishna, all must have had an influence on Swamiji's perception of god and of murti worship. For example, if we consider Sri Ramalinga Adigalar, who realized god only as light and is said to have merged into it, it is said that his main teaching is that worship of god with forms in unnecessary. I am not saying we should all start thinking so because Adigalar realized god that way, but the way he realized god would definitely influence his perception of various modes of worship - and so also for Swami Vivekananda.

Namaste,

If you have read Sri Ramakrishna's Biography, you you must be aware that light was not the only form that Sri Ramakrishna had experienced.

Sri Ramakrishna said that, initially one may see Maa in full splendour, well dressed with full of ornaments, then later on in simple dress without much glamour, later on you just see her as light.

The experience which you have mentioned was that during Tantrik Sadhana when he saw that gigantic waves from all sides came towards him so fast that upon next blink they were all over me and before I could think something, they just enveloped me and I felt on ground unconsciousness.

What you are trying to say that one experience of Sri Ramakrishna had great influence and so he thought that Idol worship is not necessary is IMHO not correct.

Remember when Sri Ramakrishna gave first experience of God to Narendranath, he saw God everywhere, in food, in spoon, in the pillar. He actually hit his head on the pillar to confirm that it was real. If you are talking of influence than Vivekananda had that experience for 3 days and this experience was not God as light. He did not see light everywhere. Hriday had that experience, when he saw that his body and Sri Ramakrishna's body was jyotirmayi and he said that mAmA (uncle) I and you are one. It is only for your sevA that I have different body, else we are same and he was screaming. Sri Ramakrishna replied, "calm down kid, why are you shouting? People will gather here by listening to your shouting. I experience this 24 hours. I do not scream like you do"

In another instance, as said in earlier post, last experience of Narandranath was Nirvikalp samadhi and when he was meditating along with Vruddha Gopal, he asked Vruddha Gopal, " Where is my body, I cannot feel it? I can only feel my head" At that times, he did not came back fully to worldly consciousness.

Sri Ramakrishna preached all kinds of paths. He said, 'medicine depends upon disease'.

Sri Ramakrishna once arranged a meeting with Gopal ni Maa (I guess I am right) and Narendrnath. They were both east and west. Gopal ni maa was practising baala Krishna bhakti, while Sri Ramakrishna had put Narendranath (Narendra) on Advaita. Strangely Sri Ramakrishna asked Gopal Ni Maa to freely share her experience to Narendra. She did with tears of Joy and kepts asking Narendra that if all these experiences were correct. To everybody's surprise, Narendra acknowledged all her experiences and said they are all correct with tears in his eyes. This shows that Swami Vivekananda was not against Idol Worship.

What people are missing is that when he is focusing on one part he is not actually rejecting another part. I have already mentioned it. Also note that the statements or Answers depend upon the mental state of questioner. Ashtavakra Gita talks about ajata vada and asks the meditator, 'who meditates' meaning who meditates, atma or sarira? Both cannot, so drop meditation. Now this is for advanced sadhaka who had uprooted all desires except one - I want Moksha. This instruction is for him as time has come to drop this desires also. Entire ashtavakra Gita talks about ajata vada and it is revered by Advaiting. So does it mean that one does not need to meditate as you will remain Atman even if you do not meditate?

As earlier explained in earlier post, in advaita Idol worship is only in beginning. Later on it's either Neti-Neti or OM. Comparing it with Srila PrabhupAda or any Vaishnava acharyas views is unfair. Compare is with Advaita. If Advaitins say this approach is not traditional, then one can say that Swamiji has said something that does not comply Traditional Advaita Teachings or Adi Shankara's teachings.

Teacher will often criticize on part in front of disciple. But this is only done when Teacher thinks that the student is ready to go beyond it. The intention is not negative. Accordingly to Advaita, upon which Swamiji's teachings are based, it think is not contradictory to say Idol worship is primitive stage or for beginners.

Boat is not the destination but a tool to cross river. It cannot lead you to your destination which is not just crossing river. In the beginning qualities of boat are praised e.g. it will not drawn you, etc. This is singing glories of (sakara) ishwara. Later on when you reach opposite river bank, then it is time to quit boat. Hence it's limitations are given e.g. it useless on land, etc. This is a kind of constructive criticism, because the intention is to move ahead in your journey.

Hope this is helpful.

Aum

Amrut

[Viraja]

That was helpful, thank you, Amrut ji.

Like what you said, I read in the article written by Jeffery ji this sentence -

"The Swami formulated a traditional Hindu idea from the view of Advaita Vedanta, ignoring the worship of many Gods, elaborate rituals and observances of popular Hinduism as practiced by most Hindus."

So I think this is what some of the more traditional Hindus are opposed against - I am very interested in knowing exactly what he said on the subject of ritualistic practices, and what his preachings had been. In other words, what he said - does it exactly vibe with Advaita Vedanta? I am very curious to know this.

But, overall, I do see from the article, the man I have been given to understanding since childhood, that of a selfless sannyasi who took great interest in and thereby influencing those who took part in Indian Independence, a committed spiritualist and a social revolutionist who wanted to educate the poor largely and whose efforts led to the missionary and relief works of the Ramakrishna foundation.

[Amrut]

Namaste Virajs ji,

In plain words, we need to learn maths, science, geography, history in school. Later on we go in for specialization when we become graduate. Still further, we do mastery (phd) in a particular field.

All these branches like maths, science, etc do not look complementary and at times students find it unnecessary to learn, yet a complete system includes learning basics about most fields. So it is vedas, idol worship, rituals, etc. But just as a PhD in organic chemistry will not talk about history or arts subjects and about romeo and juliet and will say that a lover keeps rose flower thinking that it is her lover's heart is illogical. Can you blame that PhD? After dedicating many years and focusing in one field, people do speak about strengths of their field of mastery.

Sri Ramakrishna's mission, AFAIK is to prove that all paths like Vaishnav, Shaiva, Shakta (Tantrik), Advaita are true. He did not want us to worship all forms of God. Worshipping any one form of God is enough, and one pointedness i necessary, but one cannot hate other paths. That's all he wanted to convey. If we believe that other paths as holy as mine, we will be at peace and in harmony with others and stop fighting and stop mentally cursing others. After that a ritualist will keep practising rituals and even an advaitin will call him to perform rituals, as not all family members are fit for advaita and that Advaita do not reject rituals, as Paramacharya Shri Shri Chandrashekhar Saraswati of Kanchi Kamkoti Peetham said that Vedas and Vedanta do not clash and he said that Adi Shankara said 'follow vedas'. So even though Adi shankara or Vivekananda may not have directly supported idol worship or rituals, they have done indirectly.

During Sri Ramakrishna's days it was a need of an hour for communal harmony.

The purpose or intention is important and picking up word will not help. It is possible that Swami Vivekananda may have advised some people to have faith in Idol.

If people talk about traditional way, then one should not carry on negative things like shaivas fighting with vaishnavas over deva supremacy. That's why Adi Shankara brought Smart Sampradaya. Remember all 18 puranas have been authored by one person - Veda Vyas. Why would he praise Vishnu / Krishna in one purANa and Shiva, Brahma, skanda, Ganesha, etc in another? what's the purpose - to make people fight over deva supremacy or to understand that all forms of Gods are equal and any form of God is capable of giving what you want and only for the purpose of establishing faith in one form of god he is praised a to be Supreme Please think.

Traditional does not mean stubborn.

Why would he promote building temples? Why would he write arati of Sri Ramakrishna? Why Adi Shankara's all maths have temples?

Please do not stick to 'Brahma Satya, Jagat Mithya' Adi Shankara is much more than 'Brahma Satya, Jagat Mithya'

If we stick this above words that we cannot justify actions of saints.

If everything is mithya then why

1. build temples
2. Why serve poor
3. Why fight for freedom
.
.
.

so many whys?

for all those technically inclined, there is a method which Swami Sacchidanendra Saraswati found out from Shankara bhasya on Gita. it is called as 'adhyAropa apavAda' which means that at one point of time you accept one philosophy and at other time you negate it.

This is indeed a long topic in itself. May give e.g. from Gita later, mostly from chapter 9, and chapter 13

One Advaitin found words 'adhyAropa apavAda' were found in Tejo Bindu Upanishad

Source

Book: Method of Vedanta in English by Swami Saccidanendra Saraswati.

Lastly I would conclude that just like there are specialized professors who teach physics, chemistry, maths, etc, each cannot represent the entire education system. They collectively form a 'complete education system'. Hence they do not contradict shastras. They compliment it.

Regarding twisting, comparing with Adi Shankara's views, Vaishnava acharyas twisted the teachings and put sakar over nirAkAra. they are accepte. Vivekananda twisted is so that social service i.e. karma is given importance.
Adi shankara --> Jnana
Vaishnava acharyas --> bhakti
vivekananda --> Karma

Note: I do not intend to say vaishnav acharyas are wrong. they just covered those people, who form majority, who did not or could not follow advaita, thereby giving opportunity for all, including common mass to practice spirituality and they must get due credit.

Aum

Amrut

[smaranam]

Note: I do not intend to say vaishnav acharyas are wrong. they just covered those people, who form majority, who did not or could not follow advaita, thereby giving opportunity for all, including common mass to practice spirituality and they must get due credit.

Aum

praNAm

Just one point. VaishNav are not VaishNav merely because they or the majority cannot follow advaita or becs it is impossible to go into nirvikalpa technically. It is also because giving up the Lotus Feet of SHRI KRSHNA GOVIND MADHUSUDANA NARAYANA for something attributeless is unthinkable and irrelevant for them. They won't give up the rasgulla-and-water for just water.

The bhAv that this is all Me, but KRshNa is my Lord, is for a handful few. The vast majority of advaita followers have no real bond with Bhagvan, they want the attributeless. The vast majority of VaishNav have no inclination towards the attributeless, they want to serve that Lotus-eyed sacchidAnanda nirguN Bhagvan Who is utterly butterly bhakta-vatsal, plays flute, holds the Sudarshan, and blows the pAnchajanya.

Also, regarding the point on how lofty the idea of advaita and seeing God in heart is. Well, first, seeing God in your own heart is easy, not difficult.
Second, it is not the meditation on and samAdhi into the nirAkAr Bramhan that is lofty, but rather the idea of competing with Ishvar and expecting the 18 siddhis (in order to become Him) which is - not only lofty, but again pointlessly unthinkable.

A few examples of Bramhan-jnanis, totally absolute monists who turned their attention to the Lord are Shukdev Goswami and the 4 SaNakAdi kumars. Another in-between example may be PralhAd.

Both Gita and BhAgvat have shlokas that talk about the yogis, siddha, jivan mukta who are NArAyaN-parAyaN despite their being total Bramhan.

The purpose of this post was to balance the information with the missing pieces.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya