|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
anandatandava2
USA
24 Posts |
 Posted - Aug 11 2009 : 9:15:20 PM
|
| I'm seeking in-depth info on Ramakrishna, not least of which were his tantric methods. |
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Aug 14 2009 : 10:15:32 AM
|
Try 'Kali's child' (David Gordon White?) for a tantric view of Ramakrishna which is only hinted at in the core Ramakrishna texts. It's not a book I enjoyed, because I think it colludes with the suggestion that this tantric side is a bit sensationalist, as if it is revealing suppressed and disreputable secrets. (White does this in his other texts on tantra as well, I feel). Whereas, I don't think Ramakrishna had anything to hide or tried to hide anything, or indeed was capable of hiding anything. This is the tantric way. It was his disciples, in a more prurient age, who glossed over, and perhaps were embarrassed by, some aspects of Ramakrishna's utterly liberated and liberating presence. We only have to practice tantra (or psychoanalysis) authetically to know that what Ramakrishna presented on the surface, we all know and experience under the surface.
chinna |
 |
|
|
miguel
Spain
1197 Posts |
Posted - Aug 15 2009 : 3:11:57 PM
|
Hi anand.
I recomend you "life of ramakrishna" of Romain Rolland.
It was writen at the begining of last century.
I enjoyed it a lot.
Good luck |
Edited by - miguel on Aug 15 2009 3:22:22 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 15 2009 : 9:59:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
Try 'Kali's child' (David Gordon White?) for a tantric view of Ramakrishna which is only hinted at in the core Ramakrishna texts. It's not a book I enjoyed, because I think it colludes with the suggestion that this tantric side is a bit sensationalist, as if it is revealing suppressed and disreputable secrets. (White does this in his other texts on tantra as well, I feel).
chinna
Kali's Child is actually by Jeffrey Kripal. Both he and David Gordon White are authors of tantra-related books, published by the University of Chicago Press, and both are professors of religion (and so, I can see how it might be possible to confuse these two authors).
On the one hand, many Hindus in general, and many Bengali Hindus in particular, felt that Kripal (who doesn't speak Bengali, and who apparently doesn't know the language all that well) kind of saw what he wanted to see, in terms of his views of Ramakrishna's sexual inclinations and/or behaviors - and (according to those who claim to know more Bengali than Kripal) "stretched the Bengali to fit."
Kripal's story is that he worked with Bengali scholars, to pull out information from Bengali writings (including the original Gospel of Ramakrishna) which were highly edited and "sanitized", and that he's providing a more accurate picture of Ramakrishna than the "sanitized" text offer.
I haven't read Kali's Child, but I've read excerpts, and have read overviews from both Kripal and his detractors.
Everyone involved seems sincere enough. Kripal seems like a well-meaning academic, but (just FYI, for all) his book seemed to be much more about his views of Ramakrishna's "hidden" sexual psychology, and the puritanical tendencies of 19th century Bengal (and both Bengal and United States in the 20th century, in certain circles, at least -- namely the Ramakrishna Mission).
I have no idea if Kripal's views have any merit, whatsoever -- my main point in bringing this all up, is: sexual psychology and tantra don't really have anything to do with one another.
Kripal's book (as I understand it; please clarify if needed, since you {Chinna} have read it, and I haven't) -- is about his theories/opinions concerning Ramakrishna's sexual tendencies, why they were hidden and sanitized in various writings, and so on -- not about tantra, or tantric practices, per se.
I've read the Gospel of Ramakrishna, and while it may be sanitized, I found a lot of value and sense of authenticity in the (alleged-to-be) first-person statements of Paramahamsa Ramakrishna.
I've also read two of David Gordon White's books: Kiss of the Yogini: Tantric Sex In Its South Asian Contexts & The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India.
White seems a little "awed" by Tantric mysticism at a couple of points, but in general, I give him high "authenticity points", and in general, his academic research and articulation are quite good -- especially from someone who is admittedly not a tantric practitioner.
Just FYI to all -- if you'd like to read books on the deepest realms of Kashmir Shaivism, including the tantric disciplines of Trika, Kaula and Krama, I highly recommend the books of Dr. Mark S.G. Dyczkowski, specifically The Doctrine of Vibration: An Analysis of the Doctrines and Practices of Kashmir Shaivism (Suny Series in the Shaiva Traditions of Kashmir).
Dyczkowski is an amazingly skilled academic, who studied directly with Swami Lakshmanjoo; I've found his books on Tantra to be in a league of their own, academic-tantric-writings-wise (and that league is *staggering*).
Primarily because he is not just an academic, he is a tantric yogi, himself; this makes all the difference.
How authentic is this guy?
Who can say? He *does* live and teach in Varanasi - the "Jerusalem of India", and the heart of Tantric Shaivism for the last 5000 years or so.
His site: http://www.markdkashi.com/
Dyczkowski is an academic who is a tantric yogi; Swami Laksmanjoo was a tantric master who was also a (Sanskrit) scholar.
Between the two of them, and personal experience, you can get everything of value, from the deepest teachings of tantra.
Do either of them mention sex?
I don't believe they do.
For that - hey, we have the AYP Tantra book, by Yogani!
Tantric practices, as AYP teaches *can* be helpful.
However, tantric practices, at essence, are not about sex or sexuality -- tantric practices are to tantric philosophies as working out at the gym is to exercise physiology - the methods by which the truth taught by, and indicated by, the philosophies, are brought into experience.
Tantric practices can include sex and sexuality, but are not limited to them.
The yogas of Kashmir Shaivism are actually quite a bit more comprehensive than Patanjali's Samkhya-based system (which is not to say anything against Patanjali in any way; but simply to make the point that the concept that "Tantra = Sex" is simply a myth created by neo-tantra, in very recent times).
And so - I'm not trying to derail the thread here at all ... just wanted to mention that Kali's Child is by Kripal and not White -- and felt moved to mention Dyczkowski.
Because Paramahamsa Ramakrishna's teachings were brought to the world through a somewhat "puritan" type of filter, finding any detail on his tantric practices might be tough.
However, he was certainly as tantric as it gets - he was a master from the tantric Bengali Shakta path - which is the Bengali equivalent of a tantric Kashmiri Shaiva, and which, with the Siddhars of South India, are the triad of authentic, well-known tantric philosophies, emanating from India (within the greater scope of so-called Hindu philosophies, that is; there's plenty of depth in certain schools of tantric Buddhism, as well).
Hope This Helps.
Yantra, Mantra, Tantra - All The Way - AUM,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Aug 16 2009 : 07:37:58 AM
|
Thank you Kirtanman. Some years ago I gave away my library so did not have texts to check. I was too lazy to google the authors. Apologies. I entirely agree with your comments on Kripal, White, Dyczkowski, Ramakrishna and tantra.
At the risk of diverting the thread, just to say I am not so much in agreement that psychoanalysis has no connection with tantra. With a skilled practitioner, it reveals and uses desire to eliminate self-separation. But as with all paths, it's a connection that may only be found in experience and not conceptually. Our disagreements are always about concepts, when they haven't yet completed their work and dissolved themselves, and us (or what we thought was ourself) along with them.
As Ramakrishna said 'As many faiths, so many paths.' Or something. (I can't check this either!)
Thanks again for the clarification.
chinna |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 17 2009 : 9:45:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
I am not so much in agreement that psychoanalysis has no connection with tantra. With a skilled practitioner, it reveals and uses desire to eliminate self-separation.
But as with all paths, it's a connection that may only be found in experience and not conceptually.
Our disagreements are always about concepts, when they haven't yet completed their work and dissolved themselves, and us (or what we thought was ourself) along with them.
As Ramakrishna said 'As many faiths, so many paths.' Or something. (I can't check this either!)
Thanks again for the clarification.
chinna
Hi Chinna,
No problem; "it's all good", as they say.
Please just let me clarify: I agree with what you wrote above.
In fact, true psychoanalysis and psychological methodologies (Freud, Jung, etc.) can essentially be considered "Western inquiry" (using the term somewhat loosely).
Basically, if a given approach helps one to be more clear on true nature, and/or to extricate mind from conditioned, illusory conceptuality in any way ... it's a potentially useful tool-set ... or part of such ... at least.
What I was referring to was specific to the style and topic of Kripal's book.
As I understand it (and based on a couple of excerpts I read), Kripal was saying that Ramakrishna (per Bengali portions of the Gospel of Ramakrishna that were not in the English version, at all) apparently had some repressed homo-erotic tendencies, and knew that these were "wrong", per his (Ramakrishna's) attempts to "hide" them (per statements made in the original Bengali writings that were published as the Gospel of Ramakrishna, along with Kripal's seemingly very specific-to-his-own-views interpretation of those writings).
And, therefore, what I was saying is that, whether or not Ramakrishna had any particular homoerotic (or any-erotic) tendencies at all, is not in and of itself something that would give anyone insight into "tantric practices" that Ramakrishna might have engaged in.
I could possibly have been more clear in the exact way I stated it, originally, but simply put:
Jeffrey Kripal's opinions about certain writings about Ramakrishna, and Jeffrey Kripal's related theories about Ramakrishna's possible sexual tendencies and psychology ... are what I was saying don't have anything to do with tantra, or tantric practices.
As opposed to, say, David Gordon White's books, which are pretty much solely about various tantric rites and practices, or Dyczkowski's or Swami Lakshmanjoo's books, which are about the depths of tantric philosophy, and how they related to non-dual tantric yogas (as outlined in the Siva Sutras, the Yoga Spandakarika, the Vijnanabhairava Tantra).
Exploring one's own psychology can certainly be tantric practice (though this approach can potentially be fraught with the risk of thinking that one's thoughts and feelings { the ones the I-thought has} have something to do with awakening) -- and, as long as the practice ultimately helps one to know-experience one's own original awareness, which has zero dependence on the ever-vacillating of the dream-musings of conceptual mind ... no matter how deeply conditioned -- it's of value.
What ever helps us to know ourselves as the truth that sets us free ... has value in awakening "us" out of the dream.
However, books offering opinions about someone else's alleged sexual psychology (such as Kripal's book about Ramakrishna) ... "maybe not so much" (maybe not so tantric).
Hope that helps clarify what I was saying.
Heart Is Where The AUM Is,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Aug 18 2009 : 07:09:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
I am not so much in agreement that psychoanalysis has no connection with tantra. With a skilled practitioner, it reveals and uses desire to eliminate self-separation.
But as with all paths, it's a connection that may only be found in experience and not conceptually.
Our disagreements are always about concepts, when they haven't yet completed their work and dissolved themselves, and us (or what we thought was ourself) along with them.
As Ramakrishna said 'As many faiths, so many paths.' Or something. (I can't check this either!)
Thanks again for the clarification.
chinna
Hi Chinna,
No problem; "it's all good", as they say.
Please just let me clarify: I agree with what you wrote above.
In fact, true psychoanalysis and psychological methodologies (Freud, Jung, etc.) can essentially be considered "Western inquiry" (using the term somewhat loosely).
Basically, if a given approach helps one to be more clear on true nature, and/or to extricate mind from conditioned, illusory conceptuality in any way ... it's a potentially useful tool-set ... or part of such ... at least.
What I was referring to was specific to the style and topic of Kripal's book.
As I understand it (and based on a couple of excerpts I read), Kripal was saying that Ramakrishna (per Bengali portions of the Gospel of Ramakrishna that were not in the English version, at all) apparently had some repressed homo-erotic tendencies, and knew that these were "wrong", per his (Ramakrishna's) attempts to "hide" them (per statements made in the original Bengali writings that were published as the Gospel of Ramakrishna, along with Kripal's seemingly very specific-to-his-own-views interpretation of those writings).
And, therefore, what I was saying is that, whether or not Ramakrishna had any particular homoerotic (or any-erotic) tendencies at all, is not in and of itself something that would give anyone insight into "tantric practices" that Ramakrishna might have engaged in.
I could possibly have been more clear in the exact way I stated it, originally, but simply put:
Jeffrey Kripal's opinions about certain writings about Ramakrishna, and Jeffrey Kripal's related theories about Ramakrishna's possible sexual tendencies and psychology ... are what I was saying don't have anything to do with tantra, or tantric practices.
As opposed to, say, David Gordon White's books, which are pretty much solely about various tantric rites and practices, or Dyczkowski's or Swami Lakshmanjoo's books, which are about the depths of tantric philosophy, and how they related to non-dual tantric yogas (as outlined in the Siva Sutras, the Yoga Spandakarika, the Vijnanabhairava Tantra).
Exploring one's own psychology can certainly be tantric practice (though this approach can potentially be fraught with the risk of thinking that one's thoughts and feelings { the ones the I-thought has} have something to do with awakening) -- and, as long as the practice ultimately helps one to know-experience one's own original awareness, which has zero dependence on the ever-vacillating of the dream-musings of conceptual mind ... no matter how deeply conditioned -- it's of value.
What ever helps us to know ourselves as the truth that sets us free ... has value in awakening "us" out of the dream.
However, books offering opinions about someone else's alleged sexual psychology (such as Kripal's book about Ramakrishna) ... "maybe not so much" (maybe not so tantric).
Hope that helps clarify what I was saying.
Heart Is Where The AUM Is,
Kirtanman
Thanks Kirtanman, I agree with all you say here, and think Kripal reveals his own hang-ups, and those of Ramakrishna's previous biographers. No problem, I wasn't seeking an argument, only standing up (perhaps a little paranoidly!) for psychoanalytic approaches, in which field I work.
chinna |
Edited by - chinna on Aug 18 2009 07:39:49 AM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Ramakrishna
