Sugata Bose @Subhabrata Basu : Your words bespeak of self-conceit which you are entitled to. Your assumptions about me are entirely your own understanding and reveal your mind-set about which I refuse to be drawn into passing a remark on. You may harbour whatever notions you have about me or about the sayings of great men like Sri Ramakrishna but that does not alter the ground reality of my statements made. Do not waste time over insignificants like me. Better utilise them for grander pursuits of life. As for the medium used in the comment section, I may be a Bengalee and have written the post in my mother tongue from my mobile phone which has the Bengalee script embedded in its structure, but I have been responding from my desk-top computer in the comment section and my computer is innocent of my mother tongue. Hence, the predicament, I suppose.
Sugata Bose @Deepanjan, beware ! Stick to Sri Ramakrishna. Assiduously avoid Swami Sarvapriyananda or anybody else other than Swami Vivekananda if you want to advance in spiritual life.
Sugata Bose @Deepanjan Mitra : Do not venture into Sarvapriyananda etc. Maya !
Sugata Bose @Debkanti Moitra : Who can save a self-deluded soul? Those that are engaging in commenting here about the householder's eligibility for the Vedanta need to read what Thakur says on this issue in the Gospel.
Sugata Bose @Debjit Banerjee : Thakur thinks otherwise. You see, Debjit, you are missing the point. This post is with reference to the bloating up of the false ego of the sense-seeking householder who in his misapprehension of the deeper import of the Vedanta deems himself to be God and comes to grief thereby. He deludes himself and deludes others. Alas, who cares to read what Thakur says on these pertinent issues in the Gospel !
Sugata Bose @Debkanti Moitra : Go back to the Gospel and find out who is deluding whom? However, I will again warn you that it is not easy to read the Gospel on a sustained basis as Raja Maharaj had exhorted aspirants to do. It will throw you off into the channel of your earlier desires which are stored in your system as sanskars. And this many a soul know from their experience.
Sugata Bose @Debkanti Moitra : You have entirely missed the fundamental import of the post which is unfortunate. Rare, indeed, very rare, one in a billion, perhaps, is the householder who is eligible in the truest sense to understanding the import of the Vedanta. The rest are merely pandering to their earthly vanity in the name of studying this most abstruse of subjects. Surely, Thakur could not have been wrong when he repeatedly warned householders against such hypocritical affirmations of Vedantic truth while all the while remaining immersed in sense-activity of a dubious order relative to such sublime pronouncements, only verbally made by this pretentious aspirants but not carried out to a semblance of perfection in real life.
Sugata Bose @Deepanjan Mitra : This is it. You have got it. As Shakespeare so very aptly says, 'When old men fool and children calculate.'\
Sugata Bose @John Embrey (in veneration of his spiritual understanding and appreciation of his comment post Debkanti Moitra's egotistic exhibition) : Read the above two comments of John Embrey, my dear erudite friends who are so intent on promoting the Vedanta and think it is incumbent on devotees for an understanding of Ramakrishna-Vivekananda. Most of these modern messiahs are self-deluded 'kupamandukam' (frogs in a well) who think that their little knowledge is the all-in-all of life and its spiritual aspect.
Sugata Bose @Debjit Banerjee : You have a point here but you have to understand the context of the posts that I have been making here to highlight what John Embrey and Deepanjan Mitra have so effortlessly understood but somehow many others are unable to quite comprehend or choose not to do so on account of personal considerations. Your comments are, of course, by way of a very general reading of the posts and have no agenda in attempting to orient others along your line of thinking as some of us are habitually prone to. The point here is that those who talk high-sounding Vedanta to impress others or self-impress fail to carry out its principles even to a minimal extent in real life. They proceed to deliver sermons as it being incumbent upon devotees for their appreciation of Ramakrishna-Vivekananda and that reading the Gospel or Vivekananda direct without any such scriptural aid is insufficient when the Master himself was of the opposite view. To go against what Thakur has said (as recorded in the Gospel) is something I do only in my hours od delusion which are many but which I in my moment of self-awareness try and come out of to proceed again along the track of the timeless ones ('Mahajana yena gatah sa panthaa'). The problem on Facebook and in life in general as well, which teachers are most aware of with respect to their students, is that few understand the import of a statement made with reference to its context or the scope and range of a question raised. Most are preconditioned to answering along the line of their preconceptions, predilections and prejudices. If you wish to read my answer to your question about Swamiji's 'Boner Bedanta', you will have to keep on reading everyday my posts assiduously which I will frankly tell you not to do as it will be a gross wastage of your precious time. So, keep on reading when you can afford the time and see whether I have addressed your question or not. If luck deems it so, you will stumble upon one such post where your query will have been satisfactorily addressed.
Sugata Bose @Debkanti Moitra : Completely wrong. In every phase and movement of the Gospel Thakur has talked about the self-deluded householder Vedantist and dissuaded the ordinary householder from engaging in such delusive discrimination of the unreality of the universe and the affirmation of 'Aham Brahmasmi' which merely builds up the false ego and leads to delusive destruction of not only the spiritual life but of life and morality in general. Read properly the Gospel. Go back to it before you keep countering me with misconceptions about my intent, understanding and representation in writing about the pristine principles of the divine duo who came into my life at its very hour of youthful efflorescence. The truly renounced alone are able to appreciate the real import of the Vedanta and not dabblers into its text under any pretext, academic compulsion of sorts or attempt to win the approbation of the public by exhibiting erudition which is far removed from the real discrimination that leads to the realisation of the Self.
Sugata Bose @Debkanti Moitra : It was you who began the harsh assessment of my conception of Thakur and now you turn it on me. What a volte face ! Somehow, it seems you know better than Thakur about the matter of our discussion and are trying to persuade others to your course. You are violating principles, not I. I have no time to waste on these foolish things which you inevitably draw me into with your so-called superior wisdom of the Vedanta whenever I highlight any aspect of it in the light of Ramakrishna's utterances on it, as if you alone have the understanding of its deeper import and not others. Tell me face on : Have you realised the Self? Have you attained to samadhi where the eternal witness witnesses itself in a timeless spaceless self-brooding? Are you a seer, that is, a mantra drashtaa?
Sugata Bose @Debkanti Moitra : Your inability to apprehend the import of my posts is your own limitation and not mine. Perhaps, you have not read the Chicago Addresses where Swamiji specifically talks about the 'kupamandukam' in one of them. Hence, your present predicament in incorrect appraisal of my posts.
Sugata Bose @Debkanti Moitra A knower of Brahman is a linguistic usage. It does not therefore mean that the user is denoting Brahman to be an object or thing to be known. Incidentally, Brahman is not even 'Brahman' and is beyond discussion as well, for it is devoid of attributes. So, how about it when you call it what you call it? This tendency to correct others (John Embrey in this case), when you are not a Self-realised soul, smacks of the unreal ego definitely which ought not to adorn someone who professes the Vedanta.
Sugata Bose @Debkanti Moitra : Debkanti Moitra First learn to appreciate the context and content of a piece of writing before making wild unrelated assertions. It seems you have assumed the role of teacher to us who have devoted a lifetime of study of Ramakrishna-Vivekananda and have tried to live up to it but failed miserably in the process. All these references you are citing are well known to all of us and we understand the context of their reference, too, as well as the import of them in elucidation of a spiritual point. So far as references from the Gospel are concerned relating to Thakur's warning of the pretentious householder donning the Vedantist's garb, there are instances galore, and any serious reader of the Gospel knows it. That you do not and, so, seek my assistance in the citation of such references bespeaks of your innocence of the Gospel. Hence, your present and persistent predicament and repeated remonstrance against my assertions in relation to the householder's Vedanta connection where I merely am representing in my own language what Thakur has inimitably given utterance to, as chronicled by M in the Gospel.
Sugata Bose @Debkanti Moitra : Finer logic requires brains for comprehension which evidently is lacking here. Moreover, there is a term called 'incorrigible' and it is very much applicable here. Those who are intelligent have understood my point. Let the rest wallow in the mire of material desire which they term pursuit of the study of the soul or in altered technical terms Brahmavijnan (the science of the Self).
Sugata Bose @Debjit Banerjee : The point again is being missed here. The entire context of the post has been lost owing to the drift of conversation and one's predilection. Sri Ramakrishna has repeatedly warned against the householder's assertion of 'Brahma satya jaganmithya', the famous Shankaracharya Advaita Mayavada mantra because according to him (Ramakrishna) in this age of Kali (darkened consciousness) ordinary householder's with sensory clinging and fleshly attachment are definitely going to be deluded into false understanding of the import of the mantra and will assume foolishly that they are the masters of phenomena and the sole arbiters of their fate etc. They are likely to be self-deluded and then lead others into delusion. This will lead to their downfall and the downfall of others. The Master in the Gospel in eloquent terms in repeated remonstrance against this delusive tendency of many a householder has said this. Anyone who is thorough with the Gospel knows it. Then why all this controversy has been brewed up by some of my friends who care not to read the text of the Gospel properly and then comment? Why do they not understand that I have no personal agenda in stating what I have in my language stated, the Master's words in altered linguistic terms but to the same effect? Why this persistent idea that I wish to impose my views on others? You are free to read, study, mediate on, contemplate, reflect, brood on, cogitate, recollect, whatever you wish to in relation to the Vedanta. Who prevents you? Will God do so or does He do so? If He in His Ramakrishna Avatar has said what He has said, why must you not understand this simple idea that it is Ramakrishna's words that I have given expression to and not my own? How does Swamiji's 'Boner Vedanta' come here in contradiction of the Master's explicit directions in this regard? Who is who's Guru - Thakur of Swamiji's or Swamiji of Thakur's? In his famous lecture in the West "Is Vedanta the Future Religion' Swamiji has exhorted people to not to enter a church or a temple if they wish to be spiritual? Must it then be assumed that the temple construction at Belur Math in memory of the Master set to order by Swamiji himself was a violation of his own idea? These are all to be understood in context. Show me one householder Vedantist who makes tall claims about his Godhead even have the courage to leave his home and hearth in search of that elusive Atman? Is it so easy to counter my points without understanding what I have been trying day in and day out to express without diligent following of my posts? Is it so easy? People ask me to be rational in argument but I desist from engaging in elaborate textual countering for fear of smashing their arguments to smithereens, a power which I possess but choose not to exhibit.
Sugata Bose @Aditya Srivastava : You are right. This is more a mart of commodity than a mansion of culture.
Sugata Bose @Shubhranshu Mohan Banerji : License. Liberty is precious and comes only with due discrimination. License deems such discernment unnecessary for it is not only presumptuous but profane as well. Moreover, such expressive exhibition of arrogance, the foster-child of ignorance, is not conducive to cultured social discourse which is the express purpose of my online observations.
Sugata Bose @Shubhranshu Mohan Banerji : In the morning I misunderstood your comment initially and hastily unfriended you. Later, after seeing the 'love sign' and the appreciative comment, I resent a friend request. This is the mystery of the whole affair, now fairly solved. The unfriending part was unfortunate as I was unfriending many an erstwhile friend who were bent upon continuously irritating me with corrosive comments on my posts. Hence, the present predicament. Lest the friend request irritate you in any way, I have undone it after reading your latest comment of surprised query, and will only send it if you so wish. This is in deference to your honour I have withdrawn the friend request and will only send it if you permit or wish to befriend me.
Sugata Bose @Shubhranshu Mohan Banerji : It is your own goodness and moral stature that deems me to be so for we see in others what we often ourselves are.Sugata Bose @Debkanti Moitra : Your declining sense of honour shames not only me as your erstwhile acquaintance and friend but shames you, too. Where a person can be drawn by pettiness of this sort is apparent like broad daylight to all who are reading your comments which are out of sync with the post proper. Remember you had called me up seeking my advice as to whether to proceed with Vedanta or not as Thakur in 'Kathamrita' has exhorted householders not to do so in express terms as it is injurious to them and to others spiritually, being the cause of self-delusion and consequent delusion of others by association. I had then comforted you and asked you not to give it up but to carry on with gusto despite Thakur's instruction to the contrary, citing your earnestness and sincerity as deserving of exemption from Thakur's injunction otherwise. But today I must say Thakur can never be wrong as is evident from your sinking behaviour with me by barging into my post and assuming centre-stage as the votary of not just the Vedanta but of everything that would counter Thakur's warning. Hence your declining standard of decorum in relation to me. Do not assume that I will take lying down such statements that I am misrepresenting Thakur. You must read the Gospel thoroughly before you assume such fist-fisting with me, this online war of words. Your attention is only to bits and pieces of my post and you conveniently ignore the entire text of it or its context. To uphold your stance as to the Vedanta you have proceeded not to counter me but in effect are countering Thakur's every word of warning about it in relation to the householder as chronicled in the Gospel. May Thakur lead you on with love and light in your sincere sadhana of the Vedanta but, as I reiterate, even your austere reading of the Vedanta text has by your unVedantic manners proved that the Avatar is always right. My regards to you and wishing you all health and happiness in these troubled times. Forgive me if I have hurt you in any manner but go back to Thakur in real earnest, I say. Ill doth it befit a human life being wasted in chasing wild geese, that of grandiloquent words and phrases about the unreality of God and the universe and the reality of the unnameable one for it is not only an insult to the loving Lord but an insult to humanity itself which is thus lowered into a complex gibberish of words with import unrealised. May Thakur bless you !
Sugata Bose @Arvind Parikh's Baithak : Nityanand Haldipur is a most accomplished flautist, melodic, serene, sublime, a disciple totally devoted to his Guru Ma Annapurna Devi, one who carries the purest stream of the Maihar-Seniya Gharana and has not sold his soul to the copper coin.
Sugata Bose @Deepanjan MItra : No, no, not at all. This has been the ongoing discourse from this gentleman for many years. He must barge into my posts and make supercilious remarks, assuming the role of teacher to all on the Vedanta while the while claiming that Thakur is all in all in his life, that initiation into spiritual life for him does not require the Ramakrishna Mission but that Thakur is directly guiding him in his every step etc. Earlier he used to be thus bent upon convincing everyone that India is still a dominion state and not a republic in the true sense etc. Whenever one counters him, he retorts with either 'You are lowering the level of the discussion, so I quit,' or 'You are shifting the goal post' or as for a couple of years he is exhorting people with 'You can follow Swami Sarvapriyananda on YouTube etc.'. He also tried to persuade me thus with the Sarvapriyananda stuff but I refused categorically stating that I find him superficial even though he is teaching the Vedanta. He just cannot tolerate dissent but thrusts the same charge on others. He, like many others, does not follow a post to its fullest textual and contextual import but proceeds to comment on the basis of his predilections and persuasions. And his comments are invariably supercilious which I respond to in more than equal terms which he cannot properly counter, and, thus, he resorts to pettiness of this sort. But this gentleman is sincere in his pursuit of Vedantic study for which I hold him in high regard. These are petty character flaws of the householder which we must accept as part and parcel of social life and move on.
Sugata Bose @Dhruba Narayan Bhattacharryia : I have been writing on music of late. You may read my short serialised pieces on Annapurna Devi, recently posted. Yes, I shall keep posting many such.
Sugata Bose @Dhruba Narayan Bhattacharyyia : I right now am writing on only Hindustani classical music, so far as my writing on music is concerned.
Sugata Bose @Pt. Ajoy Sinha Roy's Jayant Malhar : What a beautiful rendition, melodic, serene, sublime !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DQBP5Pl4M0&fbclid=IwAR16cLCBaFZNpO2GmIx7j9h50qs1zE5lj2p-e74eyrpEUUeXRAYStgohjOo
