Vedanta Vani
July 2025
Dependence on God
” Just make up your mind to engage yourself in the Lord’s work. Let others go wherever they please. You calmly stay in your place with your beloved Master. Let your body and mind be absorbed in Him. What will you gain by running around? Days are passing by, never to return. Don’t forget your main task. Make the Master your very own. Then everything will follow by itself. Those who are devoted to the Master and want to practice sadhana, please allow them to stay with you.
You want to know the characteristics of a person who is trying to live in this world while taking refuge in God. The characteristics are generally of two kinds. First, svasamvedya –-that which is known intuitionally by oneself. This is the best method. Second, para-samvedya, that which is known by others. Seeing the external signs of a person, people understand that he or she has attained knowledge. But then there is the possibility of a mistake in this second method, because the external signs may not be genuine. Therefore the first is true.
Once you take refuge in God, there is no more dependence on any other person, and the feeling of fearlessness spontaneously arises from within.”
Swami Turiyananda
Ishvara doesn’t like Insult to Spiritual Seekers
Suresh Babu (Surendra Nath Mittra) used to spend money for the comfort of the devotees. One day, Manomohan, a devotee of Sri Ramakrishna and a relative of Rakhal Maharaj, said, “Suresh Babu does not like Rakhal to live here.” At once Sri Ramakrishna exclaimed, “What! Who is Suresh? What is he doing here? Throw away all those beds etc that Suresh has brought for this place. Remove these things immediately. (When the Master got excited, everyone would be terribly afraid, and no one would dare to come near him.). Since the boys have good qualities and are inclined towards spirituality, I keep them with me, and pray to the Mother to bless them so that they may realize the Self. My idea is that they should first realize Ishvara and then they can live anywhere they like.”
Hearing about this, Suresh Babu fell at his feet and with tears in his eyes. He said that he had never said anything like that—-that it was all false. Immediately Sri Ramakrishna pardoned him.
Sri Ramakrishna’s life had two aspects. One should try to understand both. If one accepts only one aspect, misunderstanding will arise. For example: The Master gave presents to the musicians who played for him. When he had nothing else to offer, he gave them the clothes he was wearing. Wasn’t that an example of supreme renunciation? On the other hand, when the same Ramakrishna did not receive the usual food offering from the temple, he anxiously inquired about it and asked Swami Yogananda to go and get it. Swami Yogananda asked, “Why, bother?” But the Master scolded him, saying, “Oh, yes. I know you are a man of great renunciation. You don’t care!” How can these two attitudes be reconciled? Of course, Sri Ramakrishna himself did not take a bite of the food offering. He had it brought to be distributed among the devotees. Whatever has to be done has to be done. This is the idea.
[from: Sri Ramakrishna as They Saw Him]
Selection and contribution by Mevrouw Mary Saaleman
_____________________
Mary Saaleman is devoted to Sri Ramakrishna since several decades. She spends her time in the study of Sri Ramakrishna-related literature, prayer, etc.
_________________________________
Over Forming Opinions and Freedom of Expression”
Kees Boukema
People have opinions. Strong opinions on political and religious issues are also called ‘convictions’. People are not born with opinions. They are adopted from the environment in which they live, or they are acquired through their own experience and intellectual insight. There is strong evidence that many of our opinions and convictions are less well-considered and substantiated than we often think. People who do not overestimate their thinking capacity know the strengths and weaknesses and also the limits of their own thinking. They realise that what they say about themselves and their behaviour is often rationalisation in hindsight, that their opinion is coloured by the position they take in the world and that their behaviour sometimes contradicts the convictions they hold. Self-knowledge makes self-improvement possible, but it can be painful for your self-esteem to admit that you overestimated your thinking capacity and that can prevent you from changing your opinion or qualifying it [see Peels and De Ridder, ‘Wat is nou waar?’, 2025, p. 24, 36, 39 et seq.].
Research in the US, Canada, New Zealand and Europe shows that public debates, for example as part of an election campaign, have little influence on opinion formation. Factual arguments are rarely convincing; they usually make no impression at all. Two other factors have a much greater influence on our opinions: our own behaviour and experiences, but especially our social networks. An overwhelming amount of evidence shows that our friends are able to change something about our beliefs and behaviour. Not by arguing with us, but simply by being around us and showing us other ways of being in life. When it comes to persuasiveness, it is not the conversation that counts, but above all the mutual relationship [see Sarah Stein Lubrano ‘This article won’t change your mind. Here’s why.’, The Guardian, 18 May 2025, NRC 28 May 2025; see also ‘Don’t Talk about Politics’: How to Change 21st Century Minds’ Bloomsbury, 2025).
Sharing the opinions of the group you are in is comfortable. Working together with like-minded people is usually good. But what is considered ‘self-evident’ in a group is not always soberly reasoned and new information is often only considered reliable if it fits in with the prevailing opinion [Peels, op. cit. p. 106]. Experience also shows that for people who introduce a new political or religious conviction, that conviction is powerful and full of meaning, but once that same conviction has been accepted and established, it gradually begins to lose its power. The adherents and followers no longer concern themselves with it; the belief becomes rigid and forms a ‘crust around the mind’, as it were. Respect for the ‘wording’ remains, but people look at the people around them to see to what extent they should follow the regulations [see John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), ‘On Freedom’, p. 81 et seq.].
It is good not to close yourself off from other opinions. When loyalty to the group leads to the disregard of new information and the prevailing beliefs have become dogmatic, it becomes necessary to reconsider your own views. Often the opinions of ‘dissenters’ are better founded than you had thought, even if you continue to disagree with them. [Peels, p. 113]. If you put yourself in the mind of the ‘other’ you become more familiar with your own beliefs. Only people who have honestly and impartially considered both sides of an issue are familiar with the aspect of truth that tips the balance. If you only know your own side of the issue, you know little about it [Mill, p. 77 et seq.].
In his essay ‘On Liberty’ published in 1859, John Stuart Mill defends with forceful arguments the freedom of every person to form and express an opinion. Mill was no anarchist; He saw that the power of an authority is necessary, but he believed that the community should only interfere with an individual’s freedom to form and express his own opinions if it would harm others. Anyone may believe that ‘private property is theft’ and that ‘corn merchants starve the poor for profit’, but if that opinion is expressed to an excited crowd gathered at a granary, it is a form of ‘sedition’ that must be punished [Mill, p 101].
Mill argues that freedom of opinion and expression must be protected not only against arbitrary officialdom, but also against the tyranny of the majority, against social control and pressure on persons who do not share the prevailing views and do not conform to the prevailing behaviour [Mill, pp. 15, 36, 39 et seq., 45]. Wherever the majority believes intensely and sincerely in something, it proves to be unwilling to give up its demand for obedience. If there are people who oppose a prevailing opinion, let us be grateful for it and listen to them. Common opinions are often true, but usually do not contain the whole truth. A dissenting opinion, even if it is not correct, may still contain an element of truth. According to Stuart Mill, a clash of opinions is beneficial to the mental health of a society [Mill, pp. 89 et seq. and 96 et seq.].
Adherents of political and religious opinions sometimes like to think they are infallible and tend to intolerance and exclusion. On Friday 26 September 1884, the Indian saint Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886) visited the temple of the Brahmo Samaj in Calcutta to celebrate the festival of Durga puja. When he heard that a notice had been put up stating that people of other faiths were not welcome, he said to the Brahmo Samaj officials with a smile:
“We all pray to the same God. There is no reason for jealousy or aversion. Some people say that God has a form, others think that God has no form. But I tell you, let a man meditate on God in the form he believes in, and let another meditate on God without form, if he does not believe in form. I am saying: Dogmatism is not good. You should not think that only your religion is true and that other religion is wrong. The correct attitude is: ‘My religion is right, but whether other religions are right or wrong, I do not know.’ I say that because one cannot know God’s true nature unless one has realised Him.
“Kabir (Indian mystic and poet, 1440-1518) used to say: ‘God with form is my Mother, He who is without form is my Father. Which of them shall I blame? Whose praise shall I sing? The two pans of the balance are of equal weight.’ The truth is that God has made different religions for those who seek Him. They are so many paths to God, but none of them is God Himself! Whoever follows any of these paths with all his heart will reach God. Suppose the path of his choice has faults, God Himself will correct them for the one who is serious and sincere.” [The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, p. 558 ff.].
Mr Kees Boukema is a scholar in Vedanta and Comparative philosophy. His brilliant and thorough-going articles on various philosophical and spiritual subjects are being published since the first issue of the magazine. His latest work is De Beoefening van Meditatie.
__________________________________
Earth Charter 25 Years
As conflicts dominate the news and climate records are broken once again, two different visions of global security are colliding in The Hague. Just days after NATO strengthens its military alliances, another gathering is taking place: Earth Charter+25 — a strategic gathering focused on ethics, not power.
From July 1 to 3, more than 200 participants from over 40 countries will gather in the Netherlands to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Earth Charter — a global declaration of ethical principles for a just, sustainable, and peaceful world.
At iconic locations such as the Peace Palace in The Hague and the Zonheuvel Estate in Doorn, Earth Charter+25 is not a ceremonial moment but a crucial opportunity for collective reflection and action. Educators, indigenous leaders, policymakers, youth activists, and innovative entrepreneurs will explore what true peace means in a time of ecological collapse, growing inequality, and democratic undermining. Key themes include:
• Inter-generational justice
• The rights of nature
• Planetary consciousness
• Ethical entrepreneurship for a regenerative economy
DIPLOMACY
In a powerful symbolic act, the Peace Palace is temporarily transformed into a centre for art, dialogue and intergenerational exchange — returning diplomacy to the planet itself. Rather than rehashing previous declarations, Earth Charter+25 delivers tangible results: declarations, new alliances, and proposals to integrate ethics into global frameworks such as the UN Global Stocktake and the post-2030 Sustainable Development Goals.
We also mention the session “Business and Ethics: Bringing a Planetary Ethics of Care,” which brings together entrepreneurs, trade union leaders and thought leaders to provide input for a Declaration of Values for Ethical Business. This declaration calls on companies to align themselves with ethical values inspired by Earth Charter principles, and to act as guardians of life — not just shareholders. The declaration will contribute to emerging ethical frameworks, including COP30 in Brazil.
PEACE AS A WAY OF LIFE
During the closing gathering under the trees at Landgoed Zonheuvel, led by young people, one message resounds loud and clear: peace is not a treaty, but a way of life. Security must be redefined — as food sovereignty, ecological balance, clean air, and human dignity for all.
In a world in transition, the Earth Charter offers a moral compass — not just to weather the crisis, but to find a path forward, rooted in conscience, care, and collective action.
Francis van Schaik is a coach of young people and also a student of human relationships with nature, the world and Truth. She regularly contributes to our online magazine. Francis is the regular contributor of articles in this page.
Jesus, The Gentiles and the Cross
Paulo J. S. Bittencourt
Professor of the History Course at UFFS – Erechim Campus
Jesus had gone to the region of Tyre and Sidon, where he was approached by a Canaanite woman who begged him to cure her demon-possessed daughter. When he received no response, the disciples asked Jesus to send her away. His words were emblematic: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (…) It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Mt 15:24). It is clear that, faced with the woman’s insistence, Jesus gives in and performs the cure. Regarding a parallel account, Sean Freyne observes in “Jesus, a Jew from Galilee” that Jesus’ philosophy of “loving one’s enemies” would have led him to avoid ethnophobic attitudes towards Israel’s traditional enemies who lived in these regions. However, contrary to this reading, Jesus seems to have revealed here a perfect awareness of the distinction between Jews and non-Jews, with a clear predilection for the former. There is very little evidence of Jesus’ direct involvement with non-Jews. As Sean Freyne would also point out, “the very fact that the early Church continued to discuss this issue, as Paul’s letters testify, clearly demonstrates that Jesus did not pronounce himself definitively on the problem of the conditions for admitting Gentiles into his movement.” However, the mission to the Gentiles was initially launched without any objections, quickly becoming the centrifugal force of the early Christian communities. Furthermore, Jesus’ statement in question is radically at odds with the reinterpretation that the first Christians made of the messianic meanings of their savior’s mission. When Christianity became a faith of Gentiles, the Christological system also began to crystallize more effectively. In this way, Christians would soon have in Jesus a spiritualized and transcendent messiah, almost completely eradicated from the history of his people. According to Donizete Scardelai, “Christ was radically transformed into the Messiah, ‘son of God,’ whose redemptive death would no longer be evaluated in light of national redemption and freedom from political oppression, but by the remission of humanity’s sins.” The Christology that was consecrated in the first decades of the early church would make Jesus’ sayings a dissonant and obsolete excrescence. According to the criterion of disparity, therefore, we are most likely faced with an authentic saying by Jesus of Nazareth.
Another example in this sense concerns the crucifixion of Jesus. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul referred to the cross with words that have become paradigmatic: it was a scandal for the Jews (1:23). I believe that it was also a scandal for Christians, but not for the reasons alleged by Paul. These become clear when we resort here to an interpretation of a historical nature. Crucifixion was the form of execution par excellence that the Romans reserved for criminals accused of sedition against the imperial order. There seems to be no doubt as to the formal reasons that sealed Jesus’ condemnation by the Romans. The crucifixion therefore attests that his execution was due to the crime of sedition, more precisely because Jesus had been declared king of the Jews. It is worth noting that this narrative core constitutes the editorial layer that provided the key argument for Reza Aslan, in “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,” to substantiate the thesis that Jesus, in a certain way, maintained some kind of direct involvement with the revolutionary fervor of first-century Palestine. However, this layer is immersed without, however, dissolving in a thick covering of apologetic concerns, among which certainly stand out the measures taken by the authors of the Gospels to mitigate traditions that could suggest that Jesus was dangerous to the imperial order (Richard Horsley, “Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine”). Aslan sees in the overlapping of apologetic layers evidence that the tradition of the Gospels underwent an internal process of depoliticization. In no element of the episode does this seem more evident than in Pilate’s attitude toward Jesus’ trial. “The Gospels,” Aslan warns us, “present Pilate as a just man, but weak-willed and so troubled by doubts about condemning Jesus of Nazareth to death that he does everything in his power to save him, finally washing his hands of the whole episode when the Jews demand his blood. This is pure fiction. Pilate was best known for his extreme depravity, his total disregard for Jewish law and tradition, his barely concealed loathing of the Jewish nation as a whole. During his tenure in Jerusalem, he so eagerly sent thousands upon thousands of Jews to the cross, and without trial, that the people of Jerusalem felt compelled to lodge a formal complaint with the Roman emperor.”
Paul would indeed provide the basis for a Christology of redemption centered on the crucifixion of Jesus, according to which the Christian Messiah would become the ‘Christ’ precisely because of his death, which completely contradicted the plan of Jewish redemption according to the traditional Davidic model. Hence the mention of the cross as a scandal for the Jews. “For I chose to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). But this was now a Christology that was so completely theologized as to be devoid of any political meaning. In fact, in Gal 3:13-14, he even mentions the law of Moses, which declares: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” (Dt 21:23). Christ, according to him, had redeemed us from the curse of the Law, becoming a curse for us (1 Cor 3:13). Interestingly, all this would have happened so that the blessing of Abraham, the father of the people of the Law, in Christ would be extended to the Gentiles (3:14), that is, to the people who inhabited the territories of the same Roman Empire that had executed Jesus for sedition.
____________________
Professor Paulo Bittencourt teaches History at the UFFS, Erchim Campus, Rio Grande de Sul. “Federal University of Southern Frontier” [UFFS] is one of the best universities of Brasil with highly qualified professors at the helm. Professor Bittencourt never rejects our request for articles, though he is very busy.
______________________________________________________________________________
Light is everywhere visible only in the men of holiness. A Mahapurusha is like crystal glass — full rays of God passing and repassing through. Why not worship a Jivanmukta?
Contact with holy men is good. If you go near holy men, you will field holiness overflowing unconsciously in everything there.
Swami Vivekananda