Rakesh Das wrote:
There may be an answer in the views of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. He states that these three doctrines though apparently contradictory to each other are not actually.
ललितालालितः –
एकस्यैव वस्तुनो बहुधा प्रतिपादनं तदैव भवति यदा तादृशी प्रतिपत्तिः प्रतिपादयितुर्भवति । स चोपदेष्टा तत्राग्रहादेव प्रतिपादने प्रवृत्तो भवति नान्यथा ।
एवं च भगवत्पादैः शङ्करैः यत्तत्त्वं निर्विशेषत्वेन प्रतिपादितं तत्स्वभावत एव इतरैराचार्य्यैः प्रतिपादनीयेन पारमार्थिकेन भेदेन विशिष्टाद्वैतेन च विरुद्ध्येत इत्यत्र नास्ति संशयः ।
इदानीं तेषां विरोधस्यावस्तुतां प्रतिपादयतो रामकृष्णस्य वचनं तदैवोपपद्यते यदा तेन आचार्य्यत्रयप्रतिपादिततत्त्वादपि श्रेष्ठं तत्त्रयाविरोधि च किञ्चित्तत्त्वं ज्ञातं स्यात् नान्यथा । न च तथास्ति , तेन स्वतन्त्रं कस्यचिदपि तत्त्वस्याप्रतिपादनात् , प्रत्युत भगवत्पादप्रतिपादिताद्वैतपक्षपातित्वमेव तस्य दृश्यते , इतरमतयोः सोपानत्वेन प्रतिपादनात् ।
अत एव रामकृष्णोऽपि सत्यान्वेषणकारसम एव , अद्वैतमतपक्षपातित्वात् ।
Rakesh Das wrote:
In the way of Sadhana, the Sadhaka experiences all these three states i.e. he has to pass through these three states to complete his sadhana.
ललितालालितः –
एष यो नियमः कृतो रामकृष्णेन तस्य मूलं किं शास्त्रवाक्यमस्ति । किं साक्षात् अद्वैतमार्ग्गे प्रवृत्ता न तेन स्वीक्रियन्ते ।
ननु तेषामपि प्राक् द्वैतसाधना अस्तु इति न नियमभङ्ग इति चेत् ।
न । न हि रामकृष्णस्यालौकिकार्थदर्शनसामर्थ्यं सर्व्वेषां सम्प्रतिपन्नं यत् तद्वाक्यप्रामाण्यमवश्यमेवाभ्युपगमनीयं तद्रक्षायै च यत्किमपि कल्पनीयम् ।
किञ्च तस्यानाप्तत्वमेव निश्चीयते , सन्न्यासं गृहीत्वाऽपि पत्नीसङ्ग्रह-स्वविग्रहपूजा-पञ्चमकारसेवनादिदर्शनात् ।
अत एव न तदुक्त्यन्यथानुपपत्त्या सर्व्वेषां द्वैतादिसाधना कल्पयितुं शक्यते ।
So far as I know, there is no bar with regard to the conduct of a paramahamsa, as is evident from the following verses of Vedantadindima –
अलं वेदैरलं शास्त्रैरलं स्मृतिपुराणकैः।
परमात्मनि विज्ञात इति वेदान्तडिण्डिमः॥24॥
न पुण्यकर्मणा वृद्धिर्न हानिः पापकर्मणा।
नित्यासड़्गात्मनिष्ठानामिति वेदान्तडिण्डिमः॥28॥
Sri Ramakrsnadeva is here called an anapta. This is only possible if he is contrasted to an ideal apta. But according to Sriharsa, no plausible definition of apta is possible and as a matter of that no apta is to be found.
1.
The problem here is that shAstra-s are not in favor of his shiShTatva. The talk of being paramahaMsa is far fetched.
2.
Every person's act confirms his vAsanA. The desire to be worshiped was clearly visible in him. And, what to say about the other things he did? This degrades him from eShaNAtrayamoxa, which is sign of both type of paramahaMsa.
3.
It is wrong to say that there is no bar with conduct of a paramahaMsa. Whatever you presented is said for brahma-GYAnI-s. The first shloka says that there is no need of means after attaining the result. But, it is debatable whether he attained the result, or even if he accepted the means. Even if he did, where it is said that he can go against shAstra-s? By the way, if I have to become blind and accept every arthavAda as ultimate truth, as you are doing, why not start raping and killing too; because हत्वापि स इमान् लोकान् न हन्ति, etc. are available. Should we take those words as vidhi or euology?
4.
The second shloka you presented is for brahmasaMstha. If you don't know definition of the same then you can put that label to anyone in this world. Who is going to bar you ? But, the deluded is not going to decide the truth, is certain. For that look at post by श्रीमल्ललितालालितः in this thread: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2016-July/thread.html
5.
According to shrIharSha, even paramahaMsatva can't be defined. So, why are you contesting denial of his paramahaMsahood?
Lack of definition doesn't prove a perceived thing non-existent. Now, if this is not clear to you, what should I say to you?
So, whatever you presented is not supporting your stand.
See this : http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/परमहंसस्य-कर्त्तव्यम्/