Is it a human relationship thing? Was Mother alone the only one to call Ramakrisna Master? No, many considered him as Master, as many considered her their Mother. Ramakrishna was a spiritual teacher, some consider him an Incarnation. Mother was the spiritual embodiment of Divine Motherhood. Some consider her an Incarnation also.

But what I'm trying to say is, whether we consider them saints or incarnations, Ramakrishna and Mother do not represent ordinary relationships. We would be very blessed, indeed, if our father/mother, husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend. . .any one in our lives were to be such a spiritual being. This is not very likely. ;) Our spiritual Master, or teacher, is not likely to arise from an intimate worldly relationship.

What is likely is that we may meet others who share our spiritual longing, who inspire us, whom we inspire. Divinity is everywhere and everyone. Sri Ramakrishna observed that it is made more clearly visible in the Incarnation. But once we have grasped that awareness, we may come to see this spark of divinity in all beings. Our openness, in turn, allows us to learn from many sources and life experiences. And here is where worldly relationships become elevated to spiritual, because ultimately it is our spiritual unity that draws us to another. We are just not always aware of this connection.

In considering human relationships, there are some beautiful scripture passages, which someone might post for us, that speak about seeing the divine in the other. I do not have access to them at the moment, but paraphrasing from memory a small portion,

"It is not for the sake of the wife that the wife is adored, but for the sake of the Self within.
"It is not for the sake of the husband that the husband is adored, but for the sake of the Self within."

The story setting of the above passage is really quite beautiful. Hopefully someone will post it. Whether or not these high ideals are perfectly practiced or realized, they are in the Hindu make-up, subtlely affecting relationships and how others are looked upon.

As for Mother and Ramakrishna recognizing each other, the image of the boy Jesus in the temple teaching the elders comes to mind. To his parents' concern he replied, "Why would you be worried. I must be doing my Father's work." Great souls know their destiny.

I've heard various explanations of sati. The concensus was that it was generally considered a voluntary act of spiritual sacrifice, not very common in early times. Eventually areas in India where it was practiced differnt regions developed different reasons, and in some places wives were brutally forced into it. I have also heard the practice increased during the early foreign invasions as a way of protecting widows from being molested by the invaders. Apparently there were also some reported incidents of husbands performing sati when their wives died before them.

In any culture, through the passage of time and circumstance, practices can become separated from the ideals or even the needs on which they were originally based. India's not immune to this process.

Location: San Diego, California, USA

Jayanti has touched upon most of your questions and it is futile to add to it. However these are a few thoughts I have regarding your post. I think Vriju might be able to give us the exact rendering of those Sanskrit verses.

The Master and Mother are not regular people and neither is their relationship. Call them saints or incarnations but they were not “regular” people. Regarding their relationship, Rosemary, no where will you find anyone like the Master or the Mother and their relationship also belonged to another realm. As you develop in your spiritual life more will be revealed to you, this is what the scriptures say. I myself am struggling so much but know that as we evolve so does our understanding of Divinity. As Shiv mentioned in the post when I questioned my faith, it is not that if you think of the Master that the Master turns to you, but when the Master turns towards you only then will you think of him.

There is much written about Sati but read Swami Vivekananda and you will understand more about India and its culture. My only advice is read it with an open mind and with humilty, for only when the mind is humble are truths revealed to us. Another person to read is Sister Nivedita who was Swamiji’s disciple.

There are many holy men who are disappointing but as Mother says if you follow anything with faith you will reach the end. Choose one Master and follow it until the end, spirituality is not a market though it has been reduced to one. There are many teachers but rare is a true disciple. When the person is sincere the call is always answered. A monastic of Sarada Math once wrote to me “May you be attentive to the Call of the Spirit” or as Sri Ramakrishna always says “Grace is always flowing, unfurl your sails” Unfurl yourself and the Mother will answer your prayers and you will find the Guru.

Regarding the first step of Dharma, you have already taken it. As Sri Ramakrishna would say “if you walk towards the North the South is automatically left behind” So also as you walk automatically you are leaving behind your past karmas etc. But more details about requirements for being a spiritual aspirant are given in the Book “Meditation and Spiritual Life” by Swami Yatiswarananda.

But hold on to the Mother. Pray to her, talk to her and tell Her everything. She ALWAYS responds but the call and prayer need to come from within.

Thank you all for the posts. You all have touched upon many good and beautiful points, but there is one thing that is remarkable to me about the relationship of Mother and the Master, and that is... (although not in the polluted carnal sense),... he took her to wife.
There is some reason (to me) that he is pointing to us about this. Other Holy and High Beings did not do this. He did not Have to do this. He knew that it was destiny and he did it, but for some reason, I may be wrong, I feel he did it for OUR benefit. To show us SOMETHING.
At the end of her life, Mother made the remark that she saw the Master in everyone. I wonder how much of my disappointments are my own projections, and the task at hand is to purify the vision, and see the Master in everyone. But you see, this is the problem. I do not see what Mother saw.
I intend to embark on Meditation and Spiritual Life next.

Location: New Bern, NC

My appreciation to Paritosh and Tom for their beautiful additions.

Rosemary, yes, certainly Mother and Ramakrishna have much to reveal to us. And quite possibly what they reveal to each of us will be somewhat different, according to our needs. However, I want to consider the point you raise about Ramakrishna taking Mother "to wife". This is really not as "remarkable" as it seems.

In Ramakrishna's own words regarding who Mother is, "She is Sarada, Saraswati. She has come to impart knowledge. She has descended by covering up her beauty this time... She is full of wisdom. Is she of the common run? She is my Shakti."

And Mother herself, "The Master left me behind to manifest Divine Motherhood."

A swami I know very well would include the following in his Christmas worship. "She who in an earlier age was born as the Holy Mother Mary was born in this age as Sri Sarada Devi." As our awareness of Divine Motherhood had been awakened, we wear very moved. This Christmas, another Swami with an orthodox Christian background spoke at length on Mary as the Divine Mother, and to our surprise, drew many comparisons between Jesus and Ramakrishna.

Hindu tradition embodies the concept of Brahman and Shakti, the two aspects of the Divine. Sri Ramakrisna referred to Brahman as the still snake, Shakti as the snake in motion. Another example he used was Brahman as the fire, Shakti as the burning power. Both are aspects of the same Divinity. Brahman is the unmanifest Absolute, Shakti is the power of manifestation.

Now, here is where it becomes very interesting. Brahman is absolute. Brahman never incarnates. Out of the creative power of Shakti (also known as Maya) comes Iswara, the personal God: The Lord. It is this Lord aspect, "born" from Maya, which incarnates.

Once we are in the realm of creation, this understanding of the dual Divine aspects repeats in the concept of Divine Consorts. Shiva and Kali, Krishna and Radha, Rama and Sita, each representing the duel aspect of Divinity. In this light, Sri Sarada Devi and Ramakrishna bring this concept of Divine Consorts out of the epics and mythologies and into present day life. Those key words by Sri Ramakrishna "She is my Shakti" are very revealing.

Location: San Diego, California, USA

Jayanti, you have said this paragraph very beautifully

"Now, here is where it becomes very interesting. Brahman is absolute. Brahman never incarnates. Out of the creative power of Shakti (also known as Maya) comes Iswara, the personal God: The Lord. It is this Lord aspect, "born" from Maya, which incarnates."

Thank you, Jayanti. This is exactly what I needed to hear on this issue. It explains everything and the purpose of everything I was trying to understand.
I did not know the quote that Mother "was left behind", which she was, and that explains that too.
There is a purpose for everything, it seems.

Location: New Bern, NC

Sister Jayanti Said: "Now, here is where it becomes very interesting. Brahman is absolute. Brahman never incarnates. Out of the creative power of Shakti (also known as Maya) comes Iswara, the personal God: The Lord. It is this Lord aspect, "born" from Maya, which incarnates.

"Once we are in the realm of creation, this understanding of the dual Divine aspects repeats in the concept of Divine Consorts. Shiva and Kali, Krishna and Radha, Rama and Sita, each representing the duel aspect of Divinity"

Comment: Very well said.

Sri Ramakrishna said something very similiar:

"The jnAnis, who adhere to the non-dualistic philosophy of
VedAnta, say that the acts of creation, preservation and
destruction, the universe itself and all its living beings,
are the manifestation of Shakti, the Divine Power.
If you reason it out, you will realize that all these
are as illusory as a dream. Brahman alone is the Reality,
and all else is unreal. Even this very Shakti is unsubstantial,
like a dream."

"Though you reason all your life, unless you are established
in SamAdhi, you cannot do beyond the jurisdiction of Shakti.
Even when you say, 'I am meditating', or 'I am contemplating',
still you are moving in the realm of Shakti, within It's power."

"He who is attributeless also has attributes.
He who is Brahman is also Shakti. When thought of as inactive,
He is called Brahman, and when thought of as Creator, Preserver,
and Destroyer, He is called the Primordial Energy, kAli."

"Brahman and Shakti are identical, like fire and its power to burn.
When we talk of fire we automatically mean also its power to burn.
Again, the fire's power to burn implies the fire itself.
If you accept the one you must accept the other."

Please allow me to wish every success to Rosemary,
on her plan to embark upon a program of meditation
and study of the Holy Scriptures.