Ramakrishna and Christ or The Paradox of the Incarnation.
Hans Torwestern
Translated by John Phillips from the German original ‘Ramakrishna und Christus oder das Paradox der Inkarnation’, The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Calcutta, 199.
INTRODUCTION:
Incarnation, though paradoxical one, need not be unique as claimed by Christians in Jesus but universal one as again demonstrated by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa both through (not in)1 His life and Mission. This books talks about this Universal phenomenon comparing and contrasting the Incarnation/avatara of Jesus and RK by their life and teaching. ‘One can find a paradoxical similarity in both their life and mission and all the claims of the Uniqueness of the Incarnation of Jesus and the universality of Avatara of RK in their given historical (in case of Jesus) and religious (in case of RK) contexts are due to our lack of perception and interpretation of the facts available’, seems to be the conclusion that the author tries to arrive in this book.
To help us to understand this, in the first eight chapters Hans talk about the Indian concepts of ‘Advaita Vedanta and the Avatar Doctrine’ (chap. 2); ‘Maya’ (chap. 3); ‘The “Indwelling” of God’ (chap. 6)‘The Nature of the Avatar’ (chap. 7) and ‘Ramakrishna’s “Predecessors” [like Rama and Krishna] (chap. 8). As a dialogue book, in chapter one he talks about the ‘Difficulties in the Dialogue’ and the main dialogue in this book seems to be with the Protestants or any Christian fundamentalist, ‘who swears only by the Bible’(p.2) and not necessarily between Hindus and Christians. Chapter Five give a biographical sketch about the ‘God’s Fool of Dakshineswar’ viz., Ramakrishna. Chapter Nine talks about ‘The Encounter with Christ’ by RK and the rest of the book, including one on Sarada Devi (chap. 13)—the Divine Mother Mary of RK Order compares the events in the life of Jesus with that of RK: ‘Transfigurations and Miracles’ (chap. 10); ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand’ (chap. 11); ‘God the Father and God the Mother’ (chap. 12); ‘the Inner circle’ (chap. 14); ‘Golgotha’ (chap.15); ‘The Resurrection’ (chap. 16); ‘Go Forth into the World’ (chap. 17). Chapter 18 talks about the emergence of RK Cult and Chapter 19 ‘From Son to Spirit’ viz., now it is the Age of the Spirit in which Son stands behind giving space for the Spirit to accomplish His work (even hiding the Son). The Conclusion finally he gives the summary of the whole book. It is good that he gave this summary because one feels that the same point is repeated again and again in different ways in each chapter and even one can claim to have some good memory would find it difficult to remember the subject in a systematic way:
In conclusion I should once more like to list briefly the most important points on which Ramakrishna compels us to think again:
- The uniqueness of the divine incarnation is called into question, but the fact of the incarnation, at least for believers, is once again strongly reinforced by Ramakrishna.
- Religions are regarded by Ramakrishna not so much as institutions in which men live and wait for a kind fate after death, but as living paths of salvation which lead to union with the divine—even in this life.
- The sharp distinction between natural and revealed religion has since the appearance of Ramakrishna at the latest revealed itself to be artificial. If we believe that Jesus heard everything from his Father and transmitted it to us, we must (p.217) also accept that Ramakrishna said nothing he had not heard from his Divine Mother.
- The distinction between the personal and the impersonal God also shows itself to be questionable, since Ramakrishna declared that both are only two aspects of the same reality. Ramakrishna would have understood both Pascal and Spinoza, because he transcended these opposites. He also understood how to unite the Bhakti and Jnana aspects. One must almost ask: What did he not unite wihtin himself?
- By worshipping God as Mother, Ramakrishna also compels us to think about whether the male element in [Protestant] Christianity is not over-stressed. And is the gulf between matter and God really so great? For this reason also.
- The term ‘pantheism’ must be reconsidered. Ramakrishna often warned against a false pantheism; he said one must not cry out that everything is God when one is on the first rung of the ladder, but one must first climb to the roof of transcendence; he also complained that everyone would praise the beauty of the garden, but no one bothers to see the owner of the garden. That it was possible however for Ramakrishna, in spite of this deep theistic piety, which tolerated no petty, vague pantheism and no substitue gods, to see the world with his eyes of enlightenment as divine, must have made, in the language of Meister Eckhart, ‘many a priest limp’. (italics original)
The list of ‘syntheses’ could be extended ad infinitum, because Ramakrishna was a unique walking synthesis. One can therefore see in him above all other things the Pleroma, the absolute fullness, to which nothing can really be added. But if one looked for a specially outstanding quality in him, perhaps it would be Ananda, the divine joy. And in this message of joy his spirit is united with Christ… (pp.217-8)
This book will irritate every evangelical Christian and will reject all the interpretation of historical and textual facts—particularly that of the bible, according to the (Liberal) conviction of Hans Torwestern’s. On the other hand every Liberal Christian will welcome such a dialogue not only through such book but even through their life and mission to promote the universality of Incarnation and liberate it from the ‘evangelical’/ ‘fundamentalist’s’ captivity. 2 This doesn’t mean that every Hindu, particularly the Hindutva camp are going to accept the Avatara of Jesus also on equal footing with that of rest of Indian avataras. And as there exist no Liberal Hindu in the sense of a ‘Liberal Christian’, the common Hindus are not going to pay any attention to such dialogues and will live as usual with their worldview of ‘everything is right and nothing is wrong’. However the RK Mission Cult and Order will remain as the buffer state between the religious fanatics of Christianity and Hindu (as they are not Hindus at present, though RK and the lay followers of Him are still Hindus) as:
if it is possible for a follower of Ramakrishna to have the latter grow into the Immeasurable, and at the same time to regard God’s revelation in other figures like Christ and Krishna to be possible and of equal value, why should this not also be possible for a Christian in relation to Christ? If the boundaries become blurred in the process it will not do any harm to the divine. Christ is fortunately so great that he breaks any narrow net of fanaticism, and just as it was possible for Ramakrishna to spread his message through a Christian missionary, it is possible for Christ to spread his message of harmony or, better still, the ‘kinship’ of all religions through a Swami of the Ramakrishna Mission. (Chapter 17 ‘Go Forth into the World,’ p.178)
An evangelical Christian can write another book refuting point by point on each chapter (even on each page) of this book to prove how Hans is wrong in his ‘understanding’ as a Liberal Catholic about the uniqueness of Jesus’ Incarnation based on his interpretation of biblical and historical facts—provided if s/he has the courage and patience to read the whole book. A Hindutva Hindu has nothing to learn from this book as s/he is in no need for any new truth to come from outside as her/his Hinduism and all the great acharyas and avataras are the Jagatguru (world teacher) from whom the whole world (even the entire universe) should learn. As pointed out above an average Hindu (and also a Christian) has no time for such book. Yet just for the sake of those who wants to listen another view3 I will quote only few points from each chapter in the Content of the book without any personal comments so that one can drive one’s own conclusion based on her/his conviction. In the Conclusion I will give my personal Comments.
CONTENT
As each point on every page is important for us to understand the liberal view of the author, here I will quote only few points from each page without some comments within [].
Chapter 1: Difficulties in the Dialogue
…not only do the Eastern religions have their ‘unknown Christ’ but so does Christianity itself.—p.2 [Hinduism being a dharma based on caste and stage one cannot find any ‘unknown Christianity’ as a religion in Hinduism].
One could of course object that the Church, by accepting outside influences, is showing its catholicity. Did not the same thing happen to Hinduism when it willingly swallowed everything coming from outside and digested it without losing its specific character?—p.2 [the specific character of Hinduism is dharma so it cannot be compared with any ‘catholicity’ of the Church.]
…Western Christians ask Indians to develop their own picture of Christ—instead of slavishly copying the Western one—and then often shrink back and say: No, that is not an objective picture of Christ, but a subjective caricature seen through Hindu eyes. Is the philosophy of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and Ramakrishna in fact a little more ‘dangerous’ than the Greek philosophers? Anyone who dives deeper into the spirit of Hinduism will soon discover that there is more here than just a ‘philosophy’.—p.3 [The western view to regard Hinduism nothing but advaitic (vedantic) philosophy, particularly projected by the Neo-vedantians is the reason to think by some Westerners that Hinduism is just a ‘philosophy’.]
…the teaching on creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), the dogma of the fall and of eternal punishment in hell, is purely traditional Western Christianity and has nothing to do with Hinduism and Vedanta…–p.4 [So before Christianity went to West and become a Western Christianity does the early Eastern Church and Church Fathers held the same view of the Western Chritianity?]
…I consider it a positive asset that Hinduism places more stress on eternal principles than on persons (for which reason there is no actual ‘founder’ of that religion); yet on the other hand these eternal principles would suffer from a certain colourlessness if one did not see them incorporated from time to time in the figures of sages, saints and incarnations.—p.5 [Hinduism as a Religion does not have any founder, but as a parliament of Sampradayas each sect has a definite ‘founder’ like Sankara’s advaita, Madhava’s Dwaita and Chaitanism.]
Chapter 2: The Paradox of the Incarnation.
How can divine and human nature be brought into harmony? The first Christian centuries were filled with the noise of battle of differing opinions and when they finally arrived at a formula, it did not in fact clarify the phenomenon, but only reformulated the enigma: Christ is a true man and at the same time God.—p.8
…as the fall was a single event in paradise, so also is the act of atonement… There is therefore no need for further incarnations. If one makes the appearance of the incarnation dependent on such a pattern of sin and atonement, it stands or falls with the story of the fall of man.—p.9
..For had not Christ, the Master, already been potentially present in him [Adam]? Had not Adam, for this very reason, stood on tiptoe and wanted to become like God, because he dimly felt that in his deepest being he possessed something of this divine nature? The way forward was certainly not straight, the upward surge of the ‘Son’, who was too cramped in the first Adam, was mixed in a peculiar way with the revolt of demonic nature. But it is just this that makes the drama—otherwise we would perhaps be stagnating for an ‘eternity’ n a fool’s paradise.—pp.10-11
…But is seems to me that the stress hitherto given to the sin and atonement scheme has obscured the real importance of the incarnation more than it has clarified it. By this one-sided causal like the appearance of the Son of God has been made dependent on a alleged ‘sin’ of Adam, and we have already shown on what shaky ground this dogma of the fall and original sin stands. Anyone who already sees in paradise the ideal situation for mankind must view the incarnation as basically unnecessary. It is then nothing more than a sudden intermezzo, brought about by an equally unforseeably sudden event, called the ‘fall’…. The sudden creation of the world from nothing was also a disturbance in eternity which did not necessarily have to take place. And one wonders why everything had to happen like this.—p.11
…a Bhakta, a lover of God, would not place so much weight on the historical mission, but on the desire of God to love and be loved…. HE wants to bring mankind to the light of knowledge and for this kind of love he is willing to die for mankind. The one-sidedness of a purely Gnostic interpretation of Christ as the great teacher and the one-sidedness of an almost mathematical sin and atonement scheme and the one-sidedness of a merely moral explanation (Christ or Krishna as the restorer of righteousness) are removed by this love…. Somewhere between hard historicity and timeless love-ecstasy a point is therefore to be reached where HE is to be found: the meeting-point of all contradictions, the best visible expression of the invisible divine ground.—p.12 (italics original) [and the whole book is an attempt to point RK as that ‘visible expression of the invisible divine ground’.]
Chapter 3: Advaita Vedanta and the Avatar Doctrine.
…Ramakirshna, for instance saw in the impersonal and personal God only two aspects of the same reality and was at home both in the Bhakti cults and in Shankara’s Advaita philosophy…. One therefore does not need to seek refuge at once in philosophers like Ramanuja or Madhva—who both engage in polemics against Shankara’s Nirguna Brahman—if one has a weakness for the incarnation. One needs only to focus relative reality, which even an Advaita philosopher like Shankara gives to the personal God and the avatar, more on the positive side and thus on the side of reality. Why should not both be real: the impersonal divine ground and its concentrated expression in the world of appearances?—p. 14(italics original) [this is a total violation of even Shankara’s position. The ‘relative reality’ is not ‘the positive side and thus on the side of reality’ for Shankara. The positive side in Shankara’s system is to explain the Negative side of the Reality in a positive way and not a ‘concentrated expression in the world of appearances’. See the foot notes on this point by a Scholar. 3a
…the Christian usually places greater stress on the revelation, the abstract only finding its fulfilment in the concrete, so that the formless Self must first take on form to become ‘real’.—p.15
…In particular those who have strong inclination towards mysticism will place just as much stress as the Vedantin on the return, on man becoming God—and not exclusively on God becoming man.—p.15 (italics original)
…A Christian, sees the power of the Logos and the Holy Ghost at work in the revelations of other religions…certain passages in the Upanishads which seem to be portant of HIM… Everything thus points to the WORD and finds fulfilment in HIM [the OM of Katha Upanishad I,ii,15 for example]. The Atman also, the divine Self, which is spoken of again and again, is in no way just a ‘philosopher’s God’, a neutral It, a cold absolute, which can only be grasped by the brain—as a mere ‘concept’. It is expressly stated that ‘This Self cannot be known through much study,… It can be known through (p.15) the Self alone that the aspirant prays to; this Self of that seeker reveals It’s true nature.’ (Katha Up. I,ii, 23).—pp.15-16 [considering various interpretation that available on Upanishads, it is difficult to compare the concept of Logos of New Testament either with OM or HIM. Similarly the revelation of Self, particularly in Katha I,ii, 23 is the most complicated one to interpret. Immediately I cannot give the reference, but either in Katha or in other Upanishad ‘prasad = grace’ is even required for this Self to reveal to the aspirant who prays. And this prasad was interpreted differently by Sankara. See the following comments of Torwestern.—DB]
…Anyone who follows the path of knowledge (Jnana) and seeks to realize the Atman, can only see in the incarnation—if he is concerned about it all—the Self objectified through Maya. This means that the incarnation—whether it is Krishna or Christ—is in his [Vedantin] view a concession to human weakness and ignorance. As man cannot see the Atman, his real Self—for he is the seer and can never become the object of eeing and recognition—it must be projected outwards.—p.16
While in the eyes of Bhakta, who cannot do much with a formless God, Holy Ghost has mainly the task of showing the incarnation in a glorious light and revealing everything about the Lord, the Jnani sees it the other way round: it is not the Holy Ghost who points to the incarnation, but the latter who points to the Holy Ghost—just as John the Baptist as the precursor had previously pointed to the incarnation. One could also say that the incarnation is the Holy Ghost, but still masked, so to say, as the parable of the spirit wandering on the face of the earth, and if this mask falls—even the resplendent mask of the risen Christ—it reveals itself as the Atman, the divine Self in every living being.—p.17
The incarnation can therefore at most be regarded as an appearance or a play: through the medium of Maya the formless Self has become a picture,… So is it nothing more than a religious ‘kindergarten’ that has no place any more in the kingdom of the spirit?—p.17
Ramakirshna often compared Brahman to the water of the ocean, which here and there is frozen into solid blocks of ice, i.e. into the personal forms of God, including the incarnations. When the sun of the highest knowledge rises, he said, all these forms melt away and become one with the formless water.—p. 18
According to the Vedanta teaching, this, of course, actually applies to all human beings, whether they know it or not. And this is perhaps the most profound reason why the incarnation in India—in spite of the popularity of Krishna and Rama—never achieved the importance that it has in Christianity. In the Old Testament atmosphere the gap between God and man, between the creator and creature, was almost unbridgeable, and there is no wonder that mankind longed for an intermediary to bridge the gap. In India on the other hand this gap never exited, and so the longing for a link between God and man could never arise to any great degree.—p.18 (italics original)
…traditional Christianity does not place sufficient stress on the incarnation. This deficiency is mostly overlooked, because the cross is indeed set up right at the centre of Christianity, and any attempt at passing by this cross is branded as human blindness. As, however, this cross and the very appearance of the Word is causally linked with the fall from grace, which should actually not have happened, the anchorage of the cross in creation is in no way as secure as it appears.—p.19 (italics original)
I think it is not by chance that Christ was born in Israel and not in India, and that his teaching spread mainly in the West. When I wrote earlier somewhat dramatically about ‘Adam’s’ helpless state, that he needed Christ so that his eyes might be opened, it was written completely in the Western Christian context and it simply cannot be applied to the East as it stands. The atmosphere there was saturated with spirituality, with divine self-recognition, to which even a Krishna did not have much to add—unless it was Bhakti, love for Him.—p.19
…I consider the incarnation to be an infinite enrichment, without which the world would be much poorer. Even if one does not believe that it is necessary for redemption from original sin or for achieving knowledge of Brahman, the justification for its existence is by no means exhausted by excluding these reasons.—p. 21
…It is certainly difficult to explain the historical necessity of the incarnation—although the influence of a Buddha and a Christ can scarcely be denied—but it is, perhaps, sometimes good to ignore all the causal circumstances a little, because even they can lead us astray—if in fact with so much explaining and proving we no longer see the Lord himself. Love for the incarnate God must be free, it must be more than a tribute to be paid. Loving God in his human aspect must fill us with joy—even without us having any reason.—p.21
Chapter 4: MAYA
It is not, however, necessary to understand Maya only in a negative sense…. Swami Vivekananda … once compared the Maya teaching with the opening words in the prologue to St John’s gospel: ‘“In the beginning was the Word….” The Hindu calls this Maya, the … power of God. The Absolute cannot be known. We cannot know the Father, only the Son. We can only see the Absolute through the “tint of humanity”, through Christ.’ (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. VII, p. 3, Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta 1964).—pp.22-23
…But in contrast to the rest of manifold existence, which often conceals more than it reveals of the true being of Brahman, the divine incarnation reveals more than it conceals. It is the positive side of Maya: the light that descends into the darkness. Yet it still needs the darkness, for without it how could the light reveal? Indeed, it must itself take on something of darkness in order to be recognizable at all and to be bearable to the human eye.—p.23
..God, while disguising himself as man, at the same time points to the divinity in man.—p.24 [as far as my knowledge goes, no incarnation in Hindu tradition (except claimed by the RK people about him) ever points to the divinity in man—DB].
…It is true that, according to the teachings of Vedanta, we are all at depth one with God; but in time and space, in Maya, it is a question of a process of realization; here our divinity is at first only ‘potential’, and the task of the incarnation is to awaken the sleeping divinity within us so that we may know the truth that makes us free.
In doing this the incarnation makes use of Maya to free us from Maya. It is only through Maya that the Son of God can enter visible existence an accomplish His signs and wonders. Through the almost magical power of His Yoga-maya He attracts men while others, again through Maya, are driven away. Through His higher, divine Maya He awakens us from the sleep of ignorance and mere sense life—not always at once into the clear light of Godhead, in which all ‘forms’ disappear, but nevertheless to a higher plane…–p.24 (italics original)
There is a great temptation to speculate further about the nature of Maya—after all it is Maya that tempts us to make such speculations…–p.25
…In Christianity, especially in Protestantism, the Son has always been associated only with the Father—a rather Prussian Father, who still has much of the Old Testament Jehovah about Him and who does not like images or the female mentality, but only the ‘imageless’, level-headed tablets of the law. It is somewhat different in the Eastern Church, where Maria-Sophia always occupied an important place, and in the Catholic Church too, where in addition to the Father appears the Mother of God, often towering above all others…–p.25
Chapter 5: God’s Fool of Dakshineswar.
…The original Jewish Christians at least went hardly beyond an adoption teaching—for them Jesus was the ‘Chosen’ of God, the ‘Adopted’ Son of God, whom God recognized—but hardly a pre-existing divine being, enthroned as an equal beside the Heavenly Father.—p.26 [Does Paul and other apostles had such view?—DB]
… He (RK) saw himself as the last link so far—and in no way the ‘seal’—in the chain of divine manifestations, the avatars or ‘descents’ of God…–p.26-27
‘He who was Rama and Krishna is now in this body as Ramakrishna’, [said RK]…but for the Christian these avatars are hadly more than the heroes in the Homeric epics, almost outside history [there fore]… a devotee of Ramakrishna will hardly be able to use them as a basis for a discussion with a Christian,… It is therefore much better to leave this whole ‘framework’ for the time being.—p.27 [But for RK and his followers, including the Hindus only this ‘framework’ will work. RK never insisted to keep it away to convince any Christian. His concern was his disciples. So what is vital for Him cannot be set aside that much easily because of the author’s concern to compare RK with Jesus.—DB]
…When he was close to putting an end to his life the mother finally ‘appeared’ to him:…–p.28
…Ramakrishna also followed other spiritual paths in Hinduism and worshipped God in various aspects…–p.29
…Ramakrishna now let himself to be instructed by a monk of the Shankara Order, Totapuri, in the pure Advaita teachings—not, however, without first asking permission from his Divine Mother…–p.30
…the disciple now became the Guru who taught Totapuri that his Advaita knowledge was very one-sided…–p.30
…He [RK] approached Allah as a Hindu-Sufi and was blessed with a vision of the Prophet and a Samadhi experience….—p. 31[why not Allah Himself didn’t give the darshan?—DB]
Chapter 6: The ‘Indwelling of God.
…Perhaps for the believing Christian there is really only one way—to see in Ramakrishna a Hindu saint, a sage and a yogi who attained high mystical states and clothed many religious truths in simple language, but who otherwise is still worlds away from the absolute manifestation of God in Jesus Christ. He was the humble instrument, the servant of God, who more often than not refused to accept the role of a Guru and for whom it was immensely difficult to say ‘I’.—p.34
…Yet with all his empathy Wolff [Otto Wolff, India’s Contribution to the New Image of Man (Indiens Beitrag zum neuen Menschenbild, Rowohlts deutsche Enzyklopadie,), 1957] is also perhaps the best example of how blind a Christian commentator can be…. As usual, short quotations are taken out of their context and other important passages which do not show Ramakrishna as being modest and humble, are ignored.(p.35)
…One can of course conjecture what is uppermost in Wolff’s mind:….Ramakrishna is ‘only’ just the flute on which God plays—but not the flute-playing God…–p.36
…There were also many people later on, both Gnostics and Jewish Christians, who were of the opinion that God or the Chrit consciousness or the Holy ghost had at this time taken possession of the man Jesus…Ramakrishna’s comment also seems to be close to such a dualism: ‘I saw another person in myself.’
But is such a dualism satisfactory in the long run—whether in the case of Ramakrishna or Jesus? ‘My parents knew who inhabits this body….’—these words of Ramakirshna could doubtless be interpreted dualistically: the man Ramakirshna is only the house and God is the resident….But when he spoke of his parents’ knowledge, Ramakrishna added that Vishnu had promised his father in Gaya that he would be born as his son….—p.38 (italics original)
Why should there then be any mention at all of the ‘other’?…If the Incarnation wants to teach men how one should love God, He must of necessity retain a trace of the human ‘I’, which can love God as the ‘other’, as ‘thou’, as father, mother and beloved….—p.39
…If the divine incarnation is a ‘play of the infinite in the finite’, as Ramakrishna said, one must pay particular attention to this playfulness, to the hide-and-seek of the divine in man. The incarnation would have no meaning if he just walked around openly and continually asserted that he was God. He must conceal himself in order to be able to reveal himself. This game of hide-and-seek can be clearly seen in the case of Ramakrishna. Sometimes he makes a mistake in speaking. ‘My mind tells me that N’s state will change, Hid heart will concentrate entirely on me…’ and he quickly corrects himself: ‘on Himd who dwells in me.’ (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna by M., Translated by Swami Nikhilananda, New York 1952, p. 878)….Sometimes he seems to speak on his own account, and then again he regards himself merely as God’s servant, tool and mouthpiece….—p.40
Ramakirshna would not have been so illuminated and God-intoxicated if he had seen God only in himself—and not also in everyone else. He undoubtedly regarded himself on the one hand as a ‘special’ manifestation of God and would not let this ‘speciality’ be nullified by the Advaita teaching, such as when he told Vivekananda: ‘He who was Rama and Krishna is now in this body as Ramadrishna—but not in your Vedantic sense!’ In this case he naturaly meant by Vedanta only the Advaita and wanted to make it clear to his disciple by these added words that he did not mean the general identity of the human soul with Brahman—which he in no way denied, and that therefore his ‘I am He’ was not to be understood in the philosophical Vedantic sense, but purely personally and historically: he, Ramakrishna, is a special embodiment of God like Rama and Krishna…. This ‘speciality’ did not prevent Ramakrishna from also revealing his knowledge of advaita: that nothing exists basically except God. The humility which he showed here as well as in so many other passages did not arise from any kind of guilt or inferiority complex, but from just this knowledge: that God is the only reality. Whatever he therefore saw he worshipped and in so doing he naturally also bowed down before his own Rama-being, before his divine Self.—p. 42 (italics original)
One must however be careful not to try and pin Ramakrishna down to any definite position; he had his ‘moods’—wich soon drive to despair anyone who tries to categorize him once and for all. After realizing Non-duality, which he had experienced in Nirvikapla [kalpa?] Samadhi, Ramakrishna hid his knowledge in the ‘hem of his robe’ and seemed sometimes to forget it. He did not like monotony. He did not want to play only one note on the flute–…’ Stop saying “I am here”’, Ramakrishna could say. ‘Let us keep a little of the “I” and “Thou- –for the fun of it.’—p.42
… Ramakrishna in fact always seems to slip out of any framework one tries to fit him in and yet he still stays Ramakrishna.
No wonder that he upset those around him from time to time. Assessment of him varied between madness and divinity, especially among those who were quite near to him.…–p. 43
…there is one difference which stands out among the many things in common: Ramakrishna never speaks ‘solemnly’. Of course it is very probable that Jesus’ original words—not just those in St John’s Gospel—were highly stylized when presented in the Gospels. Ramakrishna’s language was often unpolished and all attempts to translate his Bengali dialect into a kind of Bible English or German, with many a ‘Verily, verily I say unto you…’, have fortunately been utter failures. One often has impression moreover that he did not take himself completely seriously. I do not mean by this that he only ‘played’ the Avatar. One could perhaps express it the other way round: God played being a man. Why should God always take Himself so frightfully seriously and solemnly? Has He not also sometimes earned a ‘holiday from himself’—in this case from the divine Self, to which mankind must always look upwards, straining his neck? Perhaps for God the incarnation is just such a kind of holiday from Himself—in spite of the historical mission, perhaps God would like mankind to look down at Him once in a while—at the child in the manger. And throughout almost his whole life Ramakrishna remained a ‘child’….—p.44
Whether he knew himself or not—in either case Ramakrishna did not hold it to be of any value that his name caused a sensation. He had no lack of acting ability, but he preferred to play his many divine and human roles within the ‘inner circle’, among his own….—p.44
It is difficult to resist the temptation simply to go through one scene after another, through the whole ‘picture-book’ of the incarnation, and then to stay silent, instead of taking up a scholar’s stance and analysing the ‘phenomenon’. One is either inside or outside, either inside the magic circle, in which all is clear and evident, and yet mysterious with many layers of meaning, or outside, where too searching a glance can rob one of the sight altogether. Sometimes something happens like that which occurred to Ramakrishna’s mother, who once wanted to look at her baby Gadadhar and to her horror found a grown man under the mosquito net. When she called her husband, Kshudiram, there was however no man to be seen—only the baby lay in the bed smiling up at her. Whether this story is ‘true’ or not—it at least sheds some light on Ramakrishna and our relationship to him. If one sees in him only a child or at best a simple village saint, he suddenly reveals his true greatness. And if one tries to set him on the high throne, he changes once again into a child and knows nothing. In both cases he only smiles.—p.45
Chapter 7: The Nature of the Avatar.
…within Hinduism … the incarnation … not as a unique affair. When on the other hand Jesus speaks of the Son of Man or of the Son of God, the Christian relates these pronouncements only to Jesus himself—but not to a Logos, which again and again embodies itself in various forms.—p.46
…If many of these Avatars are indeed of a mythological nature, this method of presentation, however, shows that the Avatar is not imagined as coming suddenly out of the divine Void. It is most clearly bound up with evolution and takes it a step further. But in order to be able to advance it really effectively, it must—with every adaptation to the current level of development—also be somewhat in advance of it.
For this reason many Vedantins also think that the Avatar in the form of a man is also only an ordinary man, but who in his last life attained the highest enlightenment and now voluntarily returns to help other men—a point of view which many Buddhists would also adopt, who see the final Buddha as the (p.47) last link in the long chain of earlier potential Buddhas or Bodhisattvas….—pp.47-8
…The Avatar is then seen either as the full embodiment of the highest God—as in the case of Krishna—or as His ‘messenger’. Ramakrishna did not always draw a sharp dividing line between these two possible interpretations, the less so since the term Avatar in Hinduism can mean both an embodiment of God as well as a weaker partial manifestation in a saint or prophet.
Ramakrishna once called the Avatar a ‘human envoy of God’…. This sounds partly quite biblical, partly reminiscent of the Gita and it leaves many questions open. Such an ‘envoy’ is half way between a prophet and the ‘Son’ of God, but in any case he is sent from God and does not seem to be direct embodiment of God. (In this case Christianity with its doctrine of the Trinity is theologically at an advantage over Hinduism, because this doctrine enables it to regard Christ as God’s Envoy and at the same time as God Himself….
If the Christian theologian wishes to prove that the Indian Avatar concept is not the same as the Christian teaching of the incarnation, he usually approaches the question from one of two different angles: either he stresses that the Avatar is only a theophany and not a real embodiment of God, or he stresses those passages which speak of the Avatar only as a ‘human’ envoy of God. It is in such cases often forgotten that in Christianity it required several centuries for these two extremes to be somehow brought together. And in spite of all dogmas, which for many believers only exist on paper and do not touch their hearts, everyone may in this regard have his own idea of Christ, just as every Hindu sees the Avatar in his own personal light—as a disguised God or a divine man….—pp.48-49
…(Isha Up. 4 and 5). These words may at first make one think of the Spirit, which rushes wherever it wills, yet it perhaps also includes the paradoxical nature of the incarnation—which clearly shows that the Upanishads, even though they do not literally mention an incarnation, still point to the nature of the incarnation—often in a better and more striking way than scriptures relating directly to the incarnation, which often end up in sentimentality.—p.49 [every incarnation story has a link with sentimentality. At the same time this sentimentality is also depends upon the nature of that story to make this sentiment either localized one or make it universal. Most of the (or almost all) the avatars in Hinduism is a localized sentiment where as in Jesus the same sentiment can break all the localized barriers— in which ever form that barriers come.—DB]
Conclusion:
A Liberal has complete freedom not only to interpret the tradition according to his convenience but even to create his own tradition of explaining away the orthodoxy based on his experience.4 Of course there exist no orthodoxy in the strict sense of the word and while a liberal is an liberated Liberal Orthodox from his tradition, an orthodox is a liberal bound by his tradition. However while an Orthodox has to function within the limits of his own tradition keeping an mind about his home audience, who will criticise and challenge his unorthodoxy, a liberal has the freedom without any such limitation. May be such a rigid Orthodox is in need of the Synthesis5 spirit of RK ‘which makes us more and more manoeuvrable and flexible.’ (p.214) And this book demonstrates again this universal principle in a remarkable way—which can be termed either as a living synthesis or syncretism, according to one’s own conviction.
Taking away the two different concepts of Incarnation and Avatara from their historical, theological and textual contexts and imposing one on the other—through the example of Jesus and Ramakirshna, the author wants to introduce the Incarnation of Rk and the Avatara of Jesus as well as universalise the concept of Incarnation.
No concept is universal in its scope as it emerged in a given concreate historical context—either based on mythology or real historical event. But what make it as an universal one is not the interpretation or explanation given by anyone and everyone, but how far it can be incarnate in every society and community transcending the limitation of social, cultural and regional in which it emerged.
It is a paradox to note that while the Christian concept of ‘Incarnation’ of Jesus is not an universal phenonmena and an one time event both in the Person and Mission of Jesus Christ, yet His teachings and work (particularly the central concept of atonement) is Universal in their scope and nature. Whereas the Hindu concept of ‘Avatar’ is universal in its scope (‘Innumerable are the Avataras’, says Srimad Bhagavatam), yet each avatara has a particular mission and several times the teaching of each avatara (though universalised by some liberals), has a limited scope with a particular people in mind.
Take for example the ‘universal’ purpose of Rama and Krishna avataras (which is so central only in Vaishnava Sampradaya) is to uphold dharma. But this ‘dharma’ in its strict sense in which it is understood and interpreted in most of the Indian tradition is ‘varnasramadharma’ [duty based on caste and stage in life]. So while avatara can be universal (anybody can be an avatara), yet the purpose behind the avatara is limited.5a
It is interesting to note that those saints who were later elevated as an avatara by their followers gave such a teaching (particularly on bhakti) which has an universal scope as most of the saints transcending the sectarian limitation gave certain basic principle based on their personal experience, which could be incarnated in every faith. Of course here also those teachings have the limitation as ‘experience’ could be the only universal concept in every faith. We have to keep these (limited) principles in mind while reading any such book as the author himself says:
I shall refer to some of the many passages in which Ramakrishna speaks of the nature of the Avatar in general, and for those who also see an Avatar in Ramakrishna these remarks will naturally also throw light on Ramakrishna himself. This is indeed only possible within Hinduism, which regards the incarnation—as already emphasized—as a ‘genus’: certainly as a very unusual, exceptional occurrence, but not as a unique affair. When on the other hand Jesus speaks of the Son of Man or the Son of God, the Christian relates these pronouncements only to Jesus himself—but not to a Logos, which again and again embodies itself in various forms. (p.46)
Of course the author has his own answer to the Christian theologians, ‘who wishes to prove that the Indian Avatar concept is not the same as the Christian teaching of the incarnation (p.48) because:
he [the Christian theologians] usually approaches the question from one of two different angles: either he stresses that the Avatar is only a theophany and not a real embodiment of God, or he stresses those passages which speak of the Avatar only as a ‘human’ envoy of God. It is in such cases often forgotten that in Christianity it required several centuries for these two extremes to be somehow brought together. And in spite of all dogmas, which for many believers only exist on paper and do not touch their hearts, everyone may in this regard have his own idea of Christ, just as every Hindu sees the Avatar in his own personal light—as a disguised God or a divine man… (pp.48-49)
Thus within such a liberal way the author (or any one) has the right to say or write anything they wish to prove or disprove any concept. But it left with the reader to accept or reject based on his personal (liberal or orthodox) conviction.
It is true that in Christianity it took several centuries to form a clear cut theology (Christology) on Incarnation. But it is important to note whether the faith of the immediate followers of Christ paved the way for the future theology (which was faithfully carried by other Christ bhaktas who have never seen Jesus in body but were the followers of Christ based on the teaching and faith of His immediate disciples), or future theology and dogmas created faith only in the mind and life of those followers in any post-Christological period, presuming that the early Christ bhaktas were only in their kindergarten of spirituality? In the case of Christ, the followers paved the way for future theology and Dogma. Whereas in the case of RK, it is only theologians like the author (and other RK Swamijis trained in this art) try to create a Ramakrishalogy to make followers for him everywhere. And we wish success for them, but will the author also give the same concession of few centuries to know how far they are successful in their endeavour?
As a complete liberal book, it doesn’t remain true to both Vedantic6and Biblical tradition—forget about the respective Scriptures. I mean whether you accept the particular concept (doctrine and theology) which a particular scripture upholds is true or not, there is an Orthodox tradition trying to interpret the doctrine of the scripture remaining true to the text. But as a Liberal has his own freedom to create his own tradition, he need not remain true either to the Scripture or to the tradition based on the scripture.
So one cannot find anything new to understand the concept of the ‘Paradox’ of Incarnation—particularly that of Jesus, if he/she wants to understand according to the bible in this book. Because once Swami Vivekanand set a new trend of ‘Experience holds the evidence’ (anubhav hi praman), anyone after staying in Ramakrishna(RK) Mission Mutt and influenced by their present tradition of Liberal Vedanta, one need not spend his/her time to read this book. Of course those who want to understand the ‘present RK Mission’s Liberal Vedantic’ tradition can read this book to understand what it is.
What I mean by the ‘present RK Mission Liberal Vedantic tradition’ is that while Swami Vivekanand never remain true to the Orthodox tradition of Vedanta and gave his own interpretation on it promoting a Practical Vedanta, his followers, following his example began to create their own traditions not even remain true to the teaching of their own gurus—both RK and Vivekananda.7 As I didn’t study properly on the life and the teachings of RK I have no right to say anything about him. However based on some elementary reading which I have done on RK in Tamil some thirty years before and recent study on Vivekananda by Atmanand Rambachan (The Limits of Scripture) I can say with some doubt on my own theory that how far the present RK Mission remain true to the teachings of their own gurus?
The main reason for saying this is that once Vivekananda gave the eternal dogma of ‘experience as the evidence’, each member of the RK Order can do whatever they please according to their experience as stated by the Hans himself by saying, ‘It depended mostly on the personality of the Swami concerned whether the centre’s activities were confined to lectures on Vedanta philosophy or whether the Ramakrishna cult was give some scope.’ (p.190). Though it is not our concern to know how then each centre runs, yet it is important to think what would be the condition of the members of those centres. I think that as an Organized Mission, in RK Order too there would be definitely some transfer. Suppose if we imagine that in one centre according the personality of a RK Swamiji developed it on the basis of (Vivekananda’s) Vedantic philosophy. Then after some time, if he gets the transfer and some other Swamiji takes the responsibility who is more interested in developing the cult of RK. And after some times some one replaces him and tries to develop the centre on the basis of his experience—as it is the only unchanging dogma. Then what will be the result and where it will lead or end.
This dogma of experience is the evidence has a lot of influence not only in RK Order but even at present, many more Hindus are upholding this dogma. But the worst part in it is that quoting Vivekananda as an authority and also a point of reference, yet they never remain true to the teaching of Vivekananda’s Vedantic philosophy. Let me share one such a recent example:
In a Dialogue Organized by Indian Council of Philosophical Research, held at Vrindavan, on the discussion of Feeling and Bhakti, Sri Srivatasa Goswami, while sharing his view said, ‘…Vivekananda once said that at one stage the Vedas themselves are also set aside. Now, these are all works within the realm of prakrti. But there is a realm above the prakrti. That appears in the heart of the bhakta.’7a
Whatever might be Vivekananda said about to set aside the Veda, he never said in the context of bhakti which (according to Sri Srivatasa) transcends all these mundane sastras,8 which need to be set aside. Vivekananda definitely said in the context of his vedanta philosophy which not follow the traditional vedantic philosophy. (As a sub point, it should be remembered that Sri Sankara the champion of Vedanta is also called ‘Sruti vatin’ viz., one who upheld or uttered the Sruti and its importance regarding attaining that knowledge. For him Scripture holds the final authority and not experience). Now people like Sri Srivatsa, who is equally a scholar and an authority in his Goswami tradition, even quote Vivekananda as a point of reference only to the extent of his need, ignoring the context in which Vivekananda said regarding the Scriptures. Such is the influence of Vivekananda on the minds of Hindus these days.
Sorry for this digression. But it is interesting to note that another Goswami, Sri Purushotam Goswamiji, who also shared in the same dialogue pointed the importance of the evidence of Sastras:
Scholars from all over India came here [Vrindavan]. They sat in two rows. The same kind of discussions were held as we have today. But there was a rule in those discussions. Only those words were accepted as pramana (evidence) which were based on sastras. If it was not based on sastras, then they were rejected. This is not the rule today. There is a command [request by Prof. Daya Krishna particularly to Purushotam Goswami not to quote from written scripture but to share based on his own experience (p.238)] to day on all of us to share one’s own personal opinion. Don’t quote and say anything. Trend has changed (p.242). 8a
Purushotam Swamiji also shared one interesting incident which I give in his own words (in Hindi):
Someone told me (in Mumbai) that don’t allow anyone to follow blindly. Give him his freedom. He has his own mind and allow him to decide/go according to his mind. For this I told OK. Then he continued, ‘but you also see that we have Gita, Bhagavat, Upanishads, Vedas and Vedantas. And in order to support your view you quoted from them and gave evidence. But these evidences are not your words. These are others’ words. You have your own independent intellect (prajna) but you didn’t used it. Now listen what is the correct answer.’ Then he played a cassette of Bhagavan Rajanish. In it Rananish says, ‘A Camel merchant went along with his camels. When evening came he removed the rope from the neck of the camel pretend as if he is erecting a spike by making noise. Then some one asked him what are you doing? For this he responded, just pretend that you are erecting the spike and tying the camel with it. Then it will think that it is actually tied with the spike.’ It actually happened in the same way and the camel thought that it is actually tide with the peg in a rope.’ You people are doing the same thing. By giving evidence (from the scripture) you try to fix us falsely (artificially) [in the peg of evidence]. For this I said, ‘I like your words and from this day on wards I will never quote any scripture as the evidence for authority but only use my independent intellect. But already you have come to my camp. But how can you too quote the word of Bhagavan Rajanesh as the evidence. What a kind of fun is this? You changed the jaggery as cow-dung. You have denied your own statement (of not quoting others but use one’s own personal intellect). (p.31) 8b
This story clearly demonstrates what is happening with the trend set by Swami Vivekananda. Following his example at present several emphasis on their own experience as the evidence at the cost of the Scriptures. But like that follower of Rajanish they quote Vivekananda as the evidence for this. As Sri Purushotam Goswamiji said, ‘I see that no one has a complete independent thought. Every thought is influenced by that religion which is followed by one. There is the influence of family and also of the sect. Influence is also there because of studies. The karma of past birth also stands behind it. So which one can be claimed as the independent thought? Whatever thought may be in mind, whether it is based on scriptures or by teachers or through the influence of fellowship[satsang] or through education—that is that individual’s thought.’ 8c
If I am correct, irrespective of RK’s claim of Universal Experience of every religion and Incarnations, yet his teaching is completely based on his personal experience may be in Tantric lines [take those points as foot notes from the book itself—DB]. His personal Shishya Swami Vivekananda gave his own interpretation both on the teachings of his guru and Vedanta and Veda. Following his footsteps the successive generation of RK Mission Swamijies gave new interpretation to Vivekananda’s interpretation both on Indian philosophical (theological) tradition and influenced common people to promote Vivekananda as a deity. Those who cannot follow what I say can go and see the big statue of RK at Belur Mutt and the way daily pujas are performed by the RK Swamijis to their bhagavan RK and those who visit Vivekananda rock in Kanyakumari where one can find three shrines of Vivekananda, RK and his wife Sarada devi (you have to note this order also as the main sanctum sanctorum is first of Vivekananda, then RK followed by his wife). [take the reference of Vivekananda as an avatara from the book—DB]
If it is true that, ‘Ramakirshna often compared Brahman to the water of the ocean, which here and there is frozen into solid blocks of ice, i.e. into the personal forms of God, including the incarnations. When the sun of the highest knowledge rises, he said, all these forms melt away and become one with the formless water’, (p.18)then, does it demonstrate that the ‘sun of the highest knowledge’ didn’t rise to melt the ‘solid blocks of ice’ of RK (and also a broken piece out of it in the form of Vivekananda)as the way the RK Swamijis still cling to them? At least there is a hope for the ‘ice blocks’ to melt provided if they remain floating in the ocean of Brahman as a concept of mere avatara. But once they made it a permanent ‘ice statues’ in the cold storage of shrines, we have to wait for the eclipse to end to reveal the Sun again to rise one day to liberate the followers of RK and Vivekananda first from the cold storage and then to visarg (dissolving pratimas [idol]of Durga and Ganesa after the ten days festivals in the water) those ‘ice blocks’ again in the ocean of Brahman, at least to make it again a concept of avatara of RK.
Page after page one can point out the interpretation of the author both on the Vedanta and Bible in line with Vivekananda’s tradition. Here again I insist my theory that whether one believes what all said in the respective scriptures (both in Upanishads and the Bible) is right or wrong, yet one must remain true to the text in his exegetical interpretation on them. Of course there are several exegetical tradition even on the interpretation of every religious text, but one has complete freedom to accept or reject a particular tradition’s interpretation but not the whole text itself in order to create his/her own tradition as the Text.
It is true that both Jesus and RK never wrote any of their sayings as the scripture and both the Gospel of Jesus and Gospel of RK is the product of their disciples. But the Incarnation of Jesus is completely different from the avatara of RK. If we remain true to the respective tradition of Christianity and the Hindus, while the former claim of only one Incarnation in Jesus, RK is one among the several avataras in India. It is true that:
In the Old Testament atmosphere the gap between God and man, between the creator and creature, was almost unbridgeable, and there is no wonder that mankind longed for an intermediary to bridge the gap. In India on the other hand this gap never exited, and so the longing for a link between God and man could never arise to any great degree. (p.18, italics original)
And this itself is a proof to show that one cannot compare the Incarnation of Jesus with the avatara of RK. According to RK’s words which, ‘also point to the fact that Christ is this ocean. The incarnation does not appear suddenly out of nothing. The impersonal ground that gave birth to a Christ must already have something Christ-like about it, otherwise it could not produce him. And it is the same the other way round—Christ always has the ocean, the whole ground of divinity, in himself.’ (p.18) After saying this the author continues, ‘According to the Vedanta teaching, this, of course, actually applies to all human beings, whether they know it or not. And this is perhaps the most profound reason why the incarnation in India—in spite of the popularity of Krishna and Rama—never achieved the importance that it has in Christianity’. (p.18)
Now with this bag round of several avataras versus one eternal Incarnation, there comes no question of comparing Jesus’ Incarnation with the avatara of RK. Again I want to insist my contention that whether we believe what the bible says is correct or not is a different issue. Either you have to remain true to the text in all your interpretation or rejecting it you can create your own tradition using the text quoting and interpreting it out of historical, theological and textual contexts. And the author created one more such a liberal traditions. I say one among several liberal traditions, because once you claim to make your own tradition based on your own experience then as many souls so many views become the criteria to create any number of traditions following in line with the initiation by Swami Vivekananda. At least in this respect the author remains true to this tradition.
For me one cannot compare the Incarnation of Jesus with RK or any other avataras based on the following points:
- Whether or not we accept the claims of Jesus recorded in the Gospel, Jesus was aware of Hid Divine nature and He claimed Himself as the LORD. His disciples only acknowledge the fact and not promoted Him to that level. Whereas the claims of RK himself and his followers the avatarahood of RK not only remain paradox but often confuses—except explaining them carefully as done by the author in several places (see chapter seven pp. 46-55).8d That’s why while we have several such bhagavans even in Rajanish and Saibaba, in Christiandam still Jesus remain the only Incarnation. [Thankfully Marry was only promoted bodily to heaven and never made as an Incarnation like that of Sarada devi—take reference for both from the book—DB]
- Jesus had a clear and particular mission—to redeem mankind from SIN in principle through His death and atonement (whether you accept it or not is a different issue). Where as RK’s life Mission was later created by his followers. And don’t ask me what that Mission is. Because if we critically analyse the life and teaching of RK and that of Vivekananda on the one hand and what all their followers do at present—each one based on his own experience as that is the only doctrine of Vivekananda—it is difficult to spell out the Mission of RK or Vivekananda or their Mission.
- For me any claim of any guru in itself is not that much important. Its authenticity can be proved by the historical fact of its influence on the common people who become his followers. Even if deny all the claims of Jesus recorded in the Gospel, yet the way His teaching influenced the common populace of the Roman Empire and the immediate church history that too particularly that of the first three hundred years after Christ itself (before the formation of all later dogmas and Christologies) is a proof of the Incarnation and claims of Jesus Christ. As His immediate disciples also followed the footsteps of Jesus choosing the path of suffering and sacrifice they turned the world upside down [the author acknowledges this aspect of RK Order but explains away easily as usual—take the point—DB]. Even a Sociological study on the expansion and growth of Christianity proves this.9 Whereas RK needed an Intellectual Vivekananda and several other such followers (including the author of this book) trained in that intellectual discipline to promote his avatara which never become a spontaneous expansion even among Indians. While lay people were busy in expanding the Kingdom of Christ, the Christian theologians were busy in shaping the theology and doctrine. Whereas in RK movement the theologians have to shape the doctrine as well as to propagate RK as an avatara. It is interesting to note that while almost in every Bengali house one can see the picture of RK, Saradha Devi, Vivekananda (along with Tagore of course)—not necessarily as the religious symbol but their Bengali Cultural heritage. But in rest of India, except few rare exceptions (that too because of RK Mission influence) while Vivekananda is proudly claimed as the champion of Hindu cause particularly in abroad, RK & co is not accepted in equal footing with their sectarian avataras.
4. Of course one can claim that the kindergarten spirituality of the Western world was in need of such an Incarnation in Jesus to redeem them for sin and ignorance. Whereas in India the Eternal Dharma of Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) is only in need of regular avataras to uphold the dharma to safe guard it from adharma one time event of an Incarnation is out of question here. This overall worldview of Hindus, (whether acceptable to the orthodox tradition of Christianity or not) itself is a proof that while RK is one among such an avatara and Jesus, with all the sin and ignorance of the Western (and equally Christian) world will remain always as the only Incarnation both in theology and practice.
KKKKKKK
SOME COMMENTS
Try to fix squarely the Incarnation of Jesus divorcing from its historical, theological, social and religious context with that of RK won’t help anyone to understand both of them. We have no objection for the claim of RK both by himself and his devotees as an avatara. But the way the author tries to explain Jesus with Rk or RK with Jesus did not remain true to both Hindu and Christian traditions. For example though the author says that RK is that last link in the avatara [“He (RK) saw himself as the last link so far—and in no way the ‘seal’—in the chain of divine manifestations, the avatars or ‘descents’ of God…”–p.26-27], the followers of Sri Shridi Satya Sai Baba—including himself, claims not as the last link in the Avatara, but the culmination of every avatara and Incarnation in Him. The followers of Ma Amitamayee of Kerala, the devotees of Adi Parasakti of Melmaruvatur in Tamilnadu are worshiping their gurus as Devi and Bhagavan. Even there is a Kalki bhagavan in Tamilnadu and Andhra combined. But at least all the followers of these gurus remain true to the claim of their gurus’ teaching and remain as different cult within Hindu fold. Whereas the followers of RK through Court declared themselves not as Hindus—that too to gain some concession for their Educational Trust as a minority community. While RK refuse to touch money and any close contact with it created lots of physical pains to him (whereas Vivekananda went to America mainly to raise fund to serve poor Indians). Whereas his followers, even for the sake of serving others in a better way, renounced his principle of keeping away from material and become a minority community with that of Christians and Muslims. But it is important to note whether all the Bengalis who worship or keep the picture of RK are ready to follow their suit. Of course like the Sankaracharyas of five peets, the RK Sannyasis also can claim that while in Paramartika/alaukika [transcendental]level, to serve the word they become a minority community whereas in Vayvaharika/laukika [or practical wordly] level they accept or allow the lay followers of RK to remain within Hindu fold.
The validity of the life and teaching of any guru can be tested only by his followers. At least both the followers of Christ and RK have one thing in common—to create a separate sociological-religious communities in this world. Jesus never told His followers to create a separate Community and His immediate bhaktas remained within their own social communities following Him. But not remaining true to Him in this area in the following generation His followers created both a Christian Religion and Community. The same way RK never instructed His followers to create a separate Religion or Social Community. Thankfully though Hinduism never treated His followers as a separate religion (even as a separate sampradaya) or community, in principle and that too in law His followers declared themselves not Hindus. I wonder why the author forgets to note down this main point of similarity among both the followers of Jesus and RK. May be, he too like the RK Swamijies only want to write on Paramartika level forgetting the importance of Vyavaharika among the common people. Irrespective of this uniqueness of not following the teaching of their gurus, yet I hope there will be true remnant among both the followers of Jesus and RK, accepting them as they are as the Incarnation and an Avatara. It is a paradox to note that while the Christians live really as a separate community based on a myth (as if Jesus created that Community or following Jesus means to form a separate social community) the RK lay people in spite of real and legal claim by the RK Mission as not Hindu, still live as Hindus [take the reference—DB]
To claim that the records by the followers of RK on his life is more authentic than the gospel record is a prejudiced view [take the reference—DB]. It is true that both Jesus and RK never wrote anything about themselves. But it is important to note that the disciples of Jesus never kept a record of Jesus life and teaching as diary kept by the RK disciples. Only after several churches were formed, and after Paul wrote few or most of his epistles to these various churches, then alone some of Jesus’ disciples thought that it is good to record the life and teaching of Jesus. And Luke in fact done proper research and collected all the information and then wrote his gospel (no writer of the four gospels named their work as the gospel). So they need not keep a personal diary to record everything that Jesus has done or said. Whereas the motive of RK’s disciples to keep a diary to record his life and teaching could be viewed that they have done with a definite purpose of writing a history about RK’s life and teaching. Considered by His followers as an avatara and also RK is there guru, who knows there might be some exaggeration even to in those records?
One good things in this book is that the author never hides the contradiction in the teaching and mission of RK and Vivekananda. But as usual, like any other liberal he too explains away the contradiction easily. I don’t want to go in detail on every such contradiction. But let me bring one such point. The author comparing the death of Christ and RK for the sin of the world says:
I can of course completely ignore the historical perspective and stress only the purely personal side: Christ died for me, for my sins. Yet one will also be able to understand that such a subjective faith, which may certainly transform a man, can also say: Ramakrishna suffered for me, my sins caused the sore in his throat. So that in the end we come back to faith again and have to admit that nothing can be prove. (pp.216-7, italics original)
Though personal faith cannot be proved and accepted with the respect of one person’s experience, yet however we ignore the historical perspective to stress only the purely personal side, one cannot violate the theological context altogether, because the author himself says, ‘…it is the theologian who has been speaking, I would almost say: the dogmatist, who mainly thinks from “above” downwards.”’ (p.213)
Now the main such theological violation is found in the fact that both RK and Vivekananda denied the concept of Sin in man. Let me quote from the book itself:
One can also find many seminal sayings of Ramakrishna, which later blossomed forth in Vivekananda’s mind. From the small theme: ‘Anyone who is always saying he is a sinner, eventually becomes a sinner’, which sounds so brief in Ramakrishna’s mouth, Vivekananda created a whole symphony. He liked to shock his Western audiences with the saying that there was really only one sin, namely to call a man a sinner….
This is to be found in a more rousing and aggressive form in Vivekananda: ‘There are many who feel horrified when they hear these teachings. They do not like to be told that they are not just little pig bodies, created by a tyrant God. I tell them, “Come up!” They say they are born in sin—they cannot come up except through someone’s grace. I say, “You are Divine!” They answer, “You blasphemer, how dare you speak so ? How can a miserable creature be god? We are sinners!” I get very much discouraged at times, you know…’ (Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda,VII, p. 130) (p.206).
Whether we believe and accept that Christ died on the Cross for our sin, at least we know that He died on the Cross not for any personal crime that He has done. Otherwise Pilate himself would have never tried to release Him. Even if we take a liberal view, at least to hold the some Truth or opposing the hypocrisy of the Pandits of Judaism he was crucified and coming under the political pressure by the Religious leaders of the Jews the Governor punished an innocent man. If not Christ died for the sin of the world, He silently bore the injustice done to Him and exposed the hypocrisy of the State and Religion of His time in a non-violent way.
In case of RK where comes any necessary for Him to suffer because of any concept which He Himself and His followers equally denied—viz. for SIN?. However personal such faith may be of the author and whatever may be the claim of RK Himself that His throat cancer and the suffering is for the world (even Kali got also the same infection in her throat because of her son’s (RK) suffering due to throat cancer—p.). According to RK and His followers principle of Vedanta that all are Gods-10 where comes the need for one to suffer for another? Because, ‘One must of course also add that suffering does not play such an outstanding part in the whole Ramakrishna cult…. He also did not want to stir up the people with a passion drama that perhaps found its final expression in Christ, even though Ramakrishna’s suffering offers an important later commentary.’ (p.217)
On the other hand if the author said that in order to identify with the suffering of all human beings RK also suffered through (not in ) his throat cancer identified with them as a God, then it would be justified with the over all spirit of the book.
Ranikhet, August, 2001.
Notes
1. What I mean by ‘through and not in’ is that ‘in’ means that God in the life of a human being or a saint like RK has done something. Whereas ‘through’ means the God RK through His life has demonstrated Hid divinity.
2. ‘When his [RK] picture was placed on the altar one evening in an English Dominican friary during a retreat in which Hindus as well as Catholics and Protestants participated and an Indian Swami celebrated a short Arati service before it, none of the Christians stood up to tear down the picture.’ (p.xi)
3. ‘I am well aware that not every Christian will be prepared to cross over the boundary to the other side to the extent that I do in this study. In attempting this it is not a question, as already indicated, of how deep a representative of the Christian faith may penetrate into the heart of Hinduism in order to plant Christ in the inmost recess of that religion. Others have written about this aspect, Bede Griffiths for instance, or Klaus Klostermaier. Although these pioneers reached a genuine understanding they never seriously succumbed to the temptation to jump over the fence and become a Hindu—not in the external sense, of course, because for a Westerner it is hardly possible to fit into the Hindu social structure; but nevertheless to such an extent that one suddenly sees Christianity from the other side, and that means above all that it is made relative….I am not in any way invading the Christian camp now as a “Hindu missionary”’. (p.x)
3a. The argument that the word ‘saccidaananda (sat = truth or existence; cit = conscience and ananda = bliss)’ as an attribute to that eternal Brahman in advaita indirectly point out the acceptance of God with attribute in a transcendental level is not exactly compatible with the true spirit of bhakti tradition:
Pror. Dwivedi: There is a common feeling that saccidaananda brahma is the Advaitin’s technical expression. Such an expression never occurs in the Upanisads. There is no sentence like saccidaananda brahma, though we have sentences where we have the word satyaani: satyaani jnaanam anantaani, and so forth.
Prof. Mishra: Yes, but in the Advaitic tradition saccidaananda does not occur. Brahman in Advaitic tradition is anirvacaniiya [beyond words ]. Since it is anirvacaniiya, it cannot be defined. If we are trying to define it, the first and perhaps the best definition may be to try to define it through silence. So, mauna[silence] is the best possible definition. So, this is the first possible definition, and naturally one is not satisfied with it. So, the second possible definition is through negation: neti, neti [not this not that]. But neti neti also does not satisfy us; we want something positive. So, then Brahman is described as sat[Truth/Existence], cit[Conscience/Knowledge] and aananda[bliss]. But this is with the understanding that this sat, cit and aananda is an expression in the positive way of the negative definition. That is, sat ultimately culminates in this, that it is not asat, cit culminates in this that it is not acit and aananda culminates in this that it is not duhkha[sorrow]. When one is not satisfied even with this, then there is the tatastha laksana: janmaadyasya yatah. That is, it is that from which the world has arisen. There, too, ‘janmaadyasya’ is not to be taken in the sense in which it is taken in Nyaaya. It is not by inference that we are trying to prove Brahman, that there is a world and therefore there is the creator of the world and he is the Brahman. It is an expression of the Vedic experience that Brahman is the source of creation. But in what sense is it the source? It is only in the sense of being the ground of the lokas[world]. Adhisthaana maatrena kartrtvam. So, that is why sat, cit and aananda are not three qualities, gunas, that have Brahman for their aasraya. There is no aasraya-aasrayii-bhaava. They are not even its constituents as the three gunas are in prakrti. Rather, they are words with the help of which we try to have some understanding of Brahman, that it is not duhkha or asat or something like that.—Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Edited by Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 2000, pp. 190-1
4. ‘I admit that my “comparison” between Ramakrishna and Christ is quite personal and therefore certainly not everyone’s idea. In fact I regard both as independent revelations of the one Logos and am very glad that they are not simply interchangeable, but in many respects even very different and therefore mutually complementary; but then again there are moments when they so intermingle that I see Ramakrishna on the cross and Christ in the company of his Bengali disciples. One can imagine that for this reason many theological problems which could give a Christian a headache, no longer exist for me. I cannot help it. Perhaps it has something to do with the spirit of Ramakrishna which makes us more and more manoeuvrable and flexible and for that very reason presses forward into the depths…’ (p.215, italics original)
‘I can moreover unfortunately not avoid writing from my own personal experience, because in a chapter dedicated particularly to the worship and cult of Ramakrishna, this subjective factor is more difficult to avoid that in the rest of the book.
…when I accompanied the Indian Swami from a Western Ramakrishna Centre, that I wanted to prevail upon him to stress the figure of Ramakrishna somewhat more forcibly. The Swami’s high-minded reserve brought me to despair. Every missionary (p.183) instict I had brought with me from my Christian boarding school was brought to life again. While the Swami presented Ramakrishna just as one expected: as a nice holy man, who loved everyone and has said some very wise things, the “theologian” boiled up inside me: I would have preferred to throw little bombs, for a change I wanted to present Ramakrishna as a paradox, indeed as a “shock” which would upset the self-assurance of many Christians, at least as much as St paul’s sermons did the self-assurance of many Jews and Greeks.’ (pp.183-4)
5. ‘In regard to India, for some Christians it is even today a “holy land” from which they like to draw inspiration—without thereby being blind to its weaknesses. We have so far always been standing on one leg, because we cannot get away from the idea that salvation can only come from the Jews. The attempt to stand on the other leg and draw in the revelation of God in India, may at first for many perhaps be somewhat unaccustomed, but in this way one can stand much more firmly—on two legs.
That this synopsis cannot be ordered from above is clear. Everyone must perhaps work out his own synthesis—always working towards a real, living synthesis, which differs markedly from an artificial syncretism. (p.214)
5a. Vamana [dwarf] avatara is to subdue the demon king Bali. Matsaya [fish] avatara is to rescue Vedas from some demons, who took them away and hide in deep ocean. Kurma [Tortoise] avatara is to give the support to the mount Meru which was used in churning the milky ocean by devas and asuras. Narasimha [man-lion] avatara is to protect the devotee Prahalada from his demon father. Parasurama is to kill all the Kshatriyas. Varaha [Pig] is to trace the feet of Siva in competition with Brahma. So these avataras are clearly sectarian in their scope and not universal. To say in other words while avararas are universal (as any body can be termed as an avatara) the purpose of avatara is not universal.
6. ‘Even if Vivekananda quite rightly appeals to the Upanishads, he also actually creates his own Vedanta and does not talk about the Vedanta philosophy, certainly not about its various systems, but wipes the slate clean, like Jesus thoroughly cleansing the Temple of all “religion”, and although he calls what is left Vedanta, it is clear that he is also distancing himself from many specifically Indian derivations. Nothing remains: no Vedas, no personal God, no divine incarnation, no holy scriptures—nothing. And yet again everything: the “worship of the Spirit through the Spirit”, the pure Advaita without colouring of “superstitions”, without any compromises. (p.201, italics original)
‘Yet one has to admit that Vivekananda was sometimes not particularly careful in his formulations, and his contradictory nature is quite monumental in this case, on the other hand one does not want to smooth over the rough corners too much. The Swami himself had often enough added qualificatory statements and was perhaps tired of them (even though it must be added that two days later he again gave a talk on “Ritual Worship of God” and two more days later he again gave a talk on “Divine Love”, which showed him more as a Bhakta, even (p.202) though as one who had already entered the Kingdom of Spirit and could afford so to speak after cleansing to praise love of God on the basis of true knowledge)…. And apparently, as he proclaimed the religion of pure spirit, he now also believed that he had not ceased to follow in his Master’s footsteps.’ (p.203, italics original)
7. ‘…the Ramakrishna devotee is almost always a Hindu by birth who continues to accept Hinduism as a kind of superstructure and is embedded in it till his dying day…
The matter however took another course in the West when Vivekananda and his brother disciples and successors began to establish the first Vedanta centres there. It depended mostly on the personality of the Swami concerned whether the centre’s activities were confined to lectures on Vedanta philosophy or whether the Ramakrishna cult was give some scope.’ (p.190) [this Vedanta philosophy in not the traditional one but Vivekananda’s Neo-Vedanta.]
7a. Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Edited by Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 2000, p.161
8. ‘As I have already said, the saastras are mundane affairs.’— Shri Shrivatsa, ibid. p. 165
8a. ibid. pp. 238 & 242 (in Hindi and my own translation)
8b. ibid. p.31 (in Hindi and my own translation)
8c. ibid. p. 238 (in Hindi and my own translation)
8d. ‘Ramakirshna would not have been so illuminated and God-intoxicated if he had seen God only in himself—and not also in everyone else. He undoubtedly regarded himself on the one hand as a ‘special’ manifestation of God and would not let this ‘speciality’ be nullified by the Advaita teaching, such as when he told Vivekananda: ‘He who was Rama and Krishna is now in this body as Ramadrishna—but not in your Vedantic sense!’ In this case he naturaly meant by Vedanta only the Advaita and wanted to make it clear to his disciple by these added words that he did not mean the general identity of the human soul with Brahman—which he in no way denied, and that therefore his ‘I am He’ was not to be understood in the philosophical Vedantic sense, but purely personally and historically: he, Ramakrishna, is a special embodiment of God like Rama and Krishna…. This ‘speciality’ did not prevent Ramakrishna from also revealing his knowledge of advaita: that nothing exists basically except God. The humility which he showed here as well as in so many other passages did not arise from any kind of guilt or inferiority complex, but from just this knowledge: that God is the only reality. Whatever he therefore saw he worshipped and in so doing he naturally also bowed down before his own Rama-being, before his divine Self. (italics original)—p. 42
9. Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, Harper San Francisco An Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, 1977
10. ‘We must remember that he (RK) once said to a guest, “Whether you know it or not—you are Rama!” And Vivekananda: “God is infinite Being and you are all His incarnations!” And the following words also, which seem to stand Advaita on its head, in no way contradict the teachings of Ramakrishna. “This world is not bad. It is God Himself if you know it. The murderer who is going to hang tomorrow is all God, perfect God. It is very hard to understand, surely; but it can be understood. (Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, VII, 129 ) And Ramakrishna: “Yes, all one’s confusion comes to an end if one only realizes that it is God who manifests Himself as the atheist and the believer, the good and the bad, the real and the unreal; that it is He who is present in waking and in sleep; and that He is beyond all these.” (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna by M., Translated by Swami Nikhilananda, New York 1952, p.236); Vivekananda: “You are all kings in this country. So with the religion of Vedanta. You are all Gods. One God is not sufficient. You are all Gods, says the Vedanta.”’(p.203-4)]
Leave a Reply