Implications of Teachings...next Part 2
Implications of Teachings of Sri Ramakrishna (Part 1)
Introduction
The chronicler of 'The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna', Mahendranath Gupta ('M' for short) met Sri Ramakrishna at Dakshineswar Kali Temple on one of the Sundays of February 1882. The first meeting was brief and ended with 'M' saluting Sri Ramakrishna who told him to come again. 'M' could not wait for long. The next day at 8 a.m. he visited Sri Ramakrishna again. We try to look into the implications and importance of this second meeting.
Image Worship
After the initial inquiry about 'M', Sri Ramakrishna asked, "Well, how is Keshab now? He was very ill."
The fact that 'M' was English educated teacher in one of the schools run by Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar might have led Sri Ramakrishna to come to the conclusion that 'M' must be associated with Brahmo Samaj of Keshab Chandra Sen. Sri Ramakrishna was quick to grasp the prevailing tendencies in the youth of that time to join Brahmo Samaj, and participate in their methods of worship. This Brahmo movement had influenced many young college students and intellectuals by way of propagating revisionist trends in Hindu religious orthodoxy. They believed and were influenced or attracted by the novel concepts (that appeared progressive) of worshiping God in Saguna Nirakara Bhava (God with attributes but without form). Brahmos were wary of Sakara Bhakti (worship of God with form): worship of clay and stone idols or images.
In this context, therefore, the initial conversation between Sri Ramakrishna and 'M' assumes immense importance. Inquiry regarding Keshab's health outwardly appears matter of routine, but one should remember that Sri Ramakrishna was meeting 'M' only second time, and did not know much about his faith etc. Without breaking the thread of conversation, Sri Ramakrishna volunteered,
"I made a vow to worship the Mother with green coconut and sugar on Keshab's recovery. ... 'Mother, please make Keshab well again. If Keshab does not live, whom shall I talk with when I go to Calcutta?' And so it was that I resolved to offer Her the green coconut and sugar." (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, English Translation by Swami Nikhilananda, page 79, SRK Math Chennai, Indian Edition - 1996)
We get unusual insight about the thinking of Sri Ramakrishna from these talks. It was natural for him to speak what he believed in; there was never an iota of hypocrisy in his speech, nor any deliberate attempt to teach or give lessons to others. Sri Ramakrishna always meant what he spoke, and spoke what he knew. For him every form of worship was true, for according to him to remember and worship God in any form or without form was but a step to religiosity. His broadness of heart, vision, and knowledge had made him aware of the necessity of the crudest as well as the most refined form of worship and spiritual discipline depending upon the nature and aptitude of the sadhaka. Nay, for Sri Ramakrishna, every human being was sadhaka in his or her own right, albeit some were not conscious about this fact.
As a logical conclusion to such thoughts, Sri Ramakrishna put the next question to 'M', "Well, do you believe in God with form or without form?" In this question we understand and see the link with the previous statement of Sri Ramakrishna (that he had offered coconut and sugar to the Mother for the recovery of Keshab). As if Sri Ramakrishna knew before hand the tendency of young people to try to show off some superiority in worshipping God as Nirakara (without form) and to look down upon the Sakara worship of God (God with form).
Now it was the turn of 'M' to get puzzled, as he tried to reconcile the two ways of worship. Can both Sakara and Nirakara be true? He wondered. The ring of truthfulness in the words and talk of Sri Ramakrishna by now had already dawned upon 'M' forcing him to contemplate this way. However, without appearing defeated or confused outwardly, 'M' said, "Sir, I like to think of God as formless."
To this answer, Sri Ramakrishna responded by exhibiting satisfaction and told him that it was all right to think of God either way. Moreover, he suggested to 'M' to stick to his belief; for, any kind of belief in God is worthy of respect, never to be despised of. Sri Ramakrishna thus advised 'M' to cling to one's faith, but thereby never think that others who did not hold similar views were wrong. For Sri Ramakrishna all the rituals and worships prevalent even in dilapidated Hindu religious and social life were true. This point particularly helps us even today to tread on our path to God without causing hurt to others, or leaving discordant note in any heart, or a tear in social fabric. The seed of harmony of religions is seen to be sown here, as the beginning had to be made first by accepting all Hindu religious sects as equally true paths leading towards God.
However, it was not easy for 'M' to accept this truth easily. As is our wont, 'M' also entered into arguments with Sri Ramakrishna, saying, "Sir, suppose one believes in God with form, certainly He is not the clay image." And even though Sri Ramakrishna interrupted by saying, "But why of clay? It is an image of Spirit," 'M' continued his argumentation, "But, sir, one should explain to those who worshipped the clay image that it is not God, and that, while worshipping it, they should have God in view and not the clay image. One should not worship clay." (The Gospel, page 80)
Weary of constant plea of looking upon 'image worship' as something lowly, Sri Ramakrishna sharply reacted about the insistence of 'teaching others' without first learning for themselves. This is a natural tendency amongst the educated people. Such persons think that by their knowledge of science and arts, geography and history, economics and sociology they have automatically become conversant with or entitled for spiritual knowledge as well. These persons take pride as their 'right' in teaching others about religion. However, sooner than later a true aspirant realizes that religion, spirituality, or science of knowledge of God, is totally different proposition. Here all secular learning and information, knowledge and scholarship become useless, as the currency of one nation in the other. Sri Krishna says in the Gita 'not by learning even the Vedas etc. can one realize God.'
Sri Ramakrishna told 'M' that all forms of worship are valid, and necessary. It is God who Himself has arranged every form of worship to suit different men in different stages of knowledge. He gave one example: "The mother cooks different dishes to suit the stomachs of her different children. Suppose she has five children. If there is a fish to cook, she prepares various dishes from it - pilau, pickled fish, fried fish, and so on - to suit their different tastes and powers and digestion."
What is Knowledge?
As, for a professor of physics, chemistry is foreign, so is the science of spirituality. Here, in this field of spiritual science as well one has to start from the basics that are totally different from those of physical sciences and secular knowledge. This ignorance about spirituality and true religion leads to such inflated ego as we see in the society at large where the learned professor, influential leaders, and wealthy aristocrats easily lay claim to automatically become 'religious' if and when they want to be.
In this connection it is pertinent once again to go back and refer to the initial discussion between Sri Ramakrishna and 'M'. After inquiring about his marital status etc. Sri Ramakrishna put very unusual question to 'M', "Tell me, now, what kind of person is your wife? Has she spiritual attributes, or is she under the power of avidya?" Not realizing the implication of this question, 'M' replied, "She is all right. But I am afraid she is ignorant."
Not pleased with such a reply, Sri Ramakrishna reproachfully said to 'M', "And you are a man of knowledge!" We do not easily and routinely understand the terms such as 'knowledge' and 'ignorance' as the spiritual teachers speak of them. Here Sri Ramakrishna meant 'knowledge of God'. To realize or to know God is knowledge, all else is ignorance. As Sri Krishna says in the Gita (XIII - 11) "Fixity in self-knowledge, observing everywhere the object of true Knowledge, i.e. God, all this is declared to be Knowledge; what is contrary to this is called ignorance."
*
c s shah
Implications of Teachings...next Part 2