Was Sri Ramakrishna an incarnation of
God? I am sure some of the readers of The Vedanta Kesari might be
surprised to see this question forming the title of an editorial of a journal
considered to be one of the important mouth-pieces of the Ramakrishna Mission—an
organization which believes without a shadow of doubt that Sri Ramakrishna was
the latest incarnation of God. Others may or may not believe in this and may
raise such questions. But then, why should
such a doubt be raised after a century? Is not the worldwide spread of
the message of Ramakrishna - Vivekananda—the message of the Vedanta as preached
and practiced by Sri Ramakrishna—during the last one hundred years enough proof
that a divine power had incarnated in the form of Sri Ramakrishna? Is it not a
fact that millions today worship Sri Ramakrishna as an incarnation not only in
India but also in countries like U.S.A., Australia and England?
As a matter of fact the
question whether Sri Ramakrishna is an incarnation of God or not was answered
once and for all during his life time in the presence of no less a person than
Swami Vivekananda. The latter was then a highly skeptical and rationalistic
college student, Narendra Nath Dutta. He was not a person to believe anything
without getting a proof of it. He examined and tested Sri Ramakrishna minutely
as long as the latter was alive and continued testing the validity of his
utterances even after he passed away.
During the last days of his
life, Sri Ramakrishna, who was suffering from an incurable cancer of the
throat, had become extremely weak. Being reduced to skin and bones, he was
hardly able to eat or speak.
A couple of days before the
Master’s passing away, when Narendra and a few others were standing by his bed
at night, a curious thought flashed across Naren’s mind: ‘The Master has said
many a time that he is an incarnation of God. If he now says in the midst of
the throes of death, in this terrible moment of anguish and physical pain, “I
am God Incarnate,” then I will believe.’ No sooner had Naren thought this than
the Master turned towards him and, summoning all his energy, said, ‘O my Naren,
are you not yet convinced? He who was Rama, He who was Krishna, He Himself is
now Ramakrishna in this body: not in your Vedantic sense [according to which
each soul is potentially divine], but actually so.’1
We don’t know whether Narendra’s doubts about Sri
Ramakrishna’s being an incarnation were totally dispelled that day or not. But
a time did come in his life when he openly declared him as the greatest among
incarnations. He was, according to Swami Vivekananda, the consummation and
unification of all the highest spiritual attainments of the earlier divine
incarnations. Swami Vivekananda did not pay this tribute to Sri Ramakrishna
simply out of devotion to his guru. As we have said, Swamiji was not a person
having blind faith. He, as a matter of fact, represented the skeptical and
rationalistic spirit of the times and his verdict carries much weight.
Then there were such highly
qualified spiritual aspirants like Bhairavi Brahmani, Gauri Pandit and
Vaishnavacharan who had met Sri Ramakrishna. They were not only advanced
sadhakas but were also great scholars and authorities on the scriptures. Even
before Swami Vivekananda could declare Sri Ramakrishna as an incarnation, these
adepts had, after carefully studying the life, spiritual attainments and
character of Sri Ramakrishna, declared him to be an incarnation of God. Gauri
Pandit did not stop even at that. He went to the extent of stating that Sri
Ramakrishna was that Supreme Being, parts of whom incarnate from time to time
as incarnations.
Finally
there were devotees like Ramachandra Dutta and Girish Chandra Ghosh, who had
firm faith that Sri Ramakrishna was an incarnation. They were neither great
scholars and advanced sadhakas like Bhairavi Brahmani and Gauri Pandit, nor did
they critically examine him like the skeptic Narendra Nath. They, out of their
great faith, declared Sri Ramakrishna as an incarnation, even while the latter
was alive.
II
Thus, the evidence, in favour of Sri
Ramakrishna’s being an incarnation is overwhelming, and we ought not to have
questioned it. Agreed. But one question may still be asked. Is it necessary to
openly preach Sri Ramakrishna’s prophethood in public? After all Swami
Vivekananda did not do it, nor did he ever try to force his views and his
reverence for Sri Ramakrishna on others. Although his regard, love and
reverence for Sri Ramakrishna is evident, especially in his conversations, he
hardly ever mentioned Sri Ramakrishna in his lectures. Except for two lectures
on his Master, he never spoke of him. Even in those two lectures, he described
mainly the ideals and ideas represented by his Master’s exemplary life. Indeed,
Swami Vivekananda endeavored all his life to preach the principles and not the
personality or the avatarhood of Sri Ramakrishna. He even instructed his
brother disciples not to preach Sri Ramakrishna’s avatarhood.
In this context, it may be
mentioned that even Sri Ramakrishna disliked being openly declared as an
incarnation. He might have asked his intimate disciples what they thought about
him, and might have felt satisfied if they considered him an incarnation. But
when he learnt that Girish Ghosh and Ramachandra Dutta were openly proclaiming
him as an incarnation of God, he was visibly annoyed. He disapprovingly commented
that one is a dramatist and another is a physician. What could they know about
an incarnation? Long ago, scholars like Gauri and Vaishnavacharan had declared
that he was an incarnation. The opinions of people, ignorant of the meaning of
the shastras, has no value.
The fact is that calling Sri
Ramakrishna an incarnation has no meaning for most people. We are neither well-
versed in the scriptures, nor do we have the spiritual insights born of sadhana
to recognize an incarnation as Gauri and Bhairavi Brahmani had. We do not even
know the definition of an incarnation and his characteristics. Besides, we are
not great seekers of truth like Swami Vivekananda, who could test Sri
Ramakrishna and come to a firm, unshakable, final conclusion about his divinity.
Finally, and worse, we don’t have the tremendous faith in Sri Ramakrishna’s
divinity that Girish Ghosh had.
Swami Vivekananda used to
say that if there is a God, we must see him; if there is a soul we must realize
it. It is better to be a skeptic than to have faith without realization. In the
same strain one can say that there is no use in having the faith or conviction
that Sri Ramakrishna is an incarnation, unless we totally surrender ourselves
to his will, follow his teachings and transform our personality thereby.
III
This leads us to the most
vital question: Is it at all necessary to consider Sri Ramakrishna an
incarnation? Is it not enough to consider him a saint, a seer, a great man, a
perfected soul, or a brahmajnani? Why such insistence on his divinity, when we
do not truly understand what it means? In recent times this avatarhood has become very cheap.
One finds God-men everywhere. Soon after the passing away of Sri Ramakrishna
there appeared five avataras in Bengal itself. On his visit to East Bengal (now
Bangladesh) a young man came to Swami Vivekananda and, showing him the picture
of a saint, asked him whether he was a prophet or not. Swamiji did not answer
him directly. Instead he asked him to take nutritious food and advised him to make
his body and mind strong. Swamiji believed that one can understand and
appreciate a prophet only with a strong body and a strong mind. Such blind
faith in those who are physically, mentally and morally weak, may prove harmful
rather than helpful.
Insistence on Sri
Ramakrishna’s avatarhood would exclude those who have a similar faith in Jesus
Christ, or Sri Rama, or Sri Krishna, and would deprive them of the ambrosial
teachings of Sri Ramakrishna, which they could yet accept by approaching him as
one of the perfected souls. And what about those Vedantins and worshippers of a
formless God with or without attributes, who do not believe in forms or
incarnations? They too would be prevented from being benefited and enriched by
the exemplary life and teachings of Sri Ramakrishna.
A true devotee does not
insist upon or bother about the prophethood or the glory of his Beloved in the
eyes of others. He is content to love Him with all his heart and soul,
considering Him as his most beloved, the life of his life and the soul of his
soul. We may, in this context, quote the examples of Tulsidas and Latu Maharaj
(Swami Adbhutananda).
Once a devotee of Sri
Krishna told Tulsidas, the great devotee of Sri Rama, that Sri Krishna was the
complete incarnation, while Sri Rama was only a partial incarnation of God.
Tulsidas replied that till then he had considered of Sri Rama only as the
prince of Ayodhya. Now that he knew that Sri Rama was an incarnation, albeit
partial, his devotion had increased manifold. Did Latu Maharaj consider Sri
Ramakrishna an incarnation? Probably not. When asked, he would say that Sri
Ramakrishna was a perfected soul, a Mahapurusha. It would not have been
possible to serve him had he considered him an incarnation. With characteristic
humility he would confess his inability to judge whether Sri Ramakrishna was an
incarnation or not. But he was certain about one fact: Sri Ramakrishna was his
all in all, his only refuge in this life or any other.
IV
All this certainly does not
mean that there is absolutely no use in accepting a holy personality as an
incarnation of God and that it is pointless to accord worship to him. A human
being can conceive of God only as human, and this is very much simplified by an
incarnation in whom there is a super-abundance of divinity. In the words of Sri
Ramakrishna, an incarnation is like a big hole or a window in a wall through
which one can have a peep into the Divine. Although milk is spread everywhere
in a cow’s body, it is from the udders that we get it. Likewise God may be
all-pervading but we can see His maximum manifestation in an incarnation. To
love and worship an incarnation is therefore one of the easiest methods of
reaching the Divine. Indeed, to know, approach, love and go on increasing the
intensity of our devotion for an incarnation is a sadhana in itself, which is
one of the quickest and easiest means of spiritual realization. Each soul is
potentially divine. Consequently it naturally aspires to see its external
expression, and hence is attracted towards an incarnation in which it finds it
in the maximum degree.
Apart from this, the
incarnations have the rare capacity of destroying the bondages of karma by
their special divine power. Therefore they are called kapàla-mochana.
Hence, there is another group of devotees who seek deliverance from their sins
and could benefit by offering their worship to an incarnation. They have been
called àrta in the Bhagavad Gita.
Thus there could be three
types of persons who could benefit by accepting Sri Ramakrishna as an
incarnation and by according worship to him. The first group of devotees are
those who are burdened by their past evil karmas and find themselves too weak
to get absolved of them. Such people take refuge in Sri Ramakrishna,
considering themselves absolutely helpless and powerless. The second group of
devotees is charmed by the life and personality of the incarnation. This group
of devotees love to hear about the life and glories of the avatar, repeat His
name, meditate upon Him and try to follow his teachings. The devotees of this
group are the sadhakas who cast their lives in the mould of the incarnation.
Girish Chandra Ghosh represents the first category, while Swami Vivekananda
represents the second. But then there is another group of devotees, who without
bothering about avatarhood, love and worship Sri Ramakrishna as their all in
all. Latu Maharaj belongs to this category.
There is enough evidence in
favour of Sri Ramakrishna’s avatarhood. If God be the symbol of all the highest
aspirations of men, then a human being in whom such aspirations find fulfillment
can be justly regarded as an incarnation. Sri Ramakrishna was the embodiment of
divine virtues—boundless compassion, utter devotion to truth and, perhaps most
importantly, a complete absence of ego. There was very little of humanity in
him. And on the Kalpataru Day, January 1, 1886, he clearly revealed his
divinity by rousing the spiritual consciousness of others by a mere wish. The
best proof is the confirmation provided by Sri Ramakrishna himself. All great
prophets of the world like Rama, Krishna, Jesus Christ, etc. have proclaimed
their own divinity. Hence for lesser devotees like us, it is better to accept
in humble faith that Sri Ramakrishna was an incarnation of God. However, as has
already been repeatedly stressed, our faith must be as deep and strong as
Girish Ghosh’s. If we wish to be skeptical and enquire into truth, our search
for truth must be as relentless as Swami Vivekananda’s. And if we want to
surrender, our surrender and submission must be like that of Latu Maharaj. If
we lack these, we must struggle hard to acquire and increase them. This is far
more important than merely believing in Sri
Ramakrishna or any other personality as an incarnation.
References
1. Life, Vol.I,
p. 183.
