05-12-2005, 04:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2005, 04:58 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
And why don't u do some research before repeating that Ram Krishna endorsed Muhammad, this most probably is a latter day concoction by his disciples, as the following passage shows:
6.2. Ramakrishnaâs experiments
The central argument of the RK Mission for its non-Hindu character was that, unlike Hinduism, it upheld the âequal truth of all religionsâ and the âequal respect for all religionsâ. The latter slogan was popularized by Mahatma Gandhi as sarva-dharma-samabhâva, a formula officially approved and upheld in the BJPâs constitution.4 In 1983, RK Mission spokesman Swami Lokeshwarananda said: âIs Ramakrishna only a Hindu? Why did he then worship in the Christian and Islamic fashions? He is, in fact, an avatar of all religions, a synthesis of all faiths.â5
The basis of the Swamiâs claim is a story that Swami Vivekanandaâs guru Paramahansa Ramakrishna (1836-86) once, in 1866, dressed up as a Muslim and then continued his spiritual exercises until he had a vision; and likewise as a Christian in 1874. If at all true, these little experiments shouldnât be given too much weight, considering Ramakrishnaâs general habit of dressing up a little for devotional purposes, e.g. as a woman, to experience Krishna the lover through the eyes of His beloved Radha (not uncommon among Krishna devotees in Vrindavan); or hanging in trees to impersonate Hanuman, Ramaâs monkey helper.
But is the story true? Ram Swarup finds that it is absent in the earliest recordings of Ramakrishnaâs own talks. It first appears in a biography written 25 years after Ramakrishnaâs death by Swami Saradananda (Sri Ramakrishna, the Great Master), who had known the Master only in the last two years of his life. Even then, mention (on just one page in a 1050-page volume) is only made of a vision of a luminous figure. The next biographer, Swami Nikhilananda, ventures to guess that the figure was âperhaps Mohammedâ.6 In subsequent versions, this guess became a dead certainty, and that âvision of Mohammedâ became the basis of the doctrine that he spent some time as a Muslim, and likewise as a Christian, and that he âproved the truthâ of those religions by attaining the highest yogic state on those occasions.7
It is hard not to sympathize with Ram Swarupâs skepticism. In todayâs cult scene there are enough wild claims abroad, and it is only right to hold their propagators guilty (of gullibility if not of deception) until proven innocent. In particular, a group claiming âexperimental verificationâ of a religious truth claim as the unique achievement of its founder should not be let off without producing that verification here and now; shady claims about an insufficiently attested event more than a century ago will not do. It is entirely typical of the psychology behind this myth-making that a researcher can testify: âNeither Swami Vivekananda, nor any other monk known to the author, ever carried out his own experiments. They all accepted the truth of all religions on the basis of their masterâs work.â8 This is the familiar pattern of the followers of a master who are too mediocre to try for themselves that which they consider as the basis of the masterâs greatness, but who do not hesitate to make claims of superiority for their sect on that same (untested, hearsay) basis.
http://www.voi.org/books/wiah/ch6.htm
6.2. Ramakrishnaâs experiments
The central argument of the RK Mission for its non-Hindu character was that, unlike Hinduism, it upheld the âequal truth of all religionsâ and the âequal respect for all religionsâ. The latter slogan was popularized by Mahatma Gandhi as sarva-dharma-samabhâva, a formula officially approved and upheld in the BJPâs constitution.4 In 1983, RK Mission spokesman Swami Lokeshwarananda said: âIs Ramakrishna only a Hindu? Why did he then worship in the Christian and Islamic fashions? He is, in fact, an avatar of all religions, a synthesis of all faiths.â5
The basis of the Swamiâs claim is a story that Swami Vivekanandaâs guru Paramahansa Ramakrishna (1836-86) once, in 1866, dressed up as a Muslim and then continued his spiritual exercises until he had a vision; and likewise as a Christian in 1874. If at all true, these little experiments shouldnât be given too much weight, considering Ramakrishnaâs general habit of dressing up a little for devotional purposes, e.g. as a woman, to experience Krishna the lover through the eyes of His beloved Radha (not uncommon among Krishna devotees in Vrindavan); or hanging in trees to impersonate Hanuman, Ramaâs monkey helper.
But is the story true? Ram Swarup finds that it is absent in the earliest recordings of Ramakrishnaâs own talks. It first appears in a biography written 25 years after Ramakrishnaâs death by Swami Saradananda (Sri Ramakrishna, the Great Master), who had known the Master only in the last two years of his life. Even then, mention (on just one page in a 1050-page volume) is only made of a vision of a luminous figure. The next biographer, Swami Nikhilananda, ventures to guess that the figure was âperhaps Mohammedâ.6 In subsequent versions, this guess became a dead certainty, and that âvision of Mohammedâ became the basis of the doctrine that he spent some time as a Muslim, and likewise as a Christian, and that he âproved the truthâ of those religions by attaining the highest yogic state on those occasions.7
It is hard not to sympathize with Ram Swarupâs skepticism. In todayâs cult scene there are enough wild claims abroad, and it is only right to hold their propagators guilty (of gullibility if not of deception) until proven innocent. In particular, a group claiming âexperimental verificationâ of a religious truth claim as the unique achievement of its founder should not be let off without producing that verification here and now; shady claims about an insufficiently attested event more than a century ago will not do. It is entirely typical of the psychology behind this myth-making that a researcher can testify: âNeither Swami Vivekananda, nor any other monk known to the author, ever carried out his own experiments. They all accepted the truth of all religions on the basis of their masterâs work.â8 This is the familiar pattern of the followers of a master who are too mediocre to try for themselves that which they consider as the basis of the masterâs greatness, but who do not hesitate to make claims of superiority for their sect on that same (untested, hearsay) basis.
http://www.voi.org/books/wiah/ch6.htm