Discussion with a Wealthy Rationalist
In the previous article, we accompanied Sri Ramakrishna from Balaram Bose’s house to Basu Bati. After seeing the pictures of gods and goddesses in the mansion, for which purpose he had come, Sri Ramakrishna joined the Basu brothers and his companions for a conversation.
(Continued from previous issue. . .)
In every action and interaction of a divine incarnation or knower of Brahman, there are valuable lessons for us to learn and assimilate. But what can we possibly learn from the interaction between the rationalistic1, wealthy Bose brothers and a Paramahamsa? It is that in this conversation, Sri Ramakrishna shows himself to be an ideal logician.
Speaking about the importance of logic in public life, Swami Ranganthananda, the 13th President of the Ramakrishna Order, says, “Today we try to impose an idea by the force of the sword and not by an appeal to the intellect and understanding. Most politicians today try to appeal to the feeling and not to the understanding. At its best it no doubt produces the loyalty and deep enthusiasm for a cause; but at its worst it expresses itself in fanaticism and mutual destruction. But the most enduring appeal is that which affects the intellect, the mind of a people, and which, through its inherent truth and beauty, gradually penetrates to the heart, producing deep convictions and rational faiths. This method has been tried by very few in the world, and amongst those who have tried, and tried successfully, one is Shankaracharya.”2
The same can be said of Sri Ramakrishna, as we shall see in his discussion with the Bose brothers.
The uniqueness of this discussion
Sri Ramakrishna’s ability to convince spiritual aspirants through his spiritual power is well known. What is less known is his power of logical and rational reasoning, and his ability to come down to the level of his audience and elevate them. In this unique question and answer session at Basu Bati on 28 July 1885, Sri Ramakrishna demonstrates his ability as an ideal logician when imparting spiritual teachings. He employs the Socratic method and all the characteristics of an ideal logician both technically and stylistically. The Socratic method is a form of teaching used especially by Law Professors, who engage their students in “cooperative argumentative dialogue by asking and answering questions to further stimulate critical thinking and to also draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.” 3 Technically speaking, Sri Ramakrishna shows mastery over the ability to: 1) first listen and understand the other person’s point of view and underlying motives without bias, 2) reply by using various methods of deductive logical reasoning like use of effective analogies to rebut, and showing the absurdity of a particular position, 3) ability to deflect ‘red-herring fallacy’4 and keep the discussion on point, and 4) avoid using ‘appeal to authority fallacy’5. From a stylistic standpoint, he also embodies the qualities of an ideal logician like maintaining the presence of mind, composure and gentleness, not raising his voice nor showing impatience, and most importantly affirming the good qualities of the other person.
In sharp contrast to the holier-than-thou attitude of many dualistic religious teachers who tend to primarily employ “appeal to authority fallacy” “talk down” to their listeners from the “bully pulpit” and make them feel like sinners who need to be saved, Sri Ramakrishna uniquely employs the Socratic method for the purpose of stimulating the latent tendencies of the Bose brothers. His discussions with them cover a wide range of topics, including questions about 1) God’s grace, 2) God’s partiality, 3) who is this “I”, and 4) the concept of sin.6 Sri Ramakrishna also shows by his conduct how even holy people handle potentially embarrassing situations. In this article, we shall explore these aspects with a summary of the conversation.
The Socratic method begins when Sri Ramakrishna encourages the brothers to think of God.
God’s Grace
Nanda: “How little we think of God!”
Master: “One thinks of God through His grace.
Nanda: “But how can we obtain God’s grace? Has He really the power to bestow grace?”
Master (smiling): “I see. You think as the intellectuals do: one reaps the results of one’s actions. Give up these ideas. The effect of karma wears away if one takes refuge in God.”
Here, we clearly see the Socratic method or “cooperative dialogue based on question and answer designed to stimulate critical thinking”. Sri Ramakrishna also shows presence of mind in being able to quickly assess and categorise Nanda’s thinking and the general thinking of intellectuals at that time, which asks: does not the concept of God’s grace conflict with the law of karma?
In reply, Sri Ramakrishna speaks of his own prayer to the Divine Mother, which had helped him to transcend the law of karma: “Here, Mother, take Thy sin; here, take Thy virtue. I don’t want either of these … Give me only real bhakti.”
Here , Sri Ramakrishna attempts to resolve Nanda’s conflict between God’s grace and the law of karma by saying that the law of karma applies only to those who believe in kartritva (the agency of doership) and bhoktritva (the agency of enjoyership). But if one surrenders and is able to offer the fruits, either good or bad, to the Divine Mother, and desires only shuddhabhakti or pure bhakti, then God’s grace will come.7
God’s Partiality
Nanda is not convinced that the law of karma can be so easily done away with. He presses further:
Nanda: “Can God mitigate his own laws? Then does this not mean that God is partial?”
Master: “What do you mean? He is the Lord of all. He can do everything. He who has made the law can also change it. But you may very well talk that way. Perhaps you want to enjoy the world, and that is why you talk that way.”
Here, Sri Ramakrishna applies deductive reasoning to argue that since the Lord created the law, it is reasonable to infer that He would also have the ability to change it. In addition, like a psychologist, Sri Ramakrishna quickly points out Nanda’s underlying motivation for not being able to accept the idea of God’s grace because of his desire for worldly enjoyment. Sri Ramakrishna then goes on to raise a rhetorical question to show the futility in trying to enjoy anything in this evanescent world: “But what is there to enjoy? The pleasures of ‘woman and gold’?… It is all momentary.”
Sri Ramakrishna does not stop there. He then answers logically from a philosophical standpoint that if “God Himself has become everything—the universe and its living beings… to whom but Himself can He show partiality?”
But Nanda is still not satisfied and poses a counter-question: “If God has indeed become the entire universe, why should He assume so many different forms? Why does He assume both wise and ignorant forms?”
Sri Ramakrishna answers by sweetly singing the famous Bengali song sakali tomari iccha “O Mother! It is all Thy sweet will”.
Nanda remains unconvinced and replies: “It may be Her sweet will; but it is death to us!”
Sri Ramakrishna then strikes back like an expert logician: “But who are you? It is the Divine Mother who has become all this. It is only as long as you do not know Her that you say, ‘I’, ‘I’.”
Who is this ‘I’?
Sri Ramakrishna then applies the Socratic method to stimulate the Bose Brothers to critically enquire into their real selves through Vedantic reasoning:
“Try to find out what this ‘I’ is. Is this ‘I’ the bones or flesh or blood or intestines? Seeking the ‘I’, you discover ‘Thou’. In other words, nothing exists inside you but the power of God. There is no ‘I’, but only ‘He’.”
Unlike traditional logicians, who employ the Socratic method, to solely stimulate the critical thinking of their students, Sri Ramakrishna takes it to the next level and attempts to stimulate the hidden divine samskaras of the Bose brothers by affirming their good qualities: “You have so much wealth, but you have no egotism. It is not possible to rid oneself altogether of the ego; so, as long as it is there, let the rascal remain as the servant of God.”
It is important to understand that Sri Ramakrishna is not engaging in flattery here. Like a psychologist who is able to peer into the unconscious mind of his patient, Sri Ramakrishna sees and affirms their hidden virtues, and encourages them to further cultivate and manifest these qualities.
Up to this point, the Socratic discussion between Sri Ramakrishna and Nanda Bose has proceeded uninterruptedly and developed a strong momentum. Unfortunately, at this time, Pasupati Bose, Nanda’s brother, wishes to take the discussion in another direction. He wants to know Sri Ramakrishna’s opinion about popular religious movements of that time like Theosophy and Spiritualism. In debate, this is known as invoking a ‘red herring fallacy’. It is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue.8
Like an expert logician, Sri Ramakrishna deftly deflects the red herring fallacy with an effective analogy which quickly brings the focus back to spiritual practice and God realisation: “My dear sir, I don’t know about these things. Why bother about them so much? You have come to the orchard to eat mangoes. Enjoy them. What is the use of your calculating how many mango-trees there are, how many millions of branches, how many billions of leaves? I have come to the orchard to eat mangoes. Let me enjoy them.”
Sri Ramakrishna further invokes another analogy to compare those modern religious movements to a patient suffering from delirium. As long as the patient is in delirium, he speaks nonsense and the attending doctor will not listen to what he says. But the moment the patient becomes normal, the doctor pays attention. Sri Ramakrishna implies that like the doctor we should not pay importance to religious teachings which do not focus on godrealisation.
Rather than becoming annoyed at his question not being answered, Sri Ramakrishna’s effective analogy brings Pasupati back on track. Pasupati then asks, “Will our delirium last forever?”
Sri Ramakrishna: “Why should you think so? Fix your mind on God, and spiritual consciousness will be awakened in you.”
Pasupati humorously replies: “But our union with God is only momentary. It doesn’t last any longer than a pipeful of tobacco.” (All laugh.)
Concept of Sin
Sri Ramakrishna: “What if that is so? Union with God even for one moment surely gives a man liberation. … Give up all such notions as: ‘Shall we be cured of our delirium?’, ‘What will happen to us?’, ‘We are sinners!’ (To Nanda) One must have this kind of faith: ‘What? Once I have uttered the name of Rama, can I be a sinner any more?’”
Here, Sri Ramakrishna is countering the Christian idea of sin, which had wrongly influenced the then educated Bengalis. He gives them encouragement to cultivate their faith in the power of God’s name, and not to focus on past sins.
Interestingly, after much discussion, the master of the house still has not yet shown any sign of serving Sri Ramakrishna with refreshments, as is the normal custom when a holy person or guest visits a householder.9 Rather than becoming annoyed, in a childlike manner Sri Ramakrishna playfully pokes Nanda, “You see, you should offer me something to eat. That is why the other day I said to Jadu’s mother: ‘Look here, give me something to eat.’ Otherwise it brings harm to the householder.”10
After having some sweets, Sri Ramakrishna walks to the south veranda to wash his hands. When he returns to the room, he is offered betel-leaf on a tray. However, other guests have already been served betel-leaf from the same tray; hence Sri Ramakrishna does not accept any.11
Nanda then becomes irritated and confronts the Master. He says it is not proper for Sri Ramakrishna to refuse the betel-leaf on the plate. Without becoming perturbed in the least, Sri Ramakrishna downplays the incident and says, “Before I eat anything, I offer it to God. It is a notion of mine.” Nanda immediately counters, “But the betel-leaf would have gone to God all the same.” Thakur replies, “There is the path of jnana, and there is also the path of bhakti. According to the jnani, everything can be eaten by applying the knowledge of Brahman, but the follower of bhakti keeps a little distinction.
Even then Nanda still remains dissatisfied, “But I still maintain that you did not act rightly.” Normally any person—what to speak of an incarnation—would take offense at such words. But Sri Ramakrishna did not possess the slightest trace of the holier-than-thou attitude. He quickly defuses the anger of Nanda by saying, “It is just a notion of mine. What you say is also right. That too is supported by the scriptures.”
It is interesting to note that for all of his wonderful logical reasoning abilities which were described above, this is perhaps his most impressive ability as a logician — Sri Ramakrishna’s unique ability to acknowledge, defuse, and keep the discussion on track even in matters of opinion which generally tend to be sensitive and surcharged with excessive emotion. This is an important lesson for spiritual aspirants: avoid confrontations, and don’t get into futile arguments over matters of opinion.
Again, after this incident and right before he is about to leave, Sri Ramakrishna once again affirms the good tendencies of the Bose brothers: “Though you are a householder, still you have kept your mind on God. Is that a small thing? … According to the Gita, a man who is honoured and respected by many people possesses a special power of God. You have divine power.” Here Sri Ramakrishna sets an ideal before the sannyasis on how to interact with others: First be a gentleman and then be a spiritual teacher.
An effective logician understands that after engaging in Socratic discussion, the ending is most critical. Hence, Sri Ramakrishna once again affirms and attempts to stimulate the Bose brothers’ hidden divine tendencies before leaving. The devotees follow Sri Ramakrishna as he leaves. Pasupati accompanies them to the door.
Sri Ramakrishna now set out to visit the home of the poor Brahmin widow, Golap-Ma. She was anxiously awaiting his arrival. In the next article, we will discuss this visit.
(to be continued…)
References
1) A person who believes in reason as the main arbiter of truth is called a rationalist.
2) Eternal Values for a Changing Society. Swami Ranganathananda. 1: 87-8
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
4) Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. https://literarydevices.net/red-herring/
5) When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who is said to be an ‘authority’ on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the ‘authority.’ https://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/ appeal_to_authority_examples/430/
6) Though each of these topics is rich in subtlety, it will be beyond the scope of this article to discuss these philosophical aspects.
7) For a detailed discussion on this problem of evil, please see Infinite Paths to Infinite Reality, p. 288, Ayon Maharaj.
8) https://literarydevices.net/red-herring/
9) The concept of Athiti devo Bhava or let the Guest be your God is normally practiced by Hindu households.
10) The mother of Jadu Mallick, a devotee of Thakur who lived in Calcutta.
11) It is the custom in India that if a sadhu visits a home, he should first receive any food offering before householders. It is considered impolite for the householders to begin eating before the sadhus are finished.
Source : Vedanta Kesari, July, 2020
Jai ramakrishna. Jay gurudev.