Sri Ramakrishna and Islam.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

To understand Sri Ramakrishna's attitude towards other faiths we need to

understand the difference between Religion, Morality and Spirituality.

 

Religion is the outward rituals practiced by devotees. This does not in any way

directly lead to realisation of God but it does help the devotee concentrate his

mind towards God and makes him aware that a supernaturnal force called God

exists. Morality, it may be suprising to note, builds up the ego and makes a man

feel unduly important and vain unless it is practised with a view to ascending

up the spiritual ladder (I am not condemning morality, only putting it in proper

perspective, when divorced from spirituality.). Spirituality begins when a man

develops vairagya and hankers after God. Sri Ramakrishna stressed the need for

spirituality over and above religion and morality.

 

It is the spiritual thread running across all religions that attracted Sri

Ramakrishna. While practising Islam Sri Ramakrishna took a fondness for the Sufi

saints. The Sufis, looked down upon by the orthodox Muslims, were actually

Hindus who converted into Islam for various reasons especially in parts of Jammu

and Kashmir, Punjab etc. They merely shifted their devotion from Hindu deities

(Shiva, Khseer Bhavani?) to Allah. Interestingly it is these Sufi saints who

received recognition later as realised souls. The Sufi is no different from the

devout Hindu, the sincere Buddhist and the mystic Christian, all of whose mode

of worship is very similiar. In an incident in the life of Sri Ramakrishna, when

he was out in the streets of Calcutta, he heard a Muslim saint calling, " Pyare

aa jao, Pyare aa jao " , meaning 'My Lord please come to me'. Sri Ramakrishna

could not contain himself and rushed to embrace him and both shed tears of joy.

Needless to say that this is a sufi form of worship.

 

It is not true that Sri Ramakrishna experienced the image of Prophet Mohammed to

merge into him. Rather it was the only case where the figure whom he saw stayed

for a while and vanished without entering him. This led Sri Ramakrishna to

surmise that Prophet Mohammed was not an Avatar.

 

Like any other religion today Islam is also a fragmented one dividing itself

between Shias, Sunnis, Beharis, Ahmadiyas etc. There is also a further

segregation of Muslims who migrate from other non Muslim countries to Islamic

countries and are looked down upon as immigrants (Muhazirs?). The element of

brotherhood in Islam has obviously eroded. I think political tensions has got

more to do with this than anything else.

 

Surprisingly the fanatics among Muslims are the converts. They were formerly

Hindus or tribesmen who were forcibly converted into Islam. Perhaps their need

and zeal to prove that they were as Islamic as the original that led to

fundamentalism. Another reason may be the conversion of fierce tribal warriors

into Islam, who had sadism inherent within them. Another interesting reason

pointed out by vedic historians is that the people of our neighbouring countries

basically belonged to the Indus valley Civillisation (the Vedic Civilisation)

who were driven out by their fraternity for some reason or the other and were

forced to migrate. Naturally after conversion into Islam they bore a grudge

against their former compatriots who were called Hindus because they were on the

other side of the river Indus.

 

Regards,

Jagannath.

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

<<

It is not true that Sri Ramakrishna experienced the image of Prophet

Mohammed

to merge into him. Rather it was the only case where the figure whom he saw

stayed for a while and vanished without entering him. This led Sri

Ramakrishna

to surmise that Prophet Mohammed was not an Avatar.

>>

 

However, others have had the experience of merging with Mohammed. In Sufism

it is called Fanâ-fi-Rasûl (and the whole notion is blasphemy to orthodox

Muslims). Perhaps the Prophet Mohammed had a different function with regard

to the being of Sri Ramakrishna... we'll never know. Last summer I was in

Gangotri with Swami Sundaranand (head of the lineage that includes Sw.

Dayananda Saraswati and the late Sw. Chinmayananda), who clearly felt that

Mohammed was an avatar.

 

At the end of a lecture given by Hazrat Inayat Khan, a woman came to him in

a state of affront. " I believe that Jesus Christ was the greatest of the

prophets and the greatest of human beings. How dare you say Mohammed and

Krishna are his equal?! " " Madame, " answered Inayat Khan, " I did say the

prophets are equal. I said that I am unequal to the task of judging them. "

 

Hafizullah

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Hafizulla Saheb,

 

Salam Aleikum. I was not commenting upon the divinity of Prophet Mohammed. I was

only stating the experience and observation of Sri Ramakrishna.

 

Your anecdote reminds me of a similiar one often narrated by Sri Ramakrishna. A

certain Pundit was revered for his impartial decisions. Once a group of

Shaivites clashed with the followers of Sri Vishnu. One group said Shiva was the

greater while the other argued that it was Vishnu. After some days of such

heated arguements it was decided to call on the Pundit. The Pundit came, gave

the arguement some thought and replied, " As neither me nor my fourteen previous

generation have not seen either Shiva or Vishnu, it is beyond me to judge who,

among the two, is greater! " .

 

Let us imagine a situation where Jesus, Krishna and Mohammed meet. What do we

suppose they would do? Would they fight over their individual superiority?

Never. They would embrace each other in supreme ecstacy and merge into one.

 

The founders of our religion have no quarrels. It is we the followers who create

all the problems. It was this attitude that Sri Ramakrishna sought to change. He

said, " Practise your own religion but never say that 'my religion alone is true'

" . Sound advice.

 

Frankly Hafizullah Saheb, we cannot fathom the element of violence in Islam and

why certain segments continue to pour this poison into the young minds at the

madrasas. Does this not trouble the Muslims?

 

Perhaps violence was justified at the time of the founder of Islam. Maybe He had

to protect the newly formed views from marauders. But why the continuance at

this age when Islam is no longer under such threat (except perhaps from within

itself). The Muslims also prefer to keep themselves aloof from the mainstream in

non Islamic countries leading to further alienation.

 

In Hinduism this problem is solved by the existence of Shrutis and Smritis.

While the Shrutis (The Vedas, Upanishads), the unchangeable texts, form the core

of Hinduism the Smritis, the changeable texts, explain them according to the

current problems of the age. So non viable practices are thereby routed out and

a fresh pathway is formed according to the necessity of the age. Also the

flexible system of Hinduism does not condemn anyone for having his own viewpoint

in any matter pertaining to Hinduism.

 

I guess if this system is followed in Islam also many matters would be solved.

Declaring fatwas is not the way to preserve any religion. Throwing it open to

criticism and change is what keeps a system of faith alive.

 

I hope you have understood the underlying sentiment behind the statements above

and don't bear any grudge. There is nothing personal in this, just the

outpourings of a curious mind.

 

Khuda Hafez,

 

Jagannath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

<<

Frankly Hafizullah Saheb, we cannot fathom the element of violence in Islam

and why certain segments continue to pour this poison into the young minds

at the madrasas. Does this not trouble the Muslims?

>>

 

Namaskar, Jagannath:

 

It does. Deeply. But Islam is a house divided, and also a house humiliated.

Islam is struggling to bring itself from the 14th into the 21st century, and

I fear it will be some time before the majority of Muslims rise from their

dithering and, with one voice, marginalize those who preach hatred in the

name of religion.

 

But then... I am a mystic, not a religionist. I cannot speak for " the

Muslims, " only for myself.

 

I actually do not consider myself a Muslim. I did not take your comments

personally or as an affront to Islam, and I bear no grudges... but I do feel

compelled to correct misconceptions where I can. Islam is greatly

misunderstood -- as often by itself as by others.

 

In Service,

 

Hafizullah