Rebuttal to Hindu Ascetic Ramakrishna's Theory "Yata Mat Tata Path" - Part 2

In the Rebuttal of Part 1 , we have tried to show that Hindu Ascetic Ramakrishna's theory *Yata Mat Tata Path*(As many faiths, so many paths) does not say about the Ultimate One True Creator and so the ultimate goal -  "realization of Brahman" - is contradicted to Islamic theology.

Here in this part, we are trying to show the other points below.

ii. From where Ramakrishna knew about Islam? :

In the Gospel of Ramakrishna, it is stated,

"Toward the end of 1866 he began to practise the disciplines of Islam.

**Under the direction of his Mussalman guru he abandoned himself to his new sadhana.**

**He dressed as a Mussalman and repeated the name of Allah. His prayers took the form of the Islamic devotions. He forgot the Hindu gods and goddesses — even Kali — and gave up visiting the temples.**

He took up his residence outside the temple precincts. After three days he saw the vision of a radiant figure, perhaps Mohammed. This figure gently approached him and finally lost himself in Sri Ramakrishna. Thus he realized the Mussalman God. Thence he passed into communion with Brahman. The mighty river of Islam also led him back to the Ocean of the Absolute."[6]

So who is this "Mussalman guru" from whom Ramakrishna had learnt about Islam?

Let's see what Wikipedia says about it.

"Ramakrishna's teachings and experiences have been studied from the perspective of Islam, and compared with ***teachings of the Sufi saints, by scholars like A. J. A. Tyeb***.

Tyeb notes that Ramakrishna's sadhana of meditating alone at night in the forest for several days is similar to the 19th century mystic, Sayed Sah Murshid Ali Quaderi. Tyeb writes that Ramakrishna's prayer to the goddess Kali is similar to that of Rabia, who is described as 'a woman who lost herself in union with the Divine'.

***Tyeb also writes that Al Muhasibi, a 9th-century Sufi of Baghdad, spoke of meditation in the same way as Ramakrishna did***....."[7]

So we see that **Ramakrishna has learnt Islam from the Sufi saints**.

Islam is far different than Sufism. To make our point clear, we are giving some portion from the fatwa of two world-famous Islamic Scholar below.

=> Fatwa of Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid:

"**The word “Sufism” was not known at the time of the Messenger or the Sahaabah or the Taabi’een.** It arose at the time when a group of ascetics who wore wool (“soof”) emerged, and this name was given to them. It was also said that the name was taken from the word “soofiya” (“sophia”) which means “wisdom” in Greek. The word is not derived from al-safa’(“purity”) as some of them claim, because the adjective derived from safa’ is safaa’i, not soofi (sufi).

The emergence of this new name and the group to whom it is applied exacerbated the divisions among Muslims. The early Sufis differed from the later Sufis who spread bid’ah (innovation) to a greater extent and made shirk in both minor and major forms commonplace among the people, as well as ***the innovations against which the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) warned us when he said, “Beware of newly-invented things, for every newly-invented thing is an innovation and every innovation is a going-astray***.” (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, who said it is saheeh hasan)....."[8]

=> Fatwa of Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan:

"***Sufism, there is no Sufism in Islam, this is an innovation. Sufism is an innovation, it is not from Islam***.

***Thus it is upon those who have fallen into Sufism to repent to Allah the Exalted***.

And it is upon them to return to the Sunnah.

And it is upon them to return to that which the pious predecessors were upon from uprightness and firmness upon the Deen of Allah and following the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah are upon him, and following the rightly guided successors.

This is the pure unadulterated methodology.

The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings are upon him said:

This nation will divide into seventy three sects all of them will be in the fire except one. They said: Who are they oh Messenger of Allah? He replied: Those who are upon what I and my companions are upon.

Thus there is no safety and security except by following the Minhaj of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings are upon, him and his companions....."[9]

So how can we justify that Ramakrishna understood Islam perfectly when he learnt Sufism which is not actually Islam???

In the book "Answering Vivekananda and Vedanta", brother Imran Khan writes,

"Ramakrishna’s experience of Muslim in the light of Islam!

Point no 1: For several days Ramakrishna ‘renounced and forgot his own gods completely’. He did not worship them, he did not even think about them.

Ans:  But Ramakrishna did not say “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasoolu Allah,” Which meant “There is no true god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”. Which is the “Article of faith” of Islam, and a necessity for a person to become a Muslim.

And this article of faith has to be said with conviction (which means ‘I mean what I speak’) . Just by renouncing his gods, not worshiping / thinking about them for a certain period of time, one never becomes a Muslim!

Point no 2: He lived outside the temple precincts. He repeated the name Allah.

Ans: He never tried to understand Allah, or comprehend the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. An Example of Swami Vivekananda with little modification will answer this Question. If I happened to go to a chemist, who is a great man and tell him that, I do not believe in chemistry because I am trying to become a chemist since many days, and did not find anything in it, He will ask me, when did you try? I say, I forgot my family, did not think about them for few months, I lived outside my house, and repeated “O Chemistry, O Chemistry” and did even eat the smelly Onions & Garlic! The Chemist laughs at me and says: ‘Oh that is not the way. Why did you not go to the lab and get all the Acids & Alkali and burn your hands from time to time? That alone would have thought you.’ Every science Has its own method of learning, and religion is to be learned the same way.(VI.14-15)........[10]

So it is ridiculous that Ramakrishna practiced Islam but couldn't understood it properly !!

iii. Ramakrishna's theory becomes weak in comparison with "Advaita Vedanta" which is against Buddhism :

Wikipedia says,

"Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (18 February 1836 – 16 August 1886), born Gadadhar Chattopadhyay, was an Indian mystic, a promoter of bhakti traditions, and ***a teacher of the philosophy of Advaita Vedānta.*** His religious school of thought led to the formation of the Ramakrishna Mission by his most famous disciple Swami Vivekananda."[11]

So, Ramakrishna was a teacher of the philosophy of **Advaita Vedānta** who created his theory *Yata Mat Tata path* just by moderating *Advaita Vedānta*.

'Adi Shankaracharya' was the one who first developed the ancient "Advaita Vedanta" concept and worked on it to establish "Advaita Vedanta" among the common mass.

Wikipedia says,

"**Advaita Vedanta existed prior to Adi Shankara but found in him its most influential expounder**.......

**Shankara "was the person who synthesized the Advaita-vāda which had previously existed before him"**.

In this synthesis, he was the rejuvenator and defender of ancient learning. He was an unequalled commentator, due to whose efforts and contributions the Advaita Vedanta assumed a dominant position within Indian philosophy...."[12]

***Now, as per Ramakrishna's claim, every religious path is true. But his Advaita Vedanta is telling that Buddhism is a false way. So it is a clear contradiction !!***

Let's see this fact below.

In the article "Violence in Hinduism", brother Sulaiman Razvi writes,

"You may have heard the proverb “Diamond cuts diamond (Loha Lohe ko kat ta hai)’. ***Hindu scripture says the same about stopping Buddhism.***

***According to Hindu scriptures and scholars, Shiva incarnated on earth and established a false philosophy (Advaita Vedanta) just to stop another false philosophy called Buddhism. Hindu scholars considers Adi Shankaracharya to be an incarnation of Shiva as Adi Shankaracharya had successfully stopped Buddhism*** and even persecuted Buddhists and Jains and established objectionable philosophy (Advaita Vedanta) for which he was sometimes considered crypto-Buddhist by some Hindu scholars.

It’s mentioned in Padma Purana wherein Shiva says,

Padma Purana 6.236.7 “O goddess, in the age of Kali, **I will appear in the form of a brahmana to preach the false doctrine of Mayavada which is simply covered Buddhism**.” Tr. Swami B.V. Giri

Padma Purana 6.236.11 “This powerful doctrine of Mayavada resembles the Vedas, but is by nature non-Vedic. O goddess, I propagate this philosophy in order to destroy the world.” Tr. Swami B.V. Giri

Swami B.V. Giri writes on PP 6.236.7 “Indisputably, **the brahmana mentioned in the verse is none other than the great Indian philosopher of monistic Vedanta, Adi Sankara**”

A verse in Kurma Purana may also be talking about this,

Kurma Purana I.30.31-32a “Persons practising vows not sanctioned by the Vedas, of wicked behaviour and of futile efforts, will be deluding all other people by exhibiting the fruits thereof.

Their minds are enveloped and vitiated with ignorance and these base people follow feline tricks. [33b-36] **Sankara, Nilalohita, will take up incarnations for the establishing the Srauta (Vedic) and Smarata (belonging to the Smrtis) rites, with a desire for the welfare of his devotees.**

He will teach his disciples the knowledge pertaining to the Brahman. Those who resort to the essence of Vedantas (Upanishads) and follow the holy rites indicated in the Vedas and such of those holy rites as are pointed out with special reference to the people of all castes, serve him in whatever manner they can. They overcome defects or sins of Kali Age and attain the greatest region.” Tr. G.V. Tagare

Swami Prabhupada writes,

“In this regard, it is stated in the Padma Purana that Lord Siva appeared as a brahmana in the age of Kali to preach the Mayavada philosophy, which is nothing but a type of Buddhist philosophy.

It is stated in Padma Purana: ***Lord Siva, speaking to Parvati-devi, foretold that he would spread the Mayavada philosophy in the guise of a sannyasi brahmana just to eradicate Buddhist philosophy. This sannyasi was Sripada Sankaracarya***.

***In order to overcome the effects of Buddhist philosophy and spread Vedanta philosophy, Sripada Sankaracarya had to make some compromise with the Buddhist philosophy***, and as such he preached the philosophy of monism, for it was required at that time. Otherwise there was no need for his preaching Mayavada philosophy. At the present moment there is no need for Mayavada philosophy or Buddhist philosophy, and Lord Caitanya rejected both of them.........” Swami Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 4.24.17

http://vanisource.org/wiki/SB_4.24.17

He also writes,

“Lord Chaitanya admitted that ***Sankaracharya was an incarnation of Lord Shiva***, and Lord Shiva is one of the greatest devotees, a Mahajan of the Bhagwat school. There are twelve great authorities on devotional service, and Lord Shiva is one of them. Then, why did he adopt the process of Mayavadi philosophy? The answer is given in the Padma Purana, where there is a statement by Lord Shiva as follows: “The Mayavadi philosophy is veiled Buddhist philosophy.”

In other words, ***the void philosophy of Buddha*** is more or less repeated in the Mayavadi philosophy of impersonalism, althouth the Mayavadi philosophy claims to be directed by the Vedic conclusions.

***Lord Shiva thus admits that this philosophy was manufactured by him in the Age of Kali as a Brahmin boy to mislead the atheist class of men***: “Actually, the Supreme Personality of Godhead has His transcendental Body, but I describe the Supreme as impersonal. Similarly, I have explained the Vedanta Sutra also on the same principles of Mayavadi philosophy.” http://vanisource.org/wiki/TLC_19_%281968%29 ....."[13]

***So Ramakrishna who was the teacher of "Advaita Vedanta" preached such a theory which is against his own belief !!! Because "Advaita Vedanta" is clearly against Buddhism whereas it is Ramakrishna who considered every path true (including Buddhism).***

iv. If all the ways are true, then why Vedic texts are against non-hindu people??? :

Hindus often claim Islam as the way of terrorism and they give references out of context to show that Islam says to kill the Non-Muslim people. But they don't accept at all that their vedic scripture is full of violent texts which are completely against the non-hindu people. In comparison with these Vedic texts, Ramakrishna's theory can not stand perfectly in its suitable position.

In the article "Killing Infidels in Vedas", brother Sulaiman Razvi further writes,

"ALL NON HINDUS ARE DEMONS, BARBARIANS.

Swami Dayanand Saraswati wrote,

”***The Dwijaas( the twice-born) – Braahmanaas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyaas are called Aryas, while the Shudras are called Anaryas, or Non-Aryas***.”ATHARVA VEDA 19:62.

In the face ofthese Vedic authorities how can sensible people believe in the imaginary tales of the foreigners. In the Devaasurawars, Prince Arjuna and King Dashrathaand others of Aryavarta used to go to the assistance of the Aryas in order to crush the Asuras.

***This shows that the people living outside Aryavarta were called Dasyus and Malechhaas***… Besides, Manu also corroborates our position. He says, “The countries other than Aryavarta are called Dasyus and Malechha countries.” MANU 10:45, 2:23.

**The people living in the north-east, north, north-west were called Rakshasas**.” (Satyarth Prakash, by Dayanand Saraswati, Ch 8, page 266, Tr. Chrinajiva Bhardwaja)

**Dasyu and Rakshasa mean demon**. Here Swami Dayanand quoting Manu Smriti says that all people living outside Aryavrata and those who do not belong to upper three castes are demons (Rakshasa, Dasyu) and barbarians (Mleccha). **According to Hindu Dharma all the non Hindus are demons and barbarians.** Here is a full translation of Manu Smriti,

Manu Smriti 10.45

All those tribes in this world, which are excluded from (the community of) those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman), are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlekkhas (barbarians) or that of the Aryans.

It is mentioned in Sutras,

Apastamba Sutra, Prasna I, Patala 9, Khanda 27.11

The expression **Krishna Varna, ‘the black race**,’ is truly Vedic. In the Rig-veda it usually denotes **the aboriginal races, and sometimes the demons.**

***Vedas also states that the one who offers no worship is inhuman, wicked, evil, miser etc.,***

Rig Veda 9.20.5

”Preserve us from the reproach of every one, who makes no offerings, is **vicious and wicked** and who utters ill words, so that we may be free (from anxiety).” Tr. SatyaPrakash Saraswati..........

Beheading the Demons (Non Hindus)

Krishna Yajur Veda 6.2.10

”…**Here do I cut off the neck of the Raksas**, who hateth us, and whom we hate’, he says; there are two people, he whom he hates and he who hates him; verily straightway he cuts their necks…”

Atharva Veda 1.7.7

O Agni, bring thou hitherward the Yatudhanas bound and chained. And afterward **let Indra tear their heads off with his thunder-bolt.**

Yajur Veda 5.26

By impulse of God Savitar I take thee with arms of Asvins, with the hands of Peahen.Thou art a woman. **Here I cut the necks of Rakshasas away.** Barley art thou. Bar off from us our haters, bar our enemies…

Rig Veda 6.26.3

Thou didst impel the sage to win the daylight, didst ruin Śuṣṇa for the pious Kutsa.**The invulnerable demon’s head thou clavest when thou wouldst win the praise of Atithigva.**

Rig Veda 8.14.13

With waters’ foam **thou torest off, Indra, the head of Namuci, Subduing all contending hosts.**......."[14]

Now in case of saying that all the paths are correct, Ramakrishna had to reject the vedic texts. But he twisted his theology by accepting every religious way perfect and true whereas the difference is actually variation. His disciple Vivekananda explains this variation like this way,

"**Unity in variety is the plan of nature, and the Hindu has recognised it**. Every other religion lays down certain fixed dogmas, and tries to force society to adopt them.......

The contradictions come from the same truth adapting itself to the varying circumstances of different natures.

It is the same light coming through glasses of different colours. **And these little variations are necessary for purposes of adaptation**. But in the heart of everything the same truth reigns....."[15]

So, now if difference means variation, then killing non-hindu people as per vedic texts are also variation or the outcome of such variations ????

v. Criticism on Ramakrishna and Vivekananda by Swami Prabhupada (founder of ISKCON) :

The Hindus may tell you about such *Yata Mat Tata Path* theory, but at the same time, they may hardly tell you about the comments of Swami Prabhupada on this theory.

Let us see some comments of Swami Prabhupada below-

"Lecture on SB 1.15.27 -- New York, March 6, 1975:

......We do not manufacture anything. ***Yata mata tata patha. This is rascaldom.***

***This is rascaldom, that if you manufacture some way for relief, that is not possible. Because you are imperfect, how you can manufacture? Your senses are imperfect. You cannot manufacture.***

If you manufacture, then you will simply waste your time. Then real religious life means dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19), to abide by the orders of Bhagavān, the Supreme Person.

People do not know what is that religion. They have created their own religion. ***And some *rascal swami* is supporting, yata mata tata patha.*** How you can create? Religion is personal? "You can create your own religion and be satisfied"? This is going on.......

Lecture on SB 2.3.1-3 -- Los Angeles, May 22, 1972:

So ***he's playing *childish*, *foolish things*? He's giving some wrong information? Imagination? What business he has got to do that?*** But these Māyāvādī rascals will say that "the demigods are also māyā, Kṛṣṇa is also māyā, everything is māyā." Therefore we call them Māyāvādī, everything māyā. Kṛṣṇa-bhakti is māyā. They say it is good for raising oneself to the platform of impersonalism.

Their process is that you, if you want to go higher platform, you take one staircase and get on it, and then throw it away. Because you don't require to come down again. That is their philosophy.

**So you take any means, the *Ramakrishna Mission* also says like that. *Yata mata tata patha* **. "You can worship brahma-varcasa, you can worship Devī-māyā; you can worship Vasūn; you can worship Rudra; you can worship anyone; ultimately, you become one with the Supreme." ***Most misguiding***. Here it is... But if you want this particular thing, then you worship this. In the Bhagavad-gītā also, it is confirmed, yānti deva-vratā devān pitṟn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ (BG 9.25).

**You will find, *rascal gurus*, they are preaching like that, that "Whatever you do, it is all right." There is a big mission, they say also that yata mat tata patha. "Whatever you have manufactured, the way of salvation, that's all right."**...."[16]

"Prabhupada: No, he was a big worshiper of Kali. And he was meat-eater also, Ma Kali's prasada, that unless one eats that prasadam he cannot become a devotee. So this was his position, that he worshiped Kali, and later on by worshiping Kali... His picture is there, mother Kali's embracing. And **he also preached yata mata tata pat: "Whatever path you take, accept, that is all right." Is it not? So do you think it is all right?**

He worshiped Kali and he said yata mata tata pat. You agree to this? Now, Ramakrishna says yata mata tata pat. And Krsna says... He became Ramakrishna, identifying himself with Krsna. And Krsna said mam ekam, and now he's becoming Krsna, he says yata mata tata pat. Just see.

When he's actual Krsna, he says mam ekam, and when he became imitation Krsna, he says yata mata tata pat. ***Krsna has changed his views. *(laughter)* Just see, this foolishness is going on.***.......

Prabhupada: These are miracles, that's all. It has no value. People are after miracles. So in the Bhagavad-gita it is said kamais tais tair hrta-jnanah yajante 'nya-devatah [Bg. 7.20]. Those who are worshipers of other demigods, they are hrta-jnanah. Hrta-jnanah. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura gives his comment, hrta-jnanah nasta buddhayah, one who has lost his intelligence.

**So by worshiping the demigod Kali he is to be considered as hrta-jnanah, one who has lost his intelligence -- and he becomes God. Is it possible?**

One who has lost his intelligence, he becomes God. With that lost intelligence. **And this is the proof that on account of lost intelligence, he says yata mata tata pat.**

Krsna says mam ekam. Sarva dharman parityajya [Bg. 18.66]. And when he became Ramakrishna, same Krsna is speaking, yata mata tata pat. So he has changed his view. We have to accept this? And how he gave up his wife, that's a long history, I don't wish to discuss. We know everything. So we cannot accept something which is beyond the instruction of sastra....."[17]

So now truth is clear that Ramakrishna has given such a theory which is the way of misguidance for the world.

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid perfectly says about the truth in the light of Islam like this way-

"...So the important rule here is **not to judge people by the extraordinary feats that they may do**.
**We should judge them by how closely or otherwise they adhere to the Qur’aan and Sunnah.**

**The true friends of Allaah (awliya’) are not necessarily known for performing astounding feats. On the contrary, they are the ones who worship Allaah in the manner that He has prescribed, and not by doing acts of bid’ah.**

The true awliya’ or friends of Allaah are those whom our Lord has described in the hadeeth qudsi narrated by al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh (5/2384) from Abu Hurayrah, who said:

The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“Allaah said, ‘Whoever shows enmity towards a friend (wali) of Mine, I declare war against him. My slave does not draw close to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties that I have enjoined on him, and My slave continues to draw close to Me with supererogatory (naafil) acts, so that I will love him. When I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it.’”

And Allaah is the Source of Strength and the Guide to the Straight Path."[18]

We hope, it is enough to refute Ramakrishna's misguided theory "Yata Mat Tata Path".

We will end our article with an Quranic verse.

"And say, "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart.""
(The Noble Quran, 17:81)

_______________________________

References:

[6] The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna/Introduction/Islam
[7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_Ramakrishna
[8] https://islamqa.info/en/4983
[9] https://ahlulhadeeth.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/sufism-is-not-from-islaam-shaykh-saalih-al-fawzaan-hafidhahuallah/
[10] http://answeringvivekananda.blogspot.in/2011/11/basic-very-first-errors-of-swamiji.html?m=1
[11] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna
[12] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta
[13] https://vedkabhed.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/violence-in-hinduism/
[14] https://vedkabhed.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/killing-infidels-in-vedas/
[15] Complete Works of Vivekananda, Volume 1/Addresses at The Parliament of Religions/Paper on Hinduism
[16] http://vaniquotes.org/wiki/Yata_mata_tata_patha
[17] https://old.prabhupadavani.org/main/Conversations/147.html
[18] https://islamqa.info/en/4983

Read the previous part of this article here:

Rebuttal to Hindu Ascetic Ramakrishna's Theory "Yata Mat Tata Path" - Part 1