Is it true that Ramakrishna Paramhamsa has seen God? If yes, then which God?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
question is it true that Ramakrishna promises seeing god if yes then which god answer claims of supernatural vision are very difficult to evaluate for their authenticity that’s why the acharyas base their authority of their teaching not on their personal supernatural visions but on their connection with the parampara and on the basis of their teachings on shastra without this anybody can claim anything and there is just no way to know if it is true or not that’s why there have been great devotees who have had supernatural visions of Krishna and it is a integral part of the tradition at the same time whether any specific spiritual teacher saw god or not is something which cannot be said for sure now what we can look at is the teachings of that person what is that person telling us so now Ramakrishna Paramahamsa at a time when there was significant amount of pluralism coming up Islam was there, Christianity was also there and there was during the Bengali renaissance, that was the period when the Bhadraloka Bengal the people who were educated in the western way of thinking looking at their own traditions from the western lens and were trying to make sense of them from the perspective of modernity so at that time the school of thought that emerged through it all was pluralism pluralism means all paths lead to the same goal and the idea was that Christianity is right, Hinduism is right, Islam is also right the pluralistic idea helped those Bhadraloka the educated people at those times to hold on to the notion that their own traditions were also respectable while they had to grudgingly admit or even admired the western intellectual traditions so at such a time the socio-intellectual climate would extremely rival for mystical religion claims that seem to offer some supernatural corroboration corroboration means confirmation to the idea that all paths lead to the same goal so therefore the visions or the claims of visions made by Ramakrishna Paramhansa at that time became immensely popular and many people saw that as a vindication, the confirmation of their own ideas of pluralism so Shri Bhaktunath Thakur the great Vishnu Acharya he also lived at the same time as Ramakrishna Paramhansa and he met him several times also and Bhaktunath Thakur said that actually in many ways Ramakrishna Paramhansa lived a life of seeking God at the same time the idea that any path one pursues, one just attains God and one can go through any path and experience God oneself this idea is contrary to the principle of chastity to one’s path the wife cannot say that all men are the same she has her husband so similarly a spiritual seeker needs to be faithful to one path of course a spiritual seeker can appreciate other paths also but the idea that the simplistic equalization of all paths as leading to the same goal it is logically and scripturally flawed logically because if all paths lead to the same goal somebody may say I am an atheist and I have got a vision that there is no God what do we do about that or somebody may get a vision and say that God is a resident of the mountain tribes of Native America whatever anybody can get any vision so it’s logically the idea that all paths lead to the same goal has a serious problem that there are some paths which directly and unavoidably contradict other paths in their processes as well as their conclusions so atheism opposes theism in its conclusions immorality opposes morality in its process so some paths say that unrestricted sexuality is the means to attain transcendence some paths say that we have regulated sexuality some paths say that we have to give up sexuality completely so how can we say that all paths are the same or all paths lead to the same goal also so it’s a very simplistic it did gel in with the intellectual ethos of those times and so it became popular but it has its limitations beyond that there is also the scriptural problem in that clearly gives us options and tells us that each of our choices will have consequences so whatever we choose we will get results accordingly therefore Krishna for example 9.25 says Krishna says depending on who we worship we get an according result if we worship Ketra’s we go to their abodes if we worship Bhoshi we get a corresponding destination and if we worship Krishna we get in Krishna so therefore idea that all paths lead to same goal has its serious flaws logically and scripturally. Therefore, as you rightly pointed out, which God? That is a serious question.
I don’t know how it answers to that. Is it that one God? So the idea that Devi and Krishna are the same God, it is not scripturally sound. Devi, the goddess, is a different personality.
She is the conservator of Shiva. So the idea that Devi and Krishna are the same is not scripturally sound. So therefore, surely there were some supernatural visions that were there.
And there was also some serious seeking for God that was there. And to the extent that the insights given by Ramakrishna Kalpavriksa are in agreement with the conclusions of Guru Sadashastra, to the extent those insights can be accepted, and to the extent these insights are contrary, to that extent we have to understand that they are not sound. So that way, whichever spiritual detail we want to take the authenticity of, rather than becoming person-centric and becoming emotional, how can you say that such a great person was wrong, then we go into an emotional zone where our emotions force us to become either defensive or offensive.
And we can’t evaluate things rationally. And rationality is required for understanding scripture. So therefore, this is the broad criteria that we can use.
Look at the teachings of that particular teacher. And look at the teachings of scripture as the tradition has given us. And then accept their teachings to the extent that they are in agreement with Guru Sadashastra.
And supernatural visions alone do not comprise the authority of any particular spiritual teacher. Srila Prabhupada also was able to see Krishna. Krishna came to him to reassure him that he had two heart attacks on Jalabhuta.
But when Srila Prabhupada went to America, he did not say that authority for teaching Shastra has come because I have seen Krishna. He said because authority has become a spiritual master’s instructed man. A spiritual master comes in a tradition that goes to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and through Chaitanya Mahaprabhu ultimately to Krishna.
So in this way, the sort of clear understanding of the principles will save us from confusion about which teacher to follow and which teachings to accept. In Guru Sadashastra, the path and authority. And then look at other teachers based on how much they agree or disagree.