Swami Vivekananda 150 - A Tribute - 6th part

Some scholars say that his teachings differ from that of his Guru Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, whose teachings are more direct. With due respect to them and with my limited understanding, I think they have either not understood Ramakrishna or they have not understood Vivekananda, or both. Swami Vivekananda’s teachings are the essence of the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna, only made more suitable for the understanding of Western audience, whom he prepared for receiving the sublime teachings of Ramakrishna. There is no difference between teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. One can be easily interpreted in the light of the other and it is necessary to study both in order to have a holistic understanding of the Vedanta in general and Ramakrishna-Vivekananda ideals in particular. In fact he was the one who understood his Guru perfectly, in all dimensions.

One of those scholars pointed out that though his guru was never into politics and was always concerned about God realization, yet Swami Vivekananda inspired nationalists and spit fire against the British. To that individual, with due respect I would like to say a few words.

"My dear Sir, your ignorance is monumental and yet it is astounding that you happen to impose your opinions on gullible readers" - "andhena iva niyamana yatha andha". Sri Ramakrishna's God consciousness is the highest state. To reach that state is a spiritual journey, an evolution. from the brute state that India was in, it had to first gain the self respect and become a human and then ascend to the level of God consciousness. For such an ascent, one needed to first be free, a subservient nation can never find self respect. Swami Vivekananda's job was in his words, man making. He wanted to first make man out of the brutes, who would then be able to aspire after the supreme state, the advaita. Therefore he aroused Indians by reminding them the oppression in a demonic foreign rule and demanded the supreme sacrifice from the youth of India. He found that humanity was the greatest casualty under British India and he hastened to restore it by creating people "with muscles of iron and nerves of steel". That he immensely succeeded was evident from the enormous sacrifices that we read about in history books, of youths who in the prime of their age jumped into fire in a spirit of supreme renunciation and sacrifice. But unfortunately our dear friend scholar has neither the purity of mind to understand the sacrifice nor the ability to grasp how it essentially converged with the sublime teachings of Sri Ramakrishna. Vivekananda is the prism through which one can analyze the light of Sri Ramakrishna and see its different colours.

Some have unjustly accused him of being partial to kings and monarchs. He explained himself that it is possible to provide benefits to many thousands at a time by influencing the kings who have such powers. On the other hand it will take ages to influence ordinary people to work for the betterment of the poor as they neither have the means nor the ability to take such work in an organized way. His point was proved by his two worthy disciples – Raja of Khetri Ajit Singh and Raja of Ramnad Bhaskar Sethupathi, who carried out many reforms in their state inspired by Swamiji’s ideals.

Some others have gleefully pointed out that despite being a sannyasin, he used to stay in first class hotels in Americas. His brother Bhupendra Nath Dutta’s writing throws some light on the same. In Americas of that time colored people were not allowed in cheap hotels, the hotels that they could have afforded. So he was driven out from one hotel to another on account of his skin color. In the first class hotels he faced no difficulty because normally colored people did not stay there. But most of the time he used to stay as guest and when he was well settled in Americas he chose to stay in more affordable areas and apartments, like the one in New York. So this criticism is unjust and uncalled for. Moreover a sannyasin does not discriminate between luxury and poverty and he stays wherever he is made to stay. He, like a true sannyasin was never attached to luxury, nor ever dreaded to live in poverty, in which state he lived for the most part of his life. There are many stories of his giving away his valuable possessions gifted by admirers to others whenever he sensed that they had a desire for the same. Can his critics do the same?

There are several who are either confused or are annoyed by the apparent contradictions in his teachings. They take his quotes out of context to prove their points that he was either for something or against something. The fact is Swamiji was for anything that helped in unveiling the Self – i.e. all manliness, courage, sincerity, sacrifice, renunciation, devotion, selfless work and was against anything that further veiled the Self – i.e. cowardice, hypocrisy, selfishness, oppression, lies, malice and hatred. For instance to a superficial observer it may appear that he had supported caste system in some of his speeches while in others have severly denounced it. In fact he had taken a higher level and had an objective viewpoint on almost every subject. Every concept has some utility. When it seemed that he supported something he was actually supporting its utility and pointing out its necessity in some context. For instance he argued for caste system that even such a system had a utility when it was formed. It helped in keeping the societal structure intact and prevented many evils, esp. during the periods of disintegration and chaos. But he argued against the privileges it entitled one over the others, the oppression which was the natural outcome of such enforced privileges and the misappropriation of the scriptural injunctions by the Brahmans and other high castes to perpetuate their entitlements while deliberately ignoring or modifying those that prevented them from doing so. He never took a one sided view. Even the arrant sinner received his sympathy which demonstrates his broadmindedness. The level from where he spoke cannot be understood unless one strives to reach that level. That’s why he said with much sorrow, “Only another Vivekananda will know what this Vivekananda has done…”

H