The Brahmo monotheistic movement took its stand on the Upanishads. “The Upanishads continued to be the theoretical basis of the Brahmo doctrine. But spirit and liturgy as well as devotions were soon taken over from Christianity, and Brahmoism in its spirit though not in its form became an adaptation to Hindusim or Christianity. This was due primarily to Keshub Chunder Sen, the next leader of the Brahmo movement and a friend of Muller.

It was indeed through Keshab’s lectures and writings that the world at large came to know about Ramakrishna first. By dint of his friendship with Keshab, Prof. F. Max Muller grew interested about Ramakrishna. When he read various cock and bull stories written in newspapers of India, England and America about saints and sannyasins of India for years he gave a rejoinder to them, presenting Ramakrisna as an example of true sadhu in his writing. For that purpose he first wrote an article, titled “A Real Mahatman”. No sooner was it published in “Nineteenth Century” in England in 1896, there was a controversy.

Advertisement

He wrote it ten years after Ramakrishna’s demise and twelve years after Keshab’s. Muller began explaining the meanings of the words mahatma, paramhamsa, sannyasin and abadhut, and proceeded with an in-depth analysis of Hindu tradition, philosophy and scriptures as well as that of the western philosophy to say: “The late Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was far more interesting specimen of a Sannyasin. He seems to have been, not only a high souled man, a real Mahatman, but a man of original thought. … Whether he was a man of extensive reading is difficult to say, but he was certainly thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the Vedanta philosophy. …

In the extracts from Ramakrishna’s teachings, some of which have been published by his pupils in their journal, the Brahmavadin, these ancient metaphors have for the first time been blended with European thought; from which we learn of his personal influence, this blending had a most powerful effect on large audiences that came to listen to him. He has left a number of pupils behind who after his recent death are carrying on the work which he began, and who are trying to secure not only in India, but in Europe also, a sympathetic interest in the ancient philosophy of India, which it deserves fully as the philosophy of Plato or Kant.” Subsequently, in 1898, Max Muller wrote a book on Ramakrishna again, entitled “Ramakrishna ~ His Life and Sayings”.

This he did presumably to quell the controversy that erupted as a result of his article in “Nineteenth Century”. He wrote in the Preface of the book: “The name of Ramakrishna has lately been so often mentioned in Indian, American, and English newspapers that a fuller account of his life and doctrine seemed to me likely to be welcome, not only to many who take an interest in the intellectual and mental state of India, but to the few also to whom the growth of philosophy and religion, whether at home or abroad, can never be a matter of indifference.

I have therefore tried to collect as much information as I could about the lately-deceased Indian Saint (died in 1886), partly from his own devoted disciples, partly from Indian newspapers, journals and books in which the principal events of his life were chronicled, and his moral and religious teaching discussed, whether in a friendly or unfriendly spirit.” Muller no doubt had great confidence in Keshab. “Keshab considered himself a disciple of Christ and accepted in a dilute form the Christian sacraments and trinity.”

A devoted Christian, Muller appreciated Keshab for his devotion to Christ. Nirad C Chaudhury wrote in his “Scholar Extraordinary”: “With the realization that he could not influence the Hindu revival in the way he desired, Muller’s practical interest in the religious life of India took another direction. Towards the very end of his life he tried to persuade that section of Hindu monotheists who owed their inspiration and zeal largely to Christianity, or at all events to Christ, to declare themselves formally as Christian. That was, of course, that branch of Brahmos which was led by his friend Keshab Chander Sen, and after Keshab’s death by his friend and disciple Pratap Chander Mazoomdar.”

Chaudhuri’s observation on Muller’s perception of Ramakrishna is equally important for knowing Muller’s ideas about him. Chaudhury wrote: “Hinduism in the new form was vedantic. Max Muller welcomed this preaching. As he himself has said: ‘What I have seen and read of Vivekananda and his colleagues, they seem to me honestly bent on doing good work.’…. And on more general grounds he gave an opinion which was very sound. He looked upon Vedanta as an expression of the Way of Knowledge of the Hindus, and did not like the dep – endence of the new preachers on Ramakrishna, who belonged to the Way of Love. He admired Ramakrishna, and wrote a book on him at the end of his life (Muller died in 1900), but he could not approve of mixing up of Ramakrishna’s teaching with the Vedanta.”

From this one could obviously see that Muller had not read The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna since it was not available then. Hence his knowledge of Ra m akrishna was incomplete. Gospel dishes out a comprehensive idea regarding Ramakrishna, from which one knows easily that he realized God in the Way of Knowledge too. One finds his teaching on the Vedanta ump teen times in it. Besides, he also himself alluded to the same in his article in the “Nineteenth Century”. Muller put his view on Ramakrishna thus: “Vivekananda and other disciples of Ramakrishna ought, however, to teach their followers how to distinguish between perfervid utterances of their teacher, Ramakrishna, an enthusiastic Bhakta … and the clear and dry style of the Sutras of Badrayana.

However, as long as the devoted preachers keep true to the Upanishads, the Sastras, and the recognized commentaries of Shankara or Ramanuja, I wish them all the success they deserve by their unselfish devotion and their high ideals.” Keshab’s transformation in Ramakrishna’s company was imperative. He was addressing God as Mother from before Ramakrishna saw him first in 1864. It was mentioned in the Brahmo journal “Acharyer Upadesh” (vol I, pp 3 and 8) that he addressed God as Mother in his sermon on 23 January 1862 at Adi Brahmo Samaj. The Gospel mentions: “Sri Ramakrishna and Keshab held each other in great love and respect.

Years later, after Keshab’s death, the Master (SR) felt as if half his body had became paralyzed. Keshab’s concept of the harmony of religions and Motherhood of God were deepened and enriched by his contact with Sri Ramakrishna.” Along with a dear friend, Keshab also found a pathfinder in Ramakrishna. On the other hand, Ramakrishna found in Keshab an “Adhikari” (fit for spiritual knowledge) alongside a friend. Through corrections and exhortations Ramakrishna, therefore, taught him for his spiritual progress. For example, he instructed him, “You must renounce your ego.” In reply Keshab said, “If I do, how can I keep my organization together?” Speaking roundly, he then told him: “How slow you are to understand! I am not asking you to renounce the ‘ripe ego’.

Give up the ‘unripe ego’, the ego that creates attachment to ‘woman and gold’. The ego that makes man feel he is God’s servant, His child, is the ‘ripe ego’. It doesn’t harm one.” It became clear to Keshab soon that Ramakrishna was his spiritual mentor and pathfinder as well. His dealing with him was like that of a docile student. It often became visible while he happened to be with him. One day he came to Dakshineswar with Pratap, Troilokya, Manmohan and other Brahmos to have his holy company when Ramakrishna taught him many spiritual truths. They also danced together with Kirtan. All along he was behaving just as that which is perceptible from its scene recorded in the Gospel. It says: “Troilokya was singing.

The Master danced, Keshab and the devotees also dancing with him. … After the music, he wanted something to eat. A plate of sweetmeats was sent from the inner apartments. Keshab held the plate before Sri Ramakrishna and the Master ate. When he had finished, Keshab poured water on his hands and then dried the Master’s hands and face with a towel. Afterwards he began to fan the Master.” A unique friendship existed between the two which bore the celestial mark of a Divine Play for devotees to study again and again for their spiritual embellishment.

(The writer is associated with Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama, Narendrapur)