Two Teachings or One

Ramakrishna and Vivekananda: Two Teachings or One?

The existing body of literature on the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda tradition is vast and spreads across several generations. Certain aspects of this tradition have come under close and increasingly critical scrutiny by academic scholars. This essay examines one of the major points of scholarly criticism: the pervasive claim that Swami Vivekananda’s teachings marked a distinctive break from those of his master, Sri Ramakrishna.

The Problematique

There are many aspects of this assertion. It is claimed that Sri Ramakrishna is more tantric than Advaitin and that his teachings could be understood, ‘more adequately in the categories of tantric thought and practice than in the concepts of Shankara’s advaita’;1 that he was a vijnani — An individual with special knowledge of the Absolute, in which the universe is affirmed and seen as the manifestation of Brahman—which is quite distinct from the Advaita Vedanta of Acharya Shankara; was primarily a bhakta and did not emphasize the path of jnana or karma, while Swami Vivekananda’s focus had been on the latter; or that although his teachings had a basis in Advaita, ‘he rarely prescribed this to his followers.’ 2

It is at times granted that at best Vedanta represented one of the many strands of Sri Ramakrishna’s teachings but cannot be satisfactorily called his fundamental teaching. In his exposition of Advaita Vedanta, Swami Vivekananda is also considered by some to be closer to Acharya Shankara than to Sri Ramakrishna. Furthermore, some studies claim Swami Vivekananda, and the institutionalization of the movement that took place under his influence, projected the image of an Advaitin onto Sri Ramakrishna. However, one scholar, Gwilym Beckerlegge, has pointed out it is difficult to accept that: ‘Vivekananda accomplished his task with either the connivance of, or a lack of effective opposition from, disciples who had been every bit as close to Ramakrishna, and who could claim to speak with authority on the basis of this intimacy.’3

To be fair there are layers of analysis and interpretation in the works of scholars and the subject is so complex that no two scholars say exactly the same thing. They may agree on some points and disagree on others. Even in two seemingly similar opinions there is usually a shade of difference. To give an illustration, Amiya P Sen concedes Vivekananda’s ideal of service is not helping others but helping oneself and this ‘moral monism’ is derived from his guru.4

However, according to Sen, while the Master and the disciple were similar in their Advaitic basics, they were different in the conclusions each derived from such a stance. Sen writes: ‘Whereas the social implication of Vedantic non-dualism would indicate a strong sense of altruism and the ability to rise above rigid social classifications, none of these significantly, were pronounced in Ramakrishna.’5

To take another example, Walter G Neeval Jr had also acknowledged that while factors like ‘Western and Christian realism and ethical concern’ had a major role to play in ‘the continued development and reinterpretation of this tradition’, and ‘if we can view Sri Ramakrishna in his own terms rather than those of Shankara’s Advaita, we can accept at face value Swami Vivekananda’s claim that his social concern was inspired directly by the Master.’ 6

The assertion that Swami Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna gave two different messages to the world is based on a claim that Swamiji’s projection of service as a cornerstone of the institutional programme was a radical upturning of the teachings of his Master who was supposedly sceptical of organized human endeavour of service. It has also been pointed out that Swamiji claimed karma yoga to be an independent path to liberation, without necessarily grounding itself in a belief in God, and that this is an essential difference between the guru and his foremost disciple.

In trying to locate the source of Swamiji’s ideal of service, scholars have gone far and wide and tried to situate it in various factors. Arguments trace the roots of this ideal in general terms to: Vivekananda’s direct exposure to Western society; various experiences and influences— both spiritual and social—during his parivrajya, monastic wandering, in India; the social reality of abject poverty coupled with the immediate context of colonial critique and European orientalism; and in more specific terms, to a possible influence of the Swaminarayan movement of Western India. In brief, scholars mostly locate the source of Swamiji’s ideal of service everywhere else, except in Sri Ramakrishna! 

Not all of these claims are entirely wrong. There was a lot that went into the making of the swami, but no matter how big a circumference was drawn by his life and experiences, the centre point was laid down by Sri Ramakrishna. By examining the teachings of both Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda, this article will demonstrate Swamiji’s main influence was his guru, Sri Ramakrishna. 

Regarding these claims, Holy Mother Sri Sarada Devi resolved potential controversy once and for all in two powerful strokes. The first instance was when someone expressed doubts about Swamiji’s injunction that prohibited image worship at the Advaita Ashrama, Mayavati, she exhorted him to always remember that the Master was undoubtedly Advaita. In another situation that took place in the hospital of the Kashi Sevashrama, she claimed she saw the Master abiding in the Sevashrama and that the boys were worshipping him wholeheartedly by serving the patients. Holy Mother had also maintained resolutely that sannyasins should engage in karma related to service, for whose work it is if not the Lord’s? 7 

Scholars have approached Swamiji’s alleged construction of a particular representation of Sri Ramakrishna’s teachings from two points of departure. The first is through an examination of the actual, empirical history of the development of the tradition and its institutions. The second is through an analysis of the principal teachings of the Master and the disciple. While there have been elaborate studies of the first, a close and rigorous comparison of the teachings of the Master and his foremost disciple has been rarely undertaken. Even while scholars have tried to relate the two sets of teachings, they have either concentrated on a close examination of Sri Ramakrishna’s teachings alone with only broad references to Swamiji or drawn broad conclusions on the teachings of both without closely comparing the two. This article concentrates on analysing the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda as it is the most direct method of approaching the issue. 

Without going into the existing debate on the reliability of the sources for this tradition, this essay relies on two conventional sources: 
(i) the Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita by M, translated into English as The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna; and 
(ii) The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. This choice is guided by the understanding that the content of these basic sources has been only partly understood, misunderstood outside their context and the larger picture of teachings, or even misrepresented by some scholars. By relying on these sources it is possible to get a different picture compared to what has been understood by scholars so far.