Book Title: Sambodhi 2013 Vol 36
Author(s): Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 64
________________ 56 Dyuti J. Yajnik SAMBODHI DA1 From the standpoint of Ramakrishna the inherent difficulty of Pantheism is that although it is put forward as a philosophy of religion and sometimes assumes genuinely religious colouring to the extent that the well known Pantheist, Spinoza, has been described as 'God-intoxicated man', the logical consequences of its premises make the practice and intelligibility of religion and morality impossible. N. Srinivasachari has rightly observed that, "Its fatal defect is the denial of the evilness of evil and the reality of the moral consciousness. The all-God theory destroys God and the self that seeks God, and gives man a logical and moral holiday." (Shrinivasachari N., 1943: 77-78) Ramakrishna stands with Theism in transforming the Pantheistic incorrect assertion, “All is God" into the correct proposition, “All depends on God.” It also agrees with Theism in holding, against the one-sided positions, of Deism and Pantheism, that both the immanence and transcendence of God are equally important. Again, Ramakrishna fully supports Theism in the latter's emphasis upon the personality and the religious availability of God. Ramakrishna, thus, firmly believes with Theism that although God is distinct from the world, He is in living and loving relations with it. Ramakrishna's stand, however, differs from Theism in conceiving the universe not as a de novo' created thing, but as having a beginningless existence. Unlike Theism, Ramakrishna is thus, not open to the criticism leveled against the crude theories of 'ex nihilo' and de novo' creation of the world. In Theism, as Vergilius ferm has pointed out, "God is here usually conceived of as creator, as having brought into existence realities 'other than' himself which, though he is not completely (although for certain purposes, partly) dependent upon them, nevertheless are dependent upon him.” (Runes and others: 316) This description of Theism also brings out another difference between Ramakrishna's thought and Theism. Ramakrishna is not prepared to accept any kind of dependence upon man who has the freedom of will. This, however, is regarded as self-limitation of God. Ramakrishna believes in the freedom of human action but conceives it is such a way that the sovereignty and independence of God are in no way affected. Ramakrishna has, therefore, to say against Theism, that the limited or finite God is no God deserving to be either the guide or the goal of man's ethical and spiritual endeavours. We, thus, see that Ramakrishna has accepted the truth contained in Deism, Pantheism and Theism and avoided the misunderstanding involved in them. Ramakrishna thus, represents here also, a synthesis of Western theological thought. As Ramakrishna's thought is a reconciliation of Deism, Jain Education International For Personal & Private Use Only www.jainelibrary.org

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328