Whitehead in the temple of Kali

 

Dakshineswar Kali Temple in Calcutta,
where Ramakrishna spent most of his life.
Credit: Knath

“Advaita and Dvaita: Bridging the Gap. The Ramakrishna Tradition’s both/and Approach to the Dvaita/Advaita Debate” is an article by Jeffery D. Long, originally published in “The Journal of Vaishnava Studies”. Long describes it as an essay in the service of cross-traditional philosophical diplomacy. The author is a member of the Ramakrishna Order, a Hindu organization associated with the 19^th century Bengali mystic Ramakrishna, but actually founded by his disciple Swami Vivekananda. A promoter of the monist Advaita Vedanta philosophy (or perhaps a revised “Neo-Advaita” version of it), Vivekananda was one of the first Hindus to actively proselytize in the Western world. He is probably the main “culprit” behind the Western view of Advaita as “the” Hindu philosophy per excellence. Presumably, he is also chiefly responsible for interpreting Ramakrishna in an Advaitist manner.

I think it´s obvious that Ramakrishna was a very different kind of cat, and while Long tries to harmonize the two gurus, my take is that he tilts in Ramakrishna´s direction. This makes it possible for him to do some intra-Hindu ecumenism, since the actual positions of Ramakrishna were hardly Advaitist. The main target for the cross-traditional diplomacy are the Vaishnavas, that is, the devotees of Vishnu or one of his avatars conceived as the supreme personal god (Ishvara or Bhagavan). Vaishnava bhakti presupposes that there is a distinction between God and humans, which in turn makes the monist Advaita philosophy anathema. To Advaita, the goal is for the human soul to merge with Nirguna Brahman, the impersonal “god” beyond all form or attributes. In some versions of this perspective, devotion to a personal god is incorporated as a lower stage of practice, but as the practitioner progresses on the path, he is supposed to realize that “god with form” is just as illusory as our separate human souls and only has a relative existence. (This seems to have been Vivekananda´s view.) To a Vaishnava, this is of course unacceptable.   

Long believes that what he calls “Ramakrishna Vedanta” is closer to mainstream Vaishnava schools of thought than to Advaita Vedanta. He compares it to Vishishtadvaita, Bhedabheda and Acintya Bhedabheda, which could be seen as intermediary positions between the strict dualism of Dvaita (another Vaishnava school) and the monism of Advaita. A Christian might presumably call these schools “panentheist” in contrast to both pantheism and theism. Long points out that bhakti (devotionalism) played an important part of Ramakrishna´s spiritual practice, making it close to Vaishnavism. Nor did Ramakrishna subordinate bhakti to jnana (here translated “gnosis”) in the Advaita manner. Rather, Ramakrishna believed that both bhakti and jnana were equally valid paths to liberation (not to mention several others!). He incorporated some ideas from Advaita Vedanta, such as the existence of Nirguna Brahman, while affirming that there are many paths to the divine. Indeed, Ramakrishna had intense mystical experiences of both a “dualist” and a “monist” nature, and even saw Jesus at one point!

Long is fascinated by Alfred North Whitehead´s process philosophy and attempts to interpret Ramakrishna Vedanta in this light. In a short article like this one, I don´t think he succeeds very well, but the gist of it is that he identifies the basic metaphysical principle of Whitehead´s system as “Creativity”, which takes many different forms. Says Long: “In mokṣa, one becomes consciously and joyfully what one has actually always been unconsciously (and not so joyfully)–a co-creator, with God, in the ongoing process of the universe, with unlimited creativity. One can submerge oneself in the infinite bliss of Nirguṇa Brahman, enjoy eternity in Heaven with God, or return to help others, like a Bodhisattva. The forms which mokṣa takes vary with the paths that are taken to it. This is apparent from the traditional accounts of Ramakrishna’s sādhanas, in which the type of experience he had at the culmination of his practice varied with the practice itself.” 

I´m not sure why Whitehead is needed at all, since Ramakrishna´s ideas seem to work pretty well all by themselves. Long points out that Ramakrishna is sometimes referred to as a “Shakta universalist”, and this does indeed seem to be the solution to the puzzle. As Long also points out, Whitehead´s Creativity could be seen as another name for Shakti. Shakti (worshipped by Ramakrishna as Kali) is the creative energy or force behind the universe, taking countless of different forms, both personal and impersonal, while also transcending them all. 

Does more really need to be said? 😉