ramakrishna's 'yato mat tato pat

[sambya 0]

Ramakrishna paramhamsha,formulated the theory of 'yato mat tato mat' , which means that there are numerous views reguarding the truth(god) and all of them are like different path ways to reach him.According to this veiw if any individual confidently believes in his own path and treads it with perfect purity and sincerity he can attain the truth.This is essentially a typicall advaitic concept which have been indicated by ancient Indian sages like Sankracharya,when he wrote numerous hyms and praises to various deities,but with same respect.But Ramakrishna was first to publicly preach such a concept.

 

When Ramakrishna appeared hinduism was in an advanced state of decay.Internal strifes and numerous sects had destroyed its structure,the advaantage of which were being reaped by the christian missionaries.At this crucial juncture he came forward to harmonise all major religions through this theory.Incidentally he was the first man to speak of religious tolerance and universal truth of all major faiths in the world.Later this thought inspired numerous intellectuals of the world like Rabindranath Tagore ,Romain rolland ,Max muller etc.

 

Ramakrishna in one of his parables speak of a water tank,out of which four different man of different faiths are drinking water-the christians are calling it water,muslims say 'pani' hindus say it as 'jal',while some others speak of it as aqua.But the thing is essentially the same. This is summarized in his theory of yato mat tato pat.

 

Another famous parable that he preached, and which was used later by a lot of other spiritual leaders, was that of four blind persons trying to understand what an elephant is.As none of them had ever seen one before they began to feel it-one who felt the ears said that an elephant is like a fan.One who felt the legs thought it to be like pillars and one who felt the trunk thought it to be like a pipe.Mo one is wrong , but no one is correct either.

 

Same is our understanding of the lord.We can never grasp him in totallity,for we are impaired by our material senses.But whatever little we know of him its truth,although partial truth.

 

He also said that although all these ways are true,there are some easier ways and some harder ones,some that are dirty,some clean . He considered bhakti yoga to be the most fitting of our age.

 

Ramakrishna mentioned that although ways are numerous one should not try every one of them.He must stick to his own chosen ideal with the perfect sincerity,comparable to a chaste lady serving her husband.But he should not denounce others faith and beliefs.

 

In this age of religious intolerance it is highly advisable to mould our lives as per his instructions.Many hindu sects have disrespect for his noble thoughts and publicly deride himTo such ignorant people i would like to ask one question....if you do not belive in yato mat tato pat whats your belief? Is it one mat only path or something like that ?? Does it imply that except the ones following your path the rest are suppossed to rot in hell?????

[Kulapavana 0]

 

....if you do not belive in yato mat tato pat whats your belief? Is it one mat only path or something like that ?? Does it imply that except the ones following your path the rest are suppossed to rot in hell?????

 

There are many destinations, and therefore many different paths to reach them. If your idea of God is simply the udifferentiated Brahman, than you may be thinking that all paths directed towards God ultimately end in the same destination.

[sambya 0]

'Destination' means reaching the end of spiritual realisation.According to all schools of Hindu philosophy destination is reached in actual realisation of god(be it prema bhakti or nirvana).Now according to your view there are multiple destinations(multiple end points)for different paths.That would imply that truth or god is mutiple.Surely truth cannot be more than one.God is truth and god is absolute,to that we all agree.Absolute truth cannot have a dual existence,can it??

 

That again prooves that paths are different but goal has to be same.Yato mat tato pat !!!

[Kulapavana 0]

 

'Destination' means reaching the end of spiritual realisation.According to all schools of Hindu philosophy destination is reached in actual realisation of god(be it prema bhakti or nirvana).Now according to your view there are multiple destinations(multiple end points)for different paths.That would imply that truth or god is mutiple.Surely truth cannot be more than one.God is truth and god is absolute,to that we all agree.Absolute truth cannot have a dual existence,can it??

 

That again prooves that paths are different but goal has to be same.Yato mat tato pat !!!

 

You honestly think there is no difference between nirvana and prema bhakti? You think that there are no gradations in the realization of God? No variety of relationships with God? You think that Lord Shiva's worshippers and Vishnu bhaktas are after the same parama-gatim (ultimate goal), and that their realization of God are the same?

 

I don't. Different rasas (realizations of God) are not obtained on the same paths. Shiva bhaktas have their path, and Krishna bhaktas have another.

 

Some people think God is just one flavor, one realization, one rasa. I believe that there is no limit to the variety of God's manifestations and our realationships with Him.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Surely truth cannot be more than one.God is truth and god is absolute,to that we all agree.Absolute truth cannot have a dual existence,can it??

 

That again prooves that paths are different but goal has to be same.Yato mat tato pat !!!

 

That is a very simplistic idea. It is not about duality but about variety of God's existence. I am a person and there is variety in my relationships with others. I am a father, a husband, a friend, etc. Different paths lead to each one of such realtionships. Why do you think God has less complexity than I do?

[primate 0]

Formal truth must be (simply) logically true. But this does not necessarily mean that there is only one way to attain truth. Different people may understand truth differently; your understanding of truth may not be my understanding of truth. You may walk a different path to get to truth. Ultimately, however, there must be one (beautifully simple) truth.

[sambya 0]

its absolutely true that nirvana and prema bhakti are not the same experience.neither do a vishnu bhakta get a darshan of shiva nor a shiva bhakta of vishnu.that is becouse,lord manisfested to his devotee in the form that they desired respectively.the end experience is not the same because each of them got an aspect of the totall truth.for bhaktas its the madhurya ras and for gyanis it is the nirvana feeling.

 

and as god is rasa-swarup he maintains numerous relationshipa with everyone.he is mother to some(durga)lover to some(krishna) and yogi to some(shiva) and so forth.but at the end the main root is essentially the same.

 

there is indeed no limit to god.and that is precisely the reason you cannot say that yours is the only path.for example if i say god is only personal and not impersonal then im denying his feture of 'impersonality' .that would limit him.as he cannot be limited he is both personal and impersonal at the same time.so claiming that he is only personal would limit him and would not make him 'infinite'.

 

thats the logic behind yato mat tato pat.

[bhaktajan 0]

thats the logic behind yato mat tato pat.

 

Well then, it is flawed logic.

 

Because God is Infinite therefore He encompasses all minutia --and He has his own definitive personal Features --God as a transcendent eternal persona is his right and His "aesthetic" --while we tiny souls are minute acolytes seeking his features in the faces of other souls' bodies.

 

This is not common and trite --the revelation of Krishna and His Vedic descriptions are what humanity has been beating around the bush philosophically, dark ages after dark ages--and still the majority don't seek him out and also enjoy chewing the cud of repeated births.

 

The science of Krishna Conscousness (Yoga par excellence) is the status quo of India's Crown jewel --and it is every bit perfect --[Have no attraction to meat, intoxication, illicit sex & gambling and thus, be eligible to enter the ashram to "study" yoga intensely-- and the proof that Krishna Conscousness is the best 'Finishing School' and the best Academy to learn Gentlemenly graces will be evident].

 

The Vaisnava Good News, as it is, in sastra has been revealed --we have been allotted time to study this sublime Yoga while we live, so do not limit yourself by being envious of your own potential ... by way of 'transference'

[Kulapavana 0]

 

thats the logic behind yato mat tato pat.

 

Earlier you said:

 

'Destination' means reaching the end of spiritual realisation.According to all schools of Hindu philosophy destination is reached in actual realisation of god(be it prema bhakti or nirvana).Now according to your view there are multiple destinations(multiple end points)for different paths.That would imply that truth or god is mutiple.Surely truth cannot be more than one.God is truth and god is absolute,to that we all agree.Absolute truth cannot have a dual existence,can it??

 

That again prooves that paths are different but goal has to be same.Yato mat tato pat !!!

 

The saying: 'Yato mat tato pat' essentially means that there is only one goal in the multitude of religious and spiritual paths. Since now you understand that there are many goals, and that they are very unique, you can also understand that the paths are unique as well.

 

'Yato mat tato pat' is a simplification aimed at ending religious divisions and disagreements. That is a noble purpose, but because ultimately this saying is not true, the purpose remains unfulfilled.

 

Those who are going to hell know very well where they are going. Nobody gets there by accident. Those who are going to Shivaloka also know where they are going and do not get there by accident. Same with Vaikunthaloka and Vishnu-bhaktas. Different roads, different goals - what is so hard to understand?

[AncientMariner 0]

 

Those who are going to hell know very well where they are going. Nobody gets there by accident. Those who are going to Shivaloka also know where they are going and do not get there by accident. Same with Vaikunthaloka and Vishnu-bhaktas.

 

How does that jive with the story of Ajamila. My understanding is that Ajamila was headed to hell but he accidently chanted his sons name that was Krishna and he was saved by Krishna as a result of chanting Krishna's name. In other words he thought he was going to hell but ended up in the ultimate heaven. It also seems like a lot of people are headed to hell so to speak just out of sheer ignorance of karma etc and that the major purpose of a lot of these incarnations of Krishna and the acaryas is to educate and wake people up from their ignorance to save them from the hell they are creating for themselves.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

How does that jive with the story of Ajamila. My understanding is that Ajamila was headed to hell but he accidently chanted his sons name that was Krishna and he was saved by Krishna as a result of chanting Krishna's name. In other words he thought he was going to hell but ended up in the ultimate heaven.

 

the story of Ajamila is much more complex than that. he was a good brahmana by nature, who by a force of circumstances became degraded to a level of a common thief. Earlier in life he performed plenty of good deeds and naming his son Narayan was hardly accidental as he had attachment for that sound vibration and what it represented. Thus he got a second chance at the time of death, he got to see the Yamadutas and Vishnudutas side by side, arguing about his fate. That was an important lesson for him. It is important to note that Ajamila did not die at that time, and later led exemplary life, atoning for his sins. He was taken to Vaikuntha only after he became properly qualified, not because he accidentally chanted the Holy Name.

[AncientMariner 0]

Never realized that he went on to live after that. I always thought that was his last breath accidently calling on Krishna. There does seem to be a theme of the story that chanting the name of Krishna is so powerful that it can purify all sins regardless of the intent of the chanter.

 

 

If this single act of the utterance of a four-syllable word Narayana can make such a difference to life after death, what larger worlds of fullness and majesty he may not conquer by really leading a noble life of Dharma in the memory of the Lord? -- so thought Ajamila. And that very moment he renounced everything to which he was attached, went to Benares and engaged himself in austerities and meditation and in due time reached the abode of the Lord.

 

 

All around good story no matter how you look at it. Not quite as good as Lord Rsabhadeva and Jada Bharata but close.

[srikanthdk71 0]

 

the story of Ajamila is much more complex than that. he was a good brahmana by nature, who by a force of circumstances became degraded to a level of a common thief. Earlier in life he performed plenty of good deeds and naming his son Narayan was hardly accidental as he had attachment for that sound vibration and what it represented. Thus he got a second chance at the time of death, he got to see the Yamadutas and Vishnudutas side by side, arguing about his fate. That was an important lesson for him. It is important to note that Ajamila did not die at that time, and later led exemplary life, atoning for his sins. He was taken to Vaikuntha only after he became properly qualified, not because he accidentally chanted the Holy Name.

 

The Story of Ajamila is a goofed up story to glorify the strength of the name of Lord Vishnu. If that is the case, the Karma-Siddhanta goes for a toss. The fruit of Karma has to be cherished by any individual on this earth. Even Rama(believed to be the avatar of Lord Vishnu himself) cherished the Karma of killing Vali in the Krishnavatar. If any Brahmana who is indulged in the Karma of a Killer which gives the qualification of Brahmahatya to him can just go scot free by accidently uttering(not chanting) a name which again accidently was the name of the Lord, it is hard to believe. If in the earlier life he had done many good deeds, he would have ended up in good Karmas in the present life according to Karma-Siddhanta where as here it is totally opposite. This is a total bogged up story of Chandamama.

[AncientMariner 0]

Ajamila is a good old fashioned biblical style story of redemption. Nothing wrong with redemption even in the face of the longest odds of redemption. Good story no doubt about but not quite as good as Lord Rsabadheva or Jada Bharata.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

The Story of Ajamila is a goofed up story to glorify the strength of the name of Lord Vishnu. If that is the case, the Karma-Siddhanta goes for a toss.

 

Not really. The story clearly says that Ajamila: "renounced everything to which he was attached, went to Benares and engaged himself in austerities and meditation and in due time reached the abode of the Lord." Thus we can assume that Ajamila performed all required atonement (prayascita) and self-purification for his sins.

 

What is very misleading is the lack of emphasis on that later part of the story among the Iskcon preachers, and claims by them that a mere accidental utterance of the Holy Name by Ajamila allowed him to enter into Vaikuntha. That is a bogus claim, in the category of religious propaganda, however well intentioned.

[srikanthdk71 0]

 

Ramakrishna paramhamsha,formulated the theory of 'yato mat tato mat' , which means that there are numerous views reguarding the truth(god) and all of them are like different path ways to reach him.According to this veiw if any individual confidently believes in his own path and treads it with perfect purity and sincerity he can attain the truth.This is essentially a typicall advaitic concept which have been indicated by ancient Indian sages like Sankracharya,when he wrote numerous hyms and praises to various deities,but with same respect.But Ramakrishna was first to publicly preach such a concept.

 

To my knowledge Ramakrishna Paramahans did not 'Preach' anything publicly. His followers did.

 

 

When Ramakrishna appeared hinduism was in an advanced state of decay.

 

There was Shirdi Sai Baba, Ramana Maharshi, Nrisimha Bharati of Sringeri Mutt and many more. So Hinduism was not at decay. It would have been in Bengal which is even today suffering from decay of Spitiruality.

 

 

Internal strifes and numerous sects had destroyed its structure,the advaantage of which were being reaped by the christian missionaries.At this crucial juncture he came forward to harmonise all major religions through this theory.Incidentally he was the first man to speak of religious tolerance and universal truth of all major faiths in the world.Later this thought inspired numerous intellectuals of the world like Rabindranath Tagore ,Romain rolland ,Max muller etc.

 

All this is confined to Bengal region and not the Akhand Bharat of that time. Maximum of the Missionary activity took place only in the Coastal areas. Debendranath Tagore was a much more profound patriot and a spiritual master than his son who wrote the 'Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka' in praise of an Englishman and unfortunately our National Anthem.

 

 

In this age of religious intolerance it is highly advisable to mould our lives as per his instructions.Many hindu sects have disrespect for his noble thoughts and publicly deride himTo such ignorant people i would like to ask one question....if you do not belive in yato mat tato pat whats your belief? Is it one mat only path or something like that ?? Does it imply that except the ones following your path the rest are suppossed to rot in hell?????

 

'Yato Mat, Tato Pat' was not only Sri Ramakrishnas belief but any individual who can visualise the world on a common platform. The common tendency of the Human Mind is to project itself superior from the rest. People who suffer from this tendancy act like Missionaries whose sole aim is to bring others to their path and believe in all ways of 'Sam, Bhed and Dand' in case of recently rediscovered Hindus and Darul Haram, Darul Aman and Darul Islam in case of Muslims and sentimental exploitation by the Christians like Healing/Prayer Ceremony etc. This is a common factor of all religions headed by Narrow Minded People.