JEFFERY D. LONG UNIVERSAL AVATĀR A Hindu Theology of Divine Incarnation in the Tradition of Sri Ramakrishna Introduction The intent of this comparative theological project is to begin the process of developing a systematic theology of divine incarnation for the Vedānta tradi- tion of Sri Ramakrishna in dialogue with Christian theology. A distinctive feature of this project is that it is pursued from a Hindu perspective engaged in a dialogue with Christianity. Issues with which this project engages include the utility of such theological dialogue for Hindus and Christians, the epistemic question of the recognition of a divine incarnation, the interpretation of scrip- tural proclamations by divine incarnations that apparently endorse an exclu- sivist model of salvation, and the idea of a singular divine being with multiple incarnations. The specific problem to which this project responds is the fact that Ramakrish- na, taken in the modern Hindu tradition based on his life and teachings to be an avatār or divine incarnation undertook intensive spiritual practices, or sā- dhanas, for the purpose of attaining God-realization. If Ramakrishna was a di- vine incarnation, why was it necessary for him to undertake the arduous prac- tices he did in order to reach God? Was this a mere display, undertaken solely for teaching unenlightened human beings the path—or paths1—to God-real- ization, as some thinkers in this tradition have suggested? And if this is the case, does it not undermine Ramakrishna’s efficacy as an exemplar for practi- tioners? If he was God, of course he was able to reach God-realization. But what of those ordinary souls who struggle for even a glimpse of divinity? It seems that Ramakrishna can serve as a genuine exemplar only as a truly hu- man practitioner, with the failure of his quest a real possibility. 1 The diversity of paths to God-realization is the central message of Sri Rama- krishna’s life and teaching, embodying and proclaiming which was arguably his chief mission as a divine incarnation–hence my choice to designate him as a “universal ava- tār,” teaching that God-realization is available to people of all religions and cultures. Yato mat, tato path—as many religions, so many paths—is Ramakrishna’s essential teaching. 170 UNIVERSAL AVATĀR It may be the case that a deep, thoroughgoing, and potentially unsurmountable forgetfulness of his own divinity was an essential feature of Ramakrishna’s in- carnation. The received accounts of his life and spiritual practices are strongly suggestive of such a possibility, certainly at the outset of the period of his sā- dhanas.2 This is the hypothesis with which I shall be working in this project. If an avatār’s forgetfulness of his (or her) divine nature is, as suggested here, deep and thoroughgoing, how, then, is the avatār distinct from the incarnation of the ordinary soul or jīva? Does the term avatār point to a meaningful differ- ence, on a spiritual level, between one type of being and another? According to Vedānta, we are all forgetful of our true, divine nature, and the whole point of the practice of Vedānta is to overcome this forgetfulness: to attain God-realiz- ation. The traditional distinction between an avatār and an ordinary person is that “the avatar,” as the meaning of the Sanskrit word implies, is “the descent of God, whereas the ordinary man ascends toward God.” (Prabhavananda 1963: 42) But if an avatār is characterized by spiritual amnesia phenomenally no different from that experienced by all beings in the thrall of cosmic ignor- ance—avidyā—how is an avatār different from any person who attains God- realization? Is there a difference other than the fact that the avatār was once aware of his or her divinity, having willfully forgotten it for a specific purpose (such as the instruction of humanity), whereas the ordinary person has yet to attain this awareness? Finally, if the experience of the two is not phenomenally different, how are we to recognize avatārs, apart from their self-proclamation as such? To be sure, the Vedānta tradition does make a distinction between Īśvara—that is, the supreme person, who continuously creates, maintains, and recreates the universe—and Brahman, the impersonal spirituality that is the basis, the funda- mental Self, of all beings: both Īśvara and the innumerable souls or jīvas mak- ing up the universe. The use of the English words “God” and “divinity” to re- fer to Īśvara and Brahman can confuse issues. The “God-realization” that is sought by spiritual practitioners is the realization of the divine Self—Brahman—as identical to the core of one’s own being. It is not to become Īśvara, who, like the God of the Abrahamic religions, is one unique entity. It is, however, to become God-like, inasmuch as the chief dis- tinction between Īśvara and all other souls is that Īśvara is ever-free, never having been bound by the cycle of rebirth. Īśvara knows that Īśvara is Brah- man, whereas the rest of us do not. God-realization is to know oneself as Brah- man, not merely cognitively, but through direct, experiential awareness. 2 I am speaking here of the period of his initial yearnings for a vision of the Goddess Kālī—a period of deep and painful longing (Saradananda 2003: 206-13). His later realization experiences came comparatively easily. 171 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 22 (2012) 2 The question behind this project, though, is not altogether dissolved by the Īśvara-Brahman distinction; for if, in a given form, Īśvara is capable of Self- forgetfulness, then that particular form is, again, in a situation that is phe- nomenally no different from that of an ordinary soul seeking realization, and the outside observer is still left with the question of distinguishing one from the other. Catalyst: Clooney’s Theological Challenge This project is inspired by a challenge posed by Francis X. Clooney in one of the journals of the Ramakrishna Order in India, Prabuddha Bharata (Awa- kened India), established by Swami Vivekananda in 1896. Among the theo- logical challenges Clooney characterizes as currently facing the Ramakrishna tradition, he draws attention to the following set of questions: What are we to make of the fact that for a major portion of his adult life he [Ramakrishna] was engaged in sādhanas [intensive spiritual disciplines] aimed at spiritual advancement? Did Ramakrishna, as a spiritual practitioner intent upon spiritual learning, actually discover something new about himself, his identity, and his mission, because of those sādhanas? For it is not immediately clear how a person can manifest a sure and certain spiritual identity, even sure perfection, as did Ramakrishna— and yet at the same time be really engaged in practices aimed at spiritual advancement. What are the conditions under which sādhana is possible and necessary even for a spiritually advanced person? (Clooney 2011) The more fundamental theological problem to which these questions point is the nature of the relationship between the human and the divine in a being held to be both at the same time. As Clooney points out, Ramakrishna’s humanity is definitely asserted in the texts of the Ramakrishna tradition, on the under- standing that his sādhanas involved a genuine effort and were not merely a show put on by a wholly divine being who was free from the need for such intensive striving: This issue too was a live one for [Ramakrishna’s biographer] Saradananda in the Divine Play [an account of Ramakrishna’s life that includes much extensive reflection on Ramakrishna’s nature]. In his introduction to the second part of that work he insists, against the skeptics of his day, that Ramakrishna was truly human and not merely seeming to be so. Indeed, he insists that readers will not feel the full impact of Ramakrishna’s sādhanas unless they agree that an avatāra [divine incarnation] becomes truly human, and as a real human being experiences real human needs, uncer- tainty, dependence on others, and the obscuration of consciousness, and hence needs to strive for human perfection. Saradananda repeatedly drives home the point that the imperfections of the avatāra, even if chosen freely by the divinity, are not “for show” but are real. (Clooney 2011) At the same time, the tradition also does assert that Ramakrishna is truly di- vine: Yet Saradananda also suggests that when we are advanced in insight, we will see Ramakrishna as perfect and divine—even beyond all our categories, nirvikalpa. This 172 UNIVERSAL AVATĀR loftier language makes it sound as if Ramakrishna’s sādhanas are indeed “only” for our sake and not something that he had to undertake for his own benefit too. In fact, upon a second reading, it is hard to see where Saradananda allows for any moral or spiritual imperfections in Ramakrishna, the kind of imperfections usually remedied by sādhana. Even as he stresses Ramakrishna’s humanity, Saradananda keeps presenting Rama- krishna as the ever all-knowing, perfectly aware teacher. So one might just as well conclude, from Saradananda’s discussion of sādhanas, that Ramakrishna really did engage in spiritual practice only to set a good example for others, not for his own sake; for embodied divinities have nothing to learn. (Clooney 2011) The questions raised by the relationship between Sri Ramakrishna’s divinity and humanity have, of course, close resonances with the questions raised by the relationship between the divinity and humanity of Christ. And the issues re- lating to the nature of this relationship that Clooney raises based on his reading of Saradananda’s Divine Play have parallels in the early history of Christianity. Some streams of early Christian thought affirm the divinity of Christ as pri- mary—his humanity being a mere show—with others affirming the humanity of Christ in a way that subordinates him to the fully divine Father.