use he paid virtually no attention to his course of studies and invested all his enthusiasm in the illumination of religious images and the singing of sacred hymns (Lemaitre 50). However at the same time Ramkrishna knew that above all else that the innumerable gods of Hinduism represented only limited manifestations of the Supreme Spirit. The Infinite, could not be expected to be grasped by the finite intelligence of man (Lemaitre 60). Ramkrishna argued that: These symbolic manifestations, which corresponded to human affinities, help those persons who want to gain release from the world of phenomena...The gods are only the intermediaries of the Source of all Light, of all Wisdom, of all Intelligence which is the One..." (Lemaitre 60).This meant that God could represent anything, a clay figure, a picture, a plant. To the common man who couldn't see God in His brilliance, the deity or image was an exceptional device to start the journey. Although to reiterate Dayananda's view, that if God has been described in the Vedas as being at the same time without form, then why should it matter if a common man pays homage to the One in any way he sees fit? It shouldn't. This is the primary viewpoint of Ramkrishna. So if one is under the influence of Bhakti (love) of God then it doesn't make a difference whether one believes in worship of deities/idols of Him or not; one is still focusing their devotion only to Him. If Ramkrishna had also sought the Vedas to explain this point (and he could have), he would have further denied Dayananda. One author attests to the fact that:The worship of the sun ('God') by means of symbols continued during the subsequent periods and several of them are found described in Vedic literature... (Shah 3)So therefore in contrast to Dayananda's claim, we see that Ramkrishna is indeed justified in his idea that worshipping idols is a path (of many paths) one may wish to take to reach God. The second deliverance Ramkrishna ...
