makes is to Dayananda's claim that there is only one God. Although Ramkrishna believed that there is only one Lord (and thus he agreed with Dayananda personally), he also hadn't rejected that others could believe in any "God" they choose, whether it be Allah, Jesus, or Kali. Furthermore he hadn't protested the idea (to contrast Dayananda) that one could believe that God resided inside the image itself. One example that illustrates Ramkrishna's idea is the instance when he and one of his soon to be disciples (M) had engaged in conversation about idolatry. Ramkrishna had said earlier that God could be both formless and form, both manifestations are equally real. The scholar M couldn't understand this, and questioned Ramkrishna in hopes of finding a contradiction in the Master, "But those who should be made to worship the clay image should be made to understand that the clay image is not God, and that while they are bowing down before the image they must remember that they are worshipping God. They must not worship clay." (Isherwood 263-264)Ramkrishna replied, "Who are you to teach others? It is the lord of the Universe who teaches mankind. If we need to be taught, he will teach. He knows our inner most thoughts. Supposing it is a mistake to worship God in the image-doesn't he know he alone is being worshipped? He will certainly be pleased by that worship. Why should you get a headache over that?" (Isherwood 264)One finds from this discourse that Ramkrishna didn't care for nuances of proper religious conduct nor had he concerned whether people understood what God really was. This was where he differed from Dayananda. What was really important to Ramkrishna was that one expressed love for God. Whether one is a shaivite, vaishnavite, or shaktist; it did not matter. The 'the source' of all things would be attended to, no matter which idol was worshipped. For instance, just as a mother prepares fish for her five children in different ways, e...
