ach to their own palate, just so, God is rendered in different ways to different people so they can experience Him in their own way (Isherwood 264). This is why Ramkrishna stands apart from Dayananda. While Dayananda had went to great extents on reforming Hinduism to his Vedic style, Ramkrishna felt that Hinduism was perfect as it was, idolatry and all. One author further supports the view that while: Dayananda thought of saving only a part of Hinduism, Ramkrishna tried to save the whole body of Hinduism, which included idol worship as represented by countless temples, places of pilgrimage...which Dayananda did not deem worthsaving, even though these are the life-blood of millions in Hinduism. (Arya & Shastri 23)As shown from the examinations of these two philosophers we ultimately find that idol worship is an integral part of the vast culture and faith of Hinduism. Some immature critics from other religions take the multiplicity of Hindu deities as multiplicity of Gods and change Hinduism as polytheistic. This is wholly incorrect. Hinduism postulates only one God, not only for Hindus but for the entire universe including those following other religions. All that Hinduism does is to provide a number of ways for reaching the ultimate God. While Dayananda could only realize this from his critical interpretation of the Veda, Ramkrishna understood this from his heart. And so, it is not at all surprising that Ramkrishna achieved the phenomenon known as samadhi (blissful inner peace, moksha) in every faith he absorbed. Whether he attained samadhi in Christianity, Islam or Hinduism, he ultimately revealed that God was One and the same. Therefore from the analysis of these two philosophers, it is undoubtedly seen why Ramkrishna's argument would be held far more dearly in a land of secularism. His message stands as fresh and unifying because it applies to all faiths, not just Hindus.While some may argue that Dayananda was a greater exponent...
