Jato Mat Tato Pat, but what about reincarnation?

Question

Namaskar,

Bhagawan Shree Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is known to have said Jato Mat Tato Pat, means As my religions so many paths.

The Ramakrishna mission considers Jesus as a manifestation of divine and Muhammad to be divinely inspired by God.

But both these religions despite divinely inspired refuse the concept of reincarnation which is considered a basic non negotiable fact in Dharmic religions, which Shri Bhagawan Ramakrishna Paramahamsa represented.

How could Jesus be wrong about such a fundamental reality when he is considered an embodiment of divine. How could Prophet Muhammad be wrong when he was divinely inspired.

How is this reconciled in Shri Ramakrishna-Vivekananda system of belief?

Please don't give your own opinion. Quote Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa or Vivekananda or Monks of the Ramakrishna order speaking about reincarnation and Jesus.

---

Note: This is not off topic Shri Ramakrishna Mission and its modern interpretation of Hinduism is an integral part of Hindusim, and the tenets of it, belong to the subset of Hinduism. This question is addressing the followers of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa

This is not opinion based The question of somebody's opinion is factual question about someone's opinion. For Eg, If I ask how did Shri Adi Shankaracharya solve a particular problem regarding Maya, you can't say it's opinion based even though it is asking about the opinion of Shri Adi Shankaracharya, as him having that opinion is a fact. So if a question asks about Adi Shankaracharya's opinion about Maya, then it is a factual question. In the same way this question is asking how does followers of Shri Ramakrishna Mission answer this question.

Not a duplicate of this question The question is asking a general why do enlightened people contradict each other within Dharmic tradition. One important thing to note is, within Dharmic traditions that is Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism and Sikhism there is bo metaphysical factual contradictions. There are interpretive contradictions, that is there is no one real phenomenon which directly disproves the other. But factual disagreement have a phenomenon which can't be disputed based on interpretation. Like the Earth is sphere, no enlightened person can say Earth is flat, and say enlightened people disagree, when it can be proved objectively that it is false. In the same way reincarnation is a phenomenon which can be verified by people recollecting memories kf past lives and saying facts which they couldn't have known otherwise. And Yogis can literally see soul of one person being reborn, this is not a poetic interpretation of some fact, this is the fact. Also this question addresses Ramakrishna Mission unlike the otger question which is general, I'm more it interested how Ramakrishna Mission people solve it and their opinion on it, rather than the general mass. So it is not the same question.

Answer 1

There is no doubt that there are real differences in theologies between different religions/dharmas. 'Jato mat tato poth' is not denying these real differences. What it means is that God does not care about a seeker's religion or theology.

How is the real difference in theology explained? The answer is given in the commentary on Gita 4.11 posted below. God reveals what one is fit to receive. People in Palestine and later in Arabia would not have understood or accepted the concept of reincarnation. So they were not disturbed by such a novel idea. A seeker who has succeeded in attaining the Divine would himself find out the errors in his theology.

O Partha! Whosoever worships Me through whatsoever path, I verily accept and bless them in that way. Men everywhere follow My path.

Gita 4.11

'This verse is the fundamental tenet of the universal religion. Wherever worship is done, only the one Supreme Being is worshipped. No one, except the perfected sage, can worship Him in His fullness, since the human mind can grasp only limited aspects of Him. The more an individual or a community is evolved, the more noble and comprehensive will be their conception of the Deity. But the less evolved man too is adoring the same Deity, grasping such aspects of His as his undeveloped mind would allow. It is just like various forms being chipped from a huge block of marble. The more skilled the workman, the more artistic will be the forms chipped out of the block. Even if it is crude, it is of the same block. Such are the various conceptions of the Deity; none can claim that his conception embraces the whole of Him, because He cannot be contained within the limitation of a mind, as a bottle cannot contain the whole of the sea. He reveals only what one is fit to receive. So according to the stages of human evolution, there will be different conceptions of the Deity, and the followers of one, even if they think theirs is more refined, need not look down upon others as heathens or Kaffirs worshipping false Deities, and consider themselves alone as the followers of the true Deity. For whatever the path, God approaches man through that path, and if the faith of the votary is genuine, he will be led to higher and higher forms of worship. So the followers of every religion must have respect for, and have acceptance of, the faith and form of worship of other religions in spite of the differences that are sure to prevail in their ideologies and practices. For it is the same God that is worshipped by them all. Just as all rivers, in spite of their divergent courses, lead to the same ocean, so do all faiths lead to Him, i.e., take one to the same God who inspires them all. This Gita teaching has been proclaimed to the modern world by Sri Ramakrishna in his saying: "As many faiths, so many paths".'

Srimad Bhagavad Gita 4.11 commentary by Swami Tapasyananda