DEPEND ON ENDLESS CONCERN OF THE GURU
Alike from danger of thirst and hunger, Baba had saved Nana Saheb Chandorkar. What was it that saved Nana?
The Sanskrit stanza says: -
Vane Rane Satru Jalaughamadhye
Maharnave, Parvata Mastakevaa
Supram Pramattam Vishama sthitamvaa
Rakshanti punyani purakritani
This means, whether it is in the forests or in the battle field or amidst foes or in the ocean, or on hill tops, the merit acquired in former times or janmas saves a person even though he may be sleeping, disordered in mind or unbalanced. This is an abstract statement, which is very true.
But abstractions do not save any one. It is the concrete person called Sai that actually saved Nana both on hill top and in the thick forests and not abstract poorva punya. After all, it is poorva punya (former merit) that had taken shape as Sai's body, which had undertaken the responsibilities of a Gurudeva and which therefore saved Nana. So it is alike poorva punya and also Guru-Deva that saved Nana.
While on this subject we may point out the conclusions into which people fall when dealing with questions where the abstract and the concrete or the particular and the universal or the part and the whole blend as they invariably and necessarily do. I may say that I stir the milk with my right hand, emphasizing `right' or I may say with equal truth that I stir the milk with a spoon in my right hand. Both are the same and not conflicting, and similarly a particular person protecting a devotee is not inconsistent with his poorva punyaprotecting him. Forgetting this obvious truth, recently at the Thotapalli hills (Visakhapatnam district) there was a confused distinction without difference. A lady, who was proceeding at dusk from Sri Omkar Swami's chambers to her own room, trod on a snake, and cried out `Om Sai'. The snake did not strike her, but bent its head and away quietly. Some said, `This is Sai's protection'. Others said, `This is the poorva punyam protection'. The obvious truth is that the poorva punyam of the lady taking the shape of her contact with Sai, saver her. Similarly in the above two cases of Chandorkar's troubles in forest and hill, it is his poorva punyam that saved him, in accordance with the above stanza. The poorva punyam in Chandorkar's case was continuous punyam, a punyam which tended to perpetuate itself because it consisted of a surrender to a most loving and beloved Guru, janma after janma, who took it on himself to protect his disciple right through in every detail, and that too life after life.
Alike from danger of thirst and hunger, Baba had saved Nana Saheb Chandorkar. What was it that saved Nana?
The Sanskrit stanza says: -
Vane Rane Satru Jalaughamadhye
Maharnave, Parvata Mastakevaa
Supram Pramattam Vishama sthitamvaa
Rakshanti punyani purakritani
This means, whether it is in the forests or in the battle field or amidst foes or in the ocean, or on hill tops, the merit acquired in former times or janmas saves a person even though he may be sleeping, disordered in mind or unbalanced. This is an abstract statement, which is very true.
But abstractions do not save any one. It is the concrete person called Sai that actually saved Nana both on hill top and in the thick forests and not abstract poorva punya. After all, it is poorva punya (former merit) that had taken shape as Sai's body, which had undertaken the responsibilities of a Gurudeva and which therefore saved Nana. So it is alike poorva punya and also Guru-Deva that saved Nana.
While on this subject we may point out the conclusions into which people fall when dealing with questions where the abstract and the concrete or the particular and the universal or the part and the whole blend as they invariably and necessarily do. I may say that I stir the milk with my right hand, emphasizing `right' or I may say with equal truth that I stir the milk with a spoon in my right hand. Both are the same and not conflicting, and similarly a particular person protecting a devotee is not inconsistent with his poorva punyaprotecting him. Forgetting this obvious truth, recently at the Thotapalli hills (Visakhapatnam district) there was a confused distinction without difference. A lady, who was proceeding at dusk from Sri Omkar Swami's chambers to her own room, trod on a snake, and cried out `Om Sai'. The snake did not strike her, but bent its head and away quietly. Some said, `This is Sai's protection'. Others said, `This is the poorva punyam protection'. The obvious truth is that the poorva punyam of the lady taking the shape of her contact with Sai, saver her. Similarly in the above two cases of Chandorkar's troubles in forest and hill, it is his poorva punyam that saved him, in accordance with the above stanza. The poorva punyam in Chandorkar's case was continuous punyam, a punyam which tended to perpetuate itself because it consisted of a surrender to a most loving and beloved Guru, janma after janma, who took it on himself to protect his disciple right through in every detail, and that too life after life.
We shall see how the loving Guru's supervision and watch helped Nana Chandorkar in his latest birth (which is the one janma known to us) in matter after matter essential for his temporal and spiritual safety. Baba having implanted in Chandorkar a sufficiently strong faith in and reliance on Guru was constantly watering this plant with fresh instances of his loving watch and care. Even in apparently trivial matters such as catching trains and meeting official supervisors, Baba (as was usual with him) showed his concern for the disciple and helped him as also so many devotees. It is this enduring and endless concern of the Guru that grips the disciple, and makes him understand God.
Courtesy: HH Pujyasri B. V. Narasimha Swamiji
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment