AN ANALYSIS ON BOTH VIEW POINTS
The professor was a keen observer of what Sai Baba said and did, and, therefore, even his inferences of Baba’s methods and intentions are of some use. Talking about the orthodox method of Sadhana Chatushtaya that is viveka, vairagya, samadhishatka and mumkshutva, Narke says, taking the first two, there is something to note as to what viveka and vairagya are. Mere talk of viveka and vairagya without the power of knowing what should be experienced or enjoyed and what should be renounced, is childish and leads to self-delusion and deluding others. It is bookish wisdom and not real, and cannot stand the strain of actual life. Mere talking of viveka and vairagya without being filled with them will only prove a man a hypocrite. Here, he says, is the advantage of knowing Baba. When Baba said, ‘I am in the dog, pig and cat’, he actually felt himself inside the dog, pig and cat and could say what they felt and what treatment they got. But others say the same, because such statements are found in the Gita and they believe them to be true. But, as there is no feeling or realisation behind their words, such statements would tend to hypocrisy.
As for Baba’s nature, this intellectually advanced professor began to consider both the material and the spiritual side of Baba, but stressed mostly the material. He was insisting on the material, because other devotees were insisting on the spiritual and forgot the material. So, he told them, ‘Though Baba is God from the devotees’ point of view, yet he is a man seen in the flesh and with limitations to which an individual embodied soul is subject’. The two co-exist and are both true, each in its way. But his friends, the devotees at Shirdi, did not agree with him or, at any rate, relish his view. They were relying on the puranas and Ithihasas. They were talking of 56 crores of islanders in Dwaraka at Sri Krishna’s time. The professor disputed the statistical accuracy of the population and said, ‘We are thirty three crores in the whole of India now and India is so over populated that we have to tread on each other’s heels.’ and would not accept that estimate of 56 crores. As he was disputing so many propositions in the puranas, they asked him if he would abide by Baba’s decision on the matter, and he said, ‘Yes’. Then they all went to Baba. Madhavrao Deshpande and other devotees asked Baba, ‘Are the puranas true?’ Baba said, ‘Yes’.
Madhavrao : ‘What about Rama and Krishna?’
Sai Baba : ‘They were great souls, because they were Avatars.’
Devotees : ‘This Narke will not accept all that. He says you are not God’.
Sai Baba : ‘What he says is true.’ (Here the Professor was very glad that Baba confirmed his views of the material side of Baba). ‘But I am your father, and you should not speak like that, You have to get your benefit and everything from me.’
The professor says, ‘Baba thus admitted his limitations’. He was God no doubt in the experience of the devotee; but because the devotee felt that, Sai Baba did not assert himself to be, in fact, nothing but God. He did not draw logical corollaries from it, nor use that position to help himself to the wealth etcetra, of the devotees’. On the basis of the devotees view, Sai Baba did not declare Antinomianism, that is setting himself up as above law. On the other hand Sai Baba disobeyed either the moral law or the law as it prevails in the country. he was never indecent in dress or behaviour and was very reserved with women. Here obviously, the professor is contrasting the behaviour of Sai Baba with the behaviour of Upasani Baba who, at Sakori, 3 miles further off, declared himself to be above all law, and occasionally disobeyed them, and who was an Avadhuta, that is, without any covering, and was freely moving with large number of women folk.
But in the above, the professor failed to note that Baba was pointing out a very important truth. Things have a material and spiritual side. There are images, Gurus, Avatars, etcetra and they have a spiritual side as well as a material one. If any person is earnest in attempting to benefit by contact with these, he would commit a terrible mistake if he would advert to the material side only, the side of limitations. If he wanted real benefit, he would have to forget completely the material side or portion, and the limitation that go with the material, and think only of the divine in the image, in the Guru and in the Avatar, and that is what Baba meant by saying, ‘You have to get your benefit and everything from me, as I am your father’. Baba is the father of all devotees, only if viewed as God. If viewed as man, he had no children, and so could not be the father of all his devotees. But if viewed as God, he is necessarily the father of all, possessed of parental kindness. When the fatherhood is recognised by the devotees, and they wish to get the benefits of being his children, the Guru-God Baba gives them that benefit, returns their love, and his eye of kindly supervision is over all those that love him. That love is destroyed by adverting to the material side. This all truth, the intellectually developed professor was apt to ignore.
The professor was a keen observer of what Sai Baba said and did, and, therefore, even his inferences of Baba’s methods and intentions are of some use. Talking about the orthodox method of Sadhana Chatushtaya that is viveka, vairagya, samadhishatka and mumkshutva, Narke says, taking the first two, there is something to note as to what viveka and vairagya are. Mere talk of viveka and vairagya without the power of knowing what should be experienced or enjoyed and what should be renounced, is childish and leads to self-delusion and deluding others. It is bookish wisdom and not real, and cannot stand the strain of actual life. Mere talking of viveka and vairagya without being filled with them will only prove a man a hypocrite. Here, he says, is the advantage of knowing Baba. When Baba said, ‘I am in the dog, pig and cat’, he actually felt himself inside the dog, pig and cat and could say what they felt and what treatment they got. But others say the same, because such statements are found in the Gita and they believe them to be true. But, as there is no feeling or realisation behind their words, such statements would tend to hypocrisy.
As for Baba’s nature, this intellectually advanced professor began to consider both the material and the spiritual side of Baba, but stressed mostly the material. He was insisting on the material, because other devotees were insisting on the spiritual and forgot the material. So, he told them, ‘Though Baba is God from the devotees’ point of view, yet he is a man seen in the flesh and with limitations to which an individual embodied soul is subject’. The two co-exist and are both true, each in its way. But his friends, the devotees at Shirdi, did not agree with him or, at any rate, relish his view. They were relying on the puranas and Ithihasas. They were talking of 56 crores of islanders in Dwaraka at Sri Krishna’s time. The professor disputed the statistical accuracy of the population and said, ‘We are thirty three crores in the whole of India now and India is so over populated that we have to tread on each other’s heels.’ and would not accept that estimate of 56 crores. As he was disputing so many propositions in the puranas, they asked him if he would abide by Baba’s decision on the matter, and he said, ‘Yes’. Then they all went to Baba. Madhavrao Deshpande and other devotees asked Baba, ‘Are the puranas true?’ Baba said, ‘Yes’.
Madhavrao : ‘What about Rama and Krishna?’
Sai Baba : ‘They were great souls, because they were Avatars.’
Devotees : ‘This Narke will not accept all that. He says you are not God’.
Sai Baba : ‘What he says is true.’ (Here the Professor was very glad that Baba confirmed his views of the material side of Baba). ‘But I am your father, and you should not speak like that, You have to get your benefit and everything from me.’
The professor says, ‘Baba thus admitted his limitations’. He was God no doubt in the experience of the devotee; but because the devotee felt that, Sai Baba did not assert himself to be, in fact, nothing but God. He did not draw logical corollaries from it, nor use that position to help himself to the wealth etcetra, of the devotees’. On the basis of the devotees view, Sai Baba did not declare Antinomianism, that is setting himself up as above law. On the other hand Sai Baba disobeyed either the moral law or the law as it prevails in the country. he was never indecent in dress or behaviour and was very reserved with women. Here obviously, the professor is contrasting the behaviour of Sai Baba with the behaviour of Upasani Baba who, at Sakori, 3 miles further off, declared himself to be above all law, and occasionally disobeyed them, and who was an Avadhuta, that is, without any covering, and was freely moving with large number of women folk.
But in the above, the professor failed to note that Baba was pointing out a very important truth. Things have a material and spiritual side. There are images, Gurus, Avatars, etcetra and they have a spiritual side as well as a material one. If any person is earnest in attempting to benefit by contact with these, he would commit a terrible mistake if he would advert to the material side only, the side of limitations. If he wanted real benefit, he would have to forget completely the material side or portion, and the limitation that go with the material, and think only of the divine in the image, in the Guru and in the Avatar, and that is what Baba meant by saying, ‘You have to get your benefit and everything from me, as I am your father’. Baba is the father of all devotees, only if viewed as God. If viewed as man, he had no children, and so could not be the father of all his devotees. But if viewed as God, he is necessarily the father of all, possessed of parental kindness. When the fatherhood is recognised by the devotees, and they wish to get the benefits of being his children, the Guru-God Baba gives them that benefit, returns their love, and his eye of kindly supervision is over all those that love him. That love is destroyed by adverting to the material side. This all truth, the intellectually developed professor was apt to ignore.
Written by: HH Pujyasri B. V. Narasimha Swamiji
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment