EWS #51 Questions from viewers (4)
Nov 23, 2019
Topics:
Books referred in the talk:
Narad (0:00:46):
Namaste and welcome to our continuing series, Evenings with Sraddhalu. Namaste. [Sraddhalu] Namaste.
Today, we have an interesting question on deities: Deities like Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva, the question is, do they have 100% absolute power as God, or is there any difference between them and God?
Sraddhalu (0:01:14):
The problem with a question like this is, the word God itself is understood in so many different ways and even the name Vishnu can be related to on many levels. So just to give a broad background, Sri Aurobindo explains that the deities described in the Veda represent a poise of the Divine consciousness taking special aspects and each of these aspects is conscious of its origin in the oneness and so feels itself as if an expression of the Divine but for a special work. So there is, let's say the name Rudra, which is an aspect later described in the form of Shiva, there is the aspect which is Vishnu, which is pervading the whole space-time. It's a different aspect, then there is the Brahma, which is the creative aspect. Each of these in the Vedic description is known to be the one leaning forward to become a particular aspect, function, operation in the cosmos, but always knowing its oneness. But also because they are different aspects, they know themselves separate from each other. And so when they act, although it is a cosmic action, they can act in different ways and can even experience conflict in the action. In the Upanishadic age, you will find the same deities have as if lost their oneness in the Divine. They are still operating at a cosmic level, but they are no more linked there. So in the Kena Upanishad for example, there is the parable where Agni goes, the gods have just had a victory and they say, ah it is our victory, we have done it and then the Divine sends a form which they don't recognize and they are unable to defeat the form and eventually Indra goes closest to the perception of the Divine and then the form vanishes and the Divine Mother is there who shows you the way, it was the Divine who had won the victory through you, it was not your victory and they are reminded of their origin in the Divine and their oneness with the Divine. So already at that level, the same names of the deities are of a less Divine, more mentalized grade. Then you come to the third phase which is in the Puranic stories. And there you find Indra is lustful, he is jealous, he is upset and all these deities now behave like exaggerated human beings with aggrandized powers, but basically human beings and that's what you see corresponding also in the Greek tradition where you find the gods fighting each other and sometimes in very petty squabbles but their squabbles up there represent gigantic battles on earth where human beings are so to say the cannon fodder or the victims of their differences and that's again corresponding to the more Puranic gradation where they have become almost we may say vital beings, but great powerful vital beings but with the same name. So the problem is, when you say Vishnu, which one do you mean, which level are you accessing and the same problem comes with God, the moment you speak of God. In the current context, in the present age, where a large part of our education is Europeanized education, which itself is heavily influenced by the Biblical tradition, God projects in your mind this image of somebody sitting on a throne and basically bossing around, either threatening, punishing, rewarding, and you supplicate or or you have a relationship of fear or reward or guilt. It's not so strong in India because this comes more like a cover on the indigenous relationship with the Divine and mixes in. But you do find even in the last generally, let's say 500 years at least in India, a similar idea of relationship of reward and punishment or fear which is sometimes used. Children would be told, 'watch out, if you do like this then some somebody will get upset'. There's this fellow the word, the name given is Chitragupta, who is writing down whatever you do and later you'll have to face the consequences. You know things like that which have been brought in but they are not native to the Vedic tradition or the Upanishadic tradition even. So the problem is in this concept, the separation of God as an entity, as a being separate from the universe and even in the Biblical tradition, it's put as if he creates the universe but remains separate from it. The problem is you may read the same word God in Sri Aurobindo's writings where it is completely different in meaning or you may read some other text which is a translation from the Vedic texts or Bhagavad Gita where they will translate Bhagavan as God but now you mean something totally different. So even the Sanskrit language itself you will find there are several terms used. There is Brahman which represents the totality of the Reality, capital R, which is the Divine, but in totality, in space, time, beyond space, time, in each form and beyond all form and all this included, all the past, all the present, all the future, including all that could have been in the past, all that could have been in the present, all that might be in the future but will not, all that is included in the totality that is Brahman. You could say that is God. But the problem is the word God could be used in a dozen different ways and you don't have a vocabulary in English. But if you speak in Sanskrit, then you would say Brahman for this aspect of the One which is all.
Sraddhalu (0:07:26):
Or we have another term, you will find Deva in Sanskrit. Deva, the root comes from Div which is light. And so Deva is light being. It is a being of light and it can apply on many levels. Again you have the lower light beings and then the light beings and you may use Deva in its highest sense of the divine as a being of consciousness, of light, of Satchitananda, but as conscious being. And so the sense of illumination is the consciousness that is is all and entirely aware. That is another vocabulary representing an aspect. There is another word used in Sanskrit which is Bhagavan. And Bhagavan has a very different sense. It comes from the Bhaga and Bhagavan is the one who is Bhaga or full of Bhaga, the sense of delight, the sense of enjoyment in immanence. So Bhagavan is the aspect of the Divine which is one with the universe although presiding beyond the universe but one with the universe and enjoying His delight in the whole creation, in the whole spread of the play. Now you will find there is a text of Sri Aurobindo written in Sanskrit in the original which is now called Sri Aurobindo Upanishad, although he never named it as such, but it's written in Upanishadic style. Then he uses all these words, Bhagavan, Deva and a few others. What another name? Just remind me. There are other words like...
[Narad] I don't know.. he uses other words, say Truth consciousness very often, Real Idea...
[Sraddhalu] No, in the Sanskrit, the name of God, what's the other aspect of immanent? What is this? There's another word in Sanskrit which is also used, which is translated as God, no, Ishvara is another term. Isha, Ishvara is the lordship. And again it has the aspect of enjoyment, but it is lordship and the origin of the whole of the universe. Again with a sense of immanence, but here the sense is more of authority. 'All moves to express Him and to serve Him'. So these are all different aspects and we have different names. But in that text of Sri Aurobindo Upanishad, the person who translated, that's the official translation, with all these four different uses of the Divine, he has translated all as God. You read the English, you lose all the delight, all the nuance, all the depth of knowledge is gone. It's so unfortunate. And he was a Sanskrit scholar, but he used his mind to translate, didn't feel deeper. Anyway, but all this is to say that there is a problem with the word God. And the moment you say, 'are they God', it depends what you mean God, it depends what you mean by Vishnu.
[Narad] Or the Divine.
[Sraddhalu] The Divine. And that's where Sri Aurobindo uses this general term, the Divine, to mean. But again it may include many aspects, but here he uses in the most general way. But coming now to the specific form of the question, if you are worshipping Vishnu, are you worshipping God? And so the answer would be, depends on how you conceive of him. If you conceive of Vishnu in that particular manner, then you are limiting him to that conception. Still it may be a window for you to open to something higher. If you have seen any of the TV series or cinema where Narada is represented, he is represented as a cunning manipulator, almost like a joker. It's so sad. And when you read Savitri and you see the sense of wisdom that Narada brings and the sense of the joy of the Divine and in the journey of the Divine, the way he relates the heavens with the earth, he becomes the link point, the intermediary, it's something so beautiful, so uplifting. And you don't get that at all in the TV series or cinema where Narada comes and makes jokes, behaves in a weird, clownish way almost and often creates trouble among people. He is not then the messenger to the gods. And if that's your image of Narada and that's what you're relating to, well that's what you're accessing when you make that prayer. So what is your concept of Vishnu or even when you take Shiva, is one of the options given in the question, Shiva himself has so many aspects and with different names. So there is Shiva, there is Nataraja, there is Rudra, there is Mahadev, Mahesha and I am sure there are a couple of others that I have missed. Each represents a different aspect and Shiva represents the aspect which is the pure, bare, austere, seated on the peaks of Mount Kailash, the snowy peaks, everything around him is pure, white, purity of consciousness, bare, nude, in the open, vast and this is that aspect of the Divine which stands above all, gazing at the whole universe with compassion but standing above in his freedom. But his gaze of compassion fills the whole universe and awakes people, lifts them from their misery. Anybody who prays, he grants instantly the wish that they ask for, is the most generous, the most caring, the most loving and yet he is transcending above all these dualities and limitations and precisely because he is above, he can lean down to help anybody because he acts from his freedom. That's the aspect of Shiva.
Sraddhalu (0:13:30):
And then there is the aspect which is Nataraja, which is the dance and lord of rhythms, which is how you would translate. And Sri Aurobindo describes Nataraja as the power of transformation, because he is the lord of the rhythms and all the rhythms of the universe are his play, his dance. He uses the same term in the Life Divine where he describes how everything is moving in rhythms and cycles and although everything is moving in cycles and rhythms, it is always he who is immanent within them and there's a whole description of this aspect which is action and movement and change and that's why he is the lord of transformation. So which of these and maybe for you use the name in a general way not realising that it represents a particular aspect, just because you were taught that name. So I go to the Nataraja temple and for me that is the same as Shiva. Yes, true because it is the same one Divine but are you conscious of the aspect? Maybe not. Then for you, what it is you can conceive that is your relationship. If you're conscious of an aspect, you're reducing it to that. All this is to say that the name and the form and the aspect to your mind's conception is your first point of contact to the Divine because there are always aspects of the Divine but beyond that form, beyond that aspect, beyond that name is the totality of the Divine and depending on how you conceive, you may enter through that name and reach all the way to the highest and you will still use that one name or you may stop short in your conception and in your relation and that's all it is for you. It all depends on the relationship you set and that's why you will find even in the tradition, even in the Veda, they will take one of these deities and then extol it as if it is the one, the highest and all other deities are aspects of that. Then they will shift to another deity, extol it as the highest and all others are aspects of that. They are just different ways of looking. You take a diamond, let's say it has many facets. The diamond is still one, but you can look at one facet and through that one facet experience the whole diamond. Or you can look at another facet and experience all the other facets as aspects of it. That's your point of contact, your approach. But finally you are meeting the diamond. And if you can go beyond the facet or use the facet as an entry point, window or gateway to the totality that is the Divine, then of course your experience might be very different. Still your experience initially might be limited to the realm of form. So in the Bhagavad Gita, when Sri Krishna reveals his Cosmic form, Arjuna sees not only all the divine beings, but also all the demonic beings and the great asuras are also his forms. Everything in the universe is his form or an aspect of his totality. And he is so overwhelmed by this immensity and the power, he is terrified and he says, please come back to your normal four-arm form. So people have often wondered, did he see Krishna in four-arms? Or maybe perhaps it was the aspect of Vishnu, four-arms which is traditionally for him more acceptable and more easy to relate to. And all of this is to say that your point of contact, your most easy, most close, most intimate relationship and you start with that. And then from there you keep on deepening until you have the totality. For somebody who is a worshipper of strength and power, because that's his nature, he will necessarily start with an aspect of the Divine which represents power and strength. For somebody who is by nature tender and soft and gentle, it will be that aspect which is soft and gentle which will be the entry point. You cannot force the person to accept the Kali or the Rudra aspect and say, Oh! you must accept the purifying and powerful. No, you are not able to. You can't relate to that of the divine. So you start with that which you relate to most deeply, most completely, most intimately, but grow from there knowing that this is only your entry point and the Divine is all these and all these are aspects of the same one.
Sraddhalu (0:18:10):
You will recall in Savitri, Sri Aurobindo describes when the Divine reveals himself to Savitri, it goes something like this, 'all forms were in him..'. Can you remember the line?
[Narad] I can find it.
[Sraddhalu] It is as if, visualise or conceive of this, when the Divine appears before you, all possible forms of Divinity are within His form. And you can see already somewhere, although you accept form, you are already transcending form, because everything is there within the same one. It is the description of such love, such sweetness and such embracing power of love that would be perhaps your way of relating and deepening that.
[Narad] I would feel that how blessed are those who see Mother and Sri Aurobindo as everything!
[Sraddhalu] And then all these are given to us because it allows us to enter in relation. Someone, recently I had a discussion when I was travelling. Someone asked this question, why can't we see God? And so rather than getting, you know, you could approach it in two different ways. I said, what is God? What is the universe in relation to God? If you see the universe as a manifestation of the Divine, everything in the universe is an expression of the Divine, that's God's form, isn't it? So everything you see in the world is God, but it's not the totality of the God, it is an expression of God. But if you stop at the stone and say this is God, you would be making an error. This is the aspect of God as the stone, but there's the aspect of God as the whole universe. Can you see that? Can you embrace that? Already there, you have widened your consciousness. Can you then perceive God beyond this universe? Embracing the universe from outside, from beyond space and time. And there already you have gone beyond. And then can you conceive of the Divineness even beyond that conception? Maybe you fall short, You need form to cling to something. But the point is you can start with the universe itself as a form and go all the way to that. But it's easiest at first for us, to relate through a form that is human-like. And it is most easy if the Divine takes birth in human form and caresses you and says, my child. And so you had that benefit when you bowed down before the Mother. But not everybody may have that physical contact of her touch and affection today. Nevertheless, you may still experience the same sense of closeness and intimacy because that's the form through which we meet most easily the Divine. So your starting point really is that which your heart calls you to most deeply. The question is also asked, is are Sri Aurobindo and the Mother Divine then? Well, if you experience the Divinity within them, then yes, they are Divine for you. If you didn't experience it, you feel that they are great teachers, well, they are great teachers for you. But I, in my own experience, to experience the Divine in them and through them, I found most fulfilling, more fulfilling than merely teachers because at that point they are not only teachers, they are also the experience of the Divine which they pour into you as you open to them. But someone else may have that same experience with another form or another name which is equally valid, if that's what they are opening to. So to me at some point the name and the form become almost irrelevant. They are almost as if gateways through which you meet the Divine.
Sraddhalu (0:22:11):
I don't know if I ever shared here the experience I had with seeing the Mother in a temple. Did I ever share that with you?
[Narad] You did once, yes, but it needs to be shared again.
[Sraddhalu] Okay. I was travelling in Chandigarh with a friend and he was a businessman and he said I have to do my morning puja, so the nearest major temple was the temple of Mansa Devi. So I said okay. He said I hope you don't have a problem. I said no. I feel embarrassed to say it. I actually said 'yeah, I feel like an ambassador. I go wherever, any deity'. Today I laugh at, how petty that idea was. Anyway, so we go in, this is huge queue and he goes from the back, goes straight where people are coming out, he walks straight in, goes and stands in front of the sanctum sanctorum, 45 minutes with eyes closed doing his prayers and meanwhile the queue is going on next to us, nobody stops us. And I was at that time in a kind of a difficult situation and I felt that, you know, I felt as if I'm not feeling Mother's presence and I feel she has abandoned me. So I was going through a bit of an internal struggle. And I'm looking inside, what is there? It's all dark. And then I can make out barely the form of the idol. And suddenly I notice the eyes are blinking. Hey, what's that? It must be dark. I look carefully, I can see clearly the form and the eyes are blinking. So I look away, blink my eyes, look back, adapt my eyes to the darkness and yes, the eyes are blinking, the face is smiling. And after a while I realised, my God, this is Mother's face. The mother, as I know her here, same face, smiling, eyes blinking, and just the head and I said 'okay, so you just showed me that I thought you'd abandoned me, you're right here and you're everywhere, okay' and what a strange thing I looked away look back and the form is still there. Now of the 45 minutes that my friend was doing his prayer, I was stuck there up to about 35 minutes, I'm looking at this eyes blinking smiling and, 'okay, I got the satisfaction, yes she is there, I should never allow these thoughts to come in' and then just as if to ram home the message in case I have any doubt suddenly the lights come on. There was a power failure, I didn't know that so normally in temples they don't allow lights inside, modern temples they do everything so I'd assumed it was dark because it was a traditional temple, but now the lights come on inside, the tube light goes blink blink blink, brightly lit and I'm seeing Mother's form smiling face eyes blinking, soft, full of love, I am looking at her with full light for five minutes and again I look away, look back and then bit by bit it's as if the form is becoming less and less fluid more and more rigid until at the end of about five minutes the form became completely different and it was almost like a longish head like that, completely different and it was marble, fixed form, no more any movement. But it took about five minutes to kind of settle in full illumination. And again this was to satisfy my rational mind and physical senses. And the third thing happened when the light came on, there a tape recorder going which had also got stuck because there was no power and so suddenly the music blared and it was the mantra, 'Om Anandamayi Chaitanyamayi Satyamayi Parame' sung by Jagjit Singh, on a commercial cassette. Mantra given by Sri Aurobindo to the Mother, I mean invoking the mother, playing in a traditional temple. At that moment when I most needed the conviction in my physical consciousness and so I'm watching for five minutes as this face gradually settles down and at the end of that, about 40 minutes have been over, my friend opens his eyes, he's finished his prayer, he missed all the fun and then he tells me I had the best meditation I've ever had in many years. I said, 'yeah if you'd opened your eyes', okay I didn't say that, but I thought to myself and then we came away.
Sraddhalu (00:26:39):
And this was one of those unusual experiences where you realise how silly our ideas are of different deities, different forms and this whole hierarchy of.. Everything is an aspect of the Divine Mother and through any form she can act, including a stone, including a little pet dog or a bird or a tree, everything is forms of Herself and through them She can act freely. And all those things, wrong ideas or limited ideas faded out. So for me somehow the name no more has a meaning. You go anywhere, you invoke the Mother's presence, you feel her, she's always there, she looks at you through a form, she looks at you beyond form. The empty space is one of her forms also. So you look around and it is she who fills it as much. So there were other experiences later more along these lines which then finally permanently dissolved the whole problem of names and forms. So coming back to the question itself, you start with that which is closest to you in relation to the Divine but don't stop with that. Let the experience deepen, let the relationship deepen until it includes all forms and even goes beyond forms. And that's when you will know the way the Divine wants to reveal Himself. Isn't it? This is one of the special features of the Integral Yoga. Sri Aurobindo points out, we have to realise the Divine in all His aspects, in all His statuses and in the One in which all these are included and that's and then only you have the integral realisation. Anything else falls short. But coming to the specific personalities of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, again the error we make is to fixate on the body form. What is Mother's form really? If she steps out of her physical body really, is she any less the Mother? In her subtle body, is she really bound to that form? Is it not more fluid? Is it not therefore more expressive of so much more? So there is the experience which is narrated, my teacher narrated it because he took the message to the Mother. There was a westerner who had come here for the darshan, and after the darshan he said, God she is so beautiful, I saw and he described a very young woman and Mother was in her 90s already by that time. So when Panditji reported to the Mother he said, she said, 'yes he saw my subtle body' and she was of course able to reveal herself in her subtle body. If you were just open enough she would show you her subtle body rather than a physical body and when she has left her physical body that's the form in which she is. Well, what form is that? And if for you that form is not recognizable, you will see her in the form most natural to you, isn't it? Because that's how you can relate to her. And if someone has the memory of meeting the Mother when she was 90, they would expect to meet her in that form only, and that's how they would perceive her. But she herself is beyond that form and includes all the traditional forms also. So somebody goes with an expectation of meeting Durga in the image as an artist painted which is stuck on the wall of their house in their room. That's my Durga. Well, that's what they will see in the Mother because that's the way he can receive most or she can connect most deeply with him. So another example of this was from one of the persons we knew in the United States. She was born in a Christian family. Her mother was Christian. Her mother was Christian and her father had passed away. They were in the ceremony. The coffin was laid in the church and the ceremony was going on. And at that time she was praying to the Mother and she saw the Mother standing next to the coffin in a gesture of reassurance, indicating that she has taken charge, nothing to worry. And at the same time her mother, who is a traditional Christian, holds her by the hand and says, look, look, there is Virgin Mary. So, to what form, what name is irrelevant. And then there is of course still the duality you can see as the aspect of the Shakti or the Ishwara and then even there is the experience where the two join and there is only one who can be seen in both aspects.
Narad (0:31:26):
Very briefly, I saw Mother in her new body. And it was the most incredible experience. And once, she took me by the hand, I have to call it a dream experience, and she took me to the edge of the worlds. And she raised her other hand and she said to me, 'I have shown you the diversity in order that you may realise the unity'.
Sraddhalu (0:31:41):
Good, good!
[Narad] Should we move on?
[Sraddhalu] So the question was, are they God?
Narad (0:32:11):
Yes, are they God? And the same as God.
Sraddhalu (0:32:14):
Yes. I suppose I think the answer is more than complete. But to come to the other question which was also asked, is Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, Kalki avatar? You have to recognize the tradition of avatarhood with that particular sequence of ten avatars is relatively recent. The concept of Avatar of course, is ancient concept and a deep truth which is universal. Every planet, wherever there is life evolving, there is not one but many Avatars. At every significant step in evolution, there has been an avatar which came to assist in that step. Does it have to be ten? No. But broadly, in the way it is structured in that Puranic tradition, obviously stages of evolution. The fish, the tortoise, the four-footed animal, then half-man, half-human, and the physical man, vital man, and the sattvic mind which is Sri Rama, and Sri Krishna representing what Sri Aurobindo calls the overmental consciousness. And then Buddha is added in that list, representing, as Mother said, the possibility of stepping out of evolution completely and entering the transcendence, by-passing evolution. But because it is such a powerful experience it has even the effect of warping the normal evolutionary process. So it creates a very powerful pull to get out, which you see in the ascetic traditions thereafter. But the Kalki then is described in that, say, puranic texts. Puranic texts are much more recent already, so in that particular text, he is described as riding a white horse with a sword to destroy evil. And I think it is the Mother who explains the symbolism. She says horse is the power that he comes for realisation and the white is the purity, a spiritual power, and the sword is the sword of knowledge with which he cuts ignorance. Now at that point Champaklalji asks her, 'but Mother, in the tradition it is said that he will have a limp on his left leg'. Mother becomes very serious and then she says, perhaps it is the collective suggestion which is the cause of Sri Aurobindo's accident. Interesting, I found them very interesting. If in the human receptive base there is the demand that the Divine fit into that mould, it's almost as if it forces any Divine manifestation into that. And that's the reality. That's the nature of the avatar's work that he has to connect his consciousness to the whole of humanity and then bring in this new dimension, this new consciousness for humanity as an evolutionary power. It's not enough if he experiences it in his own consciousness and goes because it does not affect the collective evolution. He has to connect himself to the evolution and then the collective demand, the collective expectation, the collective ignorance is of course like a hold on him, even pulling him and the struggle of his. "Hard is the world redeemer's task", in Savitri.
Narad (0:35:48):
"The cross they payment for the crown they gave,
only they leave behind a splendid name". Oh!
Sraddhalu (0:35:55):
But he explains there also, he has to take the suffering of humanity on himself. Otherwise how can he help? Those lines are also very moving. So the question being now to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, very simply, an avatar is one who brings a new step in evolution, a new consciousness which was not there in evolution. It's always there in the cosmos but not in the earth evolution. And if you see Sri Aurobindo's work which was to bring down the supramental consciousness, which had not been established so far, well then he fits the definition of an avatar. The second aspect of the definition of the avatar is that he is conscious of his Divinity. Otherwise he is a vibhuti. He represents a certain power, a certain aspect, does his work. At best at the time of withdrawal he is aware that he came for that mission and leaves, but he represents an aspect for a limited specific work. Like Joan of Arc would be a vibhuti for the specific situation in France, for that particular situation or other such you will find across the world. Lincoln? I don't know. Washington? Perhaps, yes. They each had something extraordinary. There may be greater vibhutis, partial vibhutis. One of the greatest you see is the example of Leonardo da Vinci. Yes. Who, Mother, Sri Aurobindo explains this, that he had to embody in one person, the entire mould of the modern mind. So it had to be not only a rational mind, but the whole field of exploration of that mind, of all the sciences, of biology, of all the arts and everything which had to be developed in one person. It is superhuman. Try to do one-tenth of what he did within the energy and capacity you have you will struggle even to match one-tenth or one hundredth. How did he even do it? what kind of energy and genius he had? Well that's the whole point of the Vibhuti, he is as if in the existing human mould, infusing a capacity and then of course imprinting it as a potential and giving that push for evolution, but in a very limited mode and a limited aspect, not a new consciousness altogether. So yes, Sri Aurobindo fits that definition also that he was conscious of his divinity. And there is one other aspect since we are on this topic, it is interesting to share this. There were people who saw Sri Aurobindo in subtle forms and sometimes the forms were not quite matching his physical form and he referred to it, he said, 'yes these are some of the aspects' and then in one of the letters he writes, 'I don't have as many aspects as the Mother has'. He has very few, he says. There there is another person who during the Second World War there were people on the battlefield who saw Sri Aurobindo and some who recognized him in the form. You know Sri Aurobindo's photos were not published until after he left his body. There were no photos until he left his body. Before that up to 1920 or so you have photos. So nobody had seen him in his later age. And so there was this person who saw Sri Aurobindo on the battlefield repeatedly appearing before him and his name was John Kelly and later when he saw after Sri Aurobindo left his body he saw the photo in the life divine, he recognized him came and met the Mother and recognized her in the form he had seen also.
Narad (0:40:36):
Heavenly lady and great Sir. He called Sri Aurobindo, great Sir. He was my very close friend. We both lived in New York City. He would tell this story to everyone, how Sri Aurobindo made him out of the war. His company was almost decimated. There were very few left. The Germans were on a height and they were just shelling down on them. Sri Aurobindo said, you go this way. And he said, well, no, first Sri Aurobindo says to him, 'if my religion you should choose, then your religion you must lose'. And John says, oh gosh, this is a tennis match now, or ping pong game, what am I going to say now? And so he says, okay, I'll do it. And Sri Aurobindo says, 'go this way' and he leads him out and at one point Sri Aurobindo says, 'go right' and John says, 'I'm just going to go left this time' and a bullet grazes his cheek, he said, 'okay I got the message'.
Sraddhalu (0:40:40):
It is amazing that whole description is published as a book, get hold of it if you like, it's called 'Great Sir and Heavenly Lady' and by Maggie. In detail! Sri Aurobindo would say,'wait, wait', and then a bomb would fall and he would say 'now run', to that detail. He was brought out of the most dangerous situations. At one point he was about to shoot the lock of a train and Sri Aurobindo stops him saying 'danger, danger'. So he stops, they break the lock inside, it was full of dynamite. They would have blown up the whole thing if they had just shot it. So a series of experiences. Finally he decides he wants to die and Sri Aurobindo pulls him out of his body, brings him here to the ashram. So in his subtle body he comes to the room. Sri Aurobindo brings him to the Mother, makes him bow down before her in the subtle body and they tell him, 'you are not allowed to die now. You still have work to do'. And send him back and put him back in his body and he gets up and continues his journey. It's an amazing story because it shows you the extent to which they would intervene where necessary. It's not that it was necessary everywhere. This was the battle between light and darkness and human evolution was at stake. They had to be there in action. But again, you know, the human mind tends to reduce. So if Sri Aurobindo was helping him, well, he couldn't be helping someone else, right? The way it works is, in his consciousness, he is embracing the whole earth, including every single human being is within him, in the Mother's consciousness and each one who turns, experiences them uniquely with them and may see them in a form, human form if needed. So each one will say, 'I have Mother before me', each one will say that and yet she is one who is embracing them all together. So the sense of form is only how it emerges from that consciousness which is cosmic, to be able to offer you a link point, to be able to relate to her. So again we come back to this discussion and so I'll end with this deep idea. And if she appears before somebody who needs a Christian familiarity, he will see her as Virgin Mary, somebody else will say in their tradition and if somebody believes the Divine as formless, they will experience the presence in formless because the Divine is all these at the same time and beyond all these. So this whole question of are they the avatar is irrelevant. Yes they are manifestation for that work, they are a special embodiment of the Divine Consciousness who came, but they are not bound to that form in which you see the photographs. The very nature of the work makes them available to all humanity in the form you wish to see them in. Isn't it? Otherwise they wouldn't be able to help you. So is Sri Aurobindo and the Mother the Avatar? Yes. But is that the only way to know them? No. They are the Divine and there is only the Divine. And you can meet the Divine in whatever way, you feel most naturally drawn to. Mother even made this statement to Huta. Towards the end when she was already preparing to leave her body, she says, you know, after I leave the body, there will be no Mother and Sri Aurobindo. There will be only the Truth. And that's it. And that's what we have to look at. There is only one Divine consciousness, the Divine Mother, the divine Ishwara, Lord, and you relate to either or both, and you meet them in the form that you feel most comfortable and familiar and complete. And for many of us here, it is in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother that we actually saw that Divinity and even saw the familiar deities. And so that's for us the most natural way to relate to them. And yes, they include all these and transcend all these.
Narad (0:45:09):
There is a beautiful story of the two children in France walking along the road and the parents are in front of them and a bomb hits and kills both parents. And the children cry to the Virgin Mary for milk. And Mother said, I had to come and get the milk. When we would meet with John in different places, he would always tell the same story and he would tell it word for word. All of his experience. He was only 17 I believe when he was conscripted into the army. 17 and then he became leader of the squadron, and at that age.
Sraddhalu (0:45:56):
Yes, yes. Actually we got diverted with the story. There was another incident also, somebody in the Romanian army who saw Sri Aurobindo. Silvio Craciunas, who documented it in his book called, The Lost Footsteps. And there he is over two pages he recalls how he was being tortured and the pain was so great but he had to hold back because he knew all the secrets. He was a top level intelligence chief and at that point he finds himself pulled out of his body and he meets somebody next to a Kali temple, dark form, seated, cross-legged, who takes him through that phase of two weeks of suffering. He hears his body screaming in pain and he is sitting with this Yogi. And at the end of it, when it's time, the person says, okay, now I have to go, I won't meet you again. So he says, but what is your name? I know you are somewhere on earth. So he records in the book and he writes the name O-R-O-B-I-N-D-O-G-O-S. Aurobindo Ghosh, he heard as Orobin-Dogos. And then later when he was shown a photograph of Sri Aurobindo which was a 1920s photo, he said, ‘no, it's not that man’. So there was some difference in the form, that's why my point was that there is a difference in form when you meet on those levels depending on your expectation or the aspect of the Divine which you meet, or the aspect of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother that you meet, but with the name it was very clear who it was.
Narad (0:47:42):
He came here, can you tell a little about that? He met Mother.
Sraddhalu (0:47:46):
I didn’t know that.
Narad (0:47:47):
He did meet Mother once, but I don't have any more information on that.
Sraddhalu (0:47:51):
Oh, I didn't know. I see, I see. Interesting.
[Narad] Namaste.