EWS #81 Questions from Viewers (24)  - on Spiritual Life - 4

Aug 28, 2021

Alina (0:00:28):
Namaste, good evening everyone. Welcome to the continuing series, Evenings with Sraddhalu. Today we will continue part four on spiritual life and we will begin with several questions received from our viewers about different paths and teachers and then we return to the theme of the psychic continuing from the last time. My name is Alina and together with Joel we will host this live streaming. Namaste Joel.

[Joel] Namaste Alina.

[Alina] Namaste Sraddhalu and welcome.

[Sraddhalu] Namaste and happy to be here.

We are happy to be back and we thank all our viewers for watching the stream online session with us. Today I will begin with a few single questions received from our viewers and then we will continue on the topic of the psychic being. First, we have one message from Alok. Alok is writing, in one of his talks, Sraddhalu spoke about the end of the Abrahamic religions. He referred to a Christian prophecy that the current Pope would be the last. Also, it is observed that the days of organised religions are going to be over. How is it going to influence the world order? How will the end of religions affect the world? This is from a past video you have uploaded and I think it's a good question to start.

Sraddhalu (0:02:29):

In a prior discussion I had spoken about different traditions which are prophesying as if their own end and in the Christian tradition there was a Pope who was known to be very mystical, who had written down as if seeing in form of a prophecy or vision all the future Popes to come. The names that he wrote for each were supposed to be symbolic. I do not remember now the exact number, more than a hundred popes and many of those apparently as a symbol have been right and the present Pope is supposed to be the last in the series after which implied is that there are no further Popes or at least the prophetic vision could not see further. Similarly in a certain lineage of mystical Islam, in a Sufi tradition there is a famous prophecy where the mystic says that a thousand years from now and this is a thousand years ago that he says this, when man steps on the moon Islam will rise to its highest and then it will fade away. There is a similar idea in some of the Indian traditions that there is a time when a Kalki avatar comes and it's as if the series of the avatars which are supposed to be ten they just end. There are no further avatars, at least that's how it seems. This idea that the kind of an end comes and after which either there is some sudden change, return of Christ, return of Imam Mahdi or the 10th avatar, after which there is a complete shift, a complete change. This idea is suggestive of a radical change, beyond which they could not foresee. In the Mayan tradition we have similarly the famous dating which came to 2012 as the end of a cycle and then obviously implied is the beginning of a new cycle but this was interpreted by many to mean end of the world and in the sessions I used to have before 2012 I would tell everybody don't worry 2012 December 21st will be just another beautiful day and life continues and of course that's how it has been.

But this is just to say that the prophecies are only suggested. Last time I had mentioned how the Mother spoke of a certain transition which has already happened she says what this prophecy is intended. All this is to give a background of the Popes and the end of the religious forms or at least the supremacy of religions. What's the problem with religions as we see today, there is a large formed belief system often defined by a clergy supposedly ascribed to an originator but frozen in time because of a book or an institution which needs to live by certain fixed ideas and that is then imposed on a group, ideally on all of humanity as they would foresee to be or wanted to be. This obviously has serious problems because it suffocates the individual needs of each individual to grow along the line of their Swabhava, their natural temperament and their natural line of spiritual evolution. We see this way from the more dharmic traditions and by dharmic traditions, the traditions which accept that there are many paths or many approaches to the Divine, largely centred within India. But from the other side, the Abrahamic traditions, this idea that each one can follow their own path is unbelievable, unacceptable. There has to be a monotone. And this is where the problem starts. The moment a system says I alone am right, all others are wrong, then it gets into trouble because the truth is not one-sided.

Sraddhalu (0:07:29):

This is all to say that the direction in which these fixed religions have always gone is inevitably time bound. Swami Vivekananda describes the end of religions in this way:  each religion will tend to divide itself to distinguish specific aspects which are necessary for a different group of people and each group then further subdivides until eventually each person ends up with their own religion and that becomes spirituality. It's a very interesting way of looking at it. So the days of organised religions are over. It's already late even for people to want to fit into a box of this kind. It's a mental box really. How is it going to influence the world order? Well very simply more and more people are thinking, feeling and pursuing a practice which is more and more specific to their need and if you combine it with our earlier discussions on the subjective age there is a subjectivism innate to this whole effort. Even within the religious traditions as you see numbers of followers declining and institutions weakening they work harder to impose their influence so that struggle inevitably has to go a certain direction. How does the end of religions affect the world? I'm not sure it will really take that form. I don't think you will have one day people saying oh now all religions are ended. Instead what will happen is the religions themselves will either tend to break up, weaken or will eventually adapt to this need and within the religious tradition itself there will be a recognition of special needs for different people and they will tend to become less rigid, more soft, more embracing and accepting of variations and what you will see is groups of people using the name of a religion but still following largely their own line of development which is what I see happening for example in the West where a lot of people earlier used to introduce themselves as I am a recovering Catholic, meaning I went through a period of great distress following the church narrow form of teaching, broke out of it, found my own say and then whatever it is they did.

But what you see now more and more is people turning to a form of a mystical Christianity which would be the core teaching quite different from the church's fixed form, a core teaching which is more living and more real which may still view Christ or certain elements of the Christianity as necessary but the forms of it would become much more flexible and adaptive. I see a similar movement among all the Sufi teachers and followers that I have met over the last decade or so and I found a similar idea there that each Sufi lineage recognized a certain universality in the teaching and yet each lineage has its own special facet, some emphasising the devotional, some emphasising the knowledge, some emphasising the works aspect and you will see they all tend to fall into the broad categories which are the different systems of yoga in any case. So what I see is a blending taking place where yoga knowledge and core spiritual approaches and principles, filling in to formal religious structures, softening them or even creating distinct subgroups and rigid structures breaking down but then acquiring this softer forms. It's moving from both directions, a kind of an osmosis mix. So I don't think it will end in a radical shift just as today you might look at certain religious orders as being too closed, too rigid and yet your practitioners bound in those and maybe numbers are in a few hundred and maybe they may fade out also or a few may remain holding on to some idea which is very distinctive which is what allows for that particular extreme form to still exist. So I do believe we will have many such religious subgroups or at least in name, they would be those groups. I See more as a transition feeding out. I think we can go to the next.

Alina (0:12:18):

Okay, Rohan wrote us a beautiful letter saying, ‘there have been many Western neo-spiritual channels and websites that have cropped up lately, where the content creators, authors, claim to be extraterrestrials, entities or starseeds which identify themselves as non-human types, and confidently acknowledge their real place of dwelling in other planets such as Venus, Andromeda, Pleiades, Arturia, etc. I have been fascinated by their content because although the language and terminologies that they use are cryptic, the gist of their teachings and message is very spiritual and positive and confirmed with the reality on the material plane. My question is that as a Sanatani and a disciple of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo, how do I reconcile with such an appealing source of the knowledge. They talk about the transition from 3D to 5D, which is more like stationing one's consciousness from vital body to higher mind and higher ranges. And there's much more knowledge. Please guide us the truth behind such people who identify themselves as extraterrestrial’. It's a very controversial subject.

Sraddhalu (0:14:09):
Fascinating. Because there is a kind of selective attraction to this idea, extraterrestrials, teaching you maybe something about reality or even spirituality. I have looked at many many of these over the years and I found a common pattern among all of them which is I think one of the points Rohan makes that they often use a terminology which is cryptic, but they play with what will bring a greater following and some of them claim to be channelling an extraterrestrial being which is as good as any other channeler because you can never verify. Others claim to be themselves extraterrestrial. So I have a very simple response to that. How does it change the value of the teaching? Whether you claim to be from another planet or from the earth. If you claim to be a Martian or let's that's not so interesting Andromeda, Pleiades these are more interesting ideas. So if you have come from the Pleiades let's say, how does it change the value of what you teach? If an earthling were to go to Pleiades with his current ignorance and claim to be from earth and say so I'm bringing superior knowledge than you have, would that be true? Why is it not possible that a Pleiadian could be also ignorant or having exactly the same issues as an earthling with ignorance and then claim to be special.

So my point is first, where they come from makes no difference to the value of the teaching. You have to assess the value of the teaching in itself independent of what is claimed. Second, if they were actually from some other civilization with some superior knowledge, why don't they give you the superior knowledge or evidence it in a way that would fundamentally change your life. For example, reveal the technology by which we can acquire free energy. If they did that because they're supposed to have that, if they did that, that would be evidence that they're bringing something of greater value at least technologically, may not be still spiritually. But if they were actually from another planet and could prove it, the first thing that would happen is the intelligence agencies would kidnap them and put them under experimentation. So again I don't believe any of them are actually from some other planet. Straightaway I would reject that claim itself. While I don't say it's not possible, certainly it is possible. But then the value of the teaching has to be seen in itself not because of their claim of where they come from. Then look at the teaching itself. The message as you say is very spiritual and positive necessarily. Otherwise you can't have a following. Think of it from the perspective of an individual who wants to build a cult following. Can they give a negative message? Nobody is going to last very long as a follower. So it has to be positive. Can there be a non-spiritual message? They know the age is looking for its deeper spiritual truths. So they fit into the mould required for the age. Feed in the kind of information that sounds right or which is currently fashionable in the new age circles. But if you watch them long enough after a few years when the fashion changes either they adapt to the new fashion or they die off. They don't stay for long as a movement. It's interesting and the moment you see them adapting to a fashion you know that what they bring is not of any lasting value.

Third, look at the core message. Of course all of them will say things like you should do good, some of them will say you should do more good than bad and whatever. But is it morality or Spirituality? What is the Spiritual content of the message? What is the Spiritual practice even required or the goal of the practice? Is it Self-realisation or attaining to the direct experience of the Divine. If not, they are as good as any other human made New Age movements. Again, no special value there. And then if they need to claim to be Arcturian just to build a following then I will say well that discounts real value for me. If the message does not have intrinsic value and you have to create fancy propaganda then I would question the value of the message itself. And finally, is the teaching one of manifesting spirituality in life which is life transforming or merely passing through life and waiting to be elevated into some fourth dimension, fifth dimension, third vibrations, sixth vibration or whatever it is their term for some extra physical reality heaven-like of the religions but now they don't use heaven they create whatever vibrational or dimensional change in which suddenly you will be taken up and elevated and all the bad people would be removed and you live in a beatific heavenly state. Isn't that the same old story of the religious promises now coming in a different packaging which is more scientific sounding and if that's all their message is then I'm sorry it has no value at all. You can see how there's a repackaging of terminology but nothing fundamentally new. Unfortunately everything that I have seen so far is of this kind.

Sraddhalu (0:20:10):

The questioner Rohan says they talk of 3D to 5D which is more like stationing one's consciousness in the vital body and mind and higher ranges. Well that's how you interpreted it. Look at the literature in precision. What is meant by that 4D or 5D? Read the description carefully. Does it actually correspond to higher mind or illumined mind or intuitive mind? Not really. All we describe is a higher state of vibration into which you are elevated if you live by whatever life you are required to and often it is done automatically. There will be a galactic alignment, certain frequencies will come, certain waves of energy will come and you will be elevated on such and such a date or whatever the teaching is. It's not one of growth of consciousness really. And all of these are clear markers that it's just another reconstruction. Maybe the person preaching may be genuine in intention and may be misled by some channelled knowledge or inspired knowledge. I don't know. But in practice I have not found anything to be truly worthwhile. Yes, some of them do have interesting insights, some of them go into stories about the past of things that happened on earth a million years ago or two million may be true may not be you have no way of verifying. Some of them will tell you stories of Atlantis, could be total fantasy. No way of verifying but unless it has an practical value in transforming consciousness, I would not find it worthwhile to spend too much energy in those. I have, and I can see this having done it long enough, that I didn't find anything truly worthwhile so far.

Alina (0:21:53):
Okay, maybe we can move to another few questions which we received from our viewers with the same topic. So, Harshit writing, can one have multiple gurus on the path? Like, I feel inclined towards X and the Mother. How to find one's own guru? Another question related from Rohit, what do you think about the popular mystics in India like X and such? Do you think they are helping the mass and the current world situation? Amit is writing, people like Ken Wilber are digesting and then offering Sri Aurobindo's thoughts as their own, sometimes with distortions and then criticising Sri Aurobindo, how can this be prevented?

Sraddhalu (0:22:55):
Okay. So all three questions deal with different paths, different popular movements and differences or conflicts between them and so I would cluster them together generally but I'll pick up the aspects of the questions as we go along. The first question from Harshith is can one have multiple gurus on this path meaning the integral yoga? The answer I will say is depends on your definition of guru. What do you understand by that word? If by guru you mean somebody who's giving out useful knowledge, helpful suggestions, guidelines, insights, yes, of course, you can have multiple teachers. I'll use the word generally. But if by guru you mean somebody who has a direct Spiritual living knowledge and experience of the goal which is sought and is able to transmit it to you and assist you actively in the path then you can't have two or more.

You see fundamentally the two different people living the same experience would not happen or let's say they are in the same path with the same values that might happen but then they would not be gurus they would be each representatives of a certain teaching. So I will use a, I will draw from the Sanskrit vocabulary using several words for the word teacher in English. We have in Sanskrit the word shikshak. Shikshak is somebody who gives lessons, shiksha. So you go to let's say class 10, the maths teacher comes, writes down something on the board, gives you a lesson. He knows what he is talking about or if he is a history teacher, he doesn't even know what he is talking about. He is repeating what he has learned, reading a book to pass an exam. Okay, but he gives you a lesson and make sure you learn the same lesson that he learned and it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Unfortunately this is the case for most of the teachers in all branches of knowledge even if it's Maths they often don't know they just repeat what's in the book. What I mean by no is really no, for example when a teacher tells you one plus one is equal to two, you repeat you pass an exam, but you could ask the teacher why is 1 plus 1 equals to 2 and not 3. So you could of course say it's obvious, are you a fool? Why are you asking such a silly question? But if you enter mathematics truly there's an entire perhaps book-sized dissertation demonstrating why 1 plus 1 is equal to 2 or what would happen if it was not equal to 2. It's one of those fundamental things of reality and can you conceive of a universe where 1 plus 1 is something else or put it another way if you take 1 plus 2 is equal to 3, 2 plus 1 should be equal to and you say of course it's 3. No not necessarily, it's not obvious. There are mathematics where a plus b is different from b plus a and it's a whole different world especially when you're dealing with infinities. For example if you say 1 plus infinity is equal to the infinite but infinity plus 1 it's a different order of infinity. It's a whole different domain of mathematics and the teacher who is telling you what A plus B should be B plus A does not know. It is beyond his competence perhaps. This is just to say that teachers or a shikshak does not need to be master of the knowledge that they give a lesson from.

Sraddhalu (0:27:17):

The second type is Adhyapakar is a term used in Sanskrit is somebody who so to say hand holds you through a process not just giving you a lesson and then say do it he hand holds you so he leads you through a practice let's say you're practising asanas the person does the asanas with you and shows you by doing I've seen yoga teachers who will sit on a chair with a very let's say unhealthy body who will tell the students okay now you do this now you do that. If the student asks do I do it this way or the other he will say look up on the internet. Yes there are such teachers also. But adhyapaka is one who goes with this would be a shiksha. Adhyapaka is one who actually practises and does it with you. But he doesn't need to be of a higher standard. Pandit is another term which is used to describe somebody who has a lot of knowledge. Acharya is even greater, somebody who demonstrates by example what you should become, necessarily of a higher grade than you. So a lot of great teachers would be in the category of acharya. Some of them would be pandits with great knowledge not necessarily demonstrating the practice themselves. The acharya lives it and if you have a contact with somebody of that grade well just the contact helps you, inspires you and assists. But he need not be a perfect representative of the teaching. He may be a representative of what it's like to be on the path and that's about it. A Guru is of a completely different grade. The Guru first of all has to live the teaching and of a certain order that you can actually say, ah yes at least that approaches the goal of the teaching and more important he enters in a relationship with you where he takes responsibility for your journey, not only hand-holding, not only being an example but actually lifting and carrying you and pushing you where necessary. To be able to do that he must be already of a certain foundation and grounded in a foundation on the higher level that he can pull you or push you lift you or reach into you and remove a distortion remove a veil or insert an experience imprint an experience awaken something these are direct interventions by which your ignorance is removed and you're lifted or carried in the path. How many do you know who do that? When you look at these, you've used the word multiple Gurus, how many do you actually know who can do that?

Sraddhalu (0:30:12):

I am going to give a few examples here. I will avoid ticklings but I want to describe certain patterns, let's say of behaviour, primarily because it's important for us to be able to distinguish. It does not help to be politically correct and say each one is doing their own good work. Yes, of course that's true in a general way. But we need to distinguish what is the nature of the good work and where it falls short. And so I want to give a few examples without necessarily taking names or I will take a few names only where it concerns an appreciation. So think about this role of a Guru, truly what that means. If you were to meet such a Guru who is capable in their path whatever that lineage or that path is of doing this, would he accept you as a disciple? If you were to accept more than a certain number of disciples, would he be able to pay attention enough to look after them. Think about what that means. Let's say you have that capacity to help people intervene in their consciousness change and lift them. How many people do you think you could take on with that responsibility? You cannot have a million followers because you don't have the time or the energy to manage the million. And here I will take the example, a positive example of one of the persons I genuinely, deeply respect and admire as a spiritual guru and teacher, although he may not use that word. And I mentioned before in some of the talks, somebody by the name of Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee. He is a teacher in a Sufi lineage, based in the US. worth it for you to see some of his writings and his website, deeply inspiring and in one of the conversations that I had with him he said to me something like he has about 700 or 800 students and that's it. He said, I can't manage more.

He takes students only when guided or when he sees a certain responsibility and if the student does not live up to the demand of the path, he simply says look I don't have time to give you, you have to leave if you cannot make this little effort. But to those who he has taken on, he will intervene actively in a way that when the student meets or sometimes even without them meeting physically, the student will receive a message saying you are not doing this, this is your lack, this is the difficulty, you must work to overcome this or they receive an active help where he appears in various forms sometimes in the dream or even through a message, say giving a nudge or a push but numbers, not possible to go beyond 7, 800, maybe another hundred or two you could add but a thousand is already such a huge burden if you are actively looking after all these disciples, Spiritually responsible for them.

So the moment you see somebody who is presented as a guru with a very large number of followers, well they don't really come in that category of the strict definition of guru. They don't take responsibility for their disciples, they may not even know their followers and I won't use the word disciple anymore. So at that point they may drop in my listing from guru to perhaps acharya. So they set an example they say here do this, you are inspired, you follow or not but it's not a guru then. Of course the word guru is largely today misused, loosely used. There used to be a website some 10 years ago which offered gurus of various types. You know, gurus for teaching mathematics, gurus for teaching artificial intelligence, guru for any scientific or technological knowledge. Yeah, that's not guru. That's shikshak perhaps, adhyapaka perhaps, even pandit perhaps, but not guru. If you use the word strictly, then you will not find too many and most of them who are there will avoid publicity like plague for this very reason because you cannot really manage a large number of disciples, you can't take so much responsibility, it's physically not possible. If you remember even in the Sri Aurobindo ashram from the early days, the number of disciples that Sri Aurobindo had were in a few dozen. It grew to be 200 which is quite a large community from a Spiritual point of view for a concentrated Spiritual practice and only much later in the 40s, the numbers grew with the coming of so many refugees. But they did not come as disciples, they came as devotees. They came as people with devotion, not really dedicating to the sadhana and the practice of yoga. The Mother accepted them because she was the mother. She said I can't send them away, you know, they are my children. And then there was a distinction of the concentrated practitioners of the sadhana and then the others who were merely devotees. And what does a devotee seek? Well, I give my devotion, I feel good to receive the blessing. I have my darshan. I felt nice, I am happy to just feel nice, but don't ask me to do much.

Sraddhalu (0:35:46):

So what you will see in many of these large popular movements, a lot of followers, devotees, but rarely disciples. Or the discipline is simplified. Here is an XYZ branded name practice, do this every day. Often they involve some form of pranayama which is modified to be more distinctive to let's say that particular group because you have to brand yourself with the USP and then you follow that you spend your 5-10 minutes doing their fixed practice and that's it. What else is required of you? Well you offer your devotion to the guru, you send the money to the institution that's about it. So spiritually that could have limited value or even no value. So comes down to the point of what is the path itself aiming at? Are these aiming at a spiritual realisation? Most of them are not. They aim at a moral change, self-improvement, bit of ethical improvement, do good, change society, clean up the roads, clean up the rivers, speak of friendship and harmony between religions. But what do you do actively in terms of Spiritual change? If the teacher were to demand a spiritual effort from the practitioners, your million followers would drop overnight to a few thousand. Because most people are not interested in making a spiritual effort. I give an example. This is somebody I had met when I was travelling in the UK and met through a common friend, the person said, you know my guru is and he named somebody at that time who was living at the time and who was known for miracles. So he had his photo, he would offer everyday his flowers, do his prayers. But if you asked him what does your guru ask you to do? Nothing. That person was known to perform miracles and to grant wishes or at least that's what he thought. So his guru was somebody who would give him what he wanted or grant his wishes. And then he said very proudly, I am so glad I have a living guru. But he had never even met his guru. Guru doesn't know him. Well, it's not a relationship of guru. It's a relationship of adoration, devotion to somebody who makes him feel good or some teaching that makes him feel good and that's it and that's useful.

So coming back to this question, can one have multiple gurus on this path? You can have many teachers, you have many sources of inspiration, but there is only one guru. In this path, the guru is the one who founds the path - Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Even I'm going to push it a step further and we'll come to that with a true sense of Guru. The ultimate Guru will be the Divine and then we will see what the relationship is with that. I'll keep that for the last part of the discussion. Yes, you can have multiple sources of inspiration and of learning but be careful. Be careful if you recall some of the discussions we have had before on the conflicting values of an ascetic path versus an affirmative path. You will end up with a lot of confusion and as I've said to you before this confusion exists among people living at the Sri Aurobindo ashram, this confusion exists among people who have read Sri Aurobindo's writings and are speaking about them but in the mind's mould are still ascetically formed. They end up speaking things which are still ascetic values not realising that they're trying to mix totally contradictory values. I'll give an example. You see a lot of stories are told about somebody who's travelling in high fever or does not have food and then somebody appears, gives him food and vanishes and they cannot trace who the person was. It was the teacher who incarnated or the God who incarnated in some form and gave him etc. This is projected as a great event in the person's life and certainly it's a great event of any Divine intervention and help. But what's the message? Implied in that message is God will provide you whatever you need. You are hungry, have faith, he will come and give you the food. If he has not given you the food then well you are not yet on the highest spiritual stage. That person was so great, got God's intervention who gave him food cured his cure this fever. Implied somewhere is this idea that you be passive, have faith, God will do everything. The fact that this story is promoted greatly as a great thing is sending a message of passivity.

Sraddhalu (0:41:10):

One of the persons in the ashram, I have mentioned this before, published in their journal which was supposed to be translations of Mother and Sri Aurobindo's writings, they published the story of this great elephant who had golden tusks and who out of compassion gave a piece of his tusk to a woodcutter who was very poor and the woodcutter comes back and says now I need more, I need more and he keeps on cutting the tusk until eventually he extracts the whole tusk and the elephant dies bleeding and the story ends with all the gods showering petals on the elephant and saying, oh you are so great, you will come into heaven. I heard this story read out because somebody found it moving and narrated it and I said what is this story doing in a space like this? Can you see the message of passivity and inertia and the complete disdain for life and self-sacrifice in stupidity so that you die in suffering to help someone else and you are praised by the gods and live in heaven? You see the ascetic ideal and its stain, distortion and we are replete with such stories and they come from the mouths of people who teach even Sri Aurobindo’s writings without them realising that there's a fundamental conflict of values and I'm saying this because when you read from different sources be very careful of the core message behind what you read. I'm not saying don't read, please do read, get inspired but know also where there's a fundamental conflict of values and priorities. If you read an ascetic source you will find lots of stories like this. You read from Sri Aurobindo, well the two don't gel. Are you able to distinguish and extract the nourishment from those stories? If you can, good. Otherwise be careful. You can have multiple teachers but be careful where these core values conflict.

So yes, if you feel an inclination to read from X and to read from Mother, wonderful. If you find inspiration from both, wonderful. But I would also ask, maybe neither of them is your guru, at least yet. Isn't it? And that's why your second question, how to find one's guru. I wouldn't have a simple answer to that because I don't think you can find in that way. Of course that also works sometimes but more than anything else one recognizes. There is either a spontaneous recognition of the inner being that knows because it experiences an affinity and identity, a spontaneous movement of self-giving of belonging and of being taken embraced, held, lifted, protected by the Guru. It happens and it's done or not or there's a slow growth of recognition. Yes, this feels right and over time you kind of grow into an affinity and alignment to a certain teaching or to a certain personality but still that may not be the Guru. Until that relationship forms where the responsibility is taken by the active presiding power or the individual, it's not yet Guru. It is still you are following a path and there is a great teacher, even an Acharya there, but that's about it. And maybe your path will change also. I am tempted to share an example from my mother's experience. When she came to meet the Mother, she didn't come because she knew much the first time. She came because her husband brought her and they were going to go to meet the Mother. And her father had already told her, be careful, India is full of lots of not so genuine and even fake spiritual teachers. Don't bow down to anybody blindly just because they wear okra robes or they seem to be spiritual. So she goes to the Mother and she is carrying something to offer but she is not sure whether this is the one that she should be accepting and she of course has worshipped all her life to certain form of mother Durga. So she is in front of the Mother and she says, ‘I won't bow down to you just because of this unless you are that’. She asks, are you that? The Mother nodded and the sanction was given. In that moment, there was the recognition, the self-giving and she had brought certain I think it was tulsi leaves or flowers she offered and that was it. This communication, recognition, self-giving of the soul is your recognition. Whether it is immediate as in this experience in a physical contact, whether it is gradual over time, whether it takes place in a subtle contact and recognition doesn't matter because the Guru is always an active power. Otherwise it cannot be Guru, isn't it?

Sraddhalu (0:47:27):

Some people reading the Mother or Sri Aurobindo, just reading, have no idea, have not even seen a picture, will feel that connection. I remember this was shared to us by somebody in Auroville. Somebody named Gille and he was reading Sri Aurobindo's writings while he was in France. Reading the text, there was a soul recognition - this is and he used the word Truth speech, Truth forming into speech and that's it. The recognition was immediate, this is my path and the rest followed. So I give these examples to show you that the fundamental recognition will come from deep within from the soul. Until that happens you may have any number of teachers when that recognition happens there will be no question of multiple Gurus. You see there will be the Guru who will be eventually of course the Divine, we will come to that later. So how to find one's Guru? Well I will say simply ask the Divine to help you or simply accept the Divine as the Guru and then eventually the form in which the Divine expresses to you if you need that formal support well that will come or or you will recognise, it's not so important. And this point about the ultimate Guru I will come back to.

The next question of Rohit about popular mystics in India, whether they help the mass and so on. I will answer first in a very general way and then point out to the form of the help or not. Generally speaking, everybody helps, whether they are conscious of it or not. Even those who seem to oppose the Divine Will ultimately end up helping by delaying the struggle. I am speaking of Asuras here. By delaying and opposing the evolution, they strengthen the evolution, they strengthen the ultimate outcome, make it more perfect and so on. So ultimately everybody helps. The question of course for us is Spiritually, actively will they help to awaken? Some have a teaching that takes you one step in a particular direction with a certain emphasis. Some don't have a spiritual teaching and as I said, they primarily have a moral or ethical teaching, some worship, devotional support. And they help for that purpose. But it also happens sometimes that in the form of the teaching there are certain distortions. Now I am giving an example of a person I met who was drawn to Sri Aurobindo's teaching, met somebody who claimed to have been from the Sri Aurobindo ashram, accepted him as his guru and this is where you see the danger of that. And the person of course had a whole thing around his personality. He wrote poetry, he wrote songs and he required all his disciples to learn them all by heart and sing them on their command and all kinds of things which were his own fancies.

But at the end of it, it did not help in the Spiritual evolution. It only led to conflicts and divisions in the person and in their community eventually which broke away after that person passed on. So there are people who will claim to be representing a teaching because well that's what people are looking for, isn't it? I give another example of a person who calls himself Swami something. So in his brochure for his institution, there is a bio of Sri Aurobindo, bio of the Mother and then bio of Swami so and so, as if suggesting a lineage. Except this man is wearing ochre robes, calls himself Swami, so how can he be following Sri Aurobindo's teaching, isn't it, which is not an ascetic teaching where there is no initiation into Swamihood or labelling of this kind. Think about it. In the very statement of his name and his claim to authority, he has exposed himself as not representing this. I'm not saying he is a fraud. I don't know what he teaches and I'm not really interested. Maybe he teaches something useful but he definitely does not teach Sri Aurobindo's integral yoga, isn't it? And yet he has to say that because that's what attracts people because he claims to be teaching Sri Aurobindo's yoga that gives him an authority.

Sraddhalu (0:52:18):

So another example I was told about, I have no contact with the person directly, I've only heard the story because someone from Auroville met him. He is a good man, maybe he has some genuine teachings, but he says all that Sri Aurobindo, all that I had to say Sri Aurobindo has already said. So read Sri Aurobindo, implied and then come to me. So the implication is whatever I wanted to say Sri Aurobindo has said, so I wont waste my time repeating, go to Sri Aurobindo for that, but then I am there because I meant to say all that and that's a joke. That's a joke because, well it's sad. It's sad even that people get carried away listening to this kind of thing. That they cannot distinguish. The person who narrated this to me I had to tell him but don't you see the game that's played here. I can understand that somebody appreciates Sri Aurobindo and says here read him because its there and maybe they are teachers in their own right and they admire Sri Aurobindo, no problem. But to claim that all that I had to say Sri Aurobindo has said means you have already, you live in a consciousness of at the very least Intuitive mind or Overmental consciousness, no that's a pretence because the person does not. What he does is he materialises objects. That's the joke you see. His claim to fame is the materialisation and the rest is the marketing.

I'm going to give a few more examples like this and I don't mean to hurt anybody's faith because the faith you have is always precious. If you break that, well, you have no anchor. And yet, if you do not discriminate, one can easily get carried away in a lot of, I will use the word, populist or politically correct statements. Oh yes, all paths lead to the same eventually. All are good people, all are doing good work. Yes, of course they are. But do they align to this fundamental objective of the Integral Yoga and I am very focused on this. They may align to their own path, their own ascetic lineage, their own ascetic belief or ideal of practice. Wonderful and they may be perfect for that but do they align to this? Do they align to spiritual growth? These are the concerns for me. A very good example of a genuine path is Paramahansa Yogananda and the path is the institution he founded as the Self Realisation Fellowship. In the very name of the institution is Self Realisation as the goal set. The entire practice demanded from their practitioners are steps towards attaining Self Realisation. So for the particular process and the path which is their way, it's perfect. Their monks are dedicated, deep practitioners, many of them having attained deep and high spiritual states, living in it and the entire path has a certain spiritual, let's say, framework that is so solidly rooted. And then there is the whole institutional, let's say, structure around it where over time in the US particularly they have brought in various deities, they had to bring in a lot of elements of Christianity which were not central to the teaching or to their master's teaching. They created an institutional framework for weddings of their devotees which is just like a church practice. To me these are secondary. They are paraphernalia of an organised institution and organisational structures. The central teaching is the spiritual teaching is rock solid and that's an excellent path for spiritual purpose.

Sraddhalu (0:56:20):

I looked at somebody else presently popular in India and I was there in a public function where he spoke. Before he came on stage, there was a video shown of this person riding a motorcycle, flying a helicopter, playing with children, distributing food packets in some relief operation, in some flooding, etc. And with dramatic music and when the thing finishes, he walks in with a dramatic music. And I said, if this is his claim to fame, I saw nothing there that was of any Spiritual value. So the person is doing excellent social work and to be commended. Redirecting all his funds perhaps to that, to building a following, maybe that's fine also. That raises more funds to do more social work. But was there a Spiritual content to the central message? Not in that presentation. In the discussion that followed was there a spiritual content to the message? None that I heard. There was a lot of discussion about politics, interesting opinions, sometimes interesting insights, some things that I found to be completely wrong. He claimed that world population is too large so women should just decide not to have children and I said you have no basic understanding of how human instinct works or how Nature works. So it was clearly a huge deficit of knowledge in a very clear space. Subsequently I heard a video of him where he says in 20 years the global population should be reduced to half of what it is. Think about the implication. In 20 years, 3 billion people should cease to be. How do you think that will happen? Disease, death, on large scale you are actively promoting removal of 3 billion people in 20 years. It's not over a 100 years or 200 years you reduce population gradually. It's about 20 years and the man has not even thought of the implications. So yes, there are very interesting teachings he may give, very interesting writings, interesting ways of presentation, but nowhere I found a depth of Spiritual insight or even sometimes practical understanding of some of these things. Are they useful? Yes, of course, because many of the things he speaks are interesting, helpful, and because there's a whole machinery for popularising. Through it, I have met numerous people who are admirers of his teachings or books and have benefited. Does it have a lasting spiritual value? I don't know but at least as a small step to people who catch elements that are useful, it's a great help, but know where the lack exists, distinguish, discriminate, do not consider such a person to be all-knowing or absolutely right in their Spiritual advice because the knowledge they offer does not come from a deeper Spiritual foundational experience. Although it is presented in an attractive intellectual way.

I give another example of a teacher who became famous because she was a woman and she would embrace people who came to her. They felt good perhaps. The woman was a saint, for sure. She lived in a consciousness of certain exaltation. I don't know what exactly, I do not have a direct contact but it was definitely a certain state of exaltation. Then around her grew the paraphernalia and at that point comes the problem. The paraphernalia needs to be maintained for which you have to raise funds. So the whole started a whole process of selling clothes she has worn for so many lakhs of rupees and then there's a whole industry for selling those properties. The money coming in of course used for social work which is wonderful and a lot of free hospitals, schools, excellent work socially. Now comes the spiritual part. So I had met a few of the disciples who were working there, working very hard to build the institutions. One day they all rebelled. They said it's too much, it's back-breaking work, we don't even get time to rest properly and much less can we do our spiritual practice. So they went on a revolt and she came to them and said, do you realise how much bad karma you're burning up by working so hard? And when I heard that story, I said, ah, here is a person who does not really understand. She may live in an exalted state of consciousness, but the knowledge that comes through is not of a higher status. Again, this is to distinguish between a state you may live in, which may be Spiritually high but it does not mean you have the true knowledge, it does not mean your actions are aligned to that state.

Sraddhalu (1:01:20):

You see, there's a gap which is common to all ascetic traditions between the outer and the inner and so the inner may still live in a exalted state and the outer may throw a curse as we have heard stories of Rishis who would get angry easily and curse and then regret, once the impulse of anger passed they would regret and then offer a counter support. But this gap allows for expression of forms that do not represent even the state we live in much less a higher state which would be our goal eventually. And so recognize the value that the person holds because she lives in a state she perhaps shares it or perhaps transmits it to people who come to her but that's where the Spiritual value stops. All the rest is paraphernalia that may have social value and that's about it. Know the strengths but know the limitations also. I have another person that comes to mind building a movement very popular and if you know they have this multiple level marketing today which is the standard process now for everybody who wants to become famous. But all of this ends with one question, for what? What is his central teaching? And I asked this around, I could find nothing. There were commentaries on various spiritual texts from the Indian tradition ascribed to his authorship, certain practices which were given but what's the goal spiritually and there was never any clear message there and I say well then it has social value but it's not obviously it does not have an obvious Spiritual value at least for the followers. Maybe there is a core group I don't know but in the masses at least it does not have spiritual value.

I think this is broadly answering the question and I've taken these examples because there will be many more and I'm thinking of the world 20 years from now or 50 years from now, I hope these observations will be helpful for you to help distinguish between what serves a higher spiritual purpose or what serves as intermediate steps and everybody serves intermediate steps wherever they try to do good. Miracles are not a reference for Spirituality. Social work are not a reference for Spirituality. Political connections are not. Again this is an example of an ashram I have been to where you enter the reception and on the wall are photographs of their head meeting XYZ political leaders. And I said to myself if that's the claim to fame, well it does not have a spiritual priority at least. It shows political influence but that's about it. Fame or number of followers also are not a reference. You can be famous, does not mean that it's Spiritually developed. You can have numbers of followers, not a measure of Spiritual development. So here's an example. One of my friends was in a discussion, interfaith discussion and somebody said in that discussion, he was a Christian, he said look at the greatness of the truth that Christ has brought, there are so many, a billion followers. So my friend who was on the other side of the discussion, he said, “does that mean when Christ taught and had only 12 disciples, the truth was lesser and as the number of disciples grew, the truth has grown by 100 million fold? That means it was a lesser truth when he taught”, and the other person was taken aback. If numbers of followers are a measure of the value of the truth, then well when the person starts teaching you have very small numbers of followers, isn't it? And the truth has certainly not grown in time. So discount number of followers, it's just, it just means the person is charismatic or has good marketing.

Sraddhalu (1:05:50):

Fame similarly does not mean much. You see today I've seen a lot of wealthy people, they need to have a sense of association with spirituality and what do they do? They look around who's the most famous, what's the biggest name and they align to that and then either become donors or participants and then it's in their social circles they will say, oh I'm follower of X and it gives them a greater prestige spiritually because it's a famous spiritual head. If they said, oh my spiritual teacher is living in a forest you don't even know his name nobody knows he just hides. Well that's a different kind of thing. My teacher is so great he is unknown to anybody. He is actually totally secret but what is his speciality? Well he grants wishes or he performs miracles whatever it is. You would not feel excited about speaking of somebody who is relatively unknown unless you had a real affinity and I have met people like that also. They have a genuine affinity with somebody about whom you have never heard. But then you will see in those people there is a dedicated practice of some kind and a really strong commitment to the practice. The value of it I don't know but the commitment is there and the commitment can last only if there is some benefit there. So I am giving these as examples and references. Again, living or dead Guru. The physical body is not a reference. You can be living and you can be on the other side of the world. If there is not an energetic or spiritual contact, it's not a Guru. Right? It's as good as dead. You can have left the body and still be active and you can experience a direct spiritual contact and it's a living Guru. Isn't it? So these are some points I want to convey.

So as general comments now, make a distinction on the goal of the path before you decide whether this is your path. What is the goal that is sought? Be clear about that. Before you mix, let's say, practices or knowledge from different traditions, consider what the goal is and understand the value of the practice in terms of the goal. You may adopt the practice from a different path, but recognize how it serves that path and in your modification of the practice, how you are serving a different goal because certain practices are common. For example, deep breathing practices as a way of calming the mind, certain practices of concentration would be common to practically any path even religious traditions, but what do you do with that? What do you aim at through the calming of the mind and that may diverge. So first become conscious of distinctions of the goal, understand the methods of practice in terms of that and if you are modifying or adapting the practices make sure that you do not lose the focus of the goal. Recognize also the quality of energy that presides in a path. See often to have a mass following, the energy has to have a strong vital charismatic element. Otherwise you don't get numbers quickly. I give an example of even in the life of the Buddha. How many actual disciples did he have? You see actual numbers. At least during his lifetime they were relatively small. They grew in number later. Sri Aurobindo during his lifetime made sure that numbers did not grow by needless publicity. He even wrote in response to a letter, first he said numbers of course mean nothing for the spiritual change even for the transformation. But he said he even wrote there that I do not want publicity because he said publicity always leads to either a movement or a huge host, a huge horde of useless people coming and spoiling the work. He uses this phrase and then he says if there is a movement, every movement either gets a bang or a bust and I want neither and then he explains how he wants real change of consciousness and so on. So even numbers of people who came to him as disciples were filtered. They were asked are you really interested in a path that has these goals? And then only if they showed their commitment and only if Sri Aurobindo accepted then the person was accepted as a disciple. Of course that physical process not being there, the point still exists that the acceptance has to be from both sides.

Sraddhalu (1:10:56):

So this brings me finally to the theme of what is the guru really? Who is the guru? I describe what the guru does and particularly it's this a hurdle or a veil of ignorance or to implant, instil, inspire an experience or a state of consciousness or a change of consciousness. Ultimately, where does that come from, that action? Even where there is the human form of a guru, the consciousness itself that is implanted or inspired or the action comes from where? If the Guru is still living in an egocentric consciousness where he has not yet reached a state of realisation that could be worthy of at least what you see, isn't it? So he has obviously transcended the ego or served the ego sufficiently that within limits there is some action of the Divine inspiration working through the Guru. And I am not saying the Guru is perfect. He has other flaws. He is still in a state of partial development. But still, the action that is coming through is effective because it comes from the Divine source passing through him in the part of him that is now relatively transparent. And so acts on you. So who is the Guru really? Where is the action coming from? From the Divine. And the Divine did not necessarily need this support. The Divine can act in you as effectively, directly, isn't it? Finally it's an action of the spiritual energy. So it doesn't have to pass through a person. It can come directly and generally does come directly to you, even when you think it's coming from that person, isn't it? So, ultimately, the Guru who intervenes as Guru to remove ignorance or implant a spiritual awakening is the Divine. The human form is a point of support, a reflector perhaps or an embodiment who becomes in human frame the living embodiment of the Divine consciousness of at least the goal that is sought in the path.

So leaving aside other paths where the embodiment is not so important even a reflection is good enough, I come to the integral path, integral yoga where embodiment is essential because the goal is a divinization of life. The mind, vital and the physical to be reasonably transformed, I'm not even saying completely transformed, reasonably transformed that there is a transparency of the Divine action in which case again the question is where is it coming from? From the Divine who is the Guru. Isn't it? So my suggestion would be generally to that first question, how does one find one's Guru? I will answer how do you find the Divine or rather put it another way, what is your current relationship with the Divine? That's your link to your guru. Start by opening yourself more and more in that relationship. Start by offering yourself in that relationship. What would you do if you had a physical guru? It's what you are supposed to do, right? Well, your guru is already with you. Start by opening and ask for the help. Ask for the guidance. And maybe you won't hear it as a voice and if you heard it as a voice don't trust it generally but it will come to you in a certain way either by the intuition or an insight or something comes your way that you recognize ,ah this was the answer I was looking for. You will know because your inner being is sufficiently awake that it recognizes. If it was not sufficiently awake, your seeking would not be genuine. It would be casual and a casual seeking you are happy to read spiritual literature. I do my 10 minutes reading every day, I feel good about it. Doesn't matter what, give me any book. That's fine.

Sraddhalu (1:15:30):

But when there's a real call, the inner being is pushing. That's the source of the call, isn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't feel that call and it is there that the recognition will take place, ah this is the answer I was looking for and you turn spontaneously in gratitude and say thank you. And in time the trust builds, the link forms deepens until increasingly the insight comes in a flash of intuition and you will learn to trust it. At first you have to test, you have to discriminate but you will learn to trust it and that's your Guru, your Guru is already with you, it's a question of what are you doing about your relationship. Think of it in this way. So now I come to what does that mean in our relationship to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. In this particular case, it's relatively easy to articulate this. Sri Aurobindo not only articulated the nature of the Spiritual experience but he embodied it. You will notice the knowledge that he had, it's all there already. It was written in from 1914 onwards in the Arya. He was writing six books at a time. But he was waiting. He was waiting to return to the world for action in the world physically until the Supramental consciousness had been established in the physical body itself and the body transformed. That was the realisation he was waiting for. He got it all the way through the transformation of the mind, the vital and the subtle physical. But that last part remaining, that next step of returning for action in the world actively had to be well postponed. But in the meanwhile and that was the advantage of this dual form of their work, the Mother was acting constantly while he held the thread, I will say, the pull of the consciousness being fixed into matter. The Mother was working, manifesting that through the work that she was doing and of course all the correspondence that Sri Aurobindo was directly handling and so on. Because they embodied the ideal that they spoke of, revealed, we recognize in them that. That's why my mother could see in the Divine Mother, in the Mother, yes this is the one that I have been worshipping. That recognition was possible. So for those of us at least who recognize this, it's obvious for this yoga, they are the Guru.

And yes I can read a lot of literature which helps me to understand, brings clarity and enlarges my knowledge base. No problem, but it does not conflict. I don't have multiple Gurus. For those of us who do not see this, who do not feel in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother that they are an embodied form of the realisation that is sought in the Integral Yoga, they are still there as great examples, exemplars as Acharya to give you the inspiration in the path, in the way until either you recognize that or it doesn't matter, the form does not matter. Mother actually made this statement in so many words to Huta, she said after she leaves the body, she said there is no Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, there will be only the Truth. If you have the perception of that in them, perhaps it's a help, because you have a form through which you can relate but on the other hand I've seen so many people who are so fixated on the form that they cannot see the totality of the Divine Mother as an active presence around and within them because they are still fixated on this particular form of the body through which she incarnated here. This is not the same as accepting anybody as Divine incarnation. There are people who will say I have accepted so and so as my guru and for me he is God. Well that's your projection, fantasy, hope. I won't say faith because it's not the heart's recognition, the soul's recognition. Faith is the soul's recognition. This is more like mental construction and maybe it helps you for a while. But it's not the truth of the soul's seeing. So be careful not to create such false structures. When there's a recognition, it is there. When there is not a direct recognition, there is at least the heart's recognition or the soul's recognition that yes this is my path or at least something along these directions, something along these lines and you start reading, studying, immersing yourself until a greater awakening takes place. Simply put and in the most general statement I will say, the Divine Guru is already with you. Work to develop that link, open yourself more and more in consecration to the sacred presence and guidance, in whatever way aligns with your temperament, for some through the mind, some through the heart, some through the dedicated consecrated service, if possible all three to whatever degree possible and then gradually the influence of the Guru will grow and begin to fill you and lead you and transform you. To that end many people may come your way who may help you. Recognize the knowledge that comes or the help that comes as coming from the source, from the Divine and offer gratitude to the Divine even as you thank the vehicle or the messenger through whom the help came. But let your primary relationship be always with the Divine directly and then you won't be deceived by appearances. You will see the Divine working through all of them as I said, including those who oppose. I think it's a good point to pause and we could concentrate on this idea and this bhava, this sentiment.

Thank you.