14 Jul 2019
Smt. K. Ramaa Sundari asked: Swami! I have been inviting You to visit our house and have meals with us, but You have not visited us in a long time. Are you angry with us?
Who Should Go to Whom?
Swami replied: You are an ardent devotee of Shri Satya Sai Baba, who appeared before Me a long time ago and asked Me to propagate true spiritual knowledge. I have narrated this incident to you several times. That day, Shri Satya Sai talked about several spiritual points with Me for about half an hour. One of those points told by Him was that the disciple should go to the preacher; the preacher should not go to the disciple. This is absolutely correct because when the disciple goes to the preacher, it means that the disciple has recognized the value of the preacher and the value of his spiritual knowledge. The disciple’s going to the preacher and offering money (Guru Dakshina) to him is proof of the value that the disciple has for the preacher and his knowledge. When the preacher preaches spiritual knowledge to such a disciple, it is like feeding a hungry person. Going to the preacher is the sacrifice of work (Karma Samnyaasa) and offering Guru Dakshina to him is the sacrifice of the fruit of work (Karmaphala Tyaaga). Both of them are the proof of the hunger that the disciple has for the knowledge-food. When Rama went to sage Vashishtha to learn spiritual knowledge from him, the sage asked Rama to offer Guru Dakshina to him in the beginning (Dhanamaarjaya Kaakutstha —Yoga Vashishtha). Shri Shirdi Sai Baba also asked for two rupees as Guru Dakshina, which represent the disciples’ attention (Shraddhaa) and patience (Shama). The Divine Preacher is not in need of the offering but, He asks for it only to test whether the disciple truly has the thirst and attentiveness for the knowledge.
Whenever I come to your house, your son, Pavan, types the messages that I give. It is his sacrifice of work or Karma Samnyaasa. You offer Me the very tasty food cooked by you, which is your Karmaphala Tyaaga. Both of you also offer Guru Dakshina to Me. That is alright. But Shri Satya Sai told Me that the disciple should come to Me for knowledge and that I should not go to the disciple. This advice is correct from the angle of testing whether the disciple is truly interested and attentive. But I took another angle, which is that since the disciple goes to his office and works everyday, he needs rest for one day on Sunday. On that day, I go to his house and give him the strain of typing My message. This strain is pardonable because every devotee must do some work for God. Doing this work is possible for your son only on Sunday. But if on this day of rest, the disciple comes to My home and also does God’s work of typing the messages, the disciple is doubly strained. Hence, I preferred to go to the house of the disciple than asking him to come to My home. So far, I acted as per My angle. Now, I am acting as per the angle of My Guru, Shri Satya Sai Baba.
Equal Entertainment and Monism with God
Even if somebody scolds Me, I do not get angry at all. In fact, I enjoy the scolding like a hot dish in the meal or like a tragic scene in a movie. God has created this world filled with happiness as well as misery, just as a movie is filled with both comic and tragic scenes or as a meal is filled with sweet and hot dishes. The opposites are to be enjoyed alternately. Any one thing continuing for a long time invariably leads to boredom. The Veda says that before creation, God alone existed. In that state, there was no second item and no changes at all. So, the state was boring. Therefore, God created this world for His entertainment, to get rid of boredom. God equally enjoys both the misery and the happiness that exist in His creation. He is like the eater enjoying his meal consisting of both sweet and hot dishes or like the spectator enjoying the movie having both comic and tragic scenes. Attaining this God-like state of equally enjoying both comedy and tragedy in the world is called yoga (Samatvam Yoga..., Tulyanindaastutih..., Sukhaduhkhe same...—Gita).
Equal enjoyment does not mean that both comedy and tragedy are equal or that they are one and the same. The two are clearly quite different; they are opposites. The enjoyment or the entertainment obtained from both is the same. When you see a pot and a piece of cloth, the two items are different. The pot is not the cloth and the cloth is not the pot. But the process of seeing both is one and the same. If we want to achieve monism (Advaita) with God, we must at least achieve this state of equal entertainment in our lives while living in the world. As far as creation is concerned, we cannot create even a single atom, let alone creating the whole world. Neither can we control or destroy the world. In these three aspects of creation, control and destruction of the world, we can never achieve monism with God. This important concept is clearly stated in the Brahma Sutra (Jagadvyaapaaravarjyam...). We can at least try to enjoy this world like God who enjoys both comedy and tragedy and obtains the same entertainment from them.
You can neither purchase the food materials nor cook the food. Your friend has purchased the food materials and even cooked the food. He has offered to let you eat the food along with him. Can you, at least, eat the food, equally enjoying both the sweet and hot dishes like your friend? If you cannot do even that much, how can you claim that you are equal to your friend? Can you not achieve oneness with him at least in the aspect of eating with equal enjoyment? When you cannot achieve equality with your friend in even a single aspect, where is the question of oneness or monism between the two of you? If you can equally enjoy both the sweet and hot dishes in the meal like your friend, you can at least claim equality or similarity with your friend in that one aspect of eating. On the basis of that one commonality, you could claim oneness in a loose sense. Similarly, if you can equally enjoy comedy and tragedy in the world like God, you could claim monism with God, in a loose sense. But remember that such loose monism is confined only to the single aspect of equally enjoying the world and not in the aspect of creating, controlling or destroying it. You can say that you have monism with your friend in the aspect of eating the food but you must also say that you have dualism with your friend in the aspects of purchasing the food materials and cooking the food. If you do not have even this one similarity in the aspect of eating the food, then you have no right to utter the word monism with your friend.
If you are unable to attain similarity with God even in this one aspect of equally enjoying the world, you are an ordinary soul. Such an ordinary soul is totally different from God. It does not have even a single similarity with Him. A realized soul, who has attained this one similarity, is called a yogi. Such a yogi alone can claim monism with God in an approximate sense, based on this single similarity. The greatest surprise is that the Advaita philosopher claims monism with God in a strict sense, in the case of an ordinary soul! Of course, monism with God is possible in the case of a specific soul who has been selected by God to become an Incarnation. In the Incarnation, God merges with that particular soul perfectly. But even in the case of the Incarnation, the perfect monism that exists between God and the soul is only to the extent of our imagination. Beyond the limits of our imagination, a dualism between God and that soul remains. Owing to this extremely subtle dualism, God can even withdraw from the soul in whom He has merged, at any time! The realized soul attains partial similarity with God in the single aspect of obtaining equal entertainment from the world. This state is called partial union or partial yoga with God. The Incarnation has full yoga (union) with God, to the extent of our imagination. One must remember that even in the case of an Incarnation, God can withdraw from the Incarnation’s soul. So, there is dualism between God and soul even in an Incarnation. Of course, that dualism is beyond the limits of our imagination.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★