29 Oct 2016
Shri Pavan asked: Recently, again Shri Shankaracharya (Shri Swaroopananda ji) criticized Shri Shirdi Sai Baba on the following points:
1) People are worshipping the ghost (Baba) since the tomb (Samadhi containing His dead body) is being worshipped. People going to Shirdi temple are going to the burial ground only since tombs are present in burial ground only.
2) How can you say that Baba is the incarnation of Dattatreya? There is no power in chanting the name of Sai. Do not add the word Ram to Sai and call Him as Sai Ram?
Swami replied: 1) This Shankaracharya belongs to the tradition of Adi Shankara. There is the sacred tomb of Adi Shankara near Himalaya Mountain. People go and worship the tomb of Adi Shankara. Now, will this Shankaracharya say that the worship of the tomb of Adi Shankara is worship of a ghost? If he says so, he should not continue as Shankaracharya anymore. If he does not say this, he is making his own self-contradiction! For any saint, tomb is essential after death as per the tradition of Hindu scriptures. In future, when this Shankaracharya also leaves his body, will he allow his tomb to be visited by his fans? If he does not allow, he is against the Hindu scripture. If he allows, he should object his fans to visit his tomb to pay respects to him. Does he say that people visiting the tomb of Adi Shankara are also going to burial ground? Burial ground contains tombs. But, every tomb need not be in burial ground only. All gentlemen are men, but, all men need not be gentlemen! The tomb of the human incarnation of God is the most sacred place of worship and can never be treated as the unholy burial ground.
2) This Shankaracharya says that there is no proof that Baba is incarnation of Lord Dattatreya. Baba appeared as Lord Dattatreya to devotees. This point is based on the authority of experience (Anubhava Pramaana) of devotees. Hindu scriptures say that among the four authorities of knowledge (Shruti, Smruti, Yukti and Anubhava), experience or anubhava is the final authority. If he says that the experience of scholars (vidvadanubhava) alone is the authority, there should be an authority to decide who the scholar is. A person seeing two moons in the sky due to his eye-defect says that he is the scholar. Another person, who sees single moon in the sky due to lack of eye-defect says that he is the scholar. Between these two, who decides that the first person alone has eye-defect? Only majority of people decides since majority is not having eye-defect. Now, majority of people says that Baba is the incarnation of Lord Dattatreya. This Shankaracharya alone is the only person seen now saying that Baba is not human incarnation of God Datta. Therefore, this Shankaracharya alone has the eye-defect claiming himself as the scholar! Several devotees experienced the same divinity in Rama and Baba. This person alone is seen, who contradicts such experience of majority. This person says that the name of Sai is not having any divine power. Several people have practically experienced the divine power of the name of Sai and such people alone can be the authority in such point. Several people have tasted a sweet and tell that it is sweet in taste. This person did not taste that sweet and says that it is not sweet in taste! You neither taste the sweet nor agree to the experience of people, who have tasted the sweet! If you also utter the name of Sai for some time and still do not get the divine experience, we can think a little about your case. Even then, we cannot give weightage to your experience because you are a rare case whereas others are many. Your case does not come under this category also because you never tasted the sweet. A person having defect in the eyes may see two moons in the sky. You cannot be compared to that person having the eye-defect since you are not seeing the moon at all. You are a blind person saying that there are two moons in the sky! The person having eye-defect saying so can be excused a little because at least he is seeing the moon in the sky. In your case, you are not seeing the moon at all being totally blind and no trace of excuse can be given to you.
I don't have words even to criticize this Shankaracharya because on one side he is accepting Rama, Krishna, Adi Shankara, etc., as human incarnations of God and on the other side, he is criticising Baba since Baba is in human form (because he called Baba as ghost as in the case of all the ordinary human beings, which become ghosts after death). If you say that there is difference between Adi Shankara and Baba, you must show the reasons for your argument. Human incarnation of God is mainly for preaching the spiritual knowledge to humanity because God is mainly characterized by spiritual knowledge as His identity mark (Prajnaanam Brahma, Satyam Jnaanam Anantam Brahma – Veda). Shankara preached the true spiritual knowledge to scholars in the scholastic language whereas Baba preached the same spiritual knowledge to ordinary human beings in their ordinary language. Both have done the same work and both are human incarnations of the same God Shiva. God being the Divine Father (Aham bijapradah pitaa – Gita) of all the souls, He is interested to uplift all the souls. Do you want that scholars alone should be uplifted and not other ordinary people? Do you insist that every human being should become scholar to get salvation? If so, how the uneducated Gopikas got the salvation? Knowledge is, no doubt, required as the first step. But, the second step is the practice of such knowledge that alone gives the salvation. If somebody enters directly into practice, there is no necessity of the knowledge since such person attained the true knowledge in the previous birth itself and hence, entered into practice straight in this birth. Gopikas were sages in the previous birth and attained perfect spiritual knowledge already. Hence, in this birth, they entered straight into the practice. Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa says that once you have purchased the items from the shop (practice or karma yoga), there is no need of the list containing the names of those items (knowledge or jnana yoga). Let us take the case of Adi Shankara Himself. He never studied anything from anybody. He became the saint straight in the childhood itself and entered into practice, which is propagation of the spiritual knowledge throughout His life.
3) A devotee intervened... The Shankaracharya should not be misunderstood. He only told that Baba is a Muslim and should not be mixed with the pure ancient Hindu religion.
Swami replied: Baba is not a Muslim. In His life history, it is mentioned that Baba was often showing His ears containing holes as proof of His sacred thread marriage done to Hindus. Shri Satya Sai Baba, the incarnation of Shirdi Baba, also told that Shirdi Baba was born in a Brahmin family of Bharadwaja gotra. Just before leaving His body on Vijayadashami, Baba became naked and shouted with anger calling the people to test Him whether ‘Sunti’ (holy ceremony done for every Muslim) was done to Him! Baba told a Muslim devotee, who got children by His grace, to go to the temple of Hanuman and distribute the sweets. Baba further told him, “Allah and Hanuman fought with each other and Hanuman won in the fight”. If Baba is a Muslim, will He say like this, especially when He is always chanting that Allah alone is the master? (This is not self-contradiction because Baba wanted to remove the rigid fanatic ego of that Muslim regarding his own religion).
If your statement is correct, this Shankaracharya should not criticize Baba as a ghost and the place containing His sacred tomb as burial ground. We welcome anybody following his own religion strictly without criticizing other religions. You go to the center from your house in the path that is leading from your house bending your head down. Nobody will find fault with you. But, what are you doing? You raised your head up and see the other sides saying that the paths from other houses are not leading to the same center! Here comes the whole problem, which is the split of religions due to ego and jealousy resulting as terrorism that spoils the world-peace. In such context only, God came in the form of Baba to bring correlation between religions to prove that all religions in the deeper level are equal, which are the paths from different houses leading to the same center. When Shankara came, this present problem as it is was not there. Then, there was a different problem of various sub-religions of Hinduism fighting with each other. In both cases, fundamentally the problem is same. At that time, Shankara correlated all the sub-religions into one Hindu religion and solved the problem for the sake of peace. Baba also came on the same issue, but, today the split is between the religions of the world (and not among sub-religions of a specific religion as in the case of Adi Shankara). Like Adi Shankara, Baba also correlated Hinduism and Islam to bring unity in the humanity of the world. This fundamental concept itself proves that Adi Shankara and Baba are different human incarnations of the same God, who came to solve the same basic problem of diversity in humanity. It is always good for anybody to follow the own religion with strict discipline than to go for other religions as said in the Gita (Svadharme midhanam shreyahah…). Up to this part, God has no objection and will not come down as incarnation for this purpose. But, when people start criticizing other religions with ego and jealousy, God comes down in human form to bring out the correlation to avoid splits and to bring unity at the fundamental deeper level. This is not mixing of religions at the surface level. Baba never told that the photo of Rama should be kept in mosque and also did not tell that the photo of Mohammed should be kept in Hindu temple. He never advised mixing the different religions. He only brought out the unity of deeper philosophies of different religions as unified spiritual knowledge so that the splits can be avoided. The correlation between religions was not done by Baba. He only correlated the philosophies of the religions, which is essential for the sake of peace of humanity in the world.
The Scripture With The Sound Marks is Shruti
4) Shri Ramesh Kumar asked: What is the difference between shruti and smruti, which are often spoken by You?
Swami replied: Shruti means the Veda, which is spoken by God and heard by sages (Shruyate iti). Smruti means that which is written or spoken by divine people through whom also the same God speaks. Since the same God is speaking in both cases, there should be no contradiction between shruti and smruti. If there is contradiction, shruti prevails over the smruti (shrutireva gariyasee) because the sages were holy and sincere unlike the other people, who speak whatever they like and say that God spoke through them! The smruti always should follow shruti (shruterivaartham smruti ranvagachchat). Since, the same concept spoken by shruti is recollected in smruti, smruti means recollection of shruti (smaryate iti). You can differentiate shruti and smruti superficially since shruti is marked with three types of accents of pronunciation of sound (Anudaatta – stressing downwards, Udaatta – stressing upwards and Swarita – stressing upwards twice). All the other literature without such marks of sound can be treated as smruti. Some scholars confine the word smruti to ethical scriptures only (like Manu Smruti, etc.). Puraanam is the word used to the books, which describe the life histories of devotees, human incarnations, energetic incarnations, etc. The word puraanam can easily come under the category of smruti since puraanam also does not contain the marks of sound.
Therefore, the concluding classification of shruti and smruti is simply to treat the scripture with the sound marks as shruti and treat all other scriptures without sound marks as smruti. In deeper level, there is no difference between shruti and smruti because both are spoken by God only and both are correlated with each other in the deeper essence without any trace of contradiction.
We can treat shruti as text of the original concepts heard as spoken by God, which are completely theoretical. The same concepts are recollected when you study the life histories of devotees in smruti. Example: Shruti says that none and nothing can be even equal to God, not to speak greater than God (natat samaschaabhyadhikashcha…). This concept is recollected when we read the practical behaviour of the devotees in their life histories. Hence, the concept heard in shruti is recollected in smruti. When the concept is the same, there is no question of contradiction between shruti and true smruti. If there is a contradiction, the smruti is false and is to be rejected. The Gita is also considered as smruti because there are no sound marks marked in the verses of the Gita. Based on this single point, the Gita is also called as smruti. Otherwise, the Gita is also shruti because the same God who spoke the Veda to sages also spoke the same Veda to Arjuna in the form of the Gita. The differentiation of shruti and smruti based on the sound marks is only external and superficial. Such difference is not at all important. You have to see the difference only in the level of the concept that is related to the knowledge coming from the meanings of the words of Veda. The Veda itself means knowledge (the root word ‘vidul’ means knowledge). Therefore, the Veda is always true knowledge. Smruti is also true knowledge in view of the inner level of meaning of words of the Veda. Therefore, the conclusion is that the Veda or true knowledge or true smruti is based on the concept of the knowledge that is derived from the right interpretation. Whether the interpretation is right or wrong is again decided by the logical analysis (yukti) that is verified by the experience (anubhava) of scholars or majority. Here, the word majority does not mean simple number of heads. It should be taken as the number of the heads of realized scholars only among whom only the word majority is confined. However, the final judgement is given by the sharp analysis (yukti) alone, which is described as the filtering process of truth from false (sadasat viveka) as spoken by Shankara.
Rama is the human incarnation in the smruti called the Ramayanam and Hanuman is the successful spiritual devotee in it. Krishna is the human incarnation in the smrutis called the Bhagavatam and the Bharatam. Gopikas are successful spiritual devotees in the Bhagavatam. Arjuna is also a successful devotee in the Bharatam except that Arjuna did not believe Krishna completely and failed by just very narrow marginal gap. Arjuna was born as a hunter in the next birth and proved his full devotion to energetic incarnation called as Lord Shiva. In the last birth, Arjuna was born as Swami Vivekananda and got established in the devotion to the human incarnation called as Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa to get the final salvation since a human being can get salvation only through its relevant form of God, which is the human incarnation.
Hence, shruti can be called as the text of theoretical knowledge containing valuable concept-gems, which can be sold to get the currency called salvation and the process of the sale is the smruti involving practical implementation of theoretical knowledge in the life.
5) Shri Hrushikesh asked: What is the meaning of Sandhya and Gayatri?
Swami replied: Sandhya means time of worship. Gayatri means mode of worship. The first word speaks about the proper time for worship. The second word speaks about the proper mode of worship to God. When to worship God and how to worship God are the two questions answered by these two words respectively. In the morning time, after a long sleep, you find yourself quite fresh to concentrate on God. Moreover, that is the leisure time since you're going to enter into duties of your job after morning time. Again, in the evening time, you find leisure after returning from the duties to worship God. In morning and evening, the heat of the sun is also at very low level, which is congenial to worship God. Even though the value of heat is nil in the night, due to the presence of darkness indicating ignorance (because the sleep that causes the ignorance starts in the night only), night cannot be congenial to worship God with full enlightenment of awareness. The word Gayatri indicates the best mode of worship irrespective of caste, gender, religion, etc. Poetry (Rig Veda) is better than prose (Yajur Veda). Song (Sama Veda) is better than poetry. Song attracts the mind easily to get absorbed in God with climax of devotion. Hence, Lord said that He is the Sama Veda, which means that song is the highest mode of worship (Vedaanaam saamavedosmi – Gita). If this inner sense is realized, the ego of a specific caste (Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya), a specific gender (male) and a specific religion (Hinduism) will disappear indicating the impartial God opening the gates of salvation without any partiality based on only universality. Song does not mean the exercise of music. It only means a little sweetness added to the poetry with your own way of the process of singing talent. God is attracted by your devotion rising through that song and not through your scholastic and tedious exercise of musical exposure (like sa, ri, ga, ma, pa, da, ni, sa etc.).
All the above explanation is about theoretical devotion only (jnana yoga and bhakti yoga), which does not give any practical fruit without the practical devotion (karma yoga), called as service and sacrifice. But, the theoretical devotion is the mother that delivers the practical devotion. Of course, one can expect theoretical fruits (like improvement of intelligence and improvement in the sweetness of the voice) for theoretical devotion since God said that He will give fruits in the same path in which you approach Him (ye yathaa maam… Gita). This point is very important fundamental of the spiritual knowledge about which most of the devotees are in ignorance and misunderstanding. The other name of the Gita is Nishkama Karma Yoga, which means practical service and sacrifice to God without aspiring any fruit in return. This is the highest plane about which I am not speaking here! I am only speaking about the lower justified level, which is theoretical fruit for theoretical devotion and practical fruit for practical devotion (business deal or exchange called as Vaishya bhakti). The lowest unjust level is to expect practical fruit for theoretical devotion (Veshya bhakti or prostitute-devotion)!
★ ★ ★ ★ ★