Posted on: 07 Feb 2005
[I raise objection to the images with the superimposition of Your own face on the faces of past incarnations of God. How can you say that the pictures and images of Gods that we see today are mere imaginations of artists? They saw those forms in their meditation. How do you say that imagination is false? The world also is an imagination.]
I like to answer a question only when it is in the quest of truth. Such a question is called as Pari Prashna in the Gita. The person asks such questions with salutation and service. Sri Shirdi Sai Baba told Sri Nana Saheb that a question should not be asked to fight with or to test the teacher or to show off one’s own knowledge. There will be no end to such debate because the intention is not finding out the truth but is only for the sake of argument. Shankara advised spiritual aspirants to drop such bad logic, which is not in accordance with the Veda, Shastras and the Gita (Dustarkah Suviramyatam…). The Brahma Sutra “Tarka Apratisthanat…” also says that there is no end for dry logic, leaving the basis of scriptures. I am giving the arguments in the traditional way:
Opponent (Purvapaksha): The face of God in the picture is seen by me in a vision in my meditation, and is very beautiful. Your superimposed face hurts me.
Devotee of Swami (Siddhanti): The face of Swami in the form of God is seen by me too in a vision, in which I opened my eyes and saw it. [I have actually seen the miraculous visions of Swami as those past incarnations and Gods, with my own eyes, when I looked at Him in person]. Your vision is an imagination seen by you with closed eyes. The object seen by the eyes has more validity than the object imagined by the mind. Therefore, my picture is more valid than your picture. The face of our Swami is more beautiful than your picture for us.
Swami (Madhyamika or Mediator): Let the devotee of Swami also agree that his vision also is an imagination like that of the opponent. Let both visions be treated as one and the same and let the argument proceed.
Siddhanti: Even then, assuming that both the visions are equal, I have an equal right to project my vision as the opponent projects his vision on calendars and posters. If the opponent is hurt by my published vision, I am also equally hurt by the published vision of the opponent. The opponent feels that his published vision alone is universal. If he agrees that his vision is meant for a group of people of similar thoughts, then my vision is also meant for a group of devotees of my Swami, who have similar thoughts. Like him I have an equal right to publish my vision on a common calendar or poster.
Swami: The opponent should answer one more question. Why is there no uniformity in the faces of the same God, published by the opponent’s group? [e.g. If two artists receive visions of Lord Krishna, then the face of Lord Krishna must be the same in both visions.] If the vision received is true, there should be the same vision for all the artists. All the people see an individual in the world with the same face. He does not appear with different faces to different people.
Opponent: The Lord can appear with any face to any devotee in his vision. The Lord is one and the same, though the visualized faces are different.
Siddhanti: Therefore, you have a wide-range band spectrum of various faces of the Lord. The probability may vary from one to infinite. In this band spectrum each line indicates a probable face in this universe. One of such probabilities can be the face of my Swami also. Even in such a case, you cannot object to the face of our Swami, which is one of the probabilities based on your concept.
Opponent: How do you say that my imagination is unreal, when the world itself is an imagination?
Swami: This argument is not correct. When you stand as a single reference, there is a difference between the reality perceived by you and your imagination. This world is an imagination with reference to the Lord. You can change any item in to any other item or produce any item or make any item disappear, in your imaginary world only; not in this real world. The Lord can do all the above in this real world, which is an imaginary world for the Lord. Therefore, the concept is not one and the same for you and the Lord.
Siddhanti: Therefore, based on this, I can say that the face of Swami is real and the face seen in the visions of both me and the opponent may not be real, assuming that my vision also an imagination like that of the opponent. Moreover, the concept that one God appeared in different forms is more clearly expressed by our pictures because the face of Swami is clear and real and is the same for all the different incarnations of God. In the pictures of artists, this point cannot be established, since the faces are not only unreal but also different. We do not mind the point of reality or non-reality of the face provided there is uniformity in the faces. Therefore, the faces of the opponent cannot establish this concept.
Swami: Based on the arguments of the opponent and Siddhanti, I conclude that the version of Siddhanti is declared to be correct.