This post is in response to http://sahajapatel.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/yes-indeed-the-gods-must-be-crazy/ by my friend. I request all my readers to read the original post, without which my post does not make complete sense. Comment there too if you wish, and here too if you will. In any case, please ensure that the comments are either going to be a cause of enlightening or an effect thereof and that they are not going to hurt anyone’s sentiments in an inhuman way. Thank you!
Below is my response.
I am glad you wrote out your feelings clearly. This is the first blog post I read from you, and I do like it for the content and the presentation.
While I don't stand by your side of the faith, I can clearly see the stand that makes complete sense to you. Thus, I try to understand this much - tell me only if you feel that my question is not to offend but to know your answer sincerely:
God is omnipresent, I agree, and can take several forms, I agree too. "God is in Sathya Sai Baba" - I don't have any issues accepting this. But, my issues comes up when someone says "Sathya Sai Baba is (the) God". God is in you, in me, and in all the atheists and theists alike - that's what I believe in. When I don't say "Kiran is God" or "Sahaja is God", I would not also say "Sathya Sai Baba is God". (By the way, I went to Hindu temples, churches, mosques, Buddhist aaraama-s/temples, and Jain mandir-s in the past, and prayed to the God at all those places of worship.)
It's a feeling of assurance that the God is in some form - physical or not - at all times among us, but why should that form/presence be confined to local pockets/individuals? I can understand and accept sthala-maahaatmyam (power/sanctity/greatness of a place) but why attribute godliness to certain individuals only? When God is omnipresent, He/She is present in all life forms, from bacteria to blue whales. Why is it necessary that one should give one living, human form to God? I know Religion does that all the time, so that people have something to place their faith on. But apparently, your posts clearly tells that you are beyond that stage where you have to see God in a place of worship or in a particular form! Thus, comes my question: Why do you think God is “more apparent” in one human being than in any other form of life?
A further word of clarification:
The concept of incarnations (avataar) is different. I liked my guru Sree sirivennela Seetharama Shastry’s explanation about it: That God could possibly stop at not creating evil or at destroying evil with just one swoop of a hand but God takes the trouble to come down [avataraNa (Skt.) = the act of descent] sometimes to restore dharma so that we earthlings can learn by example and start following similar protocol (by giving time and opportunities for evil to transform into good and then be righteous/virtuous enough to “kill” the evil – at least metaphorically speaking – before we pronounce ourselves authorized to do so, and so on).
Excepting in the incarnation as Krishna, God had never claimed to be the God! Even Rama says “aatmaam maanusham manyE raamam daSarathaatmajam sOham yasya yataSchaaham bhagavan tat braviitu mE” (I think of myself as a human born on earth, by name Rama, as the son of Dasaratha. You, O God!, tell me what I am and why I am like this.) when he was being "reminded" by Lord Shiva and others that he was the Lord Vishnu himself. God’s purpose of incarnating Oneself time and again is clearly stated in the bhagavadgeetaa SlOkam “paritraaNaayaa saadhUnaam vinaaSaaya cha dushkRtaam dharma samsthaapanaarthaaya sambhavaami yugE yugE” (To free the Good Samaritans of their suffering, to destroy the evildoers, to establish dharma, I happen [to come down] in every eon.) And, the sequence of incarnations is also quite clearly mentioned. I don’t have issues in accepting Buddha as an incarnation of God (since I don’t attribute religion to God!) or in telling myself that every enlightened individual must ensure swadharma-vartanam (living by one’s dharma) until the tenth incarnation of God comes in the form of Kalki, descending from the Heavens (very much like The Bible’s Book of Revelation reads).
So, repeating my question in another form, would I be wrong if I do not acknowledge God in one particular human being a-temporally, when I know God is omnipresent?
N.B.: Please note that I have NO questions about the enormous service that the Sathya Sai Baba has initiated. This post is not about the service of a human being and/or an organization that the human being initiated. In fact, this post is not even about Sathya Sai Baba, as even you may actually realize upon a second reading/reminiscence.
3 comments:
One question I always have when someone calls him God is. Yes, he is a great human being for his service to a "few", but if he is God ... why help only a few? What about the rest of the world? What about the scores dying everywhere else of hunger, thirst and greed? Why no global agenda?
So he remains to me a mere human being who helped a few, special nevertheless for actually helping others in this day and age. But definitely not God.
KC garu, Like you and I believe, God is one (omnipresent) and can take many forms. The difference comes here. Quoting what you wrote "God is in you, in me, and in all the atheists and theists alike", I believe otherwise. Sai Baba is in you, me and every being, both living and non-living. God (you refer to)to me is Sai Baba.
I have not restricted Him to one living form. If I would have, I should stop praying to Him now as He is "dead". But to me, He is beyond life and death (to say kaalathethaaya). I can still feel/see Him/His Divinity.
Also to me, Kiran is God (Sai Baba), Sahaja is God (Sai Baba). He is in us, but He is not, only us. This on a clearer note would mean, God (Sai Baba) is in a dog, But He is not a dog. Also to me, the human form He took (the one where He had curly hair, wore an orange robe, tender hands and feet, smile filled with love)was only an instrument. It was any "body" like yours or mine and that is why the body had to perish!
I'm not sure if I gave a clear answer to you question, but Divinity can more clearly be experienced rather than explained (I'm sure you know that).
And you are not wrong if you don't acknowledge Sai Baba as God. Each person chooses a favorite form. Lets say you believe in the omnipresence of God, but still your favorite God is Sri Krishna, every time you pray, you would like to believe He listens to you. That to me is Sai Baba. And I also respect those who believe in a formless God or are atheists because they too have in them a spark of divinity.
I did not quite understand this post. I read Sahaja Patel's blog before reading this. That is clear but what is not clear is how this post is a "response" to that post.
Guess, I need to read it again.
Post a Comment