Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000

RAMANAM
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.  Amen.

Countrymen,

ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT

The sense of distinction is different in each of the stages of yoga.

In karma yoga (thamasic, no vedantha), it is vivid and necessarily so.

In bhakthi yoga (rajasic, qualified vedantha), it is denied and necessarily so.

In jnana yoga (sathwic, plenary vedantha), distinctions are present but not the sense that they are distinctions.

I had a discussion at Puttaparthi in 1971 with a fellow polio (Swami denied that language, called it “light paralysis”) patient, Camille Lust, who went then by Kamala (how Providence names us!).

Kamala said that in the upper stages of awareness all distinctions fade away. I said that I think so but that they all come back again even farther on but without leaving any impression of being distinctions.

Chesterton mentions how for Francis a bird flying across a sky was not a bird flying across the sky but an arrow of Divine Light speeding prettily on an errand of salvation.  A view from jnana yoga ….

Something like that ….

Vedas mention two types of maya: avidyamaya and vidyamaya. Swami has dwelt on the differences and implied considerable significance thereto.

For those unfamiliar with the terms, here’s a precis:

vidyamaya is maya which leads to less maya, less entanglement. For example, religious activity, selfless service, any sort of genuine sadhana or spiritual discipline.

avidyamaya is maya which leads to more maya, more entanglement. For example, activity with desire for its fruits, activity meant to harm, cognition positing anything as multiple, etc.

In Christian theological history we have a fellow known as Nicholas of Cusa who employed this distinction between vidyamaya and avidyamaya. Vidyamaya he called learned ignorance (docta ignorantia) and avidyamaya he called ignorance (ignorantia). His point — and Vedas’ and too — is that maya is what we’re always dealing with so long as we are dealing with anything at all, but that the way we deal with what comes to us as deal-ables determines whether we sink more deeply into delusion (through avidyamaya — ignorantia) — or gradually emerge from delusion (through vidyamaya — docta ignorantia).

If we say that an appreciation of this distinction is irrelevant or useless we are perhaps making a claim to omniscience that is insupportable because it is unfounded.

In my view of this old and always useful discussion, the tendency of spiritual intuition is to rush past useful notations regarding the sadhana process and seek to hook the ring, so to speak, without admitting that one all along has been making an effort to try for that ring — and that that effort is remarkable.

In other words, I think the tendency of this delightfully bumptious intuition is to project the “problem” (delusion) on the world when really it is inside, a misdirection of the process of intuition — and therefore of cognition — itself.

As we become adwaithin (non-dualistic in outlook) we do not redefine who we are or what we do, we redefine what we see.

A related is from recent literature promotional of Jean Houston. Jeannie purports to quote Nicholas of Cusa to this effect:

God is a circle whose circumference is infinite and whose center is nowhere.

Surely some will recognize there an old Alchemical phrase. But the statement should read:

God is a circle whose circumference is infinite and whose center is everywhere.

I am not sure Cusa invented this statement, which is celebrated, but he could have.

Behind this misquote and its proper wording is this important matter: whether the world is delusion or our taking of it is the delusion. With Swami, I vote for the latter.

One maya, two tendencies.

Love is the thorn (maya) we use to extract the thorn (same maya) of hate from the flesh. When the latter is out, BOTH thorns are discarded as unneeded. BOTH are maya, the same maya, but of different tendencies.

The language itself says this. Both words, vidyamaya and avidyamaya, are based on one word, maya. One maya. But two tendencies are available. Viveka reveals this fact. So does experience.

Cusa’s language has the same usage: ignorantia and docta ignorantia. Ignorantia (maya) is common to both.

The Vedic language is a little better than Cusa’s, actually, because it uses a negative (“a”) in front of vidya in avidyamaya. This indicates more precisely the actual working of the thing (phenomenology) than Cusa’s language does. It is a subtle point and not totally essential, but it is elegant in its realism.

Vedas are very practical. I think this is one reason they so appealed to the Germans 200 years ago.

The effectiveness of punch-line first or top-down sadhana is self-evident to me.  I have used it for years. I seek an expansion or elaboration of the functionality of this approach, which is my favorite and needs no commending from me because all are aware — or could be — that it works very nicely.

The observation I am making is that when we negative something we negative the negativing itself. When we say the world is unreal, we are saying that that statement — that the world is unreal — is also unreal. The statement is made in the world.  Ultimately, any negative negatives absolutely everything. This fact Kant spend time demonstrating to everyone’s satisfaction and no one has since even tried to say he did not make his point. He made it unarguably. The point is simply: that when we say something is not — because it is maya, for example — we are also saying that that saying also is not … that that statement itself is maya. Any negative negatives everything. If we do not see that this is the case, we just have not looked far enough down the functionality of what we are doing.

Now, when we have a negative (the world is unreal) being negatived ipso facto by itself (saying the world is unreal is an unreal saying), we have two negatives interacting and all the rules and experience show that two negatives make … a positive. This phenomenon is enshrined in mathematics functionality.

So, my observation is that the true top-down or punch-line sadhana is not “everything is unreal” but rather “everything is real” — because functionally “everything is unreal” ipso facto and ineluctably becomes “everything is real.”

Maya is just as real as reality because it is functional. It is maya. If we have a name for something, it exists. If it exists, it is real. Since whatever is real is going to be real even if we negative it — because the negative always negatives itself, producing a positive — then it makes the most sense to do sadhana top-down as “Everything is real … and wonderful … and sweet … and loving … Godly and ….”

This is another way of stating the great principle of neti, which principle the great Sephardic Rabbi Ben Maimon calls via negativa. This is also Franciscan procedure, which is reflected in Christian Science healing methods.

We cope here with the phenomenon of reflection.

To wit:

A lion is walking near a calm lake. He glances in the lake. There is a lion, looking not entirely friendly. He growls at the lion in the lake, who growls back. So he bares his teeth and threatens the lion in the lake, who responds in kind. So he pounces on the lion in the lake and promptly drowns.

Now, how shall we deal with this phenomenon, which is the archetype of maya and is in essence a phenomenon of reflectivity?

Gita encourages us to use Viveka and Vijnana to sort out the relative realities of the lion and the lion in the lake. Fortified with awareness born of the processes of Viveka and Vijnana, we declare the lion in the lake unreal and the lion looking in the lake proximately real and ultimately … well, we cannot say unreal but we could say “without-a-second.”

One of the points I have been trying to indicate is that with respect to this Gita approach, it is better sadhana (easier for the widest array of seekers) to say (to take) that the lion in the lake is a reflection than it is say or take that it is unreal. Why is it better to say or to take it this way?

(1) Because it is more true to the nature of the process, the way it is actually lived and felt and (2) because it is more true to the nature of linguistics, to the phenomenology of the use of language.

Occam’s razor, call your office.

The thing is first felt as a reflection. It is felt as real. It is not real ontologically, but it feels real and so it should be spoken of in terms respecting how it is actually felt by the jiva/sadhaka. It is experienced as a reflection. So we should call it that. Calling it unreality deprecates the jivatma’s experience and this is perhaps effective sadhana but rougher than it needs to be and so possibly counter-productive in many cases.

Then again, the nature of linguistics is to posit as real whatever is named or symbolized. Positing something as real does not mean it is real. But the first effect of language at all is to posit reality to whatever is named. Thus when we use the word maya, we are positing that there is a reality called maya. And so in this case of discussing maya we have ourselves in linguistic conundrum right from the top merely because we are using language: we are positing reality to something we ultimately want to say is unreal. For this reason, to avoid the conundrum at least at the top of the discussion, it is better to say that maya is a reflection of truth than to say it is unreal. So calling it allows the processes of Viveka and Vijnana to proceed easier both semantically and syntactically for most seekers than they can if we merely and somewhat roughly call the reflection unreal.

That is all regarding the Gita approach to this archetype of maya. No one can disparage the approach. I have tried to indicate what to me is an adjustment for the purpose of facility, but I would never allow the approach to be disparaged. It has the blessing of AdiGuru Vyasa, who wrote it, after all.

(When Vyasa finished Gita he was profoundly depressed and felt his life was of no purpose. It was not until someone suggested he write Bhagavatha — which is just a story, like Ramayana — that he got happy again and felt his efforts worthwhile. The relative easy of sadhana in the two approaches was the turnkey to his personal balance.)

Now, Ramayana encourages us to handle the situation described by the lion/lake phenomenon by continuing on with the duties of life, leaving all consequences to God and reverently reciting his Name in continuation … and not looking in the lake. A reflection not seen is a maya not needing to be discriminated and discarded and a maya not needing to be discriminated and discarded is a little time freed up for … well, one can fill in the blanks from one’s upwelling of inner necessity.

For a top down approach this one seems to me the toppest downest and easiest: essentially what one does in Bhajans … Ramanam.

Thanks for your note. Your personal information is lacking. How do you know you are a devotee of Swami? Can you make this claim? He said just two weeks ago that He has no devotees but that He is the devotee of everyone. Are you saying differently? Are you a student at “The Raven?” Are you teaching the Benedictine Brethren about Swami? Are you an oblate? A postulant? Why is your name not in your e-mail address? In other words, dear fellow, what are your bona fides?

I am particularly interested in what you are doing to spread teachings and especially presence of Swami among the RC and Vatican crowd. Are you open in your devotion to Swami at the Chapel there on campus? Do you organize meetings to which you invite faculty and prelates to hear about Him? Have you integrated Benedictine spirituality with Swami? Have you integrated the educational enterprise as a whole?

Your zeal for Swami can be respected if it is public before the faculty of the institution you attend and the prelates who oversee or influence its economic welfare. What career risks do you gladly accept by being public about your devotion to Swami?

Finally, young man, what gives you the impression that what we are doing is outside Swami’s approval? Are you certain that it is? Are you certain that your questioning us is within Swami’s approval? Are you speaking for Swami? For yourself? For an officer of the Sai Org?

Your letter arrives at an interesting moment because I am just sitting to write requesting associates to participate in a full expansion of Sai RishiKul to the networked communications implementation of SSSIHL that it inherently is. Swami loves a jest.

For your edification, understand that Swami gave me this mission in March of 1972 during private interview. So relax, enjoy and participate to the extent you feel called. There is more in the universe than your 18 years have even dreamed of much less come across. Keep an open mind and remember that the officers of the Sai Org are rakshasas with rakshasa agendas. We are humans. And there is the matter with which you are coping. Keep at it, apply yourself diligently and examine yourself always. That is the Benedictine practice as well as Swami’s. Also note that I am trained as a theologian and work as one. You cannot say anything of which I am not aware.

No doubt you will one day be a splendid teacher and theologian yourself. Prepare yourself. I am familiar with the pedagogical process by which students examine — and often appear to abuse — teachers in order to discover their mettle and metal. And I support the process, up to a point. If it becomes implacable, then the student is just brandishing ego and will be cut off. Examine, but learn. Thrash, but understand.

Next time you write, answer the questions above regarding your bona fides and be prepared to participate in our efforts to expand the RishiKul or expect no response.

 

There is an array of topics in the note Mr. Gill sent to me. One way to describe this array is to say that it involves implementing adwaithic/vedanthic principles in ways of living. And so the array is a salutary one to examine.

For me, the basic A/V implementation is the one following from Swami’s well-known remark that all are equally close to Him.  When one is aware of this truth, how does one put it into practice. Once one is aware of it, it opens a whole new array of problems and possibilities for living.

If this A/V principle is true — and it certainly is — then a lot of things follow in the way of living. These things are the “array” mentioned earlier.

For example:

There is not a distinction between what we say and what Swami says.

There is not a distinction between what we do and what Swami does.

There is not a distinction between what we are and what Swami are … is.

There is not a distinction between what we want and what Swami wants.

There is not a distinction between what we see and what Swami sees.

Thus, when we implement the A/V principle we do just what Swami just said to do in the 11/23/97 address and say that our name is I: I am I, which is the English version of the Tetragrammaton. I prefer this language to “I am God,” which is immature at best.

Now, we can get more into practicalities.

Among the first things “devotees” newly met do is exchange their original “contact” dates with Swami. The implication is, the earlier the better. Preference is assumed to reside with the “earlier” devotee, the one of longest association. It is a ritual. What is the meaning of this? Ultimately, nothing at all. The A/V principle is that all are equally close to Swami.  Their call date is immaterial. So who got there first? The entire concern is based on a pernicious delusion … and an abundance of unchecked ego.

Sai Org and now Sai Net have barriers to membership. Both are cabals requiring sponsorship. This anti-A/V, anti-Swami environment is reminiscent of Swami’s remark years ago at a Divine Life Society convocation at which a 5 rupee membership fee was required that if folks would give Him five sins for regeneration He would make them members of the Society of Divine Life. The Sai Cabals are reminiscent, also, of the membership fee that Shirdi Society charged years ago and apparently still does.

In our Christian history we have this A/V issue arising right at the start in a disagreement between the community of Christians at Jerusalem, led by a blood brother of Jesus (in the usual Near Eastern tradition of family members carrying on for a significant representative), and the wider community of Christians and not-yet-but-could/would-like-to-be Christians, led by St. Paul. The Jerusalem community was a cabal, imitated currently by Sai Org/Sai Net. Paul was the A/V fly in the Jerusalem cabal’s soup who said that Jesus came for the world, for all equally, and that this is a universal religion because all are “in Christ” — Paul’s version of Swami’s “say ‘I am I'” — and that on this account all can DO Christianity — implement the A/V reality — as and where they are so called by that Christ in Whom they live and dwell and have their being (esse) — in other words, Who they ARE.

The A/V principle is always less than fascile to grasp and frequently appears dangerous and is treated as such — Paul Tillich was called “a dangerous man” by cabal church leaders just as A. J. Heschel was by cabal synagogue leaders, and for the same reason: they were adwaithins.

But when Swami tells us to say that our name is I, He is saying to take the wraps off and tell the truth and implement the great monistic (A/V) principle: He is all.

Finally, and still on the practical aspect. When it comes to saying what comes DIRECTLY from Swami, there is only one thing that has, and that is the Prasanthividwanmahasabha, the organization He started to support Pundits (Clergy/Monastics). This is the only body in the usual sense of that word that He DIRECTLY and HE ALONE initiated.

All other organizations come either from the wail of aspirants (e.g., the Sai Org/Sai Net and Seva Dhal) or from the inner necessity of aspirants (e.g., EVH and SSSIHL).

This aetiology is important to know.  Only one organization is from Swami: that to support Clergy/Monastics (Pundits).

If we look at Ramayana, we see that He points out repeatedly that the first duty of rulers is to assure the welfare of scholars and hermits (clergy and monastics), that the happiness of the empire is absolutely based on the happiness of these people. All emperors of the Solar Dynasty conduct themselves to this priority, Swami included. The only organization He has founded is that to ensure the welfare of clergy and monastics. All the other organizations come from devotees either wailing (Sai Org) or trying to be constructive (schools).

I can speak personally, as a scholar entirely unable to support myself, that were it not for Swami providing the way and the support and the inner light and confidence, I should have given up in despair long ago from the heinous bullying and vicious thuggery of Sai Org officers, starting with Hislop. I faced and face the same lethal hatred from these rakshasas now that I did in Tretha Yuga and rely on the same Hand now that I did then for protection so that I can get on with the work I have to do from inner necessity in the realm of educating humanity and rakshasary in the ways of understanding and implementing the A/V principle.

“My” work is Swami’s Work. There is no distinction. Hislop’s work is Swami’s Work. There is no distinction.

Now, how do you tell which is rakshasa and which is human work? And is there a difference? Look at the fruits. Or as Jeremiah said, watch developments.

Mr. Gill felicitously raised this array of very important considerations.

This is in my view a nice discrimination on “religion.” Viveka is essential so that one can discriminate or discern the difference between the real and the counterfeit and accept the former while leaving the latter. Thus the Hamsa that sips only milk from a mixture of milk and water.

The world is a mixture and everything in it. Taking it for merely real is absurd and taking it for merely unreal is equally absurd. It is a mixture.

There is wide-spread tendency in this country and elsewhere to knee-jerk into one’s own chin, disrupting needed brain capacity, every time one hears the word “religion.” Similarly when one hears the word “Christian.” The reasons for this are several, partly from irreligion emanating from supposed centers of religion and partly from deliberate academic, media and spiritualist cabals pitching against favorite rhetorical straw-persons.

I am always happy when these and all other words commonly used to occasion knee-jerks are examined and used with their wonted grace. I have numerously had the experience of being inspired by words from Swami to examine, correlate and thereby lighten and expand accustomed usages through rubbings with Swami’s. It is an altogether salutary experience.

An example from my own labor was usage of the word “Christ.”

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA