July, 2005
A western woman once came to Ma and
asked for advice on spiritual practice. When Ma inquired about her religion she
answered that she was a Catholic Christian. Immediately Ma in her Kheyal
uttered, "I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian."
Apparently, this saying of Ma can be
explained in so many ways to establish her greatness as well as her highest
spiritual state. Let us try to examine her statement above with a different
outlook keeping in mind the following facts from her life story.
She was born and brought up until her
marriage in a Muslim neighborhood in a remote
then East Bengal village. Her parental family was orthodox Brahmin and
followers of Sanatan Dharma having not even a drop of Islamic influence in
their life styles.
She was a pretty child and loved by all
irrespective of any religious differentiation.
As a child (some 3 or 4 years of age),
the Christian missionaries trying to spread Christian faith in rural East
Bengal attracted her. Young Nirmala (Ma's Name) moved around the villages with
them for the whole day unnoticed by her parents and relatives. The younger
brother of her husband Rev. K.K.Chakraborty took up the Christian faith and Ma
had a sweet relation with her brother-in-law all along. Unlike the conservative
followers of Sanatan Dharma she had no antipathy towards other religious
faiths.
While staying with her husband in Dhaka
and when her spiritual manifestations started coming to light she once offered
Namaz (Muslim Prayer) to a Mazar (tomb) of an Arabian Faqir (spiritual person)
uttering correctly and precisely the prescribed Koranic text in Arabic, a
language quite unknown to her.
During her lifetime, so many Muslim
Moulvis (Orthodox and learned religious teachers) and Christian priests came
for her Satsang (religious company). All of them were moved by her charm, love
and wisdom.
In India the contemporary twentieth
century saints irrespective of the lineages and paths (Yoga, Devotion,
Knowledge, Tantra etc.) they followed, put Ma in the highest esteem and
unequivocally considered her to be at the pinnacle of Sanatan Dharma.
Her parental family was following the
path of devotion (Vaishnavite) whereas her husband's family was traditional
Shaktas (Worshiper of Shakti) apparently in contradictions with the path of the
Vaishnavite. But Ma had no difficulties in adjusting with the new tradition
after her marriage. Just as she was taught by her father from childhood to
recite the name of Hari, which penetrated in her inner being and became a
normal habit, so she started reciting "Jai Siva Shankara." (A
traditional Shakta recitation) immediately after being asked by her husband -
without any reservations. Ma had a special definition for Shakta. Once she
said, "Who is a Shakta? One who sees Ma alone."
The Shaktas consider the ultimate
reality or the presiding deity of the world process as mother goddess. In fact,
the Shaktas are mother worshipers.
Orthodox followers of Jainism,
Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam felt free
with Ma and frequently came and sought
her spiritual advice. Ma treated them all equally.
Religion
is the framed mirror that reflects truth but truth has neither frames nor
religions:
If a devout Sanatan Dharmi (follower of
Sanatan Dharma) openly declares himself as either a Muslim or a Christian he
will immediately be debarred from the religious brotherhood he belonged to and
be looked down upon as religious outcaste in the eyes of the society.
If a follower of Islam likewise
declares, immediately the guardians of Islam will issue Fatwa (Religious
ruling) against him and he will be termed as “Kafir”. In the Christian world,
such declaration will be decried as irreverence. Sequential conversions to
different religions in the life of a person are both possible and admissible
but it is not practicable to be a simultaneous follower of three religious
faiths.
The referred declaration of Ma was not
unknown to the guardians of all the three religions but there was not a single
instance of protest or criticism from any corner of these religious societies.
There was not an iota of diminution of reverence for Ma from any corners of the
world of religions
till today. Now let us try to dive deep
into the essence of this saying of Ma in the light of worldly human experiences
without hiring any high philosophical wisdom from outside.
Suppose a young Christian mother of a
child lost her husband in an accident. The lady was married again to a Muslim
and took up Islamic faith. Of course, she kept the child with her and mothered
another child from her Muslim husband. Will she love the first child in
Christian way and second in Muslim way? Her religion changed but her love for
the child underwent no change.
In Sanatan Indian traditions religious
recognition is counted by birth whereas in all other religions adherence to
faith is considered only after ceremonial initiation or baptism.
The icon of Madonna (neither Virgin Mary
nor child Jesus was a Christian), has its place on the Christian altar next to
the Holy Cross. It is the most revered icon in not only the Christian world but
also the world over, because it is the icon of motherhood not restricted in the
frame of a
particular religious faith. Here we,
for the time being, are not considering the different theological and
philosophical approaches on this subject.
In the Sanatan Dharma a Sanyasi (a
person observing total renunciation) has to severe all the worldly ties and
relations. The great Sankaracharya revived and gave a new dimension to this age
old spiritual lineage. He had compiled the obligatory disciplines and
observances of a Sanyasi in the texts of Yati Dharma Sangraha. He himself had
set the ideal example of a
Yati (Sanyasi) by observing the
disciplines all his life. But he never severed the tie of relation with his
mother nor did he advocate for this to the Sanyasi order. In his life sketch it
was mentioned that he kept up his promise to be present at the funeral rites of
his mother.
A mother as a person may be black or
white, oriental or occidental, poor or rich, educated or illiterate, Christian
or Muslim, young or old, ugly or most beautiful but the flow of inner essence
of motherhood remains the same amongst all these variables.
Conversion from one religious faith to
another is quite a common phenomenon in the spiritual domain. The history of
religions stands witness to this. A seeker is free to choose and switch over
from one faith to another. Nevertheless, these changes follow sequence.
Simultaneous practices and adherence to two or more religious faiths for an
ardent aspirant is neither possible nor permissible in any religious doctrine.
Nevertheless, this saying of Ma bears the sense of simultaneity, which is a
direct deviation from any religious ethics.
In Sanatan spiritual doctrines in
India, the Guru-disciple relation is obligatory. If Ma were taken as an
advocate and exponent of Sanatan Dharma, she should have played the role of a
Guru, which she did not. She emphatically advocated for the necessity of a Guru
in spiritual life of an aspirant keeping herself aloof from the Guru-disciple
relation. In hundreds of occasions she said, "This body (at times she
referred thus of herself) is nobody's Guru." There are instances that
aspirants considering her as Guru surrendered their lives at her feet but she
instead of initiating herself
selected able Gurus and got them
initiated. Interestingly, she kept all those seekers in her personal guidance
and care without handing them over to the Gurus who initiated them.
Ma was a spiritual institution by
herself but never belonged to any institution (Ashram). She used to say,
"This body does not build any Ashram, the whole world is the Ashram of
this body." This saying is indicative of her all encompassing conscious
existence.
Many persons who interacted with Ma
during her physical existence and came to her with spiritual quests were
fortunate to receive mantras and guidance directly from her (the present writer
is one of them). Ma neither termed this as Diksha nor did she claim herself as
a Guru. Ma was instrumental in her husband's (Bholanath) initiation. As such,
her role in the process of Diksha seemed as that of a Guru, whom she never
acknowledged, on the contrary she considered Bholanath as her Guru. [According
to Indian tradition, an ideal wife considers her husband as the ultimate Guru.
Saying goes like that; "Pati param Guru", i.e. Pati or the husband is
the ultimate (param) Guru for the wife]
Nowhere in her sayings, she had ever
addressed or declared her so-called followers as disciples. Always she
projected herself as "little daughter of yours" to the elderly people
and "friend" to the young ones. She said, "In friend everything
is there, mother, father and also brother." She further
said, "The ultimate friend never
deceives, a son could be disowned- but not a friend."
Now the questions are, what role did
she play in the lives of thousands of spiritual aspirants, past and present who
came to her for spiritual guidance? Why did she not directly acknowledge the
Guru-disciple relationship with those who came and considered her as Guru from
the inner core of their hearts?
She was known, called and established
as Ma (mother) in the contemporary spiritual domain. Nevertheless, here also,
we find that except Bhaiji (Jyotish Chandra Roy who named her as Ma
Anandamayee) whom she recognized as her Dharma Putra or spiritual son. Except a
few others who could be counted on one’s fingertips she never directly
acknowledged the thousands of aspirants as her children. It is interesting to
note that after a certain period in her life, probably, after she had been
given the name Ma Anandamayee by Shree
Jyotish Chandra Roy, she started projecting herself as a " little daughter
of yours", "a little girl" and "a crazy little girl"
etc.
In spite of her equation with different
Godheads by people and their ardent devotion towards her Ma did not consider
any one as her devotee. One can say that the relationships between Guru and
disciples, Godhead and devotees and mother and children could not find direct
recognition from Ma's end.
The world had witnessed that all her
life Ma radiated love to everybody, far and near without any discrimination.
She was the fountainhead of love and her love was not restricted to any frame
of relations. As such, one cannot think of love without a frame of relation or
object. The object may be of gross or subtle in nature, but in any case, this
must have a name and form without which one cannot perceive love.
Now let us consider another practical
aspect. The Vedas (in the Vrihadaranyak Upanishad) said, "It is not that
(a father) loves his son to please him but for the pleasure of his own self
(Atma) the son is dear to him...."
It is true that objectively there is transmission of love between lover
and beloved. But it is truer that one loves an object not for the love of the
object but because he loves to love the object. In the other way it can be said
that the inner self-love gets its expression in outer objective love.
Ours is the comparative existence in
the creation. We define our conscious existence in relation to other objects,
which may be of gross or subtle in nature. Our understanding of the world
processes is framed in temporal and spatial co-ordinates and is always oriented
in relative way. Even what we term as absolute has a relative background. Is it
not paradoxical to try to comprehend something absolute when our very existence
is relatively/objectively oriented? We exist because the creation exists or
conversely the creation exists because we exist. Our intelligence plays in
either of these two parameters. Transcendence of these two can only define
our true and non-relational and
independent existence. The secret of life, that is to say, our true existence
thus poses before us as a big note of interrogation, not reachable even by the
sharpest of intelligence oriented towards objects. Moved by the urge to convey
the secrets of life and compassion for the aspiring world great souls by the
way of their lives and teachings interpret the truth he/she experienced to the
logical reason of man.
The eternal urge in the life of a
sentient being is rooted in the unidirectional vector to attain a state of
perpetual happiness. And all actions are the objective manifestations of
self-love. This Self-love, the basic platform of life, which is inherent in
living beings, is always subjective in nature.
In the objective way transmission and
reception of love need expressions to perceive. Transmission, reception and
perception of relation between two objects are carried out through the sense
organs like visual, audio, olfactory, taste and touch. For the time being ESP
(Extra Sensory Perception) is not taken into consideration. Vocal expression
plays a major role in transmission of love. But love for the self needs no
organic media.
If we scrutinize Ma's sayings, we would
find scanty or no reference of her being vocal in expressing her love. But no
one had an iota of doubt about Ma's love for him.
In general one needs a name and a form
to love. Someone else needs my name and my organic form to love me and he loves
me because he loves himself. And for his self-love, his name, form and organic
media of transmission are superfluous.
A relation is always established between
objects having distinctively separate existences. With constant interactions
and contemplations on the relation it gets deepened and gradually these two
independent existences tend to coalesce and ultimately merge into 'undivided
unity' of 'I' and
'This' or in one-ness.
Someone asked Ma, "Who are
you?"
Ma said, "Verily, I am you. (Even)
The void (space) between you and me is I only."
To her the world outside and inside are
no different from her unique existence. Apparently what seemed to be her love
for the world outside is actually the manifestation of her self-love which is
non-relational changeless principle.
It is the common experience that even
in the case of self-love an implied subject-object relationship persists. This
is because we try to find our existence in the relative way of the world and
particularize it in terms of "I" and "this".
The pronoun 'I' used in general is the
workable and gross representation of my existence. It includes both the inert
material compositions and active inner abstract components surfaced on the
substratum of ultimate consciousness or ultimate reality called Chit
(consciousness).
In this context it has to be remembered
that the word consciousness in general use carries an objective sense and
connotes an active subject-object relation and knower-known duality. But Chit
is the non-relational subjective principle. It is the changeless principle of
all changing experiences. It can well be said that love, self-love, self, Ma
and motherhood are synonymous in essence and is the very existence (Sat
principle) of a sentient being.
Ma said, "There is only one
all-pervading Ma, verily the self and Ma are the same, there is only one
principle, the unique I".
Some one asked Ma, "Ma do you love
us as much as we love you?" Ma replied, "You love me because I love
you. You can not imagine of the love I have for you." In this saying Ma
was very explicit in defining mother's love.
The subject-object relation is rooted
in desire and its fulfillment requires mutual interactions between organs of
sense of the subject and object. In other words it can be said that love always
demands organic reciprocation. When a lover expresses, "I love you"
at the back of his mind plays an expectation of vocal or other reciprocation. Absence
of any such reciprocation brings about a sense of pain and doubt.
Before analyzing Ma's saying let us
have a deep look into the question itself which carries the following
underlying implications:-
(a) The questioner has the conviction
about his love for Ma but not convinced about Ma's love for him. He is quite
doubtful about Ma's love for him.
(b) He used the preposition 'Us'
instead of 'I'.
(c) He wanted an authentic answer from
the lips of Ma.
(d) A sense of supremacy on his part is
evident.
(e) He believes in qualification and
quantification of love.
Love is the ambrosia for all pains and
sorrows. To be in love is another name of mental clarity, peace and compose,
whereas, doubtfulness represents the state of restless mind. There can not be
simultaneity of the two states. The moment one feels love doubt has no place in
the mind at that point of time, in particular. The frequency of oscillations of
the mind between doubt and love may be infinitesimally small. They may be so
close that conscious registration of the states becomes impossible. The
question itself may speak of an intelligent mind, but not necessarily a
composed one.
Use of the preposition 'US' instead of
'I' also bears the significance in respect of the state of mind of the
questioner. The person as an individual might have doubts and naturally, he
wants those to be clarified. But here we find a self-styled representation for
the mass and he tried to generalize
the doubt. His question is an
expression of doubts about his doubt. It is quite understandable that a person
having doubt will seek for some other authentic sources or references for its
clarification. If he has doubt of Ma, how could he expect the clarification
from its very source?
The ultimate goal of love is to be in a
state of subject-object oneness. Individual psychological identities are so
attuned that they are being sublimated and merge in unity. In love there is
neither subordination nor dominance. Love plays on the same platform. In the
above question there is an implied sense of supremacy or dominance on the part
of the questioner.
An individual in his objective thinking
always try to think in particular and to particularize a thing name, form,
quality and quantity are necessary. Here in the question we also find that the
questioner has quantified his love for Ma and used the words "as much
as". In expressions of love I love most, I love you very much or like
usages are in vogue. We know that to quantify anything a unit is required. By
definition a unit is the smallest factor of the same thing. But how can the
abstract conception as love, which has no unit, be quantified? If in response
to the saying "I love you very much" the beloved asks "How
much?" what would be an honest answer? What is the quantum of love?
It is true that love manifests in
organic expression and these manifestations might possibly be quantified and
qualified. Since our concept of love is objectively oriented we perceive it
only in terms of name, form, quality and quantity.
The questioner in his mind carries the
underlying expectation of equal (if not more) reciprocation from Ma's end, lest
he becomes a looser. It is nothing but trading in love. In trades a sense of
insecurity or fear of loss always plays at the back of one’s mind. If love be
the ultimate domain of
security and fearlessness one aspires
for, then the approach to this domain should be free from factors like these
that jeopardize the very essence of love. Love is the beckoning light to the
domain of freedom without any conditionality. It should not have any
co-ordinate of specification. It has to be remembered that on the surface he
believes Ma to be the all-pervading love incarnate in human form.
Everyone who has one-to-one
interactions with Ma directly or indirectly bears the experience of Ma's
unconditional love. He lives in the conviction that Ma loves him most. It is
also interesting to note that there are scanty or no references of any vocal
expressions like, “I love you” from the lips of Ma. Unlike us, never did she
have any query and demand of love from anyone.