{"id":996,"date":"2013-07-13T01:31:50","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:31:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=996"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:31:50","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:31:50","slug":"09-the-purpose-of-avatarhood-vol-22-letters-on-yoga-volume-22","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/22-letters-on-yoga-volume-22\/09-the-purpose-of-avatarhood-vol-22-letters-on-yoga-volume-22","title":{"rendered":"-09_The Purpose of Avatarhood.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n

\n
\nS<\/font>ECTION<\/font>
\nS<\/font>EVEN<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nThe Purpose of Avatarhood<\/span><\/b><\/font><\/span> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n


\n                    S<\/font><\/b>URELY<\/font> for the
\nearth-consciousness the very fact that the Divine manifests himself is the
\ngreatest of all splendours. Consider the obscurity here and what it would be if
\nthe Divine did not directly intervene and the Light of Lights did not
\nbreak\u00a0 <\/span>out of the obscurity \u2013 for that is
\nthe meaning of the manifestation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

An incarnation is the Divine
\nConsciousness and Being manifesting through the body. It is possible from any
\nplane.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is the omnipresent cosmic
\nDivine who supports the action of the universe; if there is an Incarnation, it
\ndoes not in the least diminish the cosmic Presence and the cosmic action in the
\nthree or thirty million universes.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

The Descending Power (Avatar)
\nchooses its own place, body, time for the manifestation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

The Avatar is necessary when a
\nspecial work is to be done and in crises of the evolution. The Avatar is a
\nspecial manifestation while for the rest of the time it is the Divine working
\nwithin the ordinary human limits as a Vibhuti<\/span>. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Avatarhood<\/span>
\nwould have little meaning if it were not connected <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage – 401<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

with the evolution. The Hindu procession
\nof the ten Avatars is itself, as it were, a parable of evolution. First the
\nFish Avatar, then the amphibious animal between land and water, then the land
\nanimal, then the Man-Lion Avatar, bridging man and animal, then man as dwarf,
\nsmall and undeveloped and physical but containing in himself the godhead and
\ntaking possession of existence, then the rajasic, sattwic, nirguna<\/span>
\nAvatars, leading the human development from the vital rajasic to the sattwic
\nmental man and again the overmental superman. Krishna, Buddha and Kalki<\/span> depict the last three stages, the stages of the
\nspiritual development \u2013 Krishna opens the possibility of overmind, Buddha tries
\nto shoot beyond to the supreme liberation but that liberation is still
\nnegative, not returning upon earth to complete positively the evolution; Kalki<\/span> is to correct this by bringing the Kingdom of the
\nDivine upon earth, destroying the opposing Asura forces. The progression is
\nstriking and unmistakable. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As for the lives
\nin between the Avatar lives, it must be remembered that Krishna speaks of many
\nlives in the past, not only a few supreme ones, and secondly that while he
\nspeaks of himself as the Divine, in one passage he describes himself as a Vibhuti<\/span>, vrsnīnām<\/i><\/span> vāsudevah<\/span><\/i>. We may therefore fairly assume that in
\nmany lives he manifested as the Vibhuti<\/span> veiling the
\nfuller Divine Consciousness. If we admit that the object of Avatarhood<\/span>
\nis to lead the evolution, this is quite reasonable, the Divine appearing as
\nAvatar in the great transitional stages and as Vibhutis to aid the lesser
\ntransitions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It [the overmind<\/span>
\nliberation] can’t be supreme if there is something beyond it \u2013 but there is a
\nliberation even in higher Mind. But in speaking of supreme liberation I was
\nsimply taking the Buddhist-Adwaita view for granted and correcting it by saying
\nthat this Nirvana view is too negative. Krishna opened the possibility of
\novermind with its two sides of realisation, static and dynamic. Buddha tried to
\nshoot from mind to Nirvana in the Supreme, just as Shankara did in another way
\nafter him. Both agree in overleaping the other stages and trying to get at a <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 402<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

nameless and featureless
\nAbsolute. Krishna on the other hand was leading by the normal course of
\nevolution. The next normal step is not a featureless Absolute, but the
\nsupermind. I consider that in trying to overshoot, Buddha like Shankara made a
\nmistake, calling away the dynamic side of the liberation. Therefore there has
\nto be a correction by Kalki<\/span>. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I was of course
\ndealing with the ten Avatars as a \u201cparable of the evolution\u201d, and only
\nexplaining the interpretation we can put on it from that point of view. It was
\nnot my own view of the thing that I was giving.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Too much importance need not be
\nattached to the details about Kalki<\/span> \u2013 they are rather
\nsymbolic than an attempt to prophesy details of future history. What is
\nexpressed is something that has to come, but it is symbolically indicated, no
\nmore.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

So too, too much
\nweight need not be put on the exact figures about the Yugas in the Purana. Here
\nagain the Kala and the Yugas indicate successive periods in the cyclic wheel of
\nevolution, \u2013 the perfect state, decline and disintegration of successive ages
\nof humanity followed by a new birth \u2013 the mathematical calculations are not the
\nimportant element. The argument of the end of the Kali Yuga already come or
\ncoming and a new Satya Yuga coming is a very familiar one and there have been
\nmany who have upheld it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I only took the Puranic<\/span> list of Avatars and interpreted it as a parable of
\nevolution, so as to show that the idea of evolution is implicit behind the
\ntheory of Avatarhood<\/span>. As to whether one accepts
\nBuddha as an Avatar or prefers to put others in his place (in some lists Balaram<\/span> replaces Buddha), is a matter of individual
\nfeeling. The Buddhist Jatakas<\/span> are legends about the
\npast incarnations of the Buddha, often with a teaching implied in them, and are
\nnot a part of the Hindu system. To the Buddhists Buddha was not an Avatar at
\nall, he was the soul climbing up the ladder of spiritual evolution till it reached
\nthe final stage of <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 403<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

emancipation \u2013 although Hindu
\ninfluence did make Buddhism develop the idea of an eternal Buddha above, that
\nwas not a universal or fundamental Buddhistic idea. Whether the Divine in
\nmanifesting his Avatarhood<\/span> could choose to follow the
\nline of evolution from the lowest scale, manifesting on each scale as a Vibhuti<\/span> is a question again to which the answer is not
\ninevitably in the negative. If we accept the evolutionary idea, such a thing
\nmay have its place.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If Buddha taught
\nsomething different from Krishna, that does not prevent his advent from being
\nnecessary in the spiritual evolution. The only question is whether the attempt
\nto scale the heights of an absolute Nirvana through negation of cosmic
\nexistence was a necessary step or not, having a view to the fact that one can
\nmake the attempt to reach the Highest on the neti<\/span> neti<\/span> as well as the iti<\/span> iti<\/span> line.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

He [Buddha] affirmed practically
\nsomething unknowable that was Permanent and Unmanifested<\/span>.
\nAdwaita does the same. Buddha never said he was an Avatar of a Personal God but
\nthat he was the Buddha. It is the Hindus who made him an Avatar. If Buddha had
\nlooked upon himself as an Avatar at all, it would have been as an Avatar of the
\nimpersonal Truth.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I don’t know that historically
\nthere could have been any other Buddha. It is the Vaishnava<\/span>
\nPuranas<\/span>, I think, that settled the list of Avatars,
\nfor they are all Avatars of Vishnu according to the Purana. The final
\nacceptance by all may have come later than Shankara, after the Buddhist-Brahminic<\/span> controversy had ceased to be an actuality. For
\nsome time there was a tendency to substitute Balarama’s<\/span>
\nname for Buddha’s or to say that Buddha was an Avatar of Vishnu, but that he
\ncame to mislead the Asuras<\/span>. He is evidently aimed at
\nin the story of Mayamoha<\/span> in the Vishnu Purana. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 404<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

If a Divine Consciousness and
\nForce descended and through the personality we call Buddha did a great work for
\nthe world, then Buddha can be called an Avatar \u2013 the tapasya<\/span>
\nand arriving at knowledge are only an incident of the manifestation.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If on the other
\nhand Buddha was only a human being like many others who arrived at some
\nknowledge and preached it, then he was not an Avatar \u2013 for of that kind there
\nhave been thousands and they cannot be all Avatars.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Krishna is not the supramental
\nLight. The descent of Krishna would mean the descent of the overmind<\/span>
\nGodhead preparing, though not itself actually, the descent of supermind and
\nAnanda. Krishna is the Anandamaya; he supports the evolution through the overmind<\/span> leading it towards the Ananda.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

One can be the head of a
\nspiritual organisation or the Messiah of a religion or an Avatar without in
\nthis life reaching the supermind and beyond.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Yuge<\/i><\/span> yuge<\/i>1 <\/sup>may be used in a general sense, as in English
\n\u201cfrom age to age\u201d and not refer technically to the yuga<\/i><\/span> proper according to the Puranic<\/span> computation. But the bahūni<\/i><\/span> <\/i>2 <\/sup>has an air of referring to very numerous lives
\nespecially when coupled with tava<\/i><\/span> ca<\/i>. In that
\ncase all these many births could not be full incarnations, \u2013 many may have been
\nmerely Vibhuti<\/span> births carrying on the thread from
\nincarnation to incarnation. About Arjuna’s<\/span>
\naccompanying him in each and every birth, nothing is said, but it would not be
\nlikely \u2013 many, of course.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

1<\/span><\/sup> About his many births <\/span>Krishna<\/span> says in the Gita, sambhavāmi<\/i><\/span> yuge<\/span> yuge<\/span><\/i>. See <\/span>Gita<\/span>, <\/span>Ch.<\/span> IV, 8.<\/span><\/p>\n

2<\/span><\/sup> Bahūni<\/i><\/span> me vyatitāni<\/i><\/span> janmāni<\/span> tava<\/span> cārjuna<\/span><\/i>. Gita, Ch. IV, 5.<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 405<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

But each being in a new birth
\nprepares a new mind, life and body \u2013 otherwise John Smith would always be John
\nSmith and would have no chance of being Piyusha<\/span> Kanti<\/span> Ghose<\/span>. Of course inside
\nthere are old personalities contributing to the new life \u2013 but I am speaking of
\nthe new visible personality, the outer man, mental, vital, physical. It is the
\npsychic being that keeps the link from birth to birth and makes all the
\nmanifestations of the same person. It is therefore to be expected that the
\nAvatar should take on a new personality each time, a personality suited for the
\nnew times, work, surroundings. In my own view of things, however, the new
\npersonality has a series of Avatar births behind him, births in which the
\nintermediate evolution has been followed and assisted from age to age.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I suppose very few recognised<\/span> him [Krishna] as an Avatar, \u2013 certainly it was
\nnot at all a general recognition. Among the few those nearest him do not seem
\nto have counted \u2013 it was less prominent people like Vidura<\/span>
\netc.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Those who were with Krishna
\nwere in all appearance men like other men. They spoke and acted with each other
\nas men with men and were not thought of by those around them as gods. Krishna
\nhimself was known by most as a man \u2013 only a few worshipped him as the Divine.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

An Avatar, roughly speaking, is
\none who is conscious of the presence and power of the Divine born in him or
\ndescended into him and governing from within his will and life and action; he
\nfeels identified inwardly with this divine power and presence. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A Vibhuti<\/span> is supposed to embody some power of the Divine and
\nis enabled by it to act with great force in the world, but that is all that is
\nnecessary to make him a Vibhuti<\/span>: the power may <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 406<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

be very great, but the
\nconsciousness is not that of an inborn or indwelling Divinity. This is the
\ndistinction we can gather from the Gita which is the main authority on this
\nsubject. If we follow this distinction, we can confidently say from what is
\nrelated of them that Rama and Krishna can be accepted as Avatars; Buddha
\nfigures as such although with a more impersonal consciousness of the Power
\nwithin him. Ramakrishna voiced the same consciousness when he spoke of Him who
\nwas Rama and who was Krishna being within him. But Chaitanya’s<\/span>
\ncase is peculiar; for according to the accounts he ordinarily felt and declared
\nhimself a bhakta<\/span> of Krishna and nothing more, but in
\ngreat moments he manifested Krishna, grew luminous in mind and body and was
\nKrishna himself and spoke and acted as the Lord. His contemporaries saw in him
\nan Avatar of Krishna, a manifestation of the Divine Love. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Shankara and
\nVivekananda were certainly Vibhutis; they cannot be reckoned as more, though as
\nVibhutis they were very great.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It was not my intention to
\nquestion in any degree Chaitanya’s<\/span> position as an
\nAvatar of Krishna and the Divine Love. That character of the manifestation
\nappears very clearly from all the accounts about him and even, if what is
\nrelated about the appearance of Krishna in him from time to time is accepted,
\nthese outbursts of the splendour<\/span> of the Divine Being
\nare among the most remarkable in the story of the Avatar. As for Sri
\nRamakrishna, the manifestation in him was not so intense but more many-sided
\nand fortunately there can be no doubt about the authenticity of the details of
\nhis talk and action since they have been recorded from day to day by so
\ncompetent an observer as Mahendranath<\/span> Gupta. I would
\nnot care to enter into any comparison as between these two great spiritual
\npersonalities: both exercised an extraordinary influence and did something
\nsupreme in their own sphere. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 407<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

He [Ramakrishna] never wrote an
\nautobiography \u2013 what he said was in conversation with his disciples and others.
\nHe was certainly quite as much an Avatar as Christ or Chaitanya<\/span>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Mahomed<\/span>
\nwould himself have rejected the idea of being an Avatar, so we have to regard
\nhim only as the prophet, the instrument, the Vibhuti<\/span>.
\nChrist realised himself as the Son who is one with the Father \u2013 he must
\ntherefore be an amśāvatāra<\/i><\/span>,
\na partial incarnation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

What Leonardo da<\/span>
\nVinci held in himself was all the new age of Europe on its many sides. But
\nthere was no question of Avatarhood<\/span> or consciousness
\nof a descent or pressure of spiritual forces. Mysticism was no part of what he had
\nto manifest. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nII<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There are two sides of the
\nphenomenon of Avatarhood<\/span>, the Divine Consciousness
\nand the instrumental personality. The Divine Consciousness is omnipotent but it
\nhas put forth the instrumental personality in Nature under the conditions of
\nNature and it uses it according to the rules of the game \u2013 though also
\nsometimes to change the rules of the game. If Avatarhood<\/span>
\nis only a flashing miracle, then I have no use for it. If it is a coherent part
\nof the arrangement of the omnipotent Divine in Nature, then I can understand
\nand accept it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I have said that the Avatar is
\none who comes to open the Way for humanity to a higher consciousness \u2013 if
\nnobody can follow the Way, then either our conception of the thing, which is
\nalso that of Christ and Krishna and Buddha also, is all wrong or the whole life
\nand action of the Avatar is quite futile. X seems to <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 408<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

say that there is no way and no
\npossibility of following, that the struggles and sufferings of the Avatar are
\nunreal and all humbug, \u2013 there is no possibility of struggle for one who
\nrepresents the Divine. Such a conception makes nonsense of the whole idea of Avatarhood<\/span>; there is then no reason in it, no necessity in
\nit, no meaning in it. The Divine being all-powerful can lift people up without
\nbothering to come down on earth. It is only if it is a part of the
\nworld-arrangement that he should take upon himself the burden of humanity and
\nopen the Way that Avatarhood<\/span> has any meaning.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

The Avatar is not supposed to act
\nin a non-human way \u2013 he takes up human action and uses human methods with the
\nhuman consciousness in front and the Divine behind. If he did not his taking a
\nhuman body would have no meaning and would be of no use to anybody. He could
\njust as well have stayed above and done things from there.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

As for the Divine and the human,
\nthat also is a mind-made difficulty. The Divine is there in the human, and the
\nhuman fulfilling and exceeding its highest aspirations and tendencies becomes
\nthe Divine. That is what your depression could not understand \u2013 that when the
\nDivine descends, he takes upon himself the burden of humanity in order to
\nexceed it \u2013 he becomes human in order to show humanity how to become Divine.
\nBut that cannot be if there is only a weakling without any divine Presence
\nwithin or divine Force behind him \u2013 he has to be strong in order to put his
\nstrength into all who are willing to receive it. There is therefore in him a
\ndouble element \u2013 human in front, Divine behind \u2013 and it is that which gives the
\nimpression of unfathomableness<\/span> of which you
\ncomplained. If you look upon the human alone, looking with the external eye
\nonly and not willing or ready to see anything else, you will see a human being
\nonly \u2013 if you look for the Divine, you will find the Divine. <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 409<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

It is true that it is impossible
\nfor the limited human reason to judge the way or purpose of the Divine, \u2013 which
\nis the way of the Infinite dealing with the finite.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It is not by your mind that you can
\nhope to understand the Divine and its action, but by the growth of a true and
\ndivine consciousness within you. If the Divine were to unveil and reveal itself
\nin all its glory, the mind might feel a Presence, but it would not understand
\nits action or its nature. It is in the measure of your own realisation and by
\nthe birth and growth of that greater consciousness in yourself that you will
\nsee the Divine and understand its action even behind its terrestrial disguises.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

An Avatar or Vibhuti<\/span>
\nhave the knowledge that is necessary for their work, they need not have more.
\nThere was absolutely no reason why Buddha should know what was going on in
\nRome. An Avatar even does not manifest all the Divine omniscience and
\nomnipotence; he has not come for any such unnecessary display; all that is
\nbehind him but not in the front of his consciousness. As for the Vibhuti<\/span>, the Vibhuti<\/span> need not
\neven know that he is a power of the Divine. Some Vibhutis like Julius Caesar
\nfor instance have been atheists. Buddha himself did not believe in a personal
\nGod, only in some impersonal and indescribable Permanent.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Men’s way of doing things well is
\nthrough a clear mental connection; they see things and do things with the mind
\nand what they want is a mental and human perfection. When they think of a
\nmanifestation of Divinity, they think it must be an extraordinary perfection in
\ndoing ordinary human things \u2013 an extraordinary business faculty, political,
\npoetic or artistic faculty, an accurate memory, not making mistakes, not undergoing
\nany defeat or failure. Or else they think of things which they call superhuman<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 410<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

like not eating food or telling
\ncotton-futures or sleeping on nails or eating them. All that has nothing to do
\nwith manifesting the Divine…. These human ideas are false. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Divinity
\nacts according to another consciousness, the consciousness of the Truth above
\nand the Lila below and It acts according to the need of the Lila, not according
\nto man’s ideas of what It should or should not do. This is the first thing one
\nmust grasp, otherwise one can understand nothing about the manifestation of the
\nDivine. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

If the Divine were not in essence
\nomnipotent, he could not be omnipotent anywhere \u2013 whether in the supramental or
\nanywhere else. Because he chooses to limit or determine his action by
\nconditions, it does not make him less omnipotent. His self-limitation is itself
\nan act of omnipotence…. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Why should the
\nDivine be tied down to succeed in all his operations? What if failure suits him
\nbetter and serves better the ultimate purpose? What rigid primitive notions are
\nthese about the Divine!
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Certain
\nconditions have been established for the game and so long as those conditions
\nremain unchanged certain things are not done, \u2013 so we say they are impossible,
\ncan’t be done. If the conditions are changed then the same things are done or
\nat least become licit \u2013 allowable, legal according to the so-called laws of
\nNature, and then we say they can be done. The Divine also acts according to the
\nconditions of the game. He may change them, but he has to change them first,
\nnot proceed, while maintaining the conditions, to act by a series of miracles.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

If the Avatars are shams, they
\nhave no value for others nor any true effect, Avatarhood<\/span>
\nbecomes perfectly irrational and unreal and meaningless. The Divine does not
\nneed to suffer or struggle for himself; if he takes on these things, it is in
\norder to bear the world-burden and help the world and men; and if the
\nsufferings and struggles are to be of any help, they must be real. A sham or <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 411<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

falsehood cannot help. They must
\nbe as real as the struggles and sufferings of men themselves \u2013 the Divine bears
\nthem and at the same time shows the way out of them. Otherwise, his assumption
\nof human nature has no meaning and no utility and no value. What is the use of
\nadmitting Avatarhood<\/span> if you take all the meaning out
\nof it?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

If your argument is that the
\nlife-actions, struggles of the Avatar (e.g. Rama’s<\/span>,
\nKrishna’s) are unreal because the Divine is there and knows it is all a Maya,
\nin man also there is a self, a spirit that is immortal, untouched, divine; you
\ncan say that man’s sufferings and ignorance are only put on, sham, unreal. But
\nif man feels them as real and if the Avatar feels his work and the difficulties
\nto be serious and real? <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If the existence
\nof the Divinity is of no practical effect, what is the use of a theoretical
\nadmission? The manifestation of the Divine in the Avatar is of help to man
\nbecause it helps him to discover his own divinity and find the way to realise
\nit. If the difference is so great that the humanity by its very nature prevents
\nall possibility of following the way opened by the Avatar, it merely means that
\nthere is no divinity in man that can respond to the Divinity in the Avatar.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I repeat, the Divine when he
\ntakes on the burden of terrestrial nature, takes it fully, sincerely and
\nwithout any conjuring tricks or pretence. If he has something behind him which
\nemerges always out of the coverings, it is the same thing in essence, even if
\ngreater in degree, that is behind others \u2013 and it is to awaken that that he is
\nthere….
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The psychic
\nbeing does the same for all who are intended for the spiritual way \u2013 men need
\nnot be extraordinary beings to follow it. That is the mistake you are making \u2013 to
\nharp on greatness as if only the great can be spiritual. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 412<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

I am rather perplexed by your
\nstrictures on Rama. Cowardice is the last thing that can be charged against
\nValmiki’s Rama; he has always been considered as a warrior and it is the
\n\u201cmartial races\u201d of India who have made him their god. Valmiki everywhere paints
\nhim as a great warrior. His employment of ruse against an infrahuman enemy does
\nnot prove the opposite \u2013 for that is always how the human (even great warriors
\nand hunters) has dealt with the infrahuman. I think it is Madhusudan<\/span>
\nwho has darkened Valmiki’s hero in Bengali eyes and turned him into a poor
\npuppet, but that is not the authentic Rama who, say what one will, was a great
\nepic figure, \u2013 Avatar or no Avatar. As for conventional morality, all morality
\nis a convention \u2013 man cannot live without conventions, mental and moral,
\notherwise he feels himself lost in the rolling sea of the anarchic forces of
\nthe vital Nature. Even the Russells<\/span> and Bernard Shaws<\/span> can only end by setting up\u00a0 <\/span>another set of conventions in the place of
\nthose they have skittled<\/span> over. Only by rising above
\nmind can one really get beyond conventions \u2013 Krishna was able to do it because
\nhe was not a mental human being but an overmental<\/span>
\ngodhead acting freely out of a greater consciousness than man’s. Rama was not
\nthat, he was the Avatar of the sattwic mind \u2013 mental, emotional, moral \u2013 and he
\nfollowed the Dharma of the age and race. That may make him temperamentally
\ncongenial to Gandhi and the reverse to you; but just as Gandhi’s temperamental
\nrecoil from Krishna does not prove Krishna to be no Avatar, so your
\ntemperamental recoil from Rama does not establish that he was not an Avatar.
\nHowever, my main point will be that Avatarhood<\/span> does
\nnot depend upon these questions at all, but has another basis, meaning and
\npurpose.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I have no intention of entering
\ninto a supreme defence<\/span> of Rama \u2013 I only entered into
\nthe points about Bali etc. because these are usually employed nowadays to
\nbelittle him as a great personality on the usual level. But from the point of
\nview of Avatarhood<\/span> I would no more think of defending
\nhis moral perfection according to modern standards than I would think of
\ndefending <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 413<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

Napoleon or Caesar against the
\nmoralists or the democratic critics or the debunkers in order to prove that
\nthey were Vibhutis. Vibhuti<\/span>, Avatar are terms which
\nhave their own meaning and scope, and they are not concerned with morality or
\nimmorality, perfection or imperfection according to small human standards or
\nsetting an example to men or showing new moral attitudes or giving new
\nspiritual teachings. These may or may not be done, but they are not at all the
\nessence of the matter. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Also, I do not
\nconsider your method of dealing with the human personality of Rama to be the
\nright one. It has to be taken as a whole in the setting that Valmiki gave it
\n(not treated as if it were the story of a modern man) and with the significance
\nthat he gave to his hero’s personality, deeds and works. If it is pulled out of
\nits setting and analysed<\/span> under the dissecting knife
\nof a modern ethical mind, it loses all its significance at once. Krishna so
\ntreated becomes a debauchee and trickster who no doubt did great things in
\npolitics \u2013 but so did Rama in war. Achilles and Odysseus pulled out of their
\nsetting become, one a furious egoistic savage, and the other a cruel and
\ncunning savage. I consider myself under an obligation to enter into the spirit,
\nsignificance, atmosphere of the Mahabharata, Iliad, Ramayana and identify
\nmyself with their time-spirit before I can feel what their heroes were in
\nthemselves apart from the details of their outer action. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As for the Avatarhood<\/span>, I accept it for Rama because he fills a place
\nin the scheme \u2013 and seems to me to fill it rightly \u2013 and because when I read
\nthe Ramayana I feel a great afflatus which I recognise and which makes of its
\nstory \u2013 mere faery<\/span>-tale though it seems \u2013 a parable
\nof a great critical transitional event that happened in the terrestrial
\nevolution and gives to the main character’s personality and action a
\nsignificance of the large typical cosmic kind which these actions would not
\nhave had if they had been done by another man in another scheme of events. The
\nAvatar is not bound to do extraordinary actions, but he is bound to give his
\nacts or his work or what he is \u2013 any of these or all \u2013 a significance and an
\neffective power that are part of something essential to be done in the history
\nof the earth and its races.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 414<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

All the same, if anybody does not
\nsee as I do and wants to eject Rama from his place, I have no objection \u2013 I
\nhave no particular partiality for Rama \u2013 provided somebody is put in who can
\nworthily fill up the gap his absence leaves. There was somebody there,
\nValmiki’s Rama or another Rama or somebody not Rama. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Also I do not
\nmean that I admit the validity of your remarks about Rama, even taken as a
\npiecemeal criticism, but that I have no time for today. I maintain my position
\nabout the killing of Bali and the banishment of Sita<\/span>
\nin spite of Bali’s preliminary objection to the procedure, afterwards
\nretracted, and in spite of the opinion of Rama’s<\/span>
\nrelatives, necessarily from the point of view of the antique dharma \u2013 not from
\nthat of any universal moral standard \u2013 which besides does not exist, since the
\nstandard changes according to clime or age.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

No, certainly not \u2013 an Avatar is
\nnot at all bound to be a spiritual prophet \u2013 he is never in fact merely a
\nprophet, he is a realiser<\/span>, an establisher \u2013 not of
\noutward things only, though he does realise something in the outward also, but,
\nas I have said, of something essential and radical needed for the terrestrial
\nevolution which is the evolution of the embodied spirit through successive
\nstages towards the Divine. It was not at all Rama’s<\/span>
\nbusiness to establish the spiritual stage of that evolution \u2013 so he did not at
\nall concern himself with that. His business was to destroy Ravana and to
\nestablish the Rama-rajya<\/span> \u2013 in other words, to fix for
\nthe future the possibility of an order proper to the sattwic civilised human
\nbeing who governs his life by the reason, the finer emotions, morality, or at
\nleast moral ideals, such as truth, obedience, co-operation and harmony, the
\nsense of domestic and public order, \u2013 to establish this in a world still
\noccupied by anarchic forces, the Animal mind and the powers of the vital Ego
\nmaking its own satisfaction the rule of life, in other words, the Vanara<\/span> and Rakshasa. This is the meaning of Rama and his
\nlife-work and it is according as he fulfilled it or not that he must be judged as
\nAvatar or no Avatar. It was not his<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 415<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

business to play the comedy of
\nthe chivalrous Kshatriya with the formidable brute beast that was Bali, it was
\nhis business to kill him and get the Animal under his control. It was his
\nbusiness to be not necessarily a perfect, but a largely representative sattwic
\nMan, a faithful husband and a lover, a loving and obedient son, a tender and perfect
\nbrother, father, friend \u2013 he is friend of all kinds of people, friend of the
\noutcast Guhaka<\/span>, friend of the Animal leaders, Sugriva<\/span>, Hanuman, friend of the vulture Jatayu<\/span>,
\nfriend of even Rakshasa Vibhishana<\/span>. All that he was
\nin a brilliant, striking but above all spontaneous and inevitable way, not with
\nforcing of this note or that like Harishchandra<\/span> or Shivi<\/span>, but with a certain harmonious completeness. But most
\nof all, it was his business to typify and establish the things on which the
\nsocial idea and its stability depend, truth and honour<\/span>,
\nthe sense of Dharma, public spirit and the sense of order. To the first, to truth
\nand honour<\/span>, much more than to his filial love and
\nobedience to his father \u2013 though to that also \u2013 he sacrificed his personal
\nrights as the elect of the King and the assembly and fourteen of the best years
\nof his life and went into exile in the forests. To his public spirit and his
\nsense of public order (the great and supreme civic virtue in the eyes of the
\nancient Indians, Greeks, Romans, for at that time the maintenance of the
\nordered community, not the separate development and satisfaction of the individual
\nwas the pressing need of the human evolution) he sacrificed his own happiness
\nand domestic life and the happiness of Sita<\/span>. In that
\nhe was at one with the moral sense of all the antique races, though at variance
\nwith the later romantic individualistic sentimental morality of the modern man
\nwho can afford to have that less stern morality just because the ancients
\nsacrificed the individual in order to make the world safe for the spirit of
\nsocial order. Finally, it was Rama’s<\/span> business to make
\nthe world safe for the ideal of the sattwic human being by destroying the
\nsovereignty of Ravana, the Rakshasa menace. All this he did with such a divine
\nafflatus in his personality and action that his figure has been stamped for
\nmore than two millenniums on the mind of Indian culture, and what he stood for
\nhas dominated the reason and idealising<\/span> mind of man
\nin all countries, and in spite of the constant revolt of the human vital, is
\nlikely to continue to do so <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 416<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

until a greater ideal arises. And
\nyou say in spite of all these that he was no Avatar? If you like \u2013 but at any
\nrate he stands among the few greatest Vibhutis. You may dethrone him now \u2013 for
\nman is no longer satisfied with the sattwic ideal and is seeking for something
\nmore \u2013 but his work and meaning remain stamped on the past of the earth’s
\nevolving race. When I spoke of the gap that would be left by his absence, I did
\nnot mean a gap among the prophets and intellectuals, but a gap in the scheme of
\nAvatarhood<\/span> \u2013 there was somebody who was the Avatar of
\nthe sattwic Human as Krishna was the Avatar of the overmental<\/span>
\nSuperman \u2013 I can see no one but Rama who can fill the place. Spiritual teachers
\nand prophets (as also intellectuals, scientists, artists, poets, etc.) \u2013 these
\nare at the greatest Vibhutis but they are not Avatars. For at that rate all
\nreligious founders would be Avatars \u2013 Joseph Smith (I think that is his name)
\nof the Mormons, St. Francis of Assisi, Calvin, Loyola and a host of others as
\nwell as Christ, Chaitanya<\/span> or Ramakrishna. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For faith,
\nmiracles, Bijoy<\/span> Goswami<\/span>,
\nanother occasion. I wanted to say this much more about Rama \u2013 which is still
\nonly a hint and is not the thing I was going to write about the general
\nprinciple of Avatarhood<\/span>. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nor, may I add,
\nis it a complete or supreme defence<\/span> of Rama. For that
\nI would have to write about what the story of the Ramayana meant, appreciate
\nValmiki’s presentation of his chief characters (they are none of them copy-book
\nexamples, but great men and women with the defects and merits of human nature,
\nas all men even the greatest are), and show also how the Godhead, which was
\nbehind the frontal and instrumental personality we call Rama, worked out every
\nincident of his life as a necessary step in what had to be done. As to the
\nweeping Rama, I had answered that in my other unfinished letter. You are
\nimposing the colder and harder Nordic ideal on the Southern temperament which
\nregarded the expression of emotions, not its suppression, as a virtue. Witness
\nthe weeping and lamentations of Achilles, Ulysses and other great heroes,
\nPersian and Indian \u2013 the latter especially as lovers. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 417<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

Why should not Rama have kāma<\/i><\/span> (lust)
\nas well as prema<\/span> (love)? They were supposed to go
\ntogether as between husband\u00a0 <\/span>and wife in
\nancient India. The performances of Rama in the viraha<\/span>
\nof Sita<\/span> are due to Valmiki’s poetic idea which was
\nalso Kalidasa’s<\/span> and everybody else’s in those far-off
\ntimes about how a complete lover should behave in such a quandary. Whether the
\nactual Rama bothered himself to do all that is another matter.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As for the unconscious
\nAvatar, why not? Chaitanya<\/span> is supposed to be an
\nAvatar by the Vaishnavas, yet he was conscious of the Godhead behind only when
\nthat Godhead came in front and possessed him on rare occasions. Christ said \u201cI
\nand my father are one\u201d, but yet he always spoke and behaved as if there were a
\ndifference. Ramakrishna’s earlier period was that of one seeking God, not aware
\nfrom the first of his identity. These are the reputed religious Avatars who
\nought to be more conscious than a man of action like Rama. And supposing the
\nfull and permanent consciousness, why should the Avatar proclaim himself except
\non rare occasions to an Arjuna<\/span> or to a few bhaktas<\/span> or disciples? It is for others to find out what he
\nis; though he does not deny when others speak of him as That, he is not always
\nsaying and perhaps never may say or only in moments like that of the Gita, \u201cI
\nam He.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

No time for a
\nfull answer to your renewed remarks on Rama tonight. You are intrigued only
\nbecause you stick to the modern standard, modern measuring-rods of moral and
\nspiritual perfection (introduced by Seely<\/span> and Bankim<\/span>) for the Avatar \u2013 while I start from another
\nstandpoint altogether and resolutely refuse these standard human measures. The
\nancient Avatars except Buddha were not either standards of perfection or
\nspiritual teachers in spite of the Gita which was spoken, says Krishna, in a
\nmoment of supernormal consciousness which he lost immediately afterwards. They
\nwere, if I may say so, representative cosmic men who were instruments of a divine
\nIntervention for fixing certain things in the evolution of the earth-race. I
\nstick to that and refuse to submit myself in this argument to any other
\nstandard whatever.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 418<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

I did not admit that Rama was a
\nblind Avatar, but offered you two alternatives of which the latter represents
\nmy real view founded on the impression made on me by the Ramayana that Rama
\nknew very well but refused to be talkative about it \u2013 his business being not to
\ndisclose the Divine but to fix mental, moral and emotional man (not to
\noriginate him, for he was there already) on the earth as against the Animal and
\nRakshasa forces. My argument from Chaitanya<\/span> (who was
\nfor most of the time to his own outward consciousness first a pandit<\/span> and then a bhakta<\/span>, but
\nonly occasionally the Divine himself) is perfectly rational and logical, if you
\nfollow my line and don’t insist on a high specifically spiritual consciousness
\nfor the Avatar. I shall point out what I mean in my next. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

By sattwic man I
\ndo not mean a moral or an always self-controlled one, but a predominantly
\nmental (as opposed to a vital or merely physical man) who has rajasic emotions
\nand passions, but lives predominantly according to his mind and its will and
\nideas. There is no such thing, I suppose, as a purely sattwic man \u2013 since the
\nthree gunas go always together in a state of unstable equilibrium \u2013 but a
\npredominantly sattwic man is what I have described. My impression of Rama from
\nValmiki is such \u2013 it is quite different from yours. I am afraid your picture of
\nhim is quite out of focus \u2013 you efface the main lines of the characters,
\nbelittle and brush out all the lights to which Valmiki gave so much value and
\nprominence and hammer always at some details and some parts of shadow which you
\nturn into the larger part of Rama. That is what the debunkers do \u2013 but a
\ndebunked figure is not the true figure.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

By the way, a
\nsattwic man can have a strong passion and strong anger \u2013 and when he lets the
\nlatter loose, the normally vicious fellow is simply nowhere. Witness the
\noutbursts of anger of Christ, the indignation of Chaitanya<\/span>
\n\u2013 and the general evidence of experience and psychology on the point.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The trait of
\nRama which you give as that of an undeveloped man, viz., his decisive
\nspontaneous action according to the will and the idea that came to him, is a
\ntrait of the cosmic man and many Vibhutis, men of action of the large Caesarian
\nor Napoleonic type. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 419<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

When I said, \u201cWhy not an
\nunconscious Avatar?\u201d I was taking your statement (not mine) that Rama was
\nunconscious and how could there be an unconscious Avatar. My own view is that
\nRama was not blind, not unconscious of his Avatarhood<\/span>,
\nonly uncommunicative about it. But I said that even taking your statement to be
\ncorrect, the objection was not insuperable. I instanced the case of Chaitanya<\/span> and the others, because there the facts are
\nhardly disputable. Chaitanya<\/span> for the first part of
\nhis life was simply Nimai<\/span> Pandit<\/span>
\nand had no consciousness of being anything else. Then he had his conversion and
\nbecame the bhakta<\/span> Chaitanya<\/span>.
\nThis bhakta<\/span> at times seemed to be possessed by the
\npresence of Krishna, knew himself to be Krishna, spoke, moved and appeared with
\nthe light of the Godhead \u2013 none around him could think of or see him as
\nanything else when he was in this glorified and transfigured condition. But
\nfrom that he fell back to the ordinary consciousness of the bhakta<\/span>
\nand, as I have read in his biography, refused then to consider himself as
\nanything more. These, I think, are the facts. Well, then what do they signify?
\nWas he only Nimai<\/span> Pandit<\/span> at
\nfirst? It is quite conceivable that he was so and the descent of the Godhead
\ninto him only took place after his conversion and spiritual change. But also
\nafterwards when he was in his normal bhakta<\/span>-consciousness,
\nwas he then no longer the Avatar? An intermittent Avatarhood<\/span>?
\nKrishna coming down for an afternoon call into Chaitanya<\/span>
\nand then going up again till the time came for the next visit? I find it
\ndifficult to believe in this phenomenon. The rational explanation is that in
\nthe phenomenon of Avatarhood<\/span> there is a Consciousness
\nbehind, at first veiled or sometimes perhaps half-veiled, which is that of the
\nGodhead and a frontal consciousness, human or apparently human or at any rate
\nwith all the appearance of terrestriality<\/span> which is
\nthe instrumental personality. In that case, it is possible that the secret
\nConsciousness was all along there, but waited to manifest until after the
\nconversion and it manifested intermittently because the main work of Chaitanya<\/span> was to establish the type of a spiritual and
\npsychic bhakti and love in the emotional vital part of man, preparing the vital
\nin us in that way to turn towards the Divine \u2013 at any rate, to fix that
\npossibility in the earth-nature. It was <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 420<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

not that there had not been the
\nemotional type of bhakti before; but the completeness of it, the \u00e9lan, the vital’s<\/span> rapture in it had never manifested as it manifested
\nin Chaitanya<\/span>. But for that work it would never have
\ndone if he had always been in the Krishna consciousness; he would have been the
\nLord to whom all gave bhakti, but not the supreme example of the divine
\necstatic bhakta<\/span>. But still the occasional
\nmanifestation showed who he was and at the same time evidenced the mystic law
\nof the Immanence. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Voil\u00e0<\/i><\/span> \u2013 for Chaitanya<\/span>. But, if Chaitanya<\/span>, the
\nfrontal consciousness, the instrumental personality, was all the time the
\nAvatar, yet except in his highest moments was unconscious of it and even denied
\nit, that pushed a little farther would establish the possibility of what you
\ncall an unconscious Avatar, that is to say, of one in which the veiled
\nconsciousness might not come in front but always move the instrumental
\npersonality from behind. The frontal consciousness might be aware in the inner
\nparts of its being that it was only an instrument of something Divine which was
\nits real Self, but outwardly would think, speak and behave as if it were only
\nthe human being doing a given work with a peculiar power and splendour<\/span>. Whether there was such an Avatar or not is
\nanother matter, but logically it is possible.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

The question was if certain
\nperfections must not be demanded of the Divine Manifestation which seemed to me
\nquite irrelevant to the reality. I put forward two propositions which appear to
\nme indispensable unless we are to reverse all spiritual knowledge in favour of
\nmodern European ideas about things: first, the Divine Manifestation, even when
\nit manifests in mental and human ways, has behind it a consciousness greater
\nthan the mind and not bound by the petty mental and moral conventions of this
\nvery ignorant human race \u2013 so that to impose these standards on the Divine is
\nto try to do what is irrational and impossible. Secondly, this Divine
\nConsciousness behind the apparent personality is concerned with only two things
\nin a fundamental way \u2013 the truth above and here below the Lila and the purpose
\nof the <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 421<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

incarnation or manifestation, and
\nit does what is necessary for that in the way its greater than human consciousness
\nsees to be the necessary and intended way. But I do not understand how all that
\ncan prevent me from answering mental questions. On my own showing, if it is
\nnecessary for the divine purpose, it has to be done. Sri Ramakrishna himself
\nanswered thousands of questions, I believe. But the answers must be such as he
\ngave and such as I try to give, answers from a higher spiritual experience,
\nfrom a deeper source of knowledge and not lucubrations<\/span>
\nof the logical intellect trying to coordinate its ignorance. Still less can
\nthere be a placing of a divine truth before the judgments of the intellect to
\nbe condemned or acquitted by that authority \u2013 for the authority here has no
\nsufficient jurisdiction or competence.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

What do you mean by lust? Avatars
\ncan be married and have children and that is not possible without sex; they can
\nhave friendships, enmities, family feelings, etc., etc., \u2013 these are vital
\nthings. I think you are under the impression that an Avatar must be a saint or
\na yogi.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

In the yoga we do not strive
\nafter greatness. It is not a question of Sri Krishna’s disciples but of the
\nearth-consciousness. Rama was a mental man, there is no touch of the overmind<\/span> consciousness (direct) in anything he said or did,
\nbut what he did was done with the greatness of the Avatar. But there have since
\nbeen men who did live in touch with the planes above mind \u2013 higher mind,
\nillumined mind, intuition. There is no question of asking whether they were
\n\u201cgreater\u201d than Rama; they might have been less \u201cgreat\u201d, but they were able to
\nlive from a new plane of consciousness. And Krishna’s opening the overmind<\/span> certainly made it possible for the attempt at
\nbringing supermind to the earth to be made. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 422<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

About greater and less, one
\npoint. Is Captain John Higgins of S. S. Mauretania<\/span> a
\ngreater man than Christopher Columbus because he can reach America without
\ntrouble in a few days? Is a University graduate in philosophy greater than
\nPlato because he can reason about problems and systems which had never even
\noccurred to Plato? No, only humanity has acquired greater scientific power
\nwhich any good navigator can use or a wider intellectual knowledge which anyone
\nwith a philosophic training can use. You will say greater scientific power and
\nwider knowledge is not a change of consciousness. Very well, but there are Rama
\nand Ramakrishna. Rama spoke always from the thinking intelligence, the common
\nproperty of developed men; Ramakrishna constantly from a swift and luminous
\nspiritual intuition. Can you tell me which is the greater? The Avatar recognised<\/span> by all India? Or the saint and yogi recognised<\/span> as an Avatar only by his disciples and some
\nothers who follow them?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

He [Buddha] had a more powerful
\nvital than Ramakrishna’s, a stupendous will and an invincible mind of thought.
\nIf he had led the ordinary life, he would have been a great organiser<\/span>,
\nconqueror and creator. If a man rises to a higher plane of consciousness, it
\ndoes not necessarily follow that he will be a greater man of action or a
\ngreater creator. One may rise to spiritual planes of inspiration undreamed of
\nby Shakespeare and yet not be as great a poetic creator as Shakespeare.
\n\u201cGreatness\u201d is not the object of spiritual realisation any more than fame or
\nsuccess in the world \u2013 how are these things the standard of spiritual
\nrealisation?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

The answer to the question
\ndepends on what value we attach to spiritual experience and to the data of
\nother planes of consciousness, other than the physical, as also on the nature
\nof the relations between the cosmic consciousness and the individual and
\ncollective consciousness of man. From the point of view of spiritual and occult
\nTruth, what takes shape in the consciousness of <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 423<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

man is a reflection and particular
\nkind of formation, in a difficult medium, of things much greater in their
\nlight, power and beauty or in their force and range which came to it from the
\ncosmic consciousness of which man is a limited and, in his present state of
\nevolution, a still ignorant part. All this explanation about the genius of the
\nrace, of a consciousness of a nation creating the Gods and their forms is a
\nvery partial, somewhat superficial and in itself a misleading truth. Man’s mind
\nis not an original creator, it is an intermediary; to start creating it must
\nreceive an initiating \u201cinspiration\u201d, a transmission or a suggestion from the
\ncosmic consciousness and with that it does what it can. God is, but man’s
\nconceptions of God are reflections in his own mentality, sometimes of the
\nDivine, sometimes of other Beings and Powers and they are what his mentality
\ncan make of the suggestions that come to him, generally very partial and
\nimperfect so long as they are still mental, so long as he has not arrived at a
\nhigher and truer, a spiritual or mystic knowledge. The Gods already exist, they
\nare not created by man, even though he does seem to conceive them in his own
\nimage; \u2013 fundamentally, he formulates as best he can what truth about them he
\nreceives from the cosmic Reality. An artist or a bhakta<\/span>
\nmay have a vision of the Gods and it may get stabilised<\/span>
\nand generalised in the consciousness of the race and in that sense it may be
\ntrue that man gives their forms to the Gods; but he does not invent these
\nforms, he records what he sees; the forms that he gives are given to him. In
\nthe \u201cconventional\u201d form of Krishna men have embodied what they could see of his
\neternal beauty and what they have seen may be true as well as beautiful, it
\nconveys something of the form, but it is fairly certain that if there is an
\neternal form of that eternal beauty, it is a thousand times more beautiful than
\nwhat man had as yet been able to see of it. Mother India is not a piece of
\nearth; she is a Power, a Godhead, for all nations have such a Devi<\/span> supporting their separate existence and keeping it in
\nbeing. Such beings are as real and more permanently real than the men they
\ninfluence, but they belong to a higher plane, are part of the cosmic
\nconsciousness and being and act here on earth by shaping the human consciousness
\non which they exercise their influence. It is natural for man who sees only his
\nown consciousness<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 424<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

individual, national or racial at
\nwork and does not see what works upon it and shapes it, to think that all is
\ncreated by him and there is nothing cosmic and greater behind it. The Krishna
\nconsciousness is a reality, but if there were no Krishna, there could be no
\nKrishna consciousness; except in arbitrary metaphysical abstractions there can
\nbe no consciousness without a Being who is conscious. It is the person who
\ngives value and reality to the personality, he expresses himself in it and is
\nnot constituted by it. Krishna is a being, a person and it is as the Divine
\nPerson that we meet him, hear his voice, speak with him and feel his presence.
\nTo speak of the consciousness of Krishna as something separate from Krishna is
\nan error of the mind, which is always separating the inseparable and which also
\ntends to regard the impersonal, because it is abstract, as greater, more real
\nand more enduring than the person. Such divisions may be useful to the mind for
\nits own purposes, but it is not the real truth; in the real truth the being or
\nperson and its impersonality or state of being are one reality.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The historicity
\nof Krishna is of less spiritual importance and is not essential, but it has
\nstill a considerable value. It does not seem to me that there can be any
\nreasonable doubt that Krishna the man was not a legend or a poetic invention
\nbut actually existed upon earth and played a part in the Indian past. Two facts
\nemerge clearly, that he was regarded as an important spiritual figure, one
\nwhose spiritual illumination was recorded in one of the Upanishads, and that he
\nwas traditionally regarded as a divine man, one worshipped after his death as a
\ndeity; this is apart from the story in the Mahabharata and the Puranas<\/span>. There is no reason to suppose that the connection
\nof his name with the development of the Bhagavata religion, an important
\ncurrent in the stream of Indian spirituality, was founded on a mere legend or
\npoetic invention. The Mahabharata is a poem and not history, but it is clearly
\na poem founded on a great historical event, traditionally preserved in memory;
\nsome of the figures connected with it, Dhritarashtra<\/span>,
\nParikshit<\/span>, for instance, certainly existed and the
\nstory of the part played by Krishna as leader, warrior and statesman can be
\naccepted as probable in itself and to all appearance founded on a tradition
\nwhich can be <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 425<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

given a historical value and has not
\nthe air of a myth or a sheer poetical invention. That is as much as can be
\npositively said from the point of view of the theoretical reason as to the
\nhistoric figure of the man Krishna; but in my view there is much more than that
\nin it and I have always regarded the incarnation as a fact and accepted the
\nhistoricity of Krishna as I accept the historicity of Christ. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The story of Brindavan<\/span> is another matter; it does not enter into the
\nmain story of the Mahabharata and has a Puranic<\/span>
\norigin and it could be maintained that it was intended all along to have a
\nsymbolic character. At one time I accepted that explanation, but I had to
\nabandon it afterwards; there is nothing in the Puranas<\/span>
\nthat betrays any such intention. It seems to me that it is related as something
\nthat actually occurred or occurs somewhere. The Gopis<\/span>
\nare to them realities and not symbols. It was for them at the least an occult
\ntruth, and occult and symbolic are not the same thing; the symbol may be only a
\nsignificant mental construction or only a fanciful invention, but the occult is
\na reality which is actual somewhere, behind the material scene as it were and
\ncan have its truth for the terrestrial life and its influence upon it may even
\nembody itself there. The Lila of the Gopis<\/span> seems to
\nbe conceived as something which is always going on in a divine Gokul<\/span> and which projected itself in an earthly Brindavan<\/span> and can always be realised and its meaning made
\nactual in the soul. It is to be presumed that the writers of the Puranas<\/span> took it as having been actually projected on earth
\nin the life of the incarnate Krishna and it has been so accepted by the
\nreligious mind of India. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

These questions
\nand the speculations to which they have given rise have no indispensable
\nconnection with the spiritual life. There what matters is the contact with
\nKrishna and the growth towards the Krishna consciousness, the presence, the
\nspiritual relation, the union in the soul and till that is reached, the
\naspiration, the growth in bhakti and whatever illumination one can get on the
\nway. To one who has had these things, lived in the presence, heard the voice,
\nknown Krishna as Friend or Lover, Guide, Teacher, Master or, still more, has
\nhad his whole consciousness changed by the contact, or felt the presence within <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 426<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

him, all such questions have only
\nan outer and superficial interest. So also, to one who has had contact with the
\ninner Brindavan<\/span> and the Lila of the Gopis<\/span>, made the surrender and undergone the spell of the
\njoy and the beauty or even only turned to the sound of the flute, the rest
\nhardly matters. But from another point of view, if one can accept the
\nhistorical reality of the incarnation, there is this great spiritual gain that
\none has a point d’appui<\/span> for a more concrete
\nrealisation in the conviction that once at least the Divine has visibly touched
\nthe earth, made the complete manifestation possible, made it possible for the
\ndivine supernature to descend into this evolving but still very imperfect
\nterrestrial nature.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Of course, X’s view about the canalisation<\/span> of Niagara is my standpoint also. But for the
\nhuman mind it is difficult to get across the border between mind and spirit
\nwithout making a forceful rush or push along one line only and that must be
\nsome line of pure experience in which, especially if it is the bhakti way, one
\ngets easily swallowed up in the rapids (did not Chaitanya<\/span>
\nat last disappear in the waters?) and goes no farther. The first thing is to
\nbreak into the spiritual consciousness, any part of it, anyhow and anywhere,
\nafterwards one can explore the country, to which exploration there can hardly
\nbe a limit; one is always going higher and higher, getting wider and wider, but
\nthere is a certain intense ecstasy about the first complete plunge which is
\nextraordinarily seizing. It is not only the Bhakta’s<\/span>
\nrapture, but the Jnani’s<\/span> plunge into the
\nBrahma-Nirvana or Brahmananda<\/span> or release into the
\nstill eternity of the Self that is of that seizing and absorbing character \u2013 it
\ndoes not look at first as if one could or would care or need to get beyond into
\nanything else. One cannot find fault with the Sannyasi<\/span>
\nlost in his laya<\/span> or the Bhakta lost in his ecstasy;
\nthey remain there probably because they are constituted for that and it is the
\nlimit of their leap. But, all the same, it has always appeared to me that it is
\na stage and not the end; I subscribe fully to the canalisation<\/span>
\nof the Niagara. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Adhikara<\/span> is, of course, a matter of the psychology and the <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 427<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

soul and the nature, it has
\nnothing to do with any outer or artificial standards. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Then as to the
\nAvatar and the symbols. There is, it seems to me, a cardinal error in the
\nmodern insistence on the biographical and historical, that is to say, the
\nexternal factuality of the Avatar, the incidents of his outward life. What
\nmatters is the spiritual Reality, the Power, the Influence that come with him
\nor that he brought down by his action and his existence. First of all, what
\nmatters in a spiritual man’s life is not what he did or what he was outside to
\nthe view of the men of his time (that is what historicity or biography comes
\nto, does it not?) but what he was and did within; it is only that that gives
\nany value to his outer life at all. It is the inner life that gives to the
\nouter any power it may have and the inner life of a spiritual man is something
\nvast and full and, at least in the great figures, so crowded and teeming with
\nsignificant things that no biographer or historian could ever hope to seize it
\nall or tell it. Whatever is significant in the outward life is so because it is
\nsymbolical of what has been realised within himself and one may go on and say
\nthat the inner life also is only significant as an expression, a living
\nrepresentation of the movement of the Divinity behind it. That is why we need
\nnot enquire whether the stories about Krishna were transcripts, however loose,
\nof his acts on earth or are symbol-representations of what Krishna was and is
\nfor men, of the Divinity expressing itself in the figure of Krishna. Buddha’s
\nrenunciation, his temptation by Mara, his enlightenment under the Bo-tree are
\nsuch symbols, so too the virgin birth, the temptation in the desert, the
\ncrucifixion of Christ are such symbols, true by what they signify, even if they
\nare not scrupulously recorded historical events. The outward facts as related of
\nChrist or Buddha are not much more than what has happened in many other lives \u2013
\nwhat is it that gives Buddha or Christ their enormous place in the spiritual
\nworld? It was because something manifested through them that was more than any
\noutward event or any teaching. The verifiable historicity gives us very little
\nof that, yet it is that only that matters. So it seems to me that X is
\nfundamentally right in what he says of the symbols. To the physical mind only
\nthe words and facts and acts of a man matter; to the inner mind it is the <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 428<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

spiritual happenings in him that
\nmatter. Even the teachings of Buddha and Christ are spiritually true not as
\nmere mental teachings but as the expression of spiritual states or happenings
\nin them which by their life on earth they made possible (or even dynamically
\npotential) in others. Also, evidently, sectarian walls are a mistake, an
\naccretion, a mental limiting of the Truth which may serve a mental, but not a
\nspiritual purpose. The Avatar, the Guru have no meaning if they do not stand
\nfor the Eternal; it is that that makes them what they are for the worshipper or
\nthe disciple.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is also a
\nfact that nobody can give you any spiritual realisation which does not come
\nfrom something in one’s true Self, it is always the Divine who reveals himself
\nand the Divine is within you; so He who reveals must be felt in your own heart.
\nYour query here simply suggests that this is a truth which can be
\nmisinterpreted or misused, but so can every spiritual truth if it is taken hold
\nof in the wrong way \u2013 and the human mind has a great penchant for taking Truth
\nby the wrong end and arriving at falsehood. All statements about these things
\nare, after all, mental statements and at the mercy of any mind that interprets
\nthem. There is a snag in every such statement created not by the Truth that it
\nexpresses but by the mind’s interpretation. The snag (what you call the slip)
\nlies not in the statement itself which is quite correct, but in the deflected
\nsense in which it may be taken by ignorant or self-sufficient minds enamoured
\nof their ego. Many have put forward the \u201cown self\u201d gospel without taking the
\ntrouble to see whether it is the true Self, have pitted the ignorance of their
\n\u201cown self\u201d \u2013 in fact, their ego \u2013 against the knowledge of the Guru or made
\ntheir ego or something that flattered and fostered it the Ishta Devata. The
\nsnag in the worship of Guru or Avatar is a sectarian bias which insists on the
\nRepresentative or the Manifestation but loses sight of the Manifested; the snag
\nin the emphasis on the other side is the ignoring of the need or belittling of
\nthe value of the Representative or Manifestation and the substitution, not of
\nthe true Self one in all, but of one’s \u201cown self\u201d as the guide and light. How
\nmany have done that and lost the way through the pull of the magnified ego
\nwhich is one of the great perils on the way! However that does <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 429<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

not lessen the truth of the
\nthings said by X, \u2013 only in looking at the many sides of Truth one must put
\neach thing in its place in the harmony of the All which is for us the
\nexpression of the Supreme.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

What X says \u2013 the central thing \u2013
\nis very correct, as always, the position of all who have any notion of
\nspirituality, though the religionists seem to find it difficult to get to it. But
\nthough Christ and Krishna are the same, they are the same in difference, \u2013 that
\nis indeed the utility of so many manifestations instead of there being only one
\nas these missionaries would have it. But is it really because the historical
\nChrist has been made too much the foundation-stone of the Faith that
\nChristianity is failing? It may be something inadequate in the religion itself
\n\u2013 perhaps in Religion itself; for all religions are a little off-colour<\/span> now. The need of a larger opening of the soul into
\nthe Light is being felt, an opening through which the expanding human mind and
\nheart can follow. <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 430 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SECTION SEVEN The Purpose of Avatarhood                          SURELY for the earth-consciousness the very fact that the Divine manifests himself is the greatest of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-996","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-22-letters-on-yoga-volume-22","wpcat-21-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/996","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=996"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/996\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=996"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=996"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=996"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}