(Continued from the previous issue)
In the previous issue the first day’s happenings between the Mother and Rajamma had been published. The same is continued in this issue. – Editor
On 22nd August 1949, at about 4 A.m. Mother went to the house of Rajamma and just when she was thinking of knocking at the door Rajamma herself felt that some one called her at the door; she opened the door and asked
“who’s that?” “It is I” replied Mother.
“Oh, You! did you call me?” she asked.
Mother: No, I didn’t call. Why, did you feel so? I only thought of calling you but there is no time betweem my thinking so and your door. opening the door.
Rajamma: Indeed, I felt that I was called!
M: Perhaps the mere thought was heard by you; (but) whose thought (was it)?
R: Whose thought (was it, can you say)?
M: It’s the thought of the One who willed (everything).
R: Is it not the will of God?
M: It is not the will of God; Ideatiou itself is God
R: (Not fully understanding Mother’s words) Our will should be there (for any thing to be done); and His grace should be there besides. Won’t you come in?
M: (Entering) Just now you were speaking of (Our) will and His grace; who impels the will in us?
R: (Realizing her own mistake) Ofcourse the will is also His!
M: You said it is our’s; will it be our’s for some time and His for sometime? What in reality is the will (Samkalpa)?
R: The idea that occurs to the mind is Samkalpa.
M: What is Vikalpa ? to whom does it occur?
R: Vikalpas also are those that occur to the mind.
M: Anyway, won’t you tell me the difference between Samkalpa and Vikalpa?
R: Oh, it must be known in experience only.
M: To whom does the ex perience come? What is it that experiences?
R: Ofcourse, to the mind only.
M: Can I ask you a few more questions? Why did you ask me to come at 10 O Clock in the night? I could not come, I have come now at 4′ O Clock because it is only a difference of a few hours (from the time appointed by you).
R: Now, what’s your What do you want? Idea?
M: It is always happening as it had been ordained.
R: But we must see that it is done!
M: But if you do not lose patience with me, these dualities to which we are constantly refering, these vagaries and doubts… Anway, I don’t know how to put it, I have not seen any great one in recent times. Well you used the word ‘Amma’ (Mother) while addressing me. By the word ‘Mother’ I under stood that It is the One which is Infinite, Eternal, and without barriers; and so I have come.
R: Alright! What’s lost by that?
M: Not-coming’ is lost!
R: Then, do you like to be taught anything?
M: Is not all this, being taught?
R: Ofcourse it is: but apart from that, the work that has to be accomplished there all the same.
M: Also, you have to tell me this-whose is the effort? who is it that puts forth the effort? who is it that teaches and who is it that is taught?
R: That, I shall tell you.
M: Then, I have come for that.
R: But yesterday you said that you came for ‘doraba (Seeing) only:
M: True; I came for ‘darshana’ only. The significance of the darshana s is this conversation.
R: Your aunt had told me something
M: What’s that?
R: That is, as to what you need……
M: How can she say what I want?
R: I thought that you wanted your aunt to intercede and tell me that.
M: The Infinite Mother without any barriers does not need any intermediaries”.
R: I don’t understand your words.
M: Are my words ambiguous? Can you not understand a girl?
R: Your words sound strange!
M: Yes, you said that “Maya” is inscrutable; did n’t you?
R: I did not say ‘Maya’; I only said that your words are not intelligible to me.
M: Maya’ is a word; what ever we SPEAK are words and constitute ‘SPEECH OR LANGUAGE; Whatever is heard is sound; whatever is SEEN is FORM… so it is thought; Yesterday I heard these words being used by you in your conversation with those who were. sitting by you when I came. But I could not under stand what they mean,
R: It’s alright; it’s half past five now… oh, no it’s six! If you get ready quickly, we will complete that part of the work wholly
M: Will that PART itself become the WHOLE?
R: What does the whole mean? I only said that we should complete our work.
M: That’s what I am saying. Why bother about what takes place by itself? Whatever is to happen will happer anyway. All talk of our finishing it turns out to be mere talking.
R: You haven’t told me your name yet!
M: It’s the same as my aunt’s.
R: Is it Anasuya?
R: Well, you may take leave of me now. Besides, did you get any dream?
M: When you could tell me beforehand that I would get a dream, can you not know wh ther I got a dream or not?
R: You don’t seem to know how to speak before elders.
M: The difference between elders and youngsters is not known.
R: It’s useless for such a one to be initiated or taught; it does’nt stick (to your mind).
M: What’s it that doesn’t stick to me?
R: Jnana’ I mean, child.
M: (pretending not to hear her) Is it AJNANA (lyncrance) that does not stick to me? If what does not touch (me) is AJNANA, then what sticks to me is JNANA surely!
R: You seem to be childish.
M: Then I am LIKE a child only; I haven’t become one!
R: But I feel that you have BECOME one.
M: If that is true, what more s needed
R: It’s (ie. ignorant behaviour) after all animality.
M: Is animality the nature of a child? Is there no difference between the two? Or is the distinction absent in us who are the perceivers? Or is not the the difference between the two Known?
R: (Keeps silent.)
In the meanwhile, a buffalo with its calf and a milk-maid with her child on her back followed by her husband, stop before Rajamma’s house while passing along the road,
M: Does not the buffalo know and feel’ I am the buffalo and that is my yonug call”? It is but the mother of the calf. Does it not know that he who gives it fodder does not belong to its kind? Does not the child on the back of the milk maid know that the buffalo is an animal and the one (the milkmaid), who is carrying it (the child) is its own mother? That which can speak and that which canot express, that which wrongly cognises the real and that which cognises the real as the real- All that is but Intelligence only!
R: All that is intelligence, but there is gradation!
M: If you rightly perceive, gradation itself is Creation perhaps!
R: Why talk of Creation? You look after yourself.
M: I am creation; the seer is Creation; What concerns me is Creation; the one who is speaking to me is Creation; the One is Creation; the Many is Creation; the Unity of this Diversity is this World.
R: By the way, have you AKSHARA JNANA?
M: Only KSHARA-JNANA. I have, no Akshara-jnana.
M: Because the distinction between the two is not known.
- It is obvious from this that Rajamma failed to under stand that ‘the One who had willed everything’ is a ref. to the divine will and that She implied her own ‘oneness’ with God.
- The original expre ssion was “Not the Samkalpa of God; Samkalpa itself is God” This statement brings out the formlessness of God except as the Will or the Logos that had created and ordianed every thing; and that even the individual will is part of God’s will.
- Mother splits the word ‘Karya Krama’ which Rajamma had used and infuses it with a lofty meaning ‘Karya’ denoting Creation and ‘Krama’ denoting the order of creation. She also suggests Her own identity with God.
- This sounds to be a ref. to the dearth or even the absence of real Spiritual Stalwarts in the modern times.
- The ambiguity as to who is being taught and who the teacher is in Mother’s statement is significant.
- Mother is suggesting that the teacher and the taught, the one who tries and the One who makes us try are only One in reality. Compare Lord Krishna’s statement (Geeta Ch. 10 Verse 37) “Of the Vrishnis, Vasudeva am I; of the Pandavas, I am Dhananjaya” (i.e. Arjuna) i.e. that the teacher and the taught are one. Also compare Ramana Maharshi’s assertion that the Guru, God, and the disciple are only the Self.
- Note the irony of Mother telling Rajamma as to what she should teach her (Mother)! It’s a test to Rajamma’s wisdom!!
- Mother suggests that while Rajamma teaches verbally, she has come to teach her through Experience.
- Refer to the footnote to this expression in the previous issue.
- This is the frankest admission on the part of Mother that She is the Infiinte, Eternal Mother of the Universe to whom there are no barriers or restrictions of any sort.
- Mother seems to mean that Rajamma who could not recognize the spiritual stature of Mother, believes herself to be competent to teach her! She fails to grasp the suggestions that Mother has thrown as to Her oneness with Divinity.
- Maya’ denotes the Indian concept of Illusion by which the One Truth assumes the aspect of the MANY.
- Mother is refering to the general habit of so-called ‘pandits indulging in talk about lofty subjects which they scarcely understand in terms of experience, by pleading ignorance herself!
- Metaer draws Rajamma’s words to their logical extremities. The PART becoming the Whole’ signifies Man’s attainment of Inner Unity of Realization by overcoming the illusion of diversity.
- Mother implies that what’s ordained by the Divine Will of which She is the manifestation i, e. gracing Rajamma with the culminating experience would be accomplished; and Rajamma’s earlier talk of initiating Mother would turn out to be ignorant talk.
- Mother’s reluctance to tell her name is indicative of Her being the manifestation of the nameless, formless God. She indicates to Rajamma the utter futility of trying to identify her (Mother) with the name which people have conferred on her in ignorance of her real nature. To say that her name is the same as that of her aunt’s is to suggest that the identity of their names fails to denote the infinite disparity in their BEING. Here it is necessary to recollect Mother’s significant reply to a question put by a Swamiji “Do you appear the same to everyone?” He asked. “I appear to them as they view me” was Her reply!
- To Mother or to Rajamma? There is a subtle refe rence to spiritual imperfection (youngsters) and perfection (elders) besides it speaks of Mother’s perfect equality to all.
- Mother mocks at Rajamma’s incurable ignorance by which she sees things as they are not.
- Here a ‘child’ is used in the sense in which Rajamma used it, denoting 13NORANCE of spiritual values. Therby she tempts Rajamma into making the succeeding statement.
- Having succeeded Rajamma into tempting to call her a real child, Mother switches over suddenly to the sublime sense of the word in which Christ used it when he said that one should become a child before he can enter the kingdom of heaven; i. e., ego-lessness, purity, freedom from tyranny of the mind. It sounds like a rebuke for not realising the immense happiness of becoming a ‘child’ of the Holy Mother.
- A pungent admonition. She means that the really ignorant ones cannot distinguish between the two, the dis tinction being non-existant in themselves as it is the case with Rajamma,
- It is to be noted how creatures, things and incidents arrange themselves readily to illustrate what she wants to teach!
- Akshara- jnana colloquially means ‘lettered’ or Knowledge of the alphabet, ability to read and write. Literally it means the Eternal or Indestructible Knowledge.
- It’s the opposite, i. e. the Knowledge which is not Eternal.