|
Pravin Kumar
Age: 64 Zodiac: 
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:03 pm |
|
 |
|
|
|
Q I read all the books, but there are certain people who can read them ten times and still would not know what they contain. They read and then believe in any stuff they are taught, because God did not give them the spiritual know how to grasp all these ideas.
A (Smilingly) Well, brother, are you sure then that these people who do not grasp by reading will grasp by hearing? (Audience Laughs)
Q What is the name of that book?
A This is the preface to the English translation of Gurmat Siddhant, entitled The Philosophy of the Masters. This book was written originally by the Great Master in two huge volumes in Punjabi, consisting of one thousand pages each. I would call it the encyclopedia of Sant Mat; he explained it from every point of view. It was written especially for the Sikhs with the background of Granth Sahib because, when this movement of Radha Soami Faith and all that started in the Punjab, they were probably the most agitated, because Maharaj Ji used to explain from the Granth Sahib what Sant Mat is and they probably felt that he was giving a wrong interpretation to the teachings of the Granth Sahib. Maharaj Ji heard a lot of this misguided criticism and used to have a lot of discussions with the Sikhs. In certain organiszations from them --- openly, publicly, in the newspapers and all that. So, he thought of writing a book explaining Sant Mat from all aspects, according to their own teachings. Therefore, the original, in Punjabi, has ninety-nine point nine percent quotations from the Granth Sahib on every aspect of Sant Mat.
So, Gurmeet Sidhant or The Philosophy of the Masters, in English, was a very detailed book by Huzurt Maharaj Ji, and we have now published its second edition.
Q How does Buddha's State of Nirvana, which definition has been given as that which never appears and therefore never disappears, compare to God-realization that you speak about?
A Nirvana means release from birth and death, salvation. God-realization or salvationi are different terms to explain the same thing.
Q But this is Nirvana versus Sansar? Nirvana is a state of being which does not even define such a thing as God or God-realization?
A I think Buddha's teachings are not properly explained. Buddha is nowhere quoted as having said that there is no God. He only said, why worry about God? Look to your karma. But the entire teaching of Buddha is based on the Karma Theory -- a very rigid Karma Theory. What he said was to the effect, why worry about God? Look to your actions, what you are doing in this life.
Q He never mentioned God.
A No, but he has not said anywhere that there is no God. Actually, I say, we do not have the teachings of these Masters, as they really gave them. There is no book that Buddha wrote. There was no direct disciple of Buddha, who put his teachings down in a book. The same is true of the Bible, which came to be written much later by the disciples of Christ.
Q But the dhampadda is actually the book written during the time of Buddha?
A It is very difficult to say. That is what we are given to understand, but history does not prove that. Actually, these saints were not at all recognized in their lifetime. Nobody bothered about them. Actually, these saints were not at all recognized in their lifetime: Nobody bothered about them.
Q Buddha was, though?
A Oh, no. Very few recognized him. He had hardly ten or twelve disciples in such a huge world. What does it mean? The saints were hardly recognized by their neighbors.
Q Well, I was not there during those days, but I was under the impression that Buddha was very well recognized during his lifetime.
A Of course, you were not there. It was Ashoka who, afterwards, gave his teachings to the world. Monks, say about a hundred years after Buddha, thought of spreading his teachings.
Q But Ashoka also met Buddha?
A Oh, no. Apparently you are not a student of history. He came much later, some five or six hundred years later.
Q Really?
A Yes. Not to say of Buddha, you take the case of Christ. How many disciples did he have?
Q Well, Christ had a poor following, I must admit.
A With all his beautiful teachings, hardly twelve disciples. And some of the apostles did not have the privilege of being with him, though, of course, they were conversant with his philosophy. So, what could they do? People do not recognize such greta souls in their lifetime, and later on they try to determine what the teachings are, according to their own way of thinking.
Q Buddha was, though?
A Oh, no. Very few recognized him. He had hardly ten or twelve disciples in such a huge world. What does it mean? The saints were hardly recognized by their neighbors.
Q Well, I was not there during those days, but I was under the impression that Buddha was very well recognized during his lifetime.
A Of course, you were not there. It was Ashoka who, afterwards, gave his teachings to the world. Monks, say about a hundred years after Buddha, thought of spreading his teachings.
Q But Ashoka also met Buddha?
A Oh, no. Apparently you are not a student of history. He came much later, some five or six hundred years later.
Q Really?
A Yes. Not to say of Buddha, you take the case of Christ. How many disciples did he have?
Q Well, Christ had a poor following, I must admit.
A With all his beautiful teachings, hardly twelve disciples. And some of the apostles did not have the privilege of being with him, though, of course, they were conversant with his philosophy. So, what could they do? People do not recognize such great souls in their lifetime, and later on they try to determine what the teachings are, according to their own way of thinking. There is no history about these things.
Q I do not think there is any contradiction in Buddha's teachings?
A There are different schools. I mean the Buddhists have probably seventeen different schools.
Q Yes, I understand that part, but insofar as Buddha's teachings, or his system of relieving suffering, working out one's karma, and to enter Nirvana in its essence and simplicity, I wonder if it is understood?
A By Nirvana he means release of the soul from the mind. That is Nirvana. But why to get release of the soul from the mind? Just to merge back into the Ocean. He does not mention about the Ocean, but when water, by evaporation, leaves the dirt, whether it is conscious of the cloud or not, it will go back and merge into the cloud or not, it will go back and merge into the cloud. Now, if the water in the dirt is told, "Leave the dirt, for you are not dirt, you are something else" and it leaves the dirt, though it is not told at all about its origin, the cloud, even then it will go back and merge into the cloud. Similarly, perhaps, the disciples were not plainly told about the Lord or about God. They were just told to look to their karmas and look to their Nirvana, to get release of their soul from the mind. But where then will the soul go? Again, surely to its origin.
Q But you mention God, and if there is such a thing as you mention as God, is God subject to the law of cause and effect as much as man is?
A Oh, no.
Q Well, on another planet, still otherwise, you have given him a label of God, and on God there is also a limitation, just as much as it must be in Nirvana?
A He has no limitation.
Q "He" has, "He" has. Who is "He"?
A Call it He or She, or One. You may give it any name, but He, God, the Lord, has no limitations. Read the Bible. It or He was before the creatino. He has created the creation. This is subject to dissolution, but He is not subject to dissolution. Everything that we see is His own projection. It is very clear.
Q Maharaj Ji, it is my understanding, and I want to see what you say about this. It is my understanding, you know, that we heard of so many books by Hermes Trismegistus, we have heard of all these books by Christ, by Buddha and all that. Now we know that Hermes Trismegistus was very probably a man of an illlumined mind. So, books written by them could be written by any thousands of people who had the illumined mind. Well, could we not say the same thing of Buddha? And say that all these stories about Buddha would actually be referring to people who had achieved a Buddhic consciousness, and had written it, or would you say --- do they think in the East that he was a definite person, or is it just possible that different Masters and Saints and Gurus, who had achieved that Buddhic consciousness, had written this for their disciples and then down through the ages it comes down as the life of a man?
A You think Buddha may be a myth? That is what you mean?
Q Not a myth, exactly. But I mean that there were masters and gurus that had achieved this high state of consciousness, this Buddhic consciousness, so then whatever they wrote would be called sayings of Buddha?
A I do not know. To be frank, I am not a student of history. I have not made much research in Buddhism. I have very little knowledge about Buddha's teachings. I do not know exactly.
Q Would you be kind enough to explain the difference between the modern Buddhist religion and Sant Mat?
A Sant Mat, brother, is no religion at all; it is the teachings of the saints, and by saints is not meant a particular saint but all saints of the world. As I often say, the teachings of all the saints are the same. All the religions that we see have different types of rituals and ceremonies, but the essence of spirituality at the base of every religion is absolutely the same. It is not different, and saints are only concerned with the essence, the spirituality of the teachings. They are not concerned with the rituals and ceremonies.
Rituals and ceremonies generally come after the saints leave, when the organizations come and society takes over, when the priestly class and the professions come and society takes over, when the priestly class and the professions come in. Then it becomes ritual and ceremony just to hold the masses, to hold the public; but the saint never bind us to any ritual ceremony. They are concerned only with the real teachings of spirituality. Sant Mat means literally the teachings of the saints, not of any one particular saint. But whosoever has risen to that status, that height, his teachings are bound to be the same. They cannot be different because, if the Lord is one and resides within everyone of us, we must search for Him within the body. We cannot find Him outside the body, and naturally the path leading to the Lord cannot be different. It must be the same.
We human beings are all made alike, and if we have to search within, it is impossible and illogical to think that, physically alike as we all are, there is one way inside for Christians and another for Hindus and Sikhs. The path is one though rituals or ceremonies may differ.
Buddha must have taught the same things which the other saints have taught us for attaining God realization, but with the passage of time, the real teachings were lost. Only organisations and groups and so many other things are left, and they, then, make their own interpretation of the teachings of Buddha, and for that matter, of all other saints. That interpretation may be very different and far from the real teachings are something very different and far from the real teachings of Buddha or, as I find , of Christ or of Guru Nanak or of any other saint. The real teachings are something very different from whta is being told through the organisations and churches and temples.
If, with an unbiased mind, we try to make some research and go deep to the foundation of different religions, we will find the same teachings in all of them. There can be absolutely no difference. Buddha believed in Light and so did Christ. I often go to Buddhist Temples and find their rituals to be absolutely the same as those in the churches or in the Hindu temples, or other temples. They have an everlasting light, as they call it, a vigil light or candle. They always keep it lit. They do not let it go out, and that is a symbol to explain to us that light, that inner flame, inside here (the forehead). They also produce the sound of the conch while others use a bell, the sound of which is the same as that produced in the churches. The same light as is produced in the churches, as well as the same sound, is produced in the Sikh, Hindu or Jewish temples. These rituals are the same, and they denote, they explain to us the same teachings and have become slaves of these rituals. The symbolic meaning we do not understand. So, Buddhism, as it is now, may have a different thing to tell us, may be very different from the teachings of Sant Mat, as we call it. But the real teachings of Buddha cannot be different from those of Sant Mat, or of Christ. The real teachings have been lost and forgotten. Only symbols, rituals, dogmas and priests are left with us --- meaningless relics, debris of ages.
|
Welcome to Mystic Board - Free Astrology, Tarot to Psychic Discussion Board. New visitors: Register Now its FAST! Members, please Sign-In.
