The Best Ever Taught: So you maintain than this Mother's teaching does the highest ever taught?


Not that way. I have non learnt everything that had been naught else where. But as I am now, [ feel that I have learnt; from Mother the highest I have so far been able no hear or learn.


So. you keep an open mind. you are ready to be convinced if you are told about the greater teachings of any other saint.


Sure. But on one condition. Please don’t quote from a saint and pose him against me for an answer. You present to me a teaching which you hold as supreme. I shall accept it if I can also understand it. as supreme. If you quote the saying of a Shankara or Ramanujn and ask me to discuss it, I shall be placed in the unpleasant predicament of contradicting a giant of the past. I would suffer by the mere comparison. What you ask me, let. it he your question so that we could freely discuss between us two. You convince me or question me. I shall do the same and we will be able to progress. If you say, So-and-so said like this, what have you to say?. I shall have well you, 'I don't have him now before me, what good is there in telling you what I have to say to him?' So, no names please, only arguments.


'And you reserve for yourself the right to quote from this Mother?'


Not at all. Same rule for me and you. I shall not present any Sayings of mother as my authority. I shall ways give the reasons for what I believe. You can freely discuss the demerits or merits of that belief. 'Good. What does this Mother say about the nature of reality?


What all we see, hear and feel is reality. What do you mean by reality? Excellent , please continue in this strain . Reality is what is You mean, What was in the Past, what is in the Present, and what is going to be in Future?


But Yes. I don't mean that reality DOES NOT CHANGE even its external forms.


How could what changes be real?


Matter is indestructible. Energy is indestrumctible, Consciousness is indestructible, in accordance with the scientific point of view, I believe that all these we see, are external forms of WHAT IS. Only they are different is properties and names, not in essence. Charcoal, graphite and diamond are all carbon chemically. But their properties are different. Similarly, all that we see, hear and feel IS. WAS and SHALL BE, in some form or other. Reality remains the same in essence and mass, but it might alter its forms, and those different forms do have different properties.


May be it is odd from the viewpoint of Advaitic absolutism. But are not the theistic concepts of the absolutism of a God residing in vaikuntha or kailash odd too? Again , is not the vivarta argument of the appearance of the absolute as the universe, a bit more odd that the ajaata vaada of Gaudapaada? Is not a dream world again a bit odd in the pure absolutism aimed at by Gaudapaada? you know the universe and absolutism Do not agree .Reality is not obliged to satisfy Intelligence of philosophers. Obviously you are


Possessed of certain concepts about reality and a scientific description of what is,cuts into those concepts of reality.

‘So? ‘

So, give up speculative absolutism and philosophise from experience.


Is deep sleep universal experience? yes it is.


What was your state during deep sleep?


Ninety nine percent unconsciousness and one percent consciousness. You say you are conscious during sleep?'


Otherwise I would not respond to sound or touch from outside. A yogi in the samashi state also ‘wakes up' through some kind of external disturbance. Sri Ramakrishna, when his guru Totapuri made his disciple do bhajan. Ramana Maharshi used to come back to normal conscious ness even after long spells of Samadhi during which moths scared his underskin.these instances show that during samadhi as well as in deep sleep, there remains some percentage of wakefulness to the surroundings.


You don’t agree that during deep sleep and the samadhi state the individual is in his primal State of existence-consciousness-bliss and than association with the ego in waking up involves him in worldly worries?`


' I mean pointing my finger at the truth than staying always with extra-universal consciouness is NOT the nature or original preference of consciousness. If that were the preference-as extreme advaitins maintain there could be no urge for creation, or dreaming or assuming illusory appearance.


I don’t quite follow.’


The upanishadic rishis repeatedly mention that, in the Beginning there was consciousness only and in was all alone. Then IT wished to create the worlds or become MANY. This assump- tion of a desire of the SOUL to become many is a necessary proposition for any philosophy. There were trials to avoid this toll-gate (grata tutee) by some philosophers. One said that this world experience is but a dream. Dream experience IS an experience DIFFERENT from mere awareness or Seth-chith-aananda. So, if that philosopher Were to talk a snap-shot of ‘what is’, he would see Sath-chith-aanandn PLUS dream experience. There are two, dream experience and Truth. Permanent unsullied consiousness alone could not be postulated ii the face of the universal activity, which is impossible to bypass. You may call it a dream, an illusion - .(or mirage),an inert part of lswara or the- empire of God. It continues to he a stumbling block. What does this Mother say?'


She sees what all is, as real. Change is patent; in nature, She says 'That Brahman alone is which is changing.’


Does she mean than there is nothing that Can remain unchanged?`


Do you believe than part of the ALL keeps changing , while another part keeps unaltered?



That is as good us postulating God and the universe. Along with it. the age-old problems of the need for creation. the material for creation, the reason for enjoyment and suffering of individuals, raise their ugly hoods. To answer them, one will have to start with beliefs as faiths do and necessarily, geographic and historic back grounds shape these- faiths though each faith claims divine origin for itself. God himself as an incarnation gave this hook' says one, 'God sent his son' says another. God Sent his messenger says a third. These hooks are an authority on their own merit. God exists because they sanction his presence, says a fourth. As faiths they are untouchable hut as philosophies, they differ contradict and sometimes criticise the others ‘ours is the latest and last commandment' is a clever claim which vetoes all others. But history has thrown up several prophets after the firt one orthodoxy notwithstanding. Numerous claimants to divine apostolate sprung up in the very land of each prophet.


‘And so she thinks than melting down all metals into a universal alloy is the safest and best?’


She hasn't studied the extant philosophies to find a possible solution. She teaches from Her experience. We never hear any remark from Her about any philosophy or faith. All Her questions to Her elders were nascent hut never from memory. She does not require us to make any axiomatic beliefs. If traditional postulates which you hug to with love tend to break down at Her questions, you could certainly turn away from Her and develop your faith. She sits in Her home quietly, She does not preach or instruct. She answers only if one approaches Her and asks. You could certainly ignore Her!


‘True. But if some persons like you feel that they are hearing from Her the best they have heard so far.'


I personally believe so, and I have explained my reasons. The advaitins generalise the samadhi and deep sleep experiences and say than to Be is the innate nature of consciousness. They do not brook any becoming because that presupposes a desire, a. want, a deficiency in the all satiated absolute. I am not able to see fullness in this unchanging absolute One could say 'lt is incapable of becoming, it. is excluded from plurality, it can’t act, it is stagnant and static. On the other hand the whole universe. which should be the starting point of all philosophy, shows changes ,vigour and activity. I personally believe that our ancient philosophers built up on the basis of the then belief that everything that we see around us will perish. The natural laws conservation of matter and energy were (NOT known to them. We know now that nothing perishes. Only things change their form and properties. The ALL, that is now was from the beginningless past and shall be in the endless future. Mother says only this. She generalises what is taking place in nature when she says "changing Brahman alone is always'.


‘Why imagine a unity again in the so-called Brahman?'


From an observation of order in the universe, probably, she feels that the universe is the form of a Shakti moving about by itself somewhat like a huge whale. All movements and incidents, including the tiniest rustle. she says, are predeter mined.


The All therefore is a self acting machine?


Yes, but the laws of its action are somewhat Obscure.


‘Are not- laws of science its laws?` They are; but we know that there is no finality in the laws of science. The horizon always recedes from us. And She describes that Shakti as of unlimited power.


Does She know science?"


Not austensibly. But I found what her saying do not contradict the finding of science, while traditional philosophies go against science in a number of points.


Her teachings go against all traditional philosophies, which after all were the results of the speculative thinking und spiritual experience of eminent thinkers of the past'


No, not totally againt. I feel She complates the traditional philosophies. Her teaching has something in common with each of those and definitely differnet each of them in the goal and approach. It simplifies and explains each approach satisfactorily. So?'


So, I concluded that Mother's teaching in the simplest and best. After learning about each one of the philosophies I had still some unanswered doubts. Mother's teaching left me convinced. It was possible for me to mark the basic axioms underlying religions. It is these that made religions differ from one another. Mother’s teaching clears these hurdles, shows the destination and pushes one forward, whichever be his basic assumptions. That is why I maintain`- according to you-that her teaching is the best ever taught. It is open for you to find out for yourself.


Matrusri Monthly Journal (English) | Vol.9 | October-74, | No.8