6
6
.
.
2
2
K
K
e
e
e
e
p
p
i
i
n
n
g
g
u
u
p
p
A
A
p
p
p
p
e
e
a
a
r
r
a
a
n
n
c
c
e
e
s
s
3
3
8
8
7
7
which consists of six perfect or transcendental guṇas, and not ordinary, prākṛtic
matter, which consists of the three imperfect guṇas. This idea of the “pure matter”
(śuddha-sattva) seems to have had its origin in the Pañcarātra tradition.
Again, it is prākṛtic “imperfection” that is denied, and this type of view finds ech-
oes in the understandings of some of the modern Indian avatars—Adigalar, for ex-
ample, is distinguished by his followers from ordinary people by virtue of his hav-
ing a ‘Sat-Chit-Ananda body… untouched by Rajas [and] Tamas’
34
.
In a variation on this theme, Adhyātma-Rāmāyaṇa 7:2.67, as Whaling (1980:
170) notes, portrays Rāma is ‘intelligence alone’ (cinmātra), and Sathya Sai Baba
employs a close synonym of this last term in presenting his own avatar views:
The Avathara is not constituted of the five elements; it is Chinmaya not Mrinmaya,
spiritual not material. …Though men may mistake an Avathara as just human, that
does not affect the nature of the embodiment [(1969) GV 59].
But, in Sathya Sai Baba’s case, this suggests another use of the avatar as an artha-
vāda. We must do a double-take on this passage in light of his other usages of the
two key Sanskrit terms here—he indicates that, even for ordinary people, with de-
votion, ‘mrinmaya (mud-filled body) becomes Chinmaya’
35
. Similarly, whilst he
sometimes says that: ‘The body of the Avathaar is chith (awarenessful) substance;
it is not jada (inert) like other materials’, he avers that: ‘Nothing is inert, inactive,
jada’
36
. Or, again, whilst he elsewhere asks: ‘what is beneath this sheath of body?’
(i.e. his own body) and answers: ‘Only brilliant jyōti’
37
(“light”, “effulgence”), he
yet elsewhere qualifies a similar declaration by stating that ‘In fact, every being has
divine effulgence within’
38
.
As we have seen, this type of shift—using attributes once exclusively claimed
for the avatar to ultimately undermine any difference between the avatar and or-
dinary human beings—is common in Sathya Sai Baba teachings. Indeed, it is far
more important to him than (onto)logical consistency. Accordingly, contradicting
what we have just seen, Sathya Sai Baba sometimes indicates that his body is com-
posed of the five traditional material elements:
Swami’s body is human. So are all yours…. When the five elements are separated
from the body, it loses its identity. Once the life has left, the body is only fit for bur-
ial or cremation, the elements fall apart into their original form. Therefore, before
34
http://www.omsakthi.org/writings/avatar3.html [20-2-2007]
35
Sathya Sai Baba (1966) S6 24:126
36
SuV 44
37
Sathya Sai Baba (1946-1950) SSSA 93
38
(18-5-2000) http://www.eaisai.com/baba/docs/d000518.html [3-5-2007]
3
3
8
8
8
8
6
6
.
.
D
D
I
I
S
S
C
C
U
U
S
S
S
S
I
I
O
O
N
N
O
O
F
F
A
A
D
D
E
E
S
S
C
C
E
E
N
N
T
T
the body perishes, make all effort to experience the Divinity within…. Have full faith
that Divinity resides in you. If you keep reminding yourself constantly that you are a
part of Divinity, you are bound to become Divine yourself.
39
Again his avatar identity acts as an arthavāda—it just so happens that he chooses
to express the details of this identity differently. Similarly, he elsewhere says:
you can manifest the divinity within you. But, if you cannot recognize your human-
ness, how can you recognize your divinity? …You may or may not believe it. Here is
my body. It has a mind, intellect etc. exactly like that of any of you. But I am aware
of the workings of the monkey mind. …I am not attached to the body or the mind. I
follow the conscience.
40
This must be read in the context of one of his most common exhortations: ‘don’t
follow the body or the mind, follow the conscience’
41
. He thus, in both passages,
urges his devotees to have confidence in their own divinity and (implicitly) to fol-
low his example in this regard—an end which could obviously be compromised by
a docetic belief that he is only apparently human.
This returns us to the other major sense of “Docetism” as applied to the ava-
tars—“apparent (rather than real) human behaviour”. Oddly (but in keeping with
his preference for Christianity), Parrinder (1970:226) himself presents a somewhat
docetic view of this issue:
The Avatar… ‘never becomes the seeming temporary victim of the demon powers
(as did Christ nailed to the Cross), but is triumphant in his passage, from beginning
to end. The Godhead, in its very aloofness, does not in the least mind assuming
temporarily an active role on the phenomenal plane of ever-active Nature.’
Ironically, there are problems with this. Rāma, especially in the Vālmīki-Rāmā-
yaṇa, is certainly not portrayed as being ‘triumphant… from beginning to end’—
his throne is usurped, his wife abducted, and he is even at one point knocked un-
conscious on the battlefield. And there are parallels to this in Kṛṣṇa traditions—
Kṛṣṇa laments the destruction of his kinsmen and his failure to avert the Mahāb-
hārata war, and he too is injured on the battlefield. Of course, docetic interpreta-
tions often undermine the force of such passages, but Parrinder wishes to deny the
avatars even ‘seeming’ difficulties, and for this claim there would seem to be little
justification—were it not for the fact that Sathya Sai Baba, whilst acknowledging
that previous avatars underwent (seeming) difficulties, exerts his charismatic pre-
rogative in claiming that for him, there is ‘no room for even such ‘drama’ with
39
(23-11-1999) http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume32/sss32p2-16.pdf [12-7-2007]
40
(15-2-1998) http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume31/sss31-03.pdf [12-7-2007]
41
E.g.: (3-6-1995) http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume28/sss28-16.pdf [12-7-2007]