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
5
5
humans and not of the avatar
25
—who he says is ‘beyond’ māyā
26
. And his purpose
in another of his references in this context is quite the opposite of that which Par-
rinder envisions here (“showing some reality in the world”), for he describes the
individual soul (jīva) as just ‘appearance’, and ‘delusion’
27
.
His other two references here are aimed at dispelling the idea that the theory of
māyā somehow “explains” the avatar—something which would obviously conflict
with his claims to “incomprehensibility” (as discussed in Section 1.3). In all of
this, he betrays his alignment with the philosophy of Śaṅkara, for whom, as K. Na-
rain (1986:278) notes, the jīva likewise had no independent reality, and by whom,
māyāśakti is similarly portrayed as ‘inexplicable’
28
(anirvacanīya). Indeed, Suthren
Hirst (2005:109) writes of Śaṅkara’s use of the example of a:
magician (māyāvin) who creates a magical illusion by his own magical powers. The
same word, māyā, can be used for both the power and its product…. However,
when Śaṃkara employs the magician example, it is notable that māyā always applies
to the magician’s power, the means through which the magic show is created. It
does not describe the effect… there is no real effect apart from the magician’s
power… māyā is more important as an illustration than as a theory for Śaṃkara.
Māyā thus acts as an arthavāda—Sathya Sai Baba, in last instances mentioned
above, aims to ensure that his devotees do not take it as anything more than that
(ironically, much advaita thinking subsequent to Śaṅkara does tend to reify it).
If, in this view, even māyā lacks a positive ontological status, we might well
wonder how “real” the avatar is believed to be—indeed, we saw that for Sathya
Sai Baba (and for Śaṅkara) the avatar itself acts as an arthavāda—pointing beyond
itself to the ultimate spiritual reality. But, as Dandekar (1979:122) writes:
A characteristic feature of the Vedānta as represented by Śaṁkara is the assumption
of two main levels of reality – transcendental or absolute and phenomenal or em-
pirical. The ultimate and the only reality is, no doubt, the brahman in its transcen-
dental aspect. …The universe may have only relative reality, but its creation had
nonetheless to be explained. It is in this context that god [sic] is posited by
Śaṁkara. In other words, god is real on the same level as the individual self and the
universe.
The avatar, presumably, is as “real” as “god” (the creator of the universe). But
how “real” are “the individual self and the universe”? In Section 4.3, we encoun-
tered the key Sanskrit terms that are usually employed in this context (see
25
(14-02-1961) S2-1:1; (25-7-2006) http://sathyasai.org/discour/2006/d060226.html [9-7-2007]
26
Sathya Sai Baba (24-11-1961) S2 26:136
27
Sathya Sai Baba (1-8-1956) http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume01/sss01-03.pdf [9-7-2007]
28
Swami Prabhavananda & Christopher Isherwood (1970), p.49.
3
3
8
8
6
6
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
p.245,n.22 above), and I noted that Sathya Sai Baba sometimes uses these, but his
explanation of the significance of this indicates that, for him at least, the lower
level of “reality” is synonymous with “appearance”:
There are two points of view that struggle for acceptance by you---the Pa-
ramaarthika and the Vyavahaarika---the spiritual and the worldly, the reality-based
and the appearance-based. …The Universe is what appears; the Reality is Divinity,
Brahmam [(24-12-1980) S14 60:389].
In this sense, in Sathya Sai Baba’s view at least, the avatar is docetic. There is a
contrast here with the views of Meher Baba, for whom ‘God’s life lived in illusion,
as the Avatār …is not illusory’
29
and is ‘simultaneously on the level of the lowest
to the highest’
30
, but Meher Baba’s views, as I noted, are Christian influenced.
And it is not only in this purely philosophical sense that the avatar is under-
stood in docetic terms. Parrinder (1970:120) supports his characterization of the
avatars as being “real” by asserting that the avatar is a ‘fleshly descent of the di-
vine to the animal or human plane’, but this simply does not accord with some of
Sathya Sai Baba’s views in this area (recall his avataric embryology, p.222)—nor
with some traditional viewpoints. Even the ideas of the major traditional commen-
tators on the Bhagavad-Gītā (which Parrinder much considers) are problematic in
this regard. Śaṅkara writes of the avatars that their ‘birth is an illusion (maya). It
is Divine, peculiar to Isvara, not of ordinary nature (aprakrita)’
31
; Sharma
(1986:355) notes that: ‘The Rāmānuja school regards them as essentially non-
material’; and Madhva
32
and most later Vaiṣṇava theologians add but a few minor
elaborations to this view
33
. Sheth (2002:108;121,n66) writes that Rāmānuja ‘ex-
plicitly mentions the reality (satyatva, yathātmya) of Kṛṣṇa’s birth and body’, but
observes that ‘Madhva says that Viṣṇu only appears to be born’, and points out that
both he and Rāmānuja mean ‘to exclude prākṛtic imperfections in Viṣṇu’s forms’.
But, despite Rāmānuja’s terms, the effect is much the same—it is precisely such
prākṛtic (i.e. “natural”) imperfections that Docetism seeks to deny.
Whilst Sheth adds that ‘Jiva Gosvamin of the Caitanya school asserts that the
avatāras and their deeds are not illusions imagined through ignorance (avidya)’,
he notes that (in this and other later Vaiṣṇava understandings):
the forms or bodies of the avatāras are made up of “pure matter” (śuddha-sattva),
29
Purdom (1964), p.280.
30
Purdom (1964), p.390
31
Mahadeva Sastry, The Bhagavad Gita with the commentary of Sri Sankaracharya (1979), p.122.
32
Sharma (1986), p.355.
33
See S.K.De (1961).