No Title

主	页

\|-	文	章

	\|-	峇	峇	开	示

	\|-	每	月	精	选

	\|-	其	它

主页 >> 文章 >> 每月精选

2013/03

近与亲的比照

五体投地顶礼于薄伽梵莲花足下。

亲爱的兄弟姐妹，

容我在此谈谈‘近与亲的比照’这个话题。由于我们经常遇到对这两者之间感到混淆的信徒，今天这话题就有极大的实用性了。我们遇到一些人，宣称自己住在百善地尼乐园数十年与薄伽梵甚为‘接近’。有一些人宣称基于在组织内的职位，他们跟薄伽梵很‘亲近’。我们看到另一类人，他们因住在太远或住在外国而不能接近祂而感到伤心难过。我们还遇到另一些人，他们由于不能靠近或亲近祂而表达他们的无助。

在那些感觉和公开宣称与薄伽梵亲近或靠近的人的身上，我们没有发现任何特殊的品质。非常遗憾地，他们反而具有消极而负面的品质，如自我，傲慢，浮华，自我吹嘘等。这并不意味着其他类型的人是平静的，快乐的。与薄伽梵有距离的念头和不接近的感觉使他们有挫折感。这带给他们沮丧甚或因精神痛苦而导致信心丧失。因此，在这两个例子中 -- 那些宣称接近的人和那些感觉遥远的人 -- 绝对存有消极性或负面性。在灵性领域里，两者都不具备进展标志。两者在心理上和精神上都受到阻碍和困扰。由于两者都没有一丝一毫的平和与福乐，两者一点也不灵性。一个人之所以转向宗教和哲学，就是为了获得平和与福乐。让我们在今天早上就这方面做一个彻底的探讨吧！

我个人认为，那些宣称自己与薄伽梵亲近的人是愚昧的，而那些感觉到自己与祂疏远的人是幼稚的。假如任何人公开宣称他和薄伽梵很亲近或很接近，毋庸置疑，他是自大的和自我的，而毁灭性的坠落很快就降临于他。另一种情况，如果一个人基于他不那么接近而耿耿于怀，那他可是愚蠢至极了。就灵性而言，两者的心态都是错误的。就肉身而言，遍及世界各地，数以百万计的信徒不可能人人都与祂亲近和接近。就让我们讨论一下，我们与造物主有多接近？我们如何能远离造物主？怎么可能一个人如此‘接近’自然，而另一人则不这么想？我们喜爱我们的地球。那么，是谁接近地球而谁不接近呢？通常在我们还逗留于尘世时，我们是接近母亲大地的。有谁能远离大地？就看火吧！火也寓于肉身之内。是故体温维持在华氏98.4度左右。身体之内有空间，所以血液循环，呼吸进程及其他重要机能得以继续操作。因此，五大元素就存在于人人之内而每一个人都与五大元素甚为接近。

那么创造主呢？祂出现于你上下左右和周遭。这就是神性（divinity）‘Sarvam Vishnumayam jagath’，意思是整个宇宙是神的彰显。所以，就灵性而言，认为人因为不‘亲近’神或‘接近’神而与神隔绝是完全无知和愚蠢的。同样，如果任何人表达他与神甚为亲近，那也完全是一个虚妄的声称或错误的观念。再者，存有骄傲妒忌的心态，公开作出这样的声明：“我与薄伽梵甚为亲近”简直是一大耻辱。一旦我们真诚而全心全意地接受薄伽梵峇峇是神，我们就得同意人人都亲近祂和接近祂。

《薄伽梵歌》（Bhagavad Gita）说，“Eko vasi sarvabhoothantharathma”，意谓同样的神乃众生的内寓者。我相信我已充分地说明了‘人人都接近和亲近神’的这个事实。即便我们参照薄伽梵而去思维，我们也会赏识这一点。当薄伽梵恩赐我们早上达瞻（darshan，现身让信徒一睹风采）时，是谁‘接近’或‘亲近’祂？起先，几个孩子靠近祂。稍后，当祂环绕达瞻路线时，那些坐在前排的靠近祂。然后，少数人被叫到会谈室面谈，他们就得以接近祂。在赞唱峇赞时，坐在主殿内前排的赞唱者和奏乐击鼓者，他们接近祂。当圣火礼（arthi）授予祭司执行时，祭司接近祂。在餐厅，厨师和餐桌上的贵宾接近祂。诸如此类，许多人因时因地而接近祂。但在讲道里，薄伽梵说得很清楚，神寓于人心的神坛里，而不论祂的荣耀在哪儿被赞颂，祂都会回应信徒的呼唤。薄伽梵前往拯救世界任何地方的任何信徒。

在其中的一个讲道中，薄伽梵说，那所谓的接近或亲近纯粹是心理的而不是肉体的。祂举了一个例子：当邻居奄奄一息于病床上，你无动于衷。而当你得知你远在美国的儿子身体不适时，你就顿时感到不安了。邻居不影响你，为何？你的儿子虽远在美国，但心灵上是亲近的，而肉体靠近的邻居却影响不了你。另一个例子，你获悉一个女孩病重。她的情况不会干扰你。但当你后来跟她结婚后，即便她患上轻微的头疼，你也会请临时事假来照顾她。什么原因？全是眷恋或执着！所以一个人有了眷恋或执着，心灵上才感到接近。肉体接近不是眷恋或执着的唯一基准。薄伽梵再举一个例子。有朋友前来拜访，我们带他们到客厅，款待他们，最后目送他们离开。但当你嫁出去的女儿回家陪伴你时，她在家里随处走动，自由自在，毫无拘束而你护送她回夫家。不同点在哪儿？谁跟你亲近？你很容易地可以猜出其原因。所以我奉劝诸位，不要被肉身的接近冲昏了头脑。

就让我们于此思路之内去研读史诗。在《罗摩衍那》（Ramayana）里，我们有几个人物非常亲近罗摩。主罗摩的父亲十车王（Dasaratha）并未从接近中获益。奇怪的是，他对派遣罗摩给众友仙人（Viswamitra）犹豫不决，当后者邀请罗摩保护火祭（Yagnas）以防罗刹（Rakshasas）或恶魔的攻击。吉迦伊（Kaikeyi）虽很爱罗摩，但却要罗摩放逐森林以让婆罗多（Bharata）取代罗摩而继承王位。罗摩的配偶，悉多（Sita）想获得一只不存在的金鹿。如果她真的有此需要，她的家翁十车王或她的父王加纳卡（Janaka）肯定会给她，哪怕是一只金象。她甚至将邪恶动机推诿到罗什曼那（Lakshmana）身上并强迫他离开，当罗什曼那应罗摩自己的要求去保护悉多的时候。虽身为罗摩配偶，她却认为罗摩的生命正处于危险之中。薄伽梵在这方面描述，只要悉多需要罗摩（神），她就感到快乐和安全，一旦她持有欲望（金鹿），她就被时间或死亡（Ravana罗波那）所俘虏。这取自《罗摩衍那》的故事情节告诉我们，即便最亲近罗摩的人，悉多，他的妻子，也会陷于困惑。罗什曼那因违背罗摩指令，离开现场，导致悉多被罗波那挟持而悔恨终生。因受到悉多严词厉色，他不得不作出反应而离开现场，虽然他清楚地知道任何事故都不会发生在罗摩身上。在《罗摩衍那》中，我们清楚地看到罗摩的父亲十车王，弟弟罗什曼那，小妈吉迦伊和配偶悉多都被‘接近’所迷惑。

神化身基士拿又如何？祂的近亲舅舅甘萨（Kamsa）却是祂最坏的敌人。祂的养母雅苏达（Yashoda），虽见证诸多奇迹但却未能从‘祂乃其子’的幻觉中解脱出来！高罗瓦斯（Kauravas）看到基士拿如何完全逆转他们所有意图去歼灭般达瓦斯（Pandavas）的计划，但却无视于祂的神性，虽然跟祂那么的接近！最亲近祂的阿周那（Arjuna）也陷于迷惑之中。战争结束后，他俩乘坐战车，凯旋荣归，这时，阿周那根据一般惯例，要求战车御者，基士拿，先下战车！阿周那一直都缺乏满满的信心，直到他目睹基士拿的宇宙形相（Virataswarupa）才信心十足。我们也知道基士拿土拉巴罗姆（Krishnathulabharam）的故事。沙迪亚巴玛（Sathyabama）为了把基士拿据为己有，而执行由那罗陀（Narada）建议的一项仪礼。故事是这样的，她可以把基士拿托给那罗陀，然后才以等同于基士拿体重的黄金重量换回基士拿。在过程中，她把她所有的珠宝带来，包括无价之宝的宝石（Syamanthakamani），但所有这一切都无法比拟基士拿的体重。最后，如你所知的，就是茹克米妮（Rukmini），她把一片杜拉希（Tulsi，罗勒属植物，其叶香如薄荷，用于调味）叶子放在秤盘上，赞颂基士拿圣号，才将秤盘平衡过来。这里重要的一点是，沙迪亚巴玛，基士拿最亲近的配偶尝试以黄金和财富去测量祂！如果她认清基士拿的神性，她会这么做吗？是‘接近’迷惑了她？是的，是接近。所以说，神化身基士拿也迷惑了那些接近祂的人。

耶稣又如何？多马（Thomas）很亲近耶稣，然而，后来他成了‘怀疑的多马’，因为他怀疑耶稣的神性。我们难道不知道犹大（Judas），耶稣最亲近的信徒之一，他为了接受区区三十个银币而出卖耶稣，把耶稣交给敌人。在这两个例子中，接近的效应又是什么呢？

那么，让我们看看斯里罗摩基士拿巴拉玛哈姆萨（Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa）吧！在他生命的最后阶段，当他罹患末期喉癌时，住在隔壁房的维韦卡南达（Vivekanda，辨喜）却有一个负面的想法。他感到奇怪，神圣如斯里罗摩基士拿为何还受苦。这时巴拉玛哈姆萨出现在他面前并说，“纳伦（译注：Narendranath Datta，辨喜原名的简称）！瞧！三分期（Treta Yuga）的罗摩和二分期（Dwapara Yuga）的基士拿都以巴拉玛哈姆萨的形相出现在你面前。”有谁比辨喜更亲近巴拉玛哈姆萨？除了‘接近’外，还有什么是令他感到怀疑的？萨拉达蒂薇（Sarada Devi），神圣的母亲，巴拉玛哈姆萨的配偶又如何？当他离开他的肉身时，她必须住在她弟弟的家，照顾弟弟的孩子和做家务。她感到那么哀伤而有一天她开始想，“斯瓦米，我命何苦！要是你给我一个孩子，我就可以与他同住。因为无儿无女，我得过一个女佣的生活。”于是巴拉玛哈姆萨现身并说，“萨拉达！你为何哭泣？你为何感到哀伤？你为何认为你没有孩子？成千上万的孩子跟在后头叫你‘母亲！母亲！’的那一天即将到来。”确实，接下来的年头，她成为‘斯里罗摩基士拿布道会’（Sri Ramakrishna Mission）的母亲。这例子显示，就连萨拉达蒂薇也不例外，因肉身的接近而被虚幻冲昏了头。

舍尔地赛峇峇（Shirdi Sai Baba）的一个虔诚的信徒，西亚马（Shyama），因为未曾从薄伽梵的神性中获益而深感遗憾。舍尔地圆寂后，他因没有认识到薄伽梵在世时完满的神性而悔恨不已。‘接近’蒙蔽了他。让我们探讨一下薄伽梵斯里沙迪亚赛峇峇对这接近或靠近的看法。祂一再地告诉学院的学生，“蜜蜂从老远的地方到此地来吸取莲花的花蜜而在池塘里的蜗牛、青蛙、鱼类虽如此靠近莲花却不知其价值。同理，许多信徒知道薄伽梵的价值而从远处来到这里。你则像是青蛙和蜗牛，不知价值为何物。你每天看到我却不知道价值。我谈论，我歌唱，我说笑，我进餐，我跟你一起走动并因此而迷乱了你。井底蛙不知海洋之大。同样，你也像是井底蛙，不知外边有像一片汪洋般众多的信徒。在灯光下，你总是看到一个影子。同样你处于影子之中。灯塔的光能照射到很远的距离，但在灯塔之下却是一片漆黑。

同样，薄伽梵的灵性之光照射世界各个角落。但你却处于黑暗之中。你依据着肉身行事。你的心念并没有超越之。你心胸狭小，怎么能够知道和估计薄伽梵宽宏的心胸？在你之内，爱在收缩，但在薄伽梵之内，爱在扩张。你连一个母亲的爱也不了解，如何能了解浩如海洋的千万个母亲的爱？你看到体型但往往误解。那么心又怎么啦？你自私。不论你做什么或说什么，你无不持以自己的利益。不论你信与否，我从头到脚没有丝毫自私之念。当你听到一个芒果，而在内心想象它时，你不禁垂涎欲滴。想象其美味，你乐在其中。然而实际上，当你到市场去选择一个芒果时，你闻一闻它。你想尝一尝。同样，虔诚的感觉在你深思静虑于神时跃起，但当你看到祂站在你面前时，怀疑跃起。这就是你之所以受到困惑的原因。”凭这一点，道理非常清楚，在靠近中，我们体验不到神性。薄伽梵也说，“你到布达峇地来的次数不是关键所在。你瞧，巴士司机和售票员每天都来这里，他们看到我的神性吗？”

我没有任何意思要我们拒绝接近。我也没有说接近是毫无意义的。接近不是人人都可以得到的。毋庸置疑，它是神恩的一个表示。然而，我想让你知道的是，‘接近’是不够的。它必须结合‘亲’才算完整。当你‘亲’时，接近才得以实践。接近的成效在于‘亲’并带来福乐。实际的灵性体验靠两者的结合才获得。一个父亲很爱他的儿子。他很亲儿子；然而那是不够的，如果儿子住在很远的地方。父亲也希望儿子住得靠近他。母亲与儿子之间的关系也一样。夫妻的关系也如此。由于他们相亲相爱，他们也希望接近以享天伦之乐。同样，一个人必须既‘近’且‘亲’神，以便获益于我们的神化身。

薄伽梵给了一个例子：当点燃两片柴薪时，柴薪被烧成灰烬。在燃烧当儿，若加以风扇或吹气，其火焰就更猛。两片柴薪应该置于相近之处，然后点燃和燃烧。这是‘亲’的状况。这两片柴薪既‘近’（两片柴薪互相靠近）且‘亲’（吹气）导致至福的火焰。在这谈话中，我想我已说得很清楚，我们必须‘亲’祂然后‘近’祂。这等于说，‘去者日以疏’的情况。若你只‘近’而不‘亲’，它变成一个例常公事，一个仪式，并且是机械式的了。我的朋友！愿薄伽梵以此孪生儿，近与亲，来祝福我们，以便我们沐浴于神化身的神性之中。

愿薄伽梵峇峇赐福大家！

SAI RAM。

取自《薄伽梵斯里沙迪亚赛峇峇普及和实用的教导》第1章

Nearness vis-à-vis Dearness

With pranams at the lotus feet of Bhagavan.

Dear brothers and sisters,

Let me seek your permission to speak on the subject, Nearness vis-à-vis Dearness. This topic is of great relevance today, as we meet fellow devotees who are confused between the two. We come across people who claim to be very ‘near’ to Bhagavan, staying in Prasanthi Nilayam for decades. There are others who declare that they are ‘close’ to Bhagavan by virtue of their position in the organization. We see another category who feel sad for being far away from Him, living abroad or long distance away. Further, we encounter others who express their helplessness since they could not be near or close to Him.

We do not find any extraordinary qualities in those that feel and claim openly that they are close or near to Bhagavan. It is also unfortunate that they have negative qualities like ego, pride, pomp, self-praise etc. This does not mean that the other class of people are peaceful and happy. The very thought that they are distanced from Bhagavan and the feeling that they are not close to Him frustrates them. It leads to depression and in extreme cases even loss of faith due to mental agony. Therefore in both instances – those who claim nearness and others who feel the distance there is absolutely negativity. These are no signs for improvement in the spiritual field. Both are psychologically disturbed, mentally agitated. Since they have no trace of peace and bliss they are in no way spiritual. It is for securing peace and bliss that one turns to religion and philosophy. Let us investigate this aspect thoroughly this morning.

I personally feel that those that say they are close to Bhagavan are ignorant, while those that feel they are distanced from Him are innocent. If anyone openly declares that he is very close or near to Bhagavan, undoubtedly he is proud and egoistic, with his fatal fall fast approaching. On the other hand, if one goes on feeling sad on grounds that he is not so near, he is foolish. Spiritually both the attitudes are wrong. Physically, it is impossible for everybody to be very close and near with Bhagavan’s devotees in millions spread all over the world. Let us discuss how near we are to the creator? How can we be away from the creator? How one can be so ‘close’ to nature, while the other does not think so? We like our earth. Now who is close to earth and who is not? We are usually near mother earth in our earthly sojourn. Who can be away from earth? Consider fire. There is fire within the body too. Therefore, the body temperature is 98.4°F. There is space within the body, wherein blood circulation, breathing process and other vital functions continuously take place. Thus the five elements are present in everyone. So everyone is very near five elements.

Then what about creator? He is present below, above, inside, outside and around you. This is divinity ‘Sarvam Vishnumayam jagath’, which means that the entire universe is the manifestation of God. So spiritually speaking it is total ignorance and foolishness to think that one is cut off from GOD, that one is not ‘close’ or ’near’ Him. Likewise it is utterly a false claim or wrong notion if anyone expresses that he or she is close to God. Further, with the existing pride and envy it is a matter of shame to come out openly with such a statement: “I am close to Bhagavan”. When once we sincerely and with all our heart and spirit accept that Bhagavan Baba is God, we must necessarily agree that all are close to Him and near Him.

Bhagavad Gita says, “Eko vasi sarvabhoothantharathma”，which means that the same God is the indweller in all. I am sure that I have made it amply clear that all are near and dear to God. Even if we think with reference to Bhagavan, we will appreciate this point. Who is ‘near’ or ‘close’ to Him when Bhagavan comes down to grant us His morning darshan? Few boys are near Him at first. Later, when He goes round the darshan lines, those who are seated in the front line are close to Him. Then those chosen few called for interview become close to Him. During Bhajan session, those who are seated in the front rows inside the mandir (temple), singing Bhajans and playing instruments are close to Him. While arthi is given the temple priest is close to Him. In the dining hall, cooks and few guests at the dining table are close to Him. Like this, many are close to Him depending on the place and time. But in the discourse Bhagavan said very clearly that God resides in the altar of human heart and that He responds to the call of the devotee whenever His glory is sung. Bhagavan goes to the rescue of any devotee anywhere in the world.

Bhagavan in one of His discourses mentioned that the so called nearness or closeness is purely psychological and not physical. He gave an illustration: When the neighbour is on death bed, you are not bothered or disturbed. Whereas, when you come to know that your son in U.S.A. is unwell, you are totally upset. The man next door has not affected you. Why? Your son, though in U.S.A. a long distance away is mentally near and mere physical nearness to the neighbour did not influence you. Another example, you may come to know that a girl is seriously ill. Her condition has not ruffled you. But when you marry her later and she becomes your wife, even if she suffers from a headache you apply for casual leave, and do not go to office and stay at home. Why? It is the attachment that is responsible. So one has to be attached, and mentally feel near. Physical nearness is not the only criterion to be attached. Bhagavan gives another example. When friends visit us we rush them to the drawing room, entertain them and finally see them off. But when your married daughter comes home to spend some time with you, she moves freely all over the house, enjoys fully and you accompany her and drop her at the residence. What is the difference? Who is close to you? You can easily guess the reason. So, I appeal to you not to be simply carried away by physical proximity.

Let us study our epics in this line of thought. In the Ramayana we have few characters very close to Rama. King Dasaratha, the father of our Lord Rama, has not in any way benefited by proximity. Strangely enough, he hesitated to send Rama with Viswamitra when the latter wanted Rama to protect Yagnas from the onslaught of rakshasas or demons. Kaikeyi in spite of her intense affection for Rama wanted Him to be sent to forest and Bharata to be crowned in the place of Rama. Sita, the consort of Sri Rama, desired a golden deer which did not exist. Had she wanted one, her father-in-law Dasaratha or her father King Janaka would have presented her a golden elephant. She ascribed evil motives even to Lakshmana and forced him to go, while he was asked to guard her by Rama himself. She thought Rama’s life was in danger, though being His consort. Bhagavan mentioned in this context that Sita was happy and secure so long as she wanted Rama (God), the moment she entertained kama or desire (golden deer), she was caught by kala or death (Ravana). This episode from Ramayana conveys how even one closest to Lord Rama, Sita His wife, was deluded. Lakshmana repented throughout his life for having left the spot, the duty assigned by Rama, which lead to the abduction of Sita by Ravana. By reacting to the harsh words of Sita he had to leave the place though he knew pretty well that nothing could ever happen to Lord Rama. In Ramayana we clearly find that father Dasaratha, brother Lakshmana, step mother Kaikeyi and wife Sita were all deluded by nearness.

How about Krishna Avatar? His very close relation, maternal uncle Kamsa was the worst of his enemies. His foster mother Yashoda, though a witness to many miracles, never freed herself from the delusion of the feeling that he was her son! Kauravas who saw how Krishna literally reversed all their plans to kill Pandavas, never realized His divinity, being so near Him! Arjuna, the closest also, was deluded. At the end of the battle as both returned in the chariot, Arjuna wanted Krishna, the charioteer, to get down first according to the usual convention! Arjuna did not have full faith until he saw Krishna’s Virataswarupa – Cosmic form. We also know the story of Krishnathulabharam. Sathyabama, in order to have Krishna all to herself, performed a ritual as advised by Narada. As the story goes, she could offer Krishna to Narada and receive Him back by giving gold equal to the weight of Krishna as indicated in the balance. In the process she brought all her jewellery including the priceless Syamanthakamani (gem), but all that did not balance the weight of Krishna. Finally, as all know, it was Rukmini, who tipped the scales when she placed a single Tulsi leaf on the pan, chanting Krishna’s name. The important point here is, Sathyabama, the closest consort of Krishna trying to weigh Him in terms of gold and wealth! Had she been conscious of Krishna’s divinity, would she have done that? Had proximity deluded her? Yes, it did. Therefore, Krishna Avatar also deluded those who were near Him.

How about Lord Jesus Christ? Thomas was so close to Jesus and yet, later, became “the doubting Thomas”, as he doubted the divinity of Jesus. Do we not know that it was Judas, one of His closest disciples, who handed Him over to the enemies for just thirty silver coins. What is the effect of nearness in these two instances?

Then, let us take the life of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. During the last stages of his life, when he was suffering from terminal throat cancer, Vivekananda, who was in the next room, thought in a negative way. He was surprised why Sri Ramakrishna, being divine had to suffer. Then Paramahamsa manifested in front of Him and said, “Naren! Look! Rama of Treta Yuga and Krishna of Dwapara Yuga are in front of you in the form of Ramakrishna.” Was there anyone closer to Paramahamsa than Vivekananda? What made him doubt other than proximity? What about Sarada Devi, the divine mother, the wife of Paramahamsa? When he left his mortal body, she had to stay at the residence of her brother taking care of his children and doing household work. She felt so sad, that one day and began to think, “Swami! What is my fate! Had you given me a child I would have stayed with him. Since I have no children, I had to lead the life of a servant-maid.” Then Paramahamsa appeared in front of her and said, “Sarada! Why do you cry? Why do you feel sad? Why do you think that you have no children? A day is fast approaching when many hundreds will follow you calling ‘Mother! Mother!’.” Indeed, she was the mother of Sri Ramakrishna Mission in the following years. This instance shows that even Sarada Devi was no exception in being carried away by delusion due to physical proximity.

Shyama, an ardent devotee of Shirdi Sai Baba, repented very much for not having been a full beneficiary of the divinity of Bhagavan. After Shirdi Sai left His mortal coil, he felt so bad for not realizing His divinity in full, while Bhagavan was alive. Proximity blinded him. Let us know Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba’s views on this proximity/nearness. He repeatedly tells the college students, “Honeybees come from far off places to drink the nectar from the lotus flower, whereas, snails, frogs, fishes in the pond near the lotus do not know its value. Similarly, many devotees come here from distant lands knowing the value of Bhagavan. You are like frogs and snails and do not know the value. You see Me every day and so do not know the value. I talk, I sing, I joke, I dine and I move with you and therefore you are deluded. A frog in a well cannot imagine the sea. So also, you are like frogs, not aware of the sea of devotees outside. Under the lamp you always find a shadow. Similarly, you are in the shadow. The light from the lighthouse reaches long distances, but beneath the lighthouse it is dark.

Similarly, the light of divinity of Bhagavan is reaching to all corners of the world. But you are in darkness. You go by this physical body. Your mind does not go beyond. You are narrow-minded. How do you know and estimate the broad mind of Bhagavan? There is contraction of love in you. But in Bhagavan there is always expansion of love. You do not understand the love of even a single mother. How are you to know the love of a thousand mothers as vast as an ocean? You see the physical frame and are mistaken. What about the heart? You are selfish. Whatever you do or say you have your self-interests. Believe Me or not, from top to toe I am selfless. When you hear of a mango fruit and picture it mentally, the saliva oozes. You feel happy imagining its sweetness. But actually when you go to the fruit market and pick up a mango fruit, you begin to smell it. You want to taste it. Similarly, the devotional feelings spring up when you contemplate on God, but when you see Him standing in front of you, doubt arises. This is how you are deluded.” By this it is very clear by now, how we do not experience the divinity living in proximity. Bhagavan also said, “It is not the number of trips that you make to Puttaparthi that matters. You see the bus drivers and conductors coming every day. Do they see the divinity?”

I do not mean in any way that we should deny ourselves of the nearness. I do not also say that it is meaningless to be close. Proximity is not given to everybody. It is an indication of God’s grace, without any doubt. But what I impress upon you is that to be ‘near’ is not enough. It has to be coupled with being ‘dear’ to be complete. When once you are ‘dear’ the nearness finds its fulfilment. Proximity is fruitful by being ‘dear’ and it confers bliss. The actual spiritual experience is obtained with the combination of these two. A father loves his son very much. The son is very dear to him; yet, is not enough if the son stays at a long distance. Father also desires that the son be near him. So also, the relationship between a mother and a son. Same is the case with husband and wife. As they are dear they also wish to be near to taste complete joy. Similarly, one has to be both ‘near’ and ‘dear’ to God to be totally benefited by our Avatar.

Bhagavan gave an example; when two pieces of firewood are lit up they are consumed by fire. Added to this, when we fan or blow air, the flame increases. The two pieces of wood should be placed ‘near’, lit and be burning. Here is the state of being ‘dear’. These two ‘near’ (two pieces close to each other) and ‘dear’ (blowing the air) led to a flame of bliss. I think I was able to make it amply clear in this talk that we have to be ‘dear’ to Him and then be ‘near’ Him. It amounts to saying ‘out of sight out of mind’ state. If we are only near and not dear it becomes a routine, a ritual, and mechanical. My friends! May Bhagavan bless us with these twins, nearness and dearness, so as to bask in the divinity of the Avatar.

May Bhagavan Baba bless you all!

Sai Ram.

- Universal & Practical Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, Chapter 1