Correspondence 1934, September (I)

September 2, 1934

But krodha [wrath] also? Says not the Gita, Sattvātatsañjāyate Jñānam (from the Sattvaguṇa[1] arises wisdom). And Rama’s wrath is of the most unwise, nay puerile brand, pardon me. Take for instance his insulting Sita the second time (after Valmiki’s testimony at that) by commanding her to give more proofs of her chastity before the rabble whereupon she seeks shelter into the earth. Instantly Rama’s love which was conspicuous by its absence a moment ago, becomes flamboyant avyavasthitachittaṣṭa prasādopibhayaṅkara [even the grace of the volatile is catastrophic, says the sage] and he shouts krodhaśoka-samāvista [overpowered with anger and grief] (a quizzical Avatar that!) to Mother Earth, “Anaya tvaṁ hi tāmsītām mattoham maithilīkṛte” [Restore that Sita of mine for I am out of my senses]. Qu’en dites-vous? Can a truly sāttvik man be in the throes of such an insane passion of rage? Also I find myself in a typhoon of confusion to puzzle over your admission of such a thing as an unconscious avatar. For that to me seems a contradiction in terms — an impossibility: that of an Avatar being blind! Good Lord, then the Upanishad was wrong after all in ridiculing the trustfulness of the “blind who are led by the blind”!

Then why does the Gita praise the sāttvik so enthusiastically? I should have supposed that a sāttvik man could not behave as insanely as a tāmasik type? Also I do not quite follow your analogy about the normal moments of Sri Chaitanya. For it is a fact that he had his super-normal (or superconscient if you will) moments too and it was that which made all the difference in the world, did it not?

Why should not Rama have kāma [lust] as well as prema [love]? They were supposed to go together as between husband and wife in ancient India. The performances of Rama in the viraha of Sita are due to Valmiki’s poetic idea which was also Kalidasa’s and everybody else’s in those far-off times about how a complete lover should behave in such a quandary. Whether the actual Rama bothered himself to do all that is another matter.

As for the unconscious Avatar, why not? Chaitanya is supposed to be an Avatar by the Vaishnavas,[2] yet he was conscious of the Godhead behind only when that Godhead came in front and possessed him on rare occasions. Christ said “I and my father are one,” but yet he always spoke and behaved as if there were a difference. Ramakrishna’s earlier period was that of one seeking God, not aware from the first of his identity. These are the reputed religious Avatars who ought to be more conscious than a man of action like Rama. And supposing the full and permanent consciousness why should the Avatar proclaim himself except on rare occasions to an Arjuna or to a few bhaktas or disciples? It is for others to find out what he is — though he does not deny when others speak of him as That, he is not always saying and perhaps never may say or only in moments like that of the Gita, “I am He.”

*   *   *

September 3, 1934

No time for a full answer to your renewed remarks on Rama tonight. You are intrigued only because you stick to the standard modern measuring rods of moral and spiritual perfection (introduced by [?] and Bankim) for the Avatar — while I start from another standpoint altogether and resolutely refuse these standard human measures. The ancient Avatars except Buddha were not either standards of perfection or spiritual teachers — in spite of the Gita which was spoken, says Krishna, in a moment of supernormal consciousness which he lost immediately afterwards. They were, if I may say so, representative cosmic men who were instruments of a divine Intervention for fixing certain things in the evolution of the earth-race. I stick to that and refuse to submit myself in this argument to any other standard whatever.

I did not admit that Rama was a blind Avatar, but offered you two alternatives of which the latter represents my real view founded on the impression made on me by the Ramayana that Rama knew very well but refused to be talkative about it — his business being not to disclose the Divine, but to fix mental, moral and emotional man (not to originate him, for he was there already) on the earth as against the Animal and the Rākṣasa demoniacal forces. My argument from Chaitanya (who was for most of the time first a pandit and then a bhakta, but only occasionally the Divine himself) is perfectly rational and logical, if you follow my line and don’t insist on a high specifically spiritual consciousness for the Avatar. I shall point out what I mean in my next.

By sattwic man I do not mean a moral or an always self-controlled one, but a predominantly mental (as opposed to a vital or merely physical man) who has rajasic emotions and passions, but lives predominantly according to his mind and its will and ideas. There is no such thing, I suppose, as a purely sattwic man — since the three gunas go always together in a state of unstable equilibrium — but a predominantly sattwic man is what I have described. My impression of Rama from Valmiki is such — it is quite different from yours. I am afraid your picture of him is quite out of focus — you efface the main lines of the characters, belittle and brush out all the lights to which Valmiki gave so much value and prominence and hammer always at some details and some parts of shadow which you turn into the larger part of Rama. That is what the debunkers do — but a debunked figure is not the true figure.

By the way, a sattwic man can have a strong passion and strong anger — and when he lets the latter loose, the normally violent fellow is simply nowhere. Witness the outbursts of anger of Christ, the indignation of Chaitanya — and the general evidence of experience and psychology on that point. All this however by the way — I shall try to develop later.

P.S. The trait of Rama which you give as that of an undeveloped man, viz., his decisive spontaneous action according to the will and the idea that came to him, is a trait of the cosmic man and many Vibhūtis, men of action of the large Caesarean or Napoleonic type. That also I hope to develop some time.

*   *   *

September 4, 1934

When I said, “Why not an unconscious Avatar?” I was taking your statement (not mine) that Rama was unconscious and how could there be an unconscious Avatar. My own view is that Rama was not blind, not unconscious of his Avatarhood, only uncommunicative about it. But I said that even taking your statement to be correct, the objection was not insuperable. I instanced the case of Chaitanya and the others, because there the facts are hardly disputable. Chaitanya for the first part of his life was simply Nimai Pandit and had no consciousness of being anything else. Then he had his conversion and became the bhakta Chaitanya. This bhakta at times seemed to be possessed by the presence of Krishna, knew himself to be Krishna, spoke, moved and appeared with the light of the Godhead — none around him could think of or see him as anything else when he was in this glorified and transfigured condition. But from that he fell back to the ordinary consciousness of the bhakta and, as I have read in his biography, refused then to consider himself as anything more. These, I think, are the facts. Well, then what do they signify? Was he only Nimai Pandit at first? It is quite conceivable that he was so and the descent of the Godhead into him only took place after his conversion and spiritual change. But also afterwards when he was in his normal bhakta-consciousness, was he then no longer the Avatar? An intermittent Avatarhood? Krishna coming down for an afternoon call into Chaitanya and then going up again till the time came for the next visit? I find it difficult to believe in this phenomenon. The rational explanation is that in the phenomenon of

Avatarhood there is a Consciousness behind at first veiled or sometimes perhaps half-veiled which is that of the Godhead and a frontal consciousness, human or apparently human or at any rate with all the appearance of terrestriality which is the instrumental Personality. In that case, it is possible that the secret Consciousness was all along there, but waited to manifest until after the conversion; and it manifested intermittently because the main work of Chaitanya was to establish the type of a spiritual and psychic bhakti and love in the emotional vital part of man, preparing the vital in us in that way to turn towards the Divine — at any rate, to fix that possibility in the earth-nature. It was not that there had not been the emotional type of bhakti before; but the completeness of it, the elan, the vital’s rapture in it had never manifested as it manifested in Chaitanya. But for that work it would never have done if he had always been in the Krishna consciousness; he would have been the Lord to whom all gave bhakti, but not the supreme example of the divine ecstatic bhakta. But still the occasional manifestation showed who he was and at the same time evidenced the mystic law of the Immanence.

Voilà — for Chaitanya. But, if Chaitanya, the frontal consciousness, the instrumental Personality, was all the time the Avatar, yet except in his highest moments was unconscious of it and even denied it, that pushed a little farther would establish the possibility of what you call an unconscious Avatar, that is to say, of one in which the veiled Consciousness might not come in front but always move the instrumental Personality from behind. The frontal consciousness might be aware in the inner parts of its being that it was only an instrument of something Divine which was its real Self, but outwardly would think, speak and behave as if it were only the human being doing a given work with a peculiar power and splendour. Whether there was such an Avatar or not is another matter, but logically it is possible.

*   *   *

September 5, 1934

I am very glad of what you have written. I would very much have liked all along if your path had been painless and sunlit, but as it was not to be the next best is that the clouded and stormy path should lead you towards the Light. I have no doubt — and never doubted — that it will and I trust that a sunnier (transit) is now not far off.

As for perversity — well, I fear it is an element of human nature present in almost all; it is nothing but the vital — not the bigger and nobler part of it, but the smaller wanting to get its own way and twisting about to justify its refusal to change.

I leave Rama then and turn to Harmony and Bejoy Goswami?

*   *   *

[1] Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are the three guṇas (qualities or modes) of everything in the nature. Sattva is the mode of light and poise and peace. Rajasis the mode of action, desire and passion. Tamas is the mode of ignorance and inertia, the force of inconscience.

[2] Vaishnavas: devotees of Vishnu.