A devotee told that he has seen a dream in which Shri Sathya Sai Baba appeared to him and told that He is same as Shri Dattaswami... Yes it is correct. Shri Sai baba only telling the knowledge through Me. Dattetreya speaks through Sai Baba. Who is Dattetrea? Finally is the unimaginable God who speaks through the Datterea. This avoids all the clashes between all the religions. If some say that the external form Dattatreya is speaking then clash will come between religions. Other religions may not agree. If one say that the universal unimaginable God is speaking through the form Dattatreya then no clash will come, between religions. Finally the unimaginable God is speaking through all the forms. Then it becomes universal. If one say that Shri Dattaswami is speaking then people will get jealousy and egoism, if some say Shri Sathya Sai baba speaking then some people will not agree. But when one say that the ultimate speaker is the unimaginable God then all the clash between religions disappear. Then all the religions will follow the preaching. For any subject you must apply logic and analysis. You should not accept anything since some body told that. You must carefully analyze and come to a conclusion based on that analysis. Decisions should be based on sincere logical analysis. If some say that Dattaswami added or twisted the words of unimaginable God, then how to know that. The preaching should be subjected to logical and reasoning and if it satisfies your internal consciousness and your doubts are clarified then it is told only by God.
By declaring an absolute truth, it carries with it a burden of also declaring someone is wrong when they do not adhere to it. It's not difficult to reason within the example given and see all the separatism, hate, struggle and killing associated with a God who would actually supply a single mind with such an absolute. Every belief that exists, claims the very same thing with drastically conflicting views... An absolute truth! Exploring aspects of quantum physics, I could not deny an infinite universe. I found an utter profound brilliance within it in thought. If we were contained within a box, we would remain focused upon the point of containment. Where did it come from? Why is it here? What lies beyond it? What lies beyond that? We might even contemplate infinity, but the reality would always remain specifically on that point of containment. The mind is much the same, provide it with an absolute and it will never extend beyond it. It will in fact, go to great measure to hold everything within those walls of containment, believing everything beyond it is wrong. For me and what the focal aspect of the universe and it's brilliance speaks too..... The potential of expression within the mind is infinite, to provide it with a single aspect of absolutism would severely hinder that expression. To set a mind truly free within it's own desire, and to nurture every aspect of it's expression; it would expand in an unfathomable beauty that emanates from it's very core.
If you establish the unity of human beings by showing the same material (five elements) of the bodies and same material (Pure awareness) of souls, this concept alone is not sufficient to bring the concept of one global family. The devotee will say that his family is loving him more than the outsiders and therefore he should show love to his family and neutrality to the outsiders. In fact this point is responsible for the terrible sins like corruption. He is grabbing the hard money earned by others for the sake of extra luxuries of his family. He is paid salary for doing his duty to the public, which is more than sufficient for the needs of his family. But he is aspiring for the endless luxuries of his family only even at the cost of the misery of other human beings. This clearly shows that he is not treating others as his family members in practice. He may nod his head for your appeal temporarily but in practice your effort becomes futile since you have not supplied the analysis of the concept to satisfy his faculty of intelligence. In absence of your logic, his in sufficient or bad logic rules over his brain, which is that his family members are only loving him and not the public. The complete and correct logic for this point is supplied by Veda which states that even the family members love you because you are the instrument for their happiness and they are not loving you for your happiness (Atmanastu Kamaya Sarvam Priyam ). You can test the truth by becoming reverse. If you are not supplying even the basic needs, they will leave you at once like the birds leaving a fruitless tree. Even the wife or husband was an outsider coming from the public only before the marriage. It is your ignorance that you feel that your wife or husband belongs to you and not the outsiders. This bond did not exist before marriage and will not exist after the death. This bond will not exist after death whether the re-human birth exists or not. This bond will not exist when the soul goes to permanent hell or heaven after this birth on the final enquiry. Even if the soul is re-born (Hinduism), the bonds are changing like the dramatic bonds between the actors in different dramas. The bond is only a feeling which is unreal with respect to the reality of matter, energy and pure awareness which are the common constituting materials of human beings. After death these materials of external bodies (matter and energy) are recycled as the bodies of other human beings. In this light, where is reality of even the blood relationship between parents and children? According to Hindu scriptures, the wife and children come to collect their wealth that was grabbed by you in the previous birth (Runanubandha rupena .). Shankara says that which did not and will not exist is temporary and a temporary unit must be always unreal (Yat Krutakam hi .). The dramatic bond between actors during the drama also is unreal. You must give the complete logic also whenever you preach the concept. Mere introduction of the concept without the logic behind it is like a dead body without life or a metallic wire without current which will not work for any practical purpose. The human being acting as a preacher (Guru) can only give the concept, where as the God-preacher (Satguru) like Shankara gives the concept with the related logic and also quotes the scripture. An ignorant person can give only the facts of the case. But the advocate gives the logic in the concept and its related quotation from the constitution, which alone can satisfy the judge and also both the parties. The judge or the opposing party will not be satisfied by the mere facts presented by one party.
