Baba and Mohammad have something in common, but it is not what most Westerners would call good. However, I can show how this trait they shared could be viewed as good when fully understood in its context.
Both made up revisionist history about religions of their day to make historical accounts conform with their own tenets.
tenet : a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.
This is problematic for someone like me who wants to make a case to philosophers that Baba is modern and rational.
Baba's system of sanskaras is logical and consistent, and explains many things that even science and modern philosophy could not. However, the revising of history for instrumentalist reasons makes Baba seem like a liar, and makes his tenets seem made up.
instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is
However, such revising of history does not bother non-philosophers, who are most people. For instance Muslims have no such objections to Mohammad having done this.
My answer to this is not complicated.
Baba often says two things. One for those who would never understand the facts of the matter because they involve education they lack the time or capacity for. And might even be too old to learn. These are very difficult concepts even for many well-educated people. For instance, very few American analytic philosophers can understand Kant, and have to bring in experts to teach it.
So for expediency, and so that these people don't have doubts, Baba tells these people a fairy tale they can understand. It is also very popular among simple people to accept conspiracy theories. They are quick to accept that 'authorities' medaled with history. They feel privileged to know about it. So they not only don't have a problem with it, they delight in it.
Only a tiny few can understand the complex facts of the matter. They have not only the background to make an attempt, but also the temperament to make the time to focus on it. For these few, Baba leaves behind the facts of the matter involved. Baba gave many clues about this.
"What I explain is a subject beyond the comprehension of the mind and [it is given] only to those who are prepared to digest it, not to everybody. For all can neither grasp it nor tolerate it nor even bear to hear it."
"What did Jesus really say? To the multitude he said, "God is in heaven; try to go there," and to that end he said [to overcome] certain temptations and sufferings. To his followers he said, "God is everywhere; try to see Him," and gave explanations to that effect. To the selected few [close circle of apostles] he said, "God is in me and in you, too," and actually revealed this to them. Why did Jesus say different things? Owing to the time and the persons, according to their readiness to listen and understand."
But many people believe emphatically in the Old Testament Bible. They are Christians and Jews.
Jesus, Mohammad, and all Baba had to deal with this fact. Zoroaster, Buddha, Krishna, and Ram before them did not.
Frankly I don't believe the Old Testament.
Let us say it is full of baloney. But say Baba is right and he and Mohammad and Jesus were the avatar. Jesus addressed Jews and Mohammad addressed Jews and Christians. Baba had to address all religions, including Jews, Christians, and Muslims who take the Old Testament seriously.
Even most Baba lovers believe in the Old Testament. This is because the Avatar allows people to approach him from where they are at. And so he does not demolish the faith they had when he came, he makes efforts to find ways to incorporate it partially. He'll give a new interpretation to it, or give a fairy tale conspiracy theory that delights them and increases their faith.
If one says something that increases your faith and hurries you toward the ultimate truth, you cannot call it a lie. For to speak truth is to give people beliefs that will lead them to truth. Even if that belief is initially just a fairy tale.
This brings up the Intelligence Notebooks found after Baba's death in a box with a note saying they were written by him in 1926. That's the year he said, "What I explain is a subject beyond the comprehension of the mind and [it is given] only to those who are prepared to digest it, not to everybody. For all can neither grasp it nor tolerate it nor even bear to hear it."
Now, what about Mohammad and Baba telling clearly false stories, to make things make sense. Examples are Mohammad telling a whole new Mary story. Or Baba telling 2 different inconsistent and clearly false accounts of Saint Francis to try to make it conform with his teaching. These are what I call fairy tales. They are told in an instrumentalist way, to bring about beliefs that would be good for people if they believed them -- but which are not historically true.
Scholarship can show that these stories were not true.
Keven Shepherd pointed out that Baba gave 2 inconsistent stories about Babajan. He points out they are told as moral tales, not for historicity.
So Baba told mutually inconsistent stories of both Saint Francis and Babajan. Clearly part of Baba's and Mohammad's missions were not to tell history. What purpose would that serve? They were trying to give a new paradigm meant for the people of their times.
In summary, if we believe Baba about Avatars, it makes sense that different Avatars give different teachings for very different people and times and places.
7th Century Mecca was nothing like 1st Century Judaea. In Judaea he was talking to pompous Pharisees. In Mecca he was talking to warring pagan desert tribes.
And in both cases he had to address a book (The Bible) that was about 10% true.
We know for a fact that Baba invented historical accounts to syncretize common assumptions of his time with his own sui generis teaching.
Sui generis refers to something that is unique, unparalleled, and fits into no standard category.
This accounts for how Mohammad and Baba could be one, yet give different stories about:
- The Virgin Mary in the New Testament
- Adam and Moses in the Old Testament
- The crucifixion in the New Testament
And a different account of God and the soul. Baba himself says it quite plainly and it makes sense.
"For all can neither grasp it nor tolerate it nor even bear to hear it."
And what he said about Jesus giving three stories for different groups makes total sense.
