In this extensive lecture, Hazrat Inayat Khan gives valuable insight into the spirituality of different traditions in the East, while at the same time guiding us in his way of thinking about these subjects. He begins with the difference between the ‘master’ and the ‘saint.’
When I reflect on the English word ‘sage’ it seems to me that it must come from two different roots, of which one is to be found in Sanskrit, namely ‘swaga’, and the other in Persian, ‘safa’ or ‘saga’. The first root means ‘heaven’, which suggests that the one who tries to become a sage is trying to attain heaven or to become it himself. The other root suggests that a sage is a person who wishes to construct something, one who is constructive. But, of course, there is no such word as ‘sage’ in any eastern language, though they possess a similar word, ‘sant’, which has the same meaning as ‘saint’. Then there is the word ‘sadhana’, which means ‘mastery’; and a Sadhu is one who masters life.
Now there are two different temperaments. There is the one which is always inclined to be contented with things, to accept everything as it comes, willing to live a retired life, resigned to everything that may happen. Indeed we see this temperament more or less in everyone. The other temperament is the one which wishes to master things, which has a desire to master every situation, to master another person, to master an undertaking, to act with will power and courage.
No doubt there is good and evil in both temperaments. The person who is always retired and resigned and contented with everything is not necessarily all good, without any evil in him, nor is the one who controls others and masters circumstances always an ideal person. It is just that there are these two temperaments, and everyone has more or less of the one or of the other.
The Sadhu and the Sant represent these two temperaments. The Sadhu controls and masters things; the Sant is resigned and contented in all situations and under all circumstances in life. He chooses a life of retirement and resignation. If you were to ask me which of the two is superior, I would say that there is neither superior nor inferior. If you work according to your temperament, that is the natural work for you, whereas if you work against your temperament it is like knocking yourself against a rock, and there is no hope of progress. But if you do what you are fitted for, and act accordingly to your temperament, then there will always be progress. The temperament is not a virtue to be displayed; neither is it something to be overcome so that one acts against one’s own nature. The sage recognizes these two temperaments and uses them accordingly, giving them more rein and rendering them more evident to the eye of the seer. He studies how they operate in people’s lives, and no doubt it is very interesting to study the lives of the sages in the East from this point of view; but to a stranger in these countries it is mystifying how their different behaviors can belong to sagehood or saintliness, because in the West people have the idea a sage must be kind, retiring and renouncing, or perhaps even a wonder-worker. So when such qualities are not in evidence, it might seem that there is something wrong with the sages! To gain deep understanding of what the saintly life means, and to form a reasonable opinion about the sages in the East, much patience and tolerance are required. People are apt to be disappointed when they judge from appearances.
To be continued…