Hence in St Augustine’s City of God, or in Gandhi’s Kingdom of Sri Rama, wisdom and power have to be divided only to be irrevocably married. The man of wisdom or the man of contemplation has to be different from the man of action. This should be the central theme of any true political philosophy. For the personal, as personal, leads one to inevitable disaster. The impersonal is not interested in mere action, and whensoever there seems to be action, for the impersonal it is always non-dual, so truly here one could say there is no action. Thus failure and success are both unimportant to the man of wisdom. Look at Sri Krishna, he the great victor, who died being hit by a hunter in mistake. To the man of wisdom, all is success, for wheresoever truth shines is success. But since the king or the president has to bring his subjects, his fellow citizens, to the centre, to the impersonal, the impersonal alone, the man of wisdom alone, can advise the king or the president how to bring back his subjects, his fellow citizens, back to the centre, to the positionless position of non-duality. For, to repeat, that is where happiness is, and happiness is the aim of any government.

The man of wisdom, or the entity embodying the principle of wisdom (like the Supreme Court, or the president of the republic) has generally then to be a different entity in relation to the administrative entity. The prime minister rules and the sage reigns, without ever meaning to reign. His royalty is never of this world, in fact of no world, he the king of kings, the Chakravartin. And the king, the emperor, the upholder of the umbrella, the umbrella which is the protective circle above the emperor, that dissolves. The umbrella is a wheel, kha, a circle, zero.

If this is an acceptable hypothesis for an analysis of history, in terms of failure, of success, of states, kings, politicians, we will now have to define the raja guru, the wise man behind the king, the grey eminence of the ruler, the president, the prime minister. The sage truly is beyond the impersonal and the personal, but as a working statement we could define him as the impersonal being. I say impersonal advisedly for the impersonal can never be an entity, though it may or may not appear to be so. The Pope can do no wrong, for he is the symbol of the impersonal, hence does he always say we, speaking of himself. And the king talking impersonally, for the Holy Father, also explains himself as we. The king who brings happiness to his people, happiness the inevitable gift of impersonal being. Happiness which also in its ultimate nature is Truth itself.

V