[Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami

[Kripa Shankar]

There is a difference between opinion and truth. We cannot conclude why someone likes a movie while some others hate the same movie! Because it is a matter of opinion. However  when someone is saying the truth, there is no ambiguity. It cannot be interpreted in any other way!  

When someone tells that fire is hot, it cannot be a mere opinion. ‎It has to be the truth. And therefore it has to have an explanation. Why would anyone say with certainty that fire is hot? Because the finger gets burnt if one touches it, each time every time(pratyaksha pramana) . Similarly, why is gurugal saying with certainty that he was not jivanmukta? There is only one explanation to it, which I have given. 

Please note that I am not a psychopath who is desperately after RM. In fact my own parents have visited tiruvannamalai many times, even done the parikramana. The devotees predominantly come from a such a background and hence follow the same Smartha ways. I am not commenting on the devotees. I am not antagonising anyone. 

I am merely trying to bring out the truth, which I have observed in the course of my studies. Most devotees of RM study the books of Shankara ‎but simply regard RM as a Jnani, only symbolically. So there is a superimposition happening here. Those who listen to talks/ teachings  of  RM, reconcile them with Shankara's philosophy. If someone is reliant only on RM and is ignorant of Shankara's philosophy, imagine the plight of such a sadhaka. 

However, even for Shankara's ardent devotees,  when there is a roadblock such as 'Non dual experience is universal and not unique to shastras' or 'shud of scriptures is not needed, just studying the self is enough', we have to call it a nAstika philosophy. We should never strike at our own roots. 

Regards 
Kripa ‎
‎
AchArya ghAtinAm lokA na santi kulapAmsana ~
There is NO region, O wretch of your race, for those who seek to slay an AchArya
  Original Message  
From: Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan
Sent: Saturday 14 January 2017 2:08 AM
To: Kripa Shankar
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami

You should ask HIM that! I have no special insight into Mahasannidhanams thought processes :-). 

I think it's irrelevant whether RM was a jivanmukta or not. Are his followers troubling anyone? No. What are they doing in general? Rudram/Chamakam, Upanishad parayanam, srichakra worship, studying texts like dakshinamurti stotram, advaita bodha diipikaa, etc. Is any of this really objectionable? No, actually it's good and what is prescribed anyway. Live and let live. 

Personally I have benefited quite a bit by going through Talks and other publications from the Ashram. Let's just leave it at that.

Rama

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
In that case, if I may ask, ‎why do you think that Mahasannidhanam is saying with certainty that RM was not a jivanmukta? Please note that it is not merely an opinion / assumption. There is no ambiguity in his statement. He is quite certain and even compared him with others whom he considers to be jivanmuktas. 
‎
Can there be any other logical explanation to this?  ‎

Regards 
Kripa ‎
‎
AchArya ghAtinAm lokA na santi kulapAmsana ~
There is NO region, O wretch of your race, for those who seek to slay an AchArya
  Original Message  
From: Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan
Sent: Saturday 14 January 2017 1:47 AM
To: Kripa Shankar
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami

Couple of things:

1. The sastra does in fact recognize cases like RM (assuming he was realized). In fact, Sankara himself points out that for Vidura and dharmavyAdha the rise in knowledge was automatic due to puNya in previous lives. So yes it can happen. The vishNu purANa also supports this.

2. While there is a whole lot of press given to silence and so on, RM was hardly unaware of shAstras. He even translated and gave a precis of a difficult work like vichAra sAgara into Tamil. There are other instances, but I don't want to waste a lot of time on this.

I think you should ask yourself what issues you have with RM. 99% of his followers do the same thing as any other smArta. I think the issue is that even if someone is realized, it's not possible to recognize this. Cases like dharmavyAdha are certainly possible, unlike what you think. But, typically they do not become teachers. It's easier to follow a parampara. However things are not fool-proof even there, that's a fact of life. 

Rama


On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste, 

Thanks a lot  for this reference. Really fascinating. I glanced through a few pages of the book that's available online. From it, I could gather that, the author classes RM somewhere between traditional and Neo-Advaita(he explicitly says so). ‎It however seems to me, like a politically correct way of asserting that RM cannot be aligned with the traditional school. Just to give an example, if there is a fruit, it has to fall under a specific category / family. It is either an Apple or an Orange. Here we are certain that the fruit is not an Apple. Whether it is Orange or not is irrelevant. This reaffirms my opinion. 

If we consider the statement given by Mahasannidhanam, Gurugal * is certain * that RM was * not a jivanmukta *. That is a strong statement in my opinion. ‎There is no other way to interpret it, is there? This is in alignment to what Dayanand Saraswathi Swamy ji said that he was a mystic not a Vedantin. 

What is the implication of the above statement? - That RM did not attain liberation! In other words, he is bound to be reborn! ‎In other words, he was not a jnani! 

Now we may wonder how Mahasannidhanam is so sure that, RM was * not * a jivanmukta. The only logical conclusion would be that, the pramana for the state of jivanmukti is the shastras alone and none other! Neither does the Shastras acknowledge an instance such as RM nor RM recognises the importance of ShAstra pramana. 

As for as the Gurugal's remark that he was a mahant, I am not sure why you seem to attach so much importance. It is certainly in line with what Dayanand Saraswathi Swamiji said that there are millions of housewives in India who are engaged in taking care of their family, but have the same level of understanding. What does swamiji mean by this? Everyone knows that RM was ignorant of Shastras. Further, an average woman in our tradition will not engage ‎in scriptural studies but rather engage in devotion to rituals and hymns. So Swamiji's comparison implies that, RM is, at best,  as good as an ajnani. 

This will translate to the core issue - that Advaitic experential knowledge / aparoksha jnana cannot occur magically without proper paroksha jnana / shastra jnana. Again, because the only pramANa for such an experience is the shastras! 

Thanks again for this great information. 

Regards 
Kripa ‎
‎
AchArya ghAtinAm lokA na santi kulapAmsana ~‎
There is NO region, O wretch of your race, for those who seek to slay an AchArya
  Original Message  
From: Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan
Sent: Friday 13 January 2017 11:56 PM
To: Kripa Shankar; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Cc: Vidyasankar Sundaresan
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami


In "Jivanmukti in Transformation", Andrew Fort reports speaking to Mahasannidhanam (Bharati Tirtha SwamigaL) in Hindi and reports that his opinion is that Ramana was not a jivanmukta like Vidyaranya or Abhinava Vidyatirtha, but a mahant. I think that's a trustworthy source. 

Of course I wonder what your issue is. If you look at what RM actually wrote and translated, they are solidly in mainstream advaita. His (at least Indian) devotees pretty much engage in the usual practices - srichakra worship, vedic recitations, so on and so forth. Yes, it's problematic that some people go to Thiruvannamalai and declare themselves "enlightened", but that's hardly the problem of Ramana Maharshi? Such people will find something or the other to fool themselves/others with.

Rama

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Namaste Vidyasankar, 

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, that is the only option. However, I am not sure if Bharati teertha Swamiji will entertain such questions. On a second thought, he is also known to be a large hearted person. So perhaps I'll get an answer to this one way or the other. 
‎‎
‎Regards 
Kripa ‎