[Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami
kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 23 04:45:43 CST 2017
Even Adi Shankaracharya had a strong inclination for renouncing the world. He didn't just walk out of his home. He waited for his Mother's permission, approached a guru even though he was a chaturveda parangata. The main thing to note here is that, he abided by the Varna Ashrama dharma by entering the sannyasa Ashrama. Kindly note here that most of the great personages mentioned so far either didn't have the adhikara for such sannyasashrama or other such methods.
But RM, had the adhikara and no obstacle / reason / need to avoid taking up the sannyAsI role. In fact, there is no vidhis for a sannyAsI except a few. Even after becoming jnanis, people have adopted this Ashram to spend the rest of the life time. Moreover, jnanis set an example for others to follow the right path as Krishna says in Gita. So RM flouted this time honoured dharma. And there can be no justification for this.
The very reason why the shastras put vidhis is to ensure that people will be free from kartritva (I am doing good, bad etc). By not following any such vidhis, RM cannot be considered as belonging to SD. So what RM did can be considered svechachara. Because he did what he felt like.
Next is, he never studied shAstra at all, even without a guru. This is reflected in his simplistic, vague one liners similar to oneness, universal consciousness etc. He calls a hill to be a guru. Everyone acknowledges Dakshinamurty to be a guru, but it is common sense to approach a shrotriya guru.
Adi Shankaracharya said asampradāyavit murkha but here we have an actual one who is ignorant of shastras itself.
So there are enough reasons to consider him as bluff. But interestingly, he is considered jivanmukta. By whom, may I ask? What was the yardstick with which it was measured? some people opine that we cannot say if a person is jnAni or not. But we can certainly infer, can't we?
Now if I may politely ask, there are so many neo Vedantins like Nisargadatta Maharaj, paramahamsa yogananda, sai baba etc. What makes RM different from them? Why is RM considered a saint and others not.
yo vedAdau svaraH prokto vedAnte cha pratiShThitaH |
tasya prakRRiti-lInasya yaH parassa maheshvaraH ||
From: Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l
Sent: Monday 23 January 2017 3:14 PM
To: Advaita discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Reply To: Bhaskar YR
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami
praNAms Sri Kripa Shankara prabhuji
So it is indeed possible for sages to have a yogic vision and only such personages of extraordinary sight (a Rishi) can conclude if a person who hasn't followed any rules of conduct(if there is such a one) is a jnani or not. In such cases, the answer will be a certain yes or a no. Because the Rishis don't say anything worthless even in jest. All these examples are such. As for the ajnanis are concerned, we have to follow either of the paths. If someone claims that I became a jnani just like that or if even the whole world says so, we have to resort to shastras alone for conclusions. If we start building castles in the air, such a sophisticated system of Vedanta will fall flat on it s face and merge with the nAstika school of nondualism.
> Consider that I have agreed...but now kindly explain, how ramaNa maharshi is the 'odd man' out from these equations. So that we would have more clarity on jnAni-hood in general and jnana nishtA status of ramaNa in particular.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list