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

Praveen R. Bhat bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Mon Jan 23 06:55:16 CST 2017

Namaste Kripaji,

Kindly allow me to be harsh in this mail, since you cannot just keep on
continuing to insult those who are consider saints by many including
several on this list. Every time you say that you don't intend to discuss
something and start throwing mud all over afresh!

Your confusion, self-contradiction, jumping all over the place is becoming
clearer by each mail on this thread.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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. ‎
Another irrelevant point. Do you know if the Swamiji quoted in the thread
title took permission from his mother before sannyasa, whose interview you
have interpreted to support your vague ideas?

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.
This shows yet another ignorance of what is called in shAstras as
अत्याश्रमी। तस्य को विधिः को निषेधः।

> Next is, he never studied shAstra at all, even without a guru. ‎

Another vague idea and incorrect.

> This is reflected in his simplistic, vague one liners similar to oneness,
> universal consciousness etc.

The one-liners are not vague, the understanding and eligibility to
understand that seems vague.

> He calls a hill to be a guru.

... as is clear here. You are the neovedantin here, since this is akin to
saying that in gayatri japa, people worship the insentient sun! There is a
temple right there called Arunachaleshvara, which as per you would be
hill-eshvara! Wouldn't that be hilarious! :)

> Everyone acknowledges Dakshinamurty to be a guru, but it is common sense
> to approach a shrotriya guru.
Had it been commonsense, Shruti telling one to approach a Guru would be
what.. restating a commonsense known by your worldly pramANas? It is
considered as a vidhivAkya in the sampradAya and it is meant for one who is
ignorant, not one who already knows. Since the knower has no vidhi as Vedas
are no longer pramANa for him. You can go endlessly on RM not being a
jnAni, but the same can be repeated from the other side that RM was a jnAni
and so he had no vidhis.


> Adi Shankaracharya said asampradāyavit murkha but here we have an actual
> one who is ignorant of shastras itself.
Please... are you talking of yourself?

> So there are enough reasons to consider him as bluff. But interestingly,
> he is considered jivanmukta. By whom, may I ask?

You have asked many times and it was answered by many already several times
in this very thread. You continue ignoring them, including HH Sringeri
Shankaracharya's statement, interpreted according to your convenience and
repeat everything that you have been saying.

> What was the yardstick with which it was measured? some people opine that
> we cannot say if a person is jnAni or not.

You can't have it both ways. If there is a yardstick to measure, others
have it as much as you seem to think you have it. They have their reasons
as much as you do. If there is no yardstick with them, then neither do you.

> But we can certainly infer, can't we?
The inference is at best as good as the data you have. Your data seems to
be wiki, which is weak data. The data set is also too small, which are
random quotes out of context.

> Now if I may politely ask,

After being impolite thus far?!

> 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.
Incorrect. Each person you listed is considered as a saint, may be not by
you, but by many of their followers and others well-respected in the
tradition. What is your "authentic' yardstick to measure sainthood now?! So
is your definition of saint, if any. Moreover, why do all saints need to be
Vedantins or neovedantins and vice versa?

--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list