Excerpts from Dialogue with the Guru

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

.. You do not think indigenous religions are congruent to whatever you think is brahminism. But the orthodox advaitin does not think so.

Dear pviyer, I wish you did not bring in "orthodox advaitins". If you look at what these "orthodox advaitins" say today, one is apt to wonder how true advaitam of Adi Sankara got hijacked so completely.

Am I not to express my convictions in his views. I understand that in a forum there is bound to be difference of opinion but I have the right to point out that your arguments do not appear to be logical to all.

Of course, I can't agree with this more. After all, we all are hawking ideas, like the ones Manimekalai encounter upon entering Kanchi, let the ones that are closer to the truth prevail.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara and other atheists & agnostics,

Shri pviyer has come out - in this thread - as one who holds a certain Swamiji of the Sringeri Matha in extremely high esteem. That is his lookout and within his rights, we will all agree.

Since iyer's attitude became evident to me, I requested Shri Praveen to shift this thread under the sub-forum "Religion" so that whatever is posted here will be seen by the believers only and they can congratulate one another and go happy. Shri Praveen has also shifted the thread but iyer feels that this is not necessary. Why? IMO, iyer dreams that he will be able to convert all the erring atheists & agnostics to his way of thinking which is whatever is contained in a certain book, by means of these posts. This is a sly manouvre, I feel. If iyer is a devout bhakta of that Swamiji, and he possesses the humility which is supposed to adorn a person who treads the "spiritual" path, then he should have agreed to the shift of this thread and continued to make further posts - and I am sure this thread would have come to its natural end like other threads under "Religion".

Hence I feel we as a group abandon this thread so that iyer's unstated agenda is foiled.

 

[pviyer]

Dear Praveen, I am openly posting this here because Sangom has done it so when he could have encouraged his group to leave through a private message. It is because of this man and this man only that I left your forum earlier. I declared my reasons openly and I have indicated time and again that I do not have problems with Nara Sir. It is now clear that we (Sangom and I) cannot coexist in this forum. Though I have with great affection typed the letters from book, and Sangom was most certainly not the person I intended to be a visitor , he has come in and not only made highly unacceptable statements against the acharyas without substantiating his bit. He enjoys making fun of the acharyas whatever else may be his scholarly attainments. This is not in good taste. I am leaving this forum again as he feels that this forum is his kingdom. I have nothing more to say. Good Bye all.

 

[Nara]

... I am leaving this forum again as he feels that this forum is his kingdom. I have nothing more to say. Good Bye all.

dear pviyer, it is not fair to leave the forum in this way, i.e. in a huff. As they say, "sticks and stones may break my bones but names/words will never hurt me".

If you think Shri Sangom has made unacceptable statements against an acharya you revere, then, challenge him, which you have already done. But, don't let those words hurt your sentiments to the extent of wanting to leave the forum, that would not be fair to all those others who may want to read the excerpts you are painstakingly typing and posting. After having had a dialog with you on this matter you will at least have me as an eager reader.

So, dear pviyer, I urge you to reconsider this decision, don't leave, continue your posting, they will be appreciated by many.

Cheers!

 

[Brahmanyan]

Dear Sri Iyer,

I support the views expressed by Sri "Nara". I am sorry that your decision to leave the Forum is not the best solution for the problem. I would suggest you to reconsider your decision and continue in the Forum by ignoring intemparate words of some people. To be polite is not weakness, language reflects culture.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[pviyer]

Dear Sri Iyer, I support the views expressed by Sri \"Nara\". I am sorry that your decision to leave the Forum is not the best solution for the problem. I would suggest you to reconsider your decision and continue in the Forum by ignoring intemparate words of some people. To be polite is not weakness, language reflects culture. Regards, Brahmanyan, Bangalore.

Dear Brahmanyan and Nara Thank you for your kind words. There is a veteran in this forum who is upset and I support his anger. He is a highly religious person and has enlightened people with his posts. Until he becomes active, I will suspend my posting. On record.

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Iyer,
I have my differences with Mr. Sangom, but he does not hide his opinion and makes a strong case for his point of view. It is wrong to blame one individual because that person does not agree with you.
I agree with Mr. Brahmanyan, you should not leave, stay and fight for your cause.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Sir,
I have this book with me , both in Tamil and English. The Mahasannidaanam sri
Chandrasekhara Barathi was an expert in tarka, vyakarna and other branches of
sanskrit.

In a nutshell, the conversation between him and the christian gentleman is that
when the christian gentleman wanted to get converted into a Hindu since he found
that Hinduism offered a solution to the woes of samsar, Swamiji said no to his
request politely and with sound logic. He pointed out that all the religions teach
the same and there are many high priests or scholars or realised men in his own
religion who can guide him properly. Because he has not found anyone, it is not
that there are none. The Master did not encourage conversion from one religion
to another, from one Master to another. His outlook is very broad.

Mahasannidaanam was a great scholar, a jivanmuktha and he is held in high
respect by all.

 

[sangom]

The quote was provided merely as an illustration for the kind of regard people had for the Acharyal. The stories of miracles are meant for believers and not to just rebute Sangom Sir. In any case with or without the miracles quoted being just an illusion, the regard that people had for him cannot be discounted and unsubstantiated claims be made, that the Acharyal was just an Ornamental head. It is in the eyes of a few, I do not disagree, but not in the eyes of others. Sangom Sir cannot proclaim his personal view as a universal view which is the thing that has been rebuted. He has all the marks of a respectable saint as any other that can be found around everywhere. By what logic then, does the post become ornamental?

Dear Shri pviyer,

If as you say, your quote was for the benefit of the believers and not to rebut my comments, you should have accepted Praveen's shifting of the thread under the head "Religion". But you did not want it. What does that mean? To me it was like an assault on those who do not toe your line, by inciting the so-called "believers" of the Swamiji for support. This is, incidentally, a ruse followed by Shri saidevo also, imo.

You seem to hold the view that the Sringeri matha pontiffs held high authority of their own. But I differ from your view. Though there is doubt about the identities of Vidyaranya, Vidyatirtha and one Vidyasankara, it is generally believed that Vidyaranya got Harihara and Bukka to reconvert to Hinduism, establish an empire and also that he also built the vidyanagara or Vijayanagara. But there is also a certain section of opinion which says as under:

Harihara Raya Ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara_Raya_I and Bukka Raya I were two Kannada Hoysala Dynasty Army Chiefs. After the Kakatiyas were defeated by Muslim sultans, Harahara and Bukka were forced to convert to Islam. Vidyaranya identified them, reconverted them back and asked them to identify a place to establish a Hindu empire.

When they were traveling, they found a place where a rabbit was chasing a dog. When Vidyaranya was told about the miracle at this place, he planned to establish the kingdom there. As Vidyaranya was also a great astrologer, he as identified a muhurta (auspicious time) for laying the foundation stone, so that the empire would last for 2000 years. When everything was set, the guru told his students that he would go over the next hill, observe the celestial star positions and blow the shankha, or conch shell horn, at which moment the students should lay the foundation stone. After some time, Harihara and Bukka heard a sound of conch and the laid the foundation stone. After a few minutes, they heard another sound. Later the guru asked them for which sound they laid the stone, to which they replied, the first one. The guru calculated the horoscope for the time at which the first sound was heard. He predicted that the empire would last for only two hundred years. The first blow of conch was by a Jangama-Devaru (one who begs). It is said that before the event had happened, Vidyaranya, seeing the Muslim genocide of Hindus, did tapas (Meditation) for Bhuvaneswari Devi (the goddess of the Earth). When she appeared, he asked her for a Hindu empire for 2000 years, but she said that the time does not favor Hindus and gave the boon for only 200 years."

(Vidyaranya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So, when the Goddess Bhuvaneswari Devi herself has said that the time did not favour Hindus, how can it be claimed that Vidyaranya saved hinduism (from ruin)? Also, Shri Vidyaranya is reported to have laid the foundations for the city before he ascended the throne of Sringeri in 1331 A.D.

If the powers and advantages enjoyed by the Swamijis of Sringeri are considered, it can easily be said that all those were because they were held in high respect by the Mysore royalty of Wodeyars who declared their independence from being the vassals of Vijayanagara, in 1399 or so. Because of this position, the royal families of Cochin, Travancore and some wealthy zamindars from the southern districts of Tamil Nadu also accepted the Sringeri Acharyas as their guru/acharya.

After 1947 when Mysore state acceded to the Union of India, much of all the pomp and show disappeared, the outwardly Bhakti shown by many of the devotees (mostly tabras) also decreased. That is the reason why I still hold those Mthadhipatis to be ornamental. I don't know about the so-called spiritual attainments of the individual pontiffs. But the one about whom the excerpts were, comes out as a very ordinary devout mortal who was extremely happy to see a photo of Goddess Kamakshi during his last days.

During the period of Abhinava Vidyateertha swamikal, the Kanchi matham suddenly got revived, some bitter tussles between the two mathams ensued and these also reduced the standing of the Sringeri matham. The present Pontiff Shri Bharati Teertha is not very much visible at all. People intimately connected with the Sringeri matham and holding the same kind of respect and reverence for the Chair have told me that the matham is on decline. I also had a bit of good opinion about the present head till this year when this Swamiji also allowed what is called his 61st. Vardhanti (birthday?) in a grand fashion with some very large scale homas; at the end the Swamiji had no compunction in cooly telling the TV channel that for him all these homas, celebrations are not material but he allowed the same for "Universal Welfare".

It seems thousands of yielding jack fruit trees had to be cut and the dry timber and logs burnt in the sacrificial fires for days on end and still the Swamiji proudly claiming that all these were universal welfare, lowered his image very much in my estimate.

Being moved by devotion was a characteristic right from Adi Shankaracharya. It is called paramanandam and one is obviously in a saguna state when one\'s mind is focused on the existing world.

Your line of argument is beset with two problems; one, do you or do you not agree that this paramanandam was not there before Adi Shankaracharya?, and, two, how reliable are the accounts about Adi Shankaracharya on which you base your conclusions about him?

I may sound irreverent, but if a jeevanmukta gets so happy and emotional when he focuses his mind on the existing world, what then is the role of vairagya and sthitaprajna etc., which are so much eulogized in the scriptures?

This difference can be explained quote proficiently by members like Saidevo.

It is not advisable to enlist someelse's support for what one ought himself to do, if hecan.

I do not see much value in these discussions as the reasons can be anything.

Yet you said here, "I intentionally started in the General Discussions so that ideas can be freely exchanged on his views but not another round of statements irrelevant to the topic." It appears to me that you also would like to filter and control the discussions in the way you want them to proceed.I do not know if that is possible in a Forum like this. And you do not want the safety of the Religion sub-forum either. Very difficult indeed! why be so obstinate?

No-one here is privy to Ambal\'s mind.

Is not Ambal above mind?

But at the same time we can relatively be sure that Ambal shows her presence only when a devotee has qualified for her vision. Ambal wants people to overcome their disease for giving up things on just a few failures and difficulties. There is no real value of material possessions, and these are sometimes granted by granted by Ambal when she feels that a person needs some inspiration or a work to be done. Each according to his real need. Poverty is not considered as a curse by people of higher states of realization and rather welcomed by people like the Avadhootas. There is no doubt at all in this. You do not have the statement of swami\'s statement on his intent. You are just speculating based on your own way of thinking. Is it not true that you yourself, of no extraordinary spiritual effort, are expecting God to come and show his presence before the microscope. What is then wrong that the Avadhuta who has put great effort in this matter, as can be seen in the story itself, if he even expects the Ambal to show herself to him. Are we qualified to pass a judgement on that?

To me deities like the Ambal described in you example, look sadistic and bear a close resemblane to the Abrahamic God who wanted a devotte's son to be sacrificed to please Him.
There is no real value of material possessions - How and why, then, did the jeevanmukta swami shed tears of ecstasy on hugging a mere photograph?

 

[Nara]

Sangom sir is one of the best among us, I admire him for his knowledge, I admire him for his logic, I admire him for his eloquence, and the fact we agree on a lot of things is a matter of pride for me. So, it is no surprise that I agree and support the many valid points he has raised in this post.

But, (you must have expected this "but" after all this unsolicited praise -- all meant sincerely, no joke) there are a few observations not relevant to the arguments that I think could have been avoided, especially right after some moderation action when feelings are still raw. These avoidable observations that do not add value to the discussion are highlighted below.

If as you say, your quote was for the benefit of the believers and not to rebut my comments, you should have accepted Praveen's shifting of the thread under the head "Religion". But you did not want it.

I was surprised when Praveen moved the thread even though OP didn't request it or agreed with Sangom sir's suggestion. Further, pviyer left it up to Praveen to place it wherever he wanted, only that he wanted to be able to have a discussion. Of course, when he wants discussion he should brace himself for critical opinions, but I won't hold him responsible for the moving or the later placing decision of leaving it in the religion section.

In any case, this is an extremely flimsy point, does not make pviyer's posts any more or any less agreeable. It comes across as mean spirited, may not be meant that way.

What does that mean? To me it was like an assault on those who do not toe your line, by inciting the so-called "believers" of the Swamiji for support. This is, incidentally, a ruse followed by Shri saidevo also, imo.

This is way too hypothetical, to ask pviyer what he meant is alright, but to then go ahead and answer that question with a serious charge of incitement is, I am sorry to say, totally uncalled for. Besides, asking his supporters to come to his defense is not prohibited, is it? He asking for Saidevo's support is not incitement to anything.

That is the reason why I still hold those Mthadhipatis to be ornamental.

Could you settle for figure-head instead of ornamental? Ornaments are inanimate objects worn by its owner. I don't think that is what the mathathipathis are, merely decorating the chair. They do represent an ideology handed down to them, one with which we both disagree, but the very fact they represent and actively advocate a certain ideology shows they are nothing like inanimate ornaments.

I don't know about the so-called spiritual attainments of the individual pontiffs. But the one about whom the excerpts were, comes out as a very ordinary devout mortal who was extremely happy to see a photo of Goddess Kamakshi during his last days.

We have already made this point, to make it a second time seems like flogging a dead horse.

It is not advisable to enlist someelse's support for what one ought himself to do, if hecan.

Why not? Whether to seek the support of somebody else is his decision, we cannot have any say in that matter, unless they are ganging up against us to abuse us, which has happened in the past, but not in this instance.

It appears to me that you also would like to filter and control the discussions in the way you want them to proceed.

You are making an assumption and then proceeding to accuse him of being obstinate. Making negative comments based on a flimsy premise like "it appears to me" can only result in ill will.

Sangom sir, you know I only have the highest of regard for you. The last place I would want to be in is on the opposite side from you. Besides, I agree with all the substantive points you have raised. My intent is to lower the temperature a bit so that we don't lose some important contributors. If we drive them out with whom could we argue ?

with best regards ....

p.s. I request members not to give "Like" to this post, please ...

 

[sangom]

Sangom sir is one of the best among us, I admire him for his knowledge, I admire him for his logic, I admire him for his eloquence, and the fact we agree on a lot of things is a matter of pride for me. So, it is no surprise that I agree and support the many valid points he has raised in this post.

But, (you must have expected this "but" after all this unsolicited praise -- all meant sincerely, no joke) there are a few observations not relevant to the arguments that I think could have been avoided, especially right after some moderation action when feelings are still raw. These avoidable observations that do not add value to the discussion are highlighted below.

I was surprised when Praveen moved the thread even though OP didn't request it or agreed with Sangom sir's suggestion. Further, pviyer left it up to Praveen to place it wherever he wanted, only that he wanted to be able to have a discussion. Of course, when he wants discussion he should brace himself for critical opinions, but I won't hold him responsible for the moving or the later placing decision of leaving it in the religion section.

In any case, this is an extremely flimsy point, does not make pviyer's posts any more or any less agreeable. It comes across as mean spirited, may not be meant that way.

This is way too hypothetical, to ask pviyer what he meant is alright, but to then go ahead and answer that question with a serious charge of incitement is, I am sorry to say, totally uncalled for. Besides, asking his supporters to come to his defense is not prohibited, is it? He asking for Saidevo's support is not incitement to anything.

Could you settle for figure-head instead of ornamental? Ornaments are inanimate objects worn by its owner. I don't think that is what the mathathipathis are, merely decorating the chair. They do represent an ideology handed down to them, one with which we both disagree, but the very fact they represent and actively advocate a certain ideology shows they are nothing like inanimate ornaments.

We have already made this point, to make it a second time seems like flogging a dead horse.

Why not? Whether to seek the support of somebody else is his decision, we cannot have any say in that matter, unless they are ganging up against us to abuse us, which has happened in the past, but not in this instance.

You are making an assumption and then proceeding to accuse him of being obstinate. Making negative comments based on a flimsy premise like "it appears to me" can only result in ill will.

Sangom sir, you know I only have the highest of regard for you. The last place I would want to be in is on the opposite side from you. Besides, I agree with all the substantive points you have raised. My intent is to lower the temperature a bit so that we don't lose some important contributors. If we drive them out with whom could we argue ?

with best regards ....

p.s. I request members not to give "Like" to this post, please ...

Dear Shri Nara,

I cannot, at this point of time, agree with some of your observations which I am sure have been made with very good intention. I give below those observations with which I differ - your points in blue and my comments in green.

"I was surprised when Praveen moved the thread even though OP didn't request it or agreed with Sangom sir's suggestion. Further, pviyer left it up to Praveen to place it wherever he wanted, only that he wanted to be able to have a discussion. Of course, when he wants discussion he should brace himself for critical opinions, but I won't hold him responsible for the moving or the later placing decision of leaving it in the religion section."

I had suggested in my post itself that this thread may be moved to the sub-forum Religion so that critical comments, at least from me, will not arise since I do not normally venture to air my views freely outside the GD sub-forum. Shri Praveen was kind enough to accede to my suggestion and I also honestly thought that Shri iyer would agree to the move. But strangely, iyer said let this thread continue and further added that he started it under the GD consciously. I reproduce iyer's words below:

"Let this continue in this section. I intentionally started in the General Discussions so that ideas can be freely exchanged on his views but not another round of statements irrelevant to the topic. However that does not mean another round of poking fun on acharyas , making statements irrelevant to the topic under discussion can be made. Nara Sir has behaved responsibly in this . His questions pertained to the topic. I hope praveen you will look into this. There are plenty of statements which are made , which have no relevance to the discussion at hand. Making baseless accusations on Acharya is certainly not part of the deal even if it were under General Discussions. "

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/religion/7362-excerpts-dialogue-guru-6.html#post101767

This gave me the impression that Shri iyer would like the thread to be under the GD but would like the discussions in a particular way. I fail to understand how some statement about the Acharya which is not to iyer's liking becomes 'baseless'.

It comes across as mean spirited, may not be meant that way.

If my post appears mean-spirited and needs to be removed, it is okay with me. Kindly request Praveen to edit it with comments so that the site will remain as 'ground zero'

This is way too hypothetical, to ask pviyer what he meant is alright, but to then go ahead and answer that question with a serious charge of incitement is, I am sorry to say, totally uncalled for. Besides, asking his supporters to come to his defense is not prohibited, is it? He asking for Saidevo's support is not incitement to anything.

I give below the original from Shri iyer's post:

Being moved by devotion was a characteristic right from Adi Shankaracharya. It is called paramanandam and one is obviously in a saguna state when one\'s mind is focused on the existing world. This difference can be explained quote proficiently by members like Saidevo.

This was from iyer's reply to you, but I felt that iyer's statements are devoid of any substance and that was why he was not able to explain as to why this paramanandam comes. I would have expected him to frankly admit that he does not know how it can be explained.

Since iyer did not want the thread to be moved to Religion but said that he gave the anecdote from Swamiji's life only for the believers (he was not serialising Swamiji's life but only the dialogues with a European), was it wrong on my part to infer that his action had some reason and that what I expressed might be one?

Could you settle for figure-head instead of ornamental? Ornaments are inanimate objects worn by its owner. I don't think that is what the mathathipathis are, merely decorating the chair. They do represent an ideology handed down to them, one with which we both disagree, but the very fact they represent and actively advocate a certain ideology shows they are nothing like inanimate ornaments.

Figurehead also may mean a frontman, a cover for something, a strawman. But I have no objection for the change.

We have already made this point, to make it a second time seems like flogging a dead horse.

There is no real value of material possessions - This was one of the points stated by iyer in his defence. Hence I felt it necessary to bring it to his notice that the great Swamiji's account itself seemed to negate his premise. I personally feel there was nothing inappropriate in pointing this out. Probably I could have added 'as already pointed out in post #..." but I was not aware that you will scrutinize and post and wrote simply—

How and why, then, did the jeevanmukta swami shed tears of ecstasy on hugging a mere photograph?
I will be more careful in future.

Sangom sir, you know I only have the highest of regard for you. The last place I would want to be in is on the opposite side from you. Besides, I agree with all the substantive points you have raised. My intent is to lower the temperature a bit so that we don't lose some important contributors. If we drive them out with whom could we argue ?

Dear Nara, with all due respects I do not think this exercise will lower the temperature. Here we have a case in which a particular person holds a certain Swamiji in high respect and simply because of that he insists that all others should necessarily revere that Swamiji in equal measure. For example you have some high regard for EVR but many others here simply detest him and revile him in their responses to you. (I am neutral in respect of EVR.) But I don't see you leaving the forum in a huff.

As for me I don't have even a small fraction of your talent in debate and my aim is to record my points of view wherever appropriate, so that readers may get to know this line of thinking also. I am therefore of the considered view that there will be as many opportunities to record our views and read others' views, even if a few members quit because their ego does not permit them to continue. As for me I have since learnt to have a thick skin.

Lastly, I will suggest to members that Swamijis, gurus, Acharyas etc., are fast becoming anachronisms in this fast changing technological world and it is better to be a little flexible in your approach when you start quoting from some Acharya, Guru, gm/gw, etc., under the GD and accept criticism with good grace.

 

[Nara]

... For example you have some high regard for EVR but many others here simply detest him and revile him in their responses to you. (I am neutral in respect of EVR.) But I don't see you leaving the forum in a huff.

Dear Shri Sangom sir, the above is indeed true, and it is also true that my views with regard to Acharya, Guru, gm/gw, are in harmony with yours. I appreciate you taking time to respond to my post. Hope our arguments with Saidevo, pviyer and others will continue with the same vigor but less heat.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom sir, the above is indeed true, and it is also true that my views with regard to Acharya, Guru, gm/gw, are in harmony with yours. I appreciate you taking time to respond to my post. Hope our arguments with Saidevo, pviyer and others will continue with the same vigor but less heat.

Cheers!

I am ready to keep away from iyer's threads and his posts in future, if that pleases him. I do not want this Forum to suffer in any way due to me.

 

[pviyer]

Since Acharyal who had words of praise for atheists, is attacked by atheists ( in my view but may be not in the eyes of the atheists ) I wish to make a few points. Let me tell you one thing about myself. It is upto individuals to believe in me. If people can believe in Sangom sir\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s unreferenced view that Abhinava Vidya Theertha swamigal was a short tempered person who contributed to the decline of sringeri mutt, some may atleast believe my unsubstantiated statement that I experience divine vibration when I pray, inspite of all my shortcomings. I am sure a better person would know more. Why I say this is that , this has taught that a bit of practice is superior to all readings and expertise in subjects. This was highlighted by sivananda swamigal. Our acharyal whom we are discussing has taught us that through his discussions. He wants us to take a step forward and pray whatever may be our religion. Acharyal was against idle discussions without practice. The first thing is about acharyal\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s experience as a jivanamukta. Let us take this aside. Is there only light and dark in this world. Is there not a degree of brightness? Is there no middle between a jivanmukta and an ordinary man. It is upto individuals to consider who is the ideal person. But there is some one who is a little below that. I quoted an episode of santananda swamigal meeting Kamakot shastrigal. Both are renowned people in our tamil nadu. Both have expressed high opinion of Acharyal. Kanchi Paramacharyal was no exception either. To a devotee his guru is like his God. One can easily recognize the statement of Santananda that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"He is the foremost of Jnanis in physical form currently. He is the true Jivanmukta. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" is his appreciation of Acharyal. It is his view of who Acharyal is. There may be a qualitative degree. The qualitative degree is unknown to mortals like us. If Stephen Hawkins makes praises another scientist, do we not as normal students of science take it as a measure of recognition. We may not know that the scientist who was praised may not be the very best. But it does raise our esteem about the scientist being talked about. Of course the parallel ends there and I am not getting drawn into a discussion on whether a scientist\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s opinion can be held valid but the opinion of a respected sanyasi cannot be. It is just that when there are people of fame who have a high opinion of a person , the person cannot be reduced to the status of an ornament or a figurehead. Leave that alone , can those who speak of sringeri acharyals as ornamental head, disqualify the acharyals as novices to vedantam and sanskrit. Atleast they have attained a massive learning in these subject areas and not less than a million people have fallen at their feet as bhaktas. I am not talking about people who visit the swamigals and have a hundred doubts before and after visiting them. So however simple minded and superstitious these million may be , they are normal human beings who are taking care of their family, are sane and reasonably living and feel happy when they visit the swamigals of Sringeri. Neither are these swamigals found to be frauds( in the eyes of our law) atleast in the recent history. How can they be ornamental head, figureheads. Their very Bhojanalaya in Sringeri feeds the visitors for free. There are people who contribute that amount of money. Considering all this they are ornamental, figureheads? I dont unlike Shri saidevo have the patience to calmly respond to such blind and unwarranted statements but here I am responding to this only because of Saidevo. I had wanted earlier to type a response to Sangom and had composed a mile long message, thinking about it for an hour. But I just abandoned the post without posting it in irritation as not worth it all. I am however posting it due to his desire. The atheists may have a chuckle at this too Let us look at the Jeevanmukta. I do not know what the upanishads say specifically about the state of a Jivanmukta. However I want to place on record what sivananda had to say. The full details can be found in his book on Jivanmukta available for free online unlike the works of our modern scholars and certain half baked research scholars which can only be purchased with a high price.

THE DOUBLE-CONSCIOUSNESS OF A JIVANMUKTA A man who stands in water up to his neck has a twofold experience. His head is exposed to the sun. He experiences both heat and cold. Such is the experience of a Jivanmukta. He has double consciousness. He enjoys the bliss of Brahman (God). He also has the experience of this world. He is like a man who knows two languages. Just as the pot in which asafoetida or onion is kept emits a certain amount of smell even when it is cleaned several times, so also, a small trace of ignorance still remains in the mind of a Jnani even. The Jivanmukta has a consciousness of the body in the form of a Samskara (impression in the subconscious mind). That is the reason why he eats and drinks. Though the instinctive mind with low desires is destroyed, the Sattvic (pure) mind does not perish in the Jivanmukta. How will he be able to do Vyavahara or worldly dealings without an instrument, viz., the mind?

I am not competent to judge this view as I am nowhere near being a Jivanmukta but I do know that higher spiritual states are possible from my own life. The atheists may not agree but I think there may be some here already who have had some experiences. So it is possible for Jivanmuktas to experience pleasure in their mode of satvicness. Chandrasekhara Bharati did not come down from his mode of goodness as we mortals sometimes or rather manytimes do. It is true that a Jnani like him can have vision of Kamakshi from wherever he is but it couldnt be through his two eyes- The charma chakshu unless he is physically present where the kamakshi is installed or an image drawn from her worldly appearance as she appears in the temple, is presented to him before his eyes. Acharyal wants to reward Kamakoti sastrigal for his great patience of having waited to have darshan of him for such a long time. Therefore he gave him his upasya. The secret to move to the next level of enlightenment. What was that? Sharada is none other than Bala. He then gifts him a portrait of the devi. This was his reward. It may sound silly to those who believe these images are dummy. But as people practicing sadhana will tell, that these images are connecting pieces in a sadhana especially for those grounded in the world and have not had the highest realization. These are not images they are as life like as you and me. Kamakoti Sastrigal was a great man, but still a man whose perception of you and me was evident and certainly not destroyed. It was needed for someone to advice him on the stumbling blocks in his sadhana and advocate something that would be beneficial to him. That is why Acharyal said that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You have given me a photo of my Devata and I will give you your upAsya. shArada is none but Bala\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". The highest realization is a far away milestone. Just because no one seems to reach it does not mean that there are no intermediate steps. Is swamigal\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s acceptance of a photos showcasing a materialistic man? I am surprised that Sangom has not asked why Acharyal has not cutoff his hand and legs, saying that these are material possessions. Sivananda\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s view on Jivanmukta shows that the Jivanmukta is capable of experiencing the world in a satvic way. This episode is not contrary to that. In any case even if Acharyal was less than a Jivanmukta it cannot be inferred that he was just an ordinary mortal!

 

[pviyer]

If as you say, your quote was for the benefit of the believers and not to rebut my comments, you should have accepted Praveen\'s shifting of the thread under the head \"Religion\". But you did not want it. What does that mean? To me it was like an assault on those who do not toe your line, by inciting the so-called \"believers\" of the Swamiji for support. This is, incidentally, a ruse followed by Shri saidevo also, imo.

I am not really familiar with the kind of rules that exist in this forum. You are a veteran. I have had no problems in fair discussions. But making statements about Abhinava Vidya Theertha without making us understand head or tail what the thing was about is unfair. If we need to accept this information that you provided as valid, we need to blindly go by your authority. Even if we trust your honesty as a veteran member, we have no means of knowing whether you have correctly understood the information given to you. Even if take this to be the case, we have no idea about how truthful this man you quote to be. Even if the man you quote was truthful, we have no idea about his participation in this issue and how much mature he was in understanding this situation. Even if we assume that all this to be true , we cannot even reinterpet due to the information provided with very little background. This is only one ushc example. It is this that I object. I dont watch your move every second to know if you dont accuse some revered person in the Religions forum. It may be true. I would have assumed that it is not possible to express and question any view of the Acharyal in the religions forum, as that would be tantamount to insulting the acharyal. If you do not want to trust this basic statement I have made in this forum, why do you want me and others to accept unsubstantiated rumours about acharyals in the present or in the past. A rumour you have heard cannot be presented in the forum as a scholarly perspective. On top of that you asked your friends to leave. If it was that why do you have to proclaim it to the whole world unless your objective is to denigrate me.

So, when the Goddess Bhuvaneswari Devi herself has said that the time did not favour Hindus, how can it be claimed that Vidyaranya saved hinduism (from ruin)? Also, Shri Vidyaranya is reported to have laid the foundations for the city before he ascended the throne of Sringeri in 1331 A.D.

Is this not another way of being sarcastic. Did Vidyaranya in any of his treatise record this statement. If you are an established historian what value would you place to this story. Even if this story was true, it is true that she protected the south for two hundred years. By that time Marathas emerged and britishers came. Even though the glorious pages of Hinduism has not reemerged, it is true that there was a glimmer of hope due to the grace of Goddess. How did her grace work? Through Vidyaranya. Vidyaranya\'s grace in turn fell on the kings who have earned the wealth and prestige for that action. Vidyaranya got the name that was due to him and Bhuvaneshwari fulfilled her promise. So if Bhunaveshwari\'s grace fell on Vidyaranya it does not reduce his stature any bit. Our parents blessed us with life and glory. It is because of God, that they had the power to do so. Can we say that our parents did not act and do not deserve recognition at all?

If the powers and advantages enjoyed by the Swamijis of Sringeri are considered, it can easily be said that all those were because they were held in high respect by the Mysore royalty of Wodeyars who declared their independence from being the vassals of Vijayanagara, in 1399 or so. Because of this position, the royal families of Cochin, Travancore and some wealthy zamindars from the southern districts of Tamil Nadu also accepted the Sringeri Acharyas as their guru/acharya.

Not only the wodeyars held Sringeri Mutt in high respect but also the Nizams and Tipu Sultan. So also numerous yatis. So also numerous good and humble common men and women.

During the period of Abhinava Vidyateertha swamikal, the Kanchi matham suddenly got revived, some bitter tussles between the two mathams ensued and these also reduced the standing of the Sringeri matham. The present Pontiff Shri Bharati Teertha is not very much visible at all. People intimately connected with the Sringeri matham and holding the same kind of respect and reverence for the Chair have told me that the matham is on decline. I also had a bit of good opinion about the present head till this year when this Swamiji also allowed what is called his 61st. Vardhanti (birthday?) in a grand fashion with some very large scale homas; at the end the Swamiji had no compunction in cooly telling the TV channel that for him all these homas, celebrations are not material but he allowed the same for \"Universal Welfare\".

This is an often quoted accusation against these mutts. The real question is did Chandrasekhara Bharati swamigal and Chandrasekharendra saraswati have conflicts? Can you prove that there were conflicts between them. People at a more intermediate stage could have had disagreements but they stuck by their principles in such matters. I do not know about you or some other theists. I am familiar with both mutts, and I do not waste my time ranking acharyals and their greatness. I personally consider that even great people can disagree. And sometimes the people around them may ignite things further. All these statement are based on the assumption that some of the acharyals were involved in conflict. Can you prove they hired goons to fulfill their objectives? Yes it is difficult to accept that Jivanmuktas could get involved in such conflicts directly. I do not know who is a Jivanmukta and who is not. That does not matter to me. I am happy with them being Jnanis of a higher degree.

It seems thousands of yielding jack fruit trees had to be cut and the dry timber and logs burnt in the sacrificial fires for days on end and still the Swamiji proudly claiming that all these were universal welfare, lowered his image very much in my estimate.

In my family when one person refused to perform his sixtieth birthday ceremonies, he was literally forced to perform this . He was adviced that it was in the interests of the world and it provided an opportunity for those involved in this ceremony like our priests and other people. I am not saying Sringeri Acharyal was forced, I am least concerned about this as I would ensure that everyone in my close circles get their sixtieth birthday celebrated with homams et all. You do not believe that these ceremonies bring lokakshemam. But I assume your concern is that the poor trees are cut. If acharyal knows that performing these ceremonies give welfare to the world or if he is even certain in that belief , I would not blame him. How much more disaster to our Environment, is created by the industries and factories and the paper industry and the automobiles and the innumerable products of modern life. Is a one time ceremony such a concern to you or is it another occasion of fault-finding. In any case I did seem to have read that new saplings were planted?Not sure but I have answered that your concerns are unwarranted from a larger picture. Sringeri mutt in Acharyal\'s own time has done a good job in preserving the environment of Sringeri. The place is even now renowned for its natural beauty.

 

[pviyer]

If as you say, your quote was for the benefit of the believers and not to rebut my comments, you should have accepted Praveen\'s shifting of the thread under the head \"Religion\". But you did not want it. What does that mean? To me it was like an assault on those who do not toe your line, by inciting the so-called \"believers\" of the Swamiji for support. This is, incidentally, a ruse followed by Shri saidevo also, imo.

I am not really familiar with the kind of rules that exist in this forum. You are a veteran. I have had no problems in fair discussions. But making statements about Abhinava Vidya Theertha without making us understand head or tail what the thing was about is unfair. If we need to accept this information that you provided as valid, we need to blindly go by your authority. Even if we trust your honesty as a veteran member, we have no means of knowing whether you have correctly understood the information given to you. Even if take this to be the case, we have no idea about how truthful this man you quote to be. Even if the man you quote was truthful, we have no idea about his participation in this issue and how much mature he was in understanding this situation. Even if we assume that all this to be true , we cannot even reinterpet due to the information provided with very little background. This is only one ushc example. It is this that I object. I dont watch your move every second to know if you dont accuse some revered person in the Religions forum. It may be true. I would have assumed that it is not possible to express and question any view of the Acharyal in the religions forum, as that would be tantamount to insulting the acharyal. If you do not want to trust this basic statement I have made in this forum, why do you want me and others to accept unsubstantiated rumours about acharyals in the present or in the past. A rumour you have heard cannot be presented in the forum as a scholarly perspective. On top of that you asked your friends to leave. If it was that why do you have to proclaim it to the whole world unless your objective is to denigrate me.

So, when the Goddess Bhuvaneswari Devi herself has said that the time did not favour Hindus, how can it be claimed that Vidyaranya saved hinduism (from ruin)? Also, Shri Vidyaranya is reported to have laid the foundations for the city before he ascended the throne of Sringeri in 1331 A.D.

Is this not another way of being sarcastic. Did Vidyaranya in any of his treatise record this statement. If you are an established historian what value would you place to this story. Even if this story was true, it is true that she protected the south for two hundred years. By that time Marathas emerged and britishers came. Even though the glorious pages of Hinduism has not reemerged, it is true that there was a glimmer of hope due to the grace of Goddess. How did her grace work? Through Vidyaranya. Vidyaranya\'s grace in turn fell on the kings who have earned the wealth and prestige for that action. Vidyaranya got the name that was due to him and Bhuvaneshwari fulfilled her promise. So if Bhunaveshwari\'s grace fell on Vidyaranya it does not reduce his stature any bit. Our parents blessed us with life and glory. It is because of God, that they had the power to do so. Can we say that our parents did not act and do not deserve recognition at all?

If the powers and advantages enjoyed by the Swamijis of Sringeri are considered, it can easily be said that all those were because they were held in high respect by the Mysore royalty of Wodeyars who declared their independence from being the vassals of Vijayanagara, in 1399 or so. Because of this position, the royal families of Cochin, Travancore and some wealthy zamindars from the southern districts of Tamil Nadu also accepted the Sringeri Acharyas as their guru/acharya.

Not only the wodeyars held Sringeri Mutt in high respect but also the Nizams and Tipu Sultan. So also numerous yatis. So also numerous good and humble common men and women.

During the period of Abhinava Vidyateertha swamikal, the Kanchi matham suddenly got revived, some bitter tussles between the two mathams ensued and these also reduced the standing of the Sringeri matham. The present Pontiff Shri Bharati Teertha is not very much visible at all. People intimately connected with the Sringeri matham and holding the same kind of respect and reverence for the Chair have told me that the matham is on decline. I also had a bit of good opinion about the present head till this year when this Swamiji also allowed what is called his 61st. Vardhanti (birthday?) in a grand fashion with some very large scale homas; at the end the Swamiji had no compunction in cooly telling the TV channel that for him all these homas, celebrations are not material but he allowed the same for \"Universal Welfare\".

This is an often quoted accusation against these mutts. The real question is did Chandrasekhara Bharati swamigal and Chandrasekharendra saraswati have conflicts? Can you prove that there were conflicts between them. People at a more intermediate stage could have had disagreements but they stuck by their principles in such matters. I do not know about you or some other theists. I am familiar with both mutts, and I do not waste my time ranking acharyals and their greatness. I personally consider that even great people can disagree. And sometimes the people around them may ignite things further. All these statement are based on the assumption that some of the acharyals were involved in conflict. Can you prove they hired goons to fulfill their objectives? Yes it is difficult to accept that Jivanmuktas could get involved in such conflicts directly. I do not know who is a Jivanmukta and who is not. That does not matter to me. I am happy with them being Jnanis of a higher degree.

It seems thousands of yielding jack fruit trees had to be cut and the dry timber and logs burnt in the sacrificial fires for days on end and still the Swamiji proudly claiming that all these were universal welfare, lowered his image very much in my estimate.

In my family when one person refused to perform his sixtieth birthday ceremonies, he was literally forced to perform this . He was adviced that it was in the interests of the world and it provided an opportunity for those involved in this ceremony like our priests and other people. I am not saying Sringeri Acharyal was forced, I am least concerned about this as I would ensure that everyone in my close circles get their sixtieth birthday celebrated with homams et all. You do not believe that these ceremonies bring lokakshemam. But I assume your concern is that the poor trees are cut. If acharyal knows that performing these ceremonies give welfare to the world or if he is even certain in that belief , I would not blame him. How much more disaster to our Environment, is created by the industries and factories and the paper industry and the automobiles and the innumerable products of modern life. Is a one time ceremony such a concern to you or is it another occasion of fault-finding. In any case I did seem to have read that new saplings were planted?Not sure but I have answered that your concerns are unwarranted from a larger picture. Sringeri mutt in Acharyal\'s own time has done a good job in preserving the environment of Sringeri. The place is even now renowned for its natural beauty.

 

[Nara]

... I wouldnt have had the same patience as him in dealing with atheists.

My words might seem like a joke to atheists , I dont care.

Since Acharyal who had words of praise for atheists, is attacked by atheists ( in my view but may be not in the eyes of the atheists )


The atheists may have a chuckle at this too

The atheists may not agree ...

Dear pviyer, may be I misunderstand, why are you so upset with the atheists. Of the two people who have argued with you, I am an atheist and Sangom sir is an agnostic. So, when you say atheists I am the only one in the cross-hairs.

Further, don't you think our personal position on the existence of god cannot automatically make our arguments invalid. Lot of people here who can't stand atheists make this error, a classical ad hominem fallacy. In as much as my arguments against what you say cannot be automatically construed as correct just because I am an atheist, they cannot be rejected as false for the same reason. My arguments will have to be judged purely on its merits or lack thereof.

You said you welcome fair discussion, but I am not sure what you consider fair. If I argue that beliefs in such things as samadhi, jeevanmuktha, double consciousness, homam for lokakshemam -- all without criticizing any specific Acharya -- as beliefs promoting superstition and backwardness, would you take that as fair discussion or not?

If these beliefs are be celebrated within the circle of the faithful and are written down as reverential hagiographical accounts, no problem. However, if you think discussions to be fair, even those of us on the other side, who consider these beliefs to be harmful superstitions, must show deference to these beliefs, then I have to withdraw.

regards ...

 

[pviyer]

Dear pviyer, may be I misunderstand, why are you so upset with the atheists. Of the two people who have argued with you, I am an atheist and Sangom sir is an agnostic. So, when you say atheists I am the only one in the cross-hairs.

Dear Nara, Thank you again for your patient reply. I have no issues with the way you argue. I have already said that.I am sorry for not making a clear distinction between atheists and agnostics in my posts. I did not even care to see that distinction. For that matter I am not aware that you are not an agnostic or whether sangom is an agnostic. Though my post might sound heated there was no anger towards you. But I had not triggered an argument with Sangom sir. When I read his first statement of shifting the thread, I knew that there was a sarcasm intended. I have given enough statements about the reason for putting it in General Discussions. While no one has the right to control the flow of a conversation, Sangom sir should give a background to his views. His statement that the previous Abhinava Vidya teertha was short-tempered cannot be treated like a factual presentation of events unless he gives us sufficient background on this. I do not know the rules of General Discussions. But consider this statement \\\" The swamigal of X mutt is an argumentative person.

As a result lot of devotees deserted him!\\\". If such a statement is made, the question arises whose view was it, who was a witness to these events, and who were the devotees who deserted the swamigal. I do not see how such a statement cannot hurt a person. On the other hand if you say \\\"so and so accusation was made by so and so person \\\" we devotees may not be able to immediately contradict it , but we can have a background to atleast investigate this. If sangom sir had said I had seen the swamigal and felt nothing good about him. Nobody has anything to say- it is his view. On the other hand if he says that some devotees started leaving because of swamigal\\\'s conduct, something that cannot even be traced to a newspaper archive, he cannot take it for granted that we have the privilege to know if it is correct or wrong. In such cases do such accusations serve any purpose other than inviting the ire of people. No sane sensible person will change his opinion just based on an UN-verifiable accusation. We may be privy to things that others are not privy to, in that case in a public forum one has to express restraint in stating things or put it forward in a way it can be verified. As I said this is my wishlist for the rules that must govern the General Discussions but what can I do if this does not happen.

His subsequent assaults on me was uncalled for and I had not given a thought about Sangom sir, when I first started my thread. I have no interest converting anybody. So when Praveen shifted the thread, I said let it be here, meaning let it continue in the Religions section. At that point, more of a hindsight I realized the direction the thread was taking. I already read a few outraged statements of few devotees, and I was embarrassed by the situation. Why should I knowingly invite unverifiable statements bordering on insults on the acharyals!

In any case I have no issues with any of the arguments which you have made.

I do not want to dig back the past on Sangom\\\'s posts all over again, either.

If any one feels that my posts were offensive I apologize. I also possibly need an education in a more polite conversation. Thank you. I will continue with the rest of excerpts this time with a more patient analysis on the tone of my posts. Thank you again.

 

[pviyer]

Few things have been said about our Abhinava Vidya Theertha Swamigal. I will not dwelve into them again. But here are some excerpts for Bhaktas. This is taken from the site kamakotimandali. I hope this will leave a pleasant effect on our Bhakta Samajam. The excepts are shown in quotes

\"Our revered Acharya Sri Sri Sri Jagadguru Abhinava Vidya Tirtha Mahaswamigal shone for thirty five years as the thirty-fifth pontiff of the Dakshinamnaya Sringeri Sharada Peetham. The holy life of this most illustrious one whose renown spread to the end of the quarters is an ideal for everybody.

This great soul took birth at Bangalore on Ashwina Krishna Chaturdashi of the year Pingala \' November 13, 1917, as the eldest son of a virtuous couple, Kaipu Rama Shastrigal and Smt Venkatalakshmi, and was named Srinivasa. He, who was endowed from childhood with devotion to God, detachment to sensory objects, fondness for noble people and with good conduct, became the recipient of the unlimited kindness of then pontiff of the Sringeri Sharada Peetham, the pre-eminent Jagadguru Sri Sri Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal. \"

\"His Upanayana took place at Sringeri itself. Then, he learnt well from scholars the Veda and Sanskrit literature. When he was fourteen, the revered Guru graced him with the Sannyasa ashram and the Yogapatta of Sri Abhinava Vidya Tirtha and nominated him as the successor to Sri Sharada Peetham. Commencing thereafter the study of the Nyaya Shastra, he attained extraordinary proficiency in it in a few years and, even as he imparted it to students, his unique intellectual prowess was readily discernible. Thereafter, diligently learning the Vedanta Shastra from his Guru, he acquired excellent proficiency in it. Having put in much effort to master Sanskrit literature, he was thoroughly versed in Sanskrit, being able to write well in it and to speak in it flawlessly. Though not enamored of composing poems, he did glorify his Guru in beautiful verses. Deeply scrutinizing dharma Shastra texts, he resolved, with citations of authoritative passages and examples, the doubts of disciples on matters of dharma; he received the praise of his Guru for this. Able to speak fluently in Sanskrit, Telugu, Tamil and Kannada, he also mastered Hindi. North Indian scholars have been struck with awe on hearing him discourse in chaste Hindi. \"

\"He used to discourse in a beautiful and lucid manner. He made people easily comprehend even profound Vedantic truths. The minds of people underwent a great transformation for the better on hearing his talks. The greatness of the talks was such that the listeners became dedicated to the performance of their duties. Through his discourses, common folk could understand topics of the Srutis, Smritis, Itihasas and Puranas that would have otherwise been difficult for them to comprehend. \"

\"Sri Mahasannidhanam treated friends and foes, disciples and non-disciples alike. During those days, Koodali Mutt was without a Pithadhipati. Dharamvir, the then governor of Karnataka consulted Mahasannidhanam to discuss the issue of selecting a Pithadhipati for Koodali mutt. But Mahasannidhanam expressed no views. Though Koodali mutt was a branch mutt of Sri Dakshinamnaya Sringeri Sharada Peetham, it did not have a good relation with the Moola Sringeri mutt. \" \"During the period of Sri Vidyaranya, a branch mutt of Sringeri was established in Koodali. Over a period of time, certain people with vested interests began to claim that the Koodali mutt was the original mutt established by Srimadacharya and not Sringeri. Though this brought no recognition to the mutt, its relation with the Sringeri mutt was severely affected. Due to this reason, Mahasannidhanam decided not to express his views to the governor and to stay out of the issue. \"

\"Sri Avinashiyappa Chettiyar was a great Surya and Shakti Upasaka from Mudukutore near Talakadu, Mysore. Though a great simpleton, he had reached great spiritual heights in Sadhana. He followed several strict rules and lead a life of austerity. River Kaveri was his very soul. He considered the river to be his mother and drank water from no other river. He would never visit places away from Kaveri. If at all he had to, he would stay without bath and food for days, till he reached a place on the banks of Kaveri. Whenever he visited Mysore, he would wake up early in the morning, finish his bath at Pashchimavahini and collect water in a Kumbha. He would then come home, draw a Mandala with different colors, decorate it with specific flowers and light a lamp. He would then invoke Parashakti in the Jala Kumbha and Surya Narayana in the lamp and worship them. Before eating food, he would offer food to cows and birds. He would finish his dinner before sunset. On days when sun was not visible, he would refuse to consume food. He would spend the entire day chanting his mantra. He would not accept food in every house. Even if his host was a scholarly Brahmana, he would accept his hospitality only if he was convinced that the host followed the Shastras to the core. He expected his hosts to be devoted to the lord, following the rules of internal and external Shaucha (like Bahishtha dharma, parAnna etc.), having a cow and a calf in the house etc. He would not drink the milk of the cow without a calf, which he considered to be equal to meat. He was also very particular that none in the host\'s house be addicted to cigarette, liquor, snuff or tobacco. \"

\"There were very few houses in Mysore which met his standards. This Sadhaka did not wear any stitched clothes or footwear. He wore a Khadi Dhoti and an Angavastram. He always wore Bhasma, Chandana and Kunkuma on his forehead. Though he was a merchant by profession, he had dedicated his entire life for Sadhana. He slept for not more than 2-3 hours everyday. He appeared as a fool or a mad man to ordinary people. Even though he visited various temples, he would only have the Darshan of the god but would not accept any Tirtha or Prasadam from the shrine. One of the few priests who gave him Tirtha and Prasadam was the priest of the Lakshmi Narayana temple on Chamundi hills.\"

\"On one occasion when he visited Mysore, he found out that his host was not in the house. Upon enquiry, he gathered that the host, a Vaidika Brahmana, had gone to the nearby Shankara Mutt to witness pooja performed by Sri Sri Jagadguru Mahasannidhanam. When the Sadhaka reached the venue, the place was filled with people, preparations were on for the pooja and a musician was playing Vina melodiously. Then suddenly, Mahasannidhanam arrived and all the people there stood up to bow down to his holy feet. But the Upasaka ignored this event and simply stared at Mahasannidhanam. As Mahasannidhanam started the Chandramoulishwara pooja, the Vaidikas started reciting Rudram and other Veda mantras. It seemed as though even the celestials were waiting to witness the sacred pooja. Our Sadhaka began to think, \'There are hundreds of scholars and Upasakas of great merit assembled here. Even the common folks generally busy with day-to-day chitchat are maintaining pin drop silence. If this Swamiji had no special powers, would this have been ever possible?Then there was an alternate thought, \'Why can\'t the Swamiji perform pooja alone for his own sake? Why this show and grandeur? When there is the calming light of the lamps available, why is this pomp of serial electrical lights?\' Even as he was thinking on these lines, there was a sudden power-cut and all the electric lights there were extinguished. Mahasannidhanam continued the pooja in the light of the lamps. So immersed in pooja he was that he even failed to notice the power shutdown. After the pooja, Mahasannidhanam got up, blessed the crowd and slowly began to walk towards his residence. He started climbing the steps of the building and stopped for a while, turning towards the east. Immediately Avinashiyappa witnessed the most glorious sight in his life. An infinitely bright light appeared from the east, did a pradakshina of Mahasannidhanam like the Sudarshana Chakra and entered the point between the eyebrows of the Mahasannidhanam. Sri Mahasannidhanam had proved that he was non-different from Surya Narayana, the Upasya of Avinashiyappa. Avinashiyappa was filled with tears as he fell down at the holy feet of the Jagadguru. \"

\"When Sri Mahasannidhanam was in Mysore during a Sanchara, the pontiff of Sri Parakala Mutt, who was very close to Mahasannidhanam, invited him to visit the Parakala Mutt. Sri Mahasannidhanam accepted this invitation with immense joy. Some disciples expressed discomfort with this decision because the mutt belonged to Srivaishnava Sampradaya. Sri Mahasannidhanam immediately said, \'Have you read the biography of Sri Ramanujacharya? Before he wrote his Sri Bhashya on the Shariraka Sutras, he visited Kashmir in search of Bodhayana Smrti. He there had the Darshan of Sri Sharada. As the Kashmiri Pundits refused to part with this work, his disciple Kurattazwar wrote down the entire Smrti there. Before he returned, Sri Sharada gave a Hayagriva idol to Sri Ramanuja for his personal worship. It is the same Hayagriva idol which is worshipped in Parakala mutt to this day. By visiting the mutt, not only are we expressing our gratitude to the pontiff of Sri Parakala mutt for extending a warm invitation but also are getting benefited by the Darshan of Sri Hayagriva. Sri Mahasannidhanam visited Parakala mutt the very next day and the Swamigals of both the mutts immensely enjoyed the occasion. \"

There may have been arguments between devotees of different mutts. This tends to cloud the mind of the Bhaktan. It is here we must pray for Vivekam like a Hamsam. The swan knows how to separate the milk from the water. When we read the stories about acharyals the writers praise one mutt sometimes at the cost of another. The swan knows what is good and bad and hence is benefited. We should all be like that.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Mr.PVIyer,

The story I heard about Vidyaranya is slightly different. He was a great scholar
and well-versed in the scriptures. But he was poor. So he propitiated Goddess
Lakshmi for wealth. Lakshmi appeared before him and told him that he was
not destined to get wealth , but he would in his next birth. But Vidyaranya
played a trick and took sanyas and told her - look , now I am sannyasi and have
taken a second birth. So give me wealth.

Lakshmi did give plenty. But, alas, Vidyaranya then thought - what can I do
with all this wealth because I am now a sannyasi. I am outsmarted by Her and
I am tricked into this by Divine will.

So, he used Harihar and Pukkar , two young bright boys, and thru' them started
the vijayanagara samrajya.

He is hailed as a great sannyasi and learned man , having witten commentaries on all the upanishads. Even Adi Sankara did not write commentaries on all the
upanishads. I read this in Deivathin kural.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Mr.pviyer
you suddenly stopped the Mahasannidhanam's conversations with some
devotees. Please continue.

 

[pviyer]

Mr.pviyer you suddenly stopped the Mahasannidhanam\'s conversations with some devotees. Please continue.

I will continue sir. I was held up in some work, I will do my best to continue as early as possible.