--- In [email protected], "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not addressing this. IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must say, that I don't believe it. > Note: I am forwarding a response from Swami G to the last post. There > is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short > for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster, > and G = Swami G: > > > T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru was > appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full > Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he > was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost > knowledge to a secretary. > > * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully > knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one > tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another > tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, > yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for > instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But > then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the Dasanami > Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati > order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? > > G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of > tradition - > ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are > Bharati/Giri/Puri > and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time with > Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic > practices and > knowledge. That may all be, but then the fact remains, that the Saraswati order does not accept non-Brahmins (not to even think of american women ;-) > All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically > Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name associated > with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. And so was Guru Devs Guru, he came from the south. Guru Dev could have only initiated within the Saraswati order, so he didn't have the choice of initiating a nonbrahmin desciple within his own order, and he couldn't initiate anyone into another order than his own. This whole story, why this is so has to do with the opening of he Shankara order to nonbrahmins in the medevial ages, and the influence of islam on Hinduism, when Hindus had to defend their own faith. Originally the Shankara path was only open to Brahmins. But Brahmins were not allowed to fight. This issue was solved by alloing other caste-members to enter the Shankara order, first in a limited way. This is the origin of the Naga-Babas, who are enjoined to the Dasanami order, but ususally the members are of lower castes and are looked down on by the other Dasanami orders. As a result of this development also other orders accepted non-Brahmins, but as a concession to Brahmins, three orders were kept free from this development, membership exclusively reserved for Brahmins. Saraswati is one of them. That they are mostly coming from the south makes sense, as the muslim influence was there less, and the south is generally more conservative. So do i > need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage. Yes, sure. But then I wonder why you didn't know what I was just describing above. > > * This would resolve her argument. > > G there is no argument - i am commenting from Living within the > Tradition of being a fully initiated Renunicate that has lived not only > here but also within this sect in india. ---- Just to remind you what the argument is about - that there exists a formulism within Maharishis order that did not allow him to be a Sadhu. Instead of accepting that this is something that has to do with a very restrictive tradition, she makes - unrightfully I think - a qualifying argument out of it, stating that MMY could not have received the essence of Gd's teaching. ( I am not objecting that he was not initiated into all of the sadhus secret teachings, I knoe they are there and Sadhus are very particular about it) > * That MMY was GD's secretary, doesn't mean he was just > employed vs being a student. > > G he was a Brahachari - it is known absolutely that he was not > a fully initiated Swami. Undoubtedly he was a student there are many > such nowadays - brahmachari's that are in the process of learning > About the tradition before being formally inducted into it. This is a > common practice. Okay,but in this order the last option simply wasn't there. > * Anyone can see on the youtube video that he was speaking in > front of GD, he is shown on photos of showing the > first president of india around in the Ashram - so don't tell me he > didn't have the trust of GD. I am not saying Swami G is totally wrong, > but I do see that she takes her own path as sort of absolute. > > G My path IS the same tradition as the one he is supposed to be > speaking from. -------- this is what you don't understand. He may > have been showing the first president around the Ashram but > this proves absolutely nothing. The problem is you have only > read about the traditions and haven't actually lived within them. I think this is a somewhat unfair argument. It doesn't address the particular point I am making, but rather escapes in a sweeping kind of generalizations, 'Yes, we are all the same' Well, you aren't, period. There are important differences, like the one I am pointing out. For this I do not have to be initiated into the Dasanami. Btw, just for the information of your Swami, I have been to three Kumbha Melas unil now. Of course I am not a Sadhu, but I have lived in the tents with them. So I do have a bit more practical observation than you think > T: My Guru said that in her case, there is one > being groomed now for this position, but this is one that has taken > sanyas and it simply is a flow that this person is selected. My Gurus > general comments are this is how a Guru is appointed, not by wanting > to be Guru or declaring ones self to be one. > > * Traditionally this is the case. > > G yes And ? there are no but's - this is the way it has been and > continues to remain. I am not arguing about this. But this doesn't give us any argument if a person is enlightened or not. Swami G is sonding like Swami Dayananda, in this infamous 'What is Enlightenment' article (http://www.wie.org/j14/dayananda.asp), where he says Ramana could not be fully enlightened, or maybe I got it wrong, then at least he wasn#t entitled to teach about it, as he has not studied the scriptures. I cite from the article: "Fueled by his conviction in the supreme efficacy of scriptural study, Swami Dayananda is unabashed in his criticism of "mystics" who say that the way to enlightenment is through spiritual experience alone. In fact, both in his writings and in one of our dialogues with him, he even went so far as to express doubt about the realization of the widely revered but unschooled modern sage Ramana Maharshi—adding that there may be millions of Indian householders with a similar level of attainment!" Here I feel is a similarity of attitude. Take for example the use of the word 'householder' in the above pragraph, and Swami G's emphasis that only Sadhus could be full students. What is one to think then of Ramana, being a self-apponted Guru, as very obviously he has not been appointed by any other Guru or 'trained to be his successor' So what? That's for you to answer so what? I guess Sri Aurobindo, Swami Nityananda are probably in the same category, not to talk of Jiddu Krishnamurty, Ammachi, Mother Meera and many others. > * But look at the controversies in many traditions, Hindu and > Buddhist - very often the succession is not clear. > > G look succession was not clear when it came to Guru Dev. That > Math had no heir for over 100 Years. - Guru Dev was choosen and > approved by the other Shankaracharya's. That is true. > > But there is NO way - not ANYWHERE - that a Shankaracharya > is going to appoint a brahmachari that is not even a full swami as > the one to carry on as a Guru. ------ he may give him blessings but > he most assuredly will not appoint him to buck the whole of the > tradition. And what you are putting forth would be exactly that. But who claims that MMY was to 'buck the wole tradition'? Obviously GD appointed another Swami to be his successor on the Shankaracharya chair - and even about that there is controversy. But all this has nothing to do with enlightenment and the ability to teach. I think Swami G is coming from a very conservative, and I feel, excuse me the word, restricted perspective. What I understand is that to continue a tradition, one has to go by the rules, no doubt. One has a responsibility in that. What I don't understand is the kind of conservative mindset behind it. Just to name these great teachers: Ramana, Aurobindo, Anandamayi Ma, Krishnamurty etc - they are all 'self-appointed' teachers in the eyes of your Guru, and would therefore be illegimate by the same logic she is applying to MMY. > > * There maybe contradiory statements of the Guru, like in the > case of Muktananda, > > G Muktananda was also not held up or appointed. i have this > on full reliability with one that was With Nithyananda at his > passing. Nithyananda left his body by will - and was quite > clear as to why. This is another matter though one that i > will not get into at this point in time. As far as I heard Nithyananda was a kind of Avadhuta himself. > > * or simply missing public instructions, or the > tradition has a certain restrictive format, like in the case of GD. > > G i know what the restrictions are within this tradition. i also know > what mantras are given - i know the in's and outs of this tradition > as far as what the Dasnami traditions do and don't do. --- did you > know that we have a secret language that one initiate Sadhu speaks > to another ? This way we can distinguish who is a Sadhu versus > who has adopted the clothing. There are other secret practices > which are clearly known to true intiated which general public > has no knowledge of. And i am not within liberty to speak of them > openly as this would be a violation of this tradition. > > there is no way a full initiate would be wearing white - and while > he may claim Guru Dev as his Guru, like stated before there is > no way a Full initiate and most certainly a Shakaracharya that > holds the rules of the order intact is going to appoint a > half initiate as a guru. > > * Therefor I think your Gurus assesment is somewhat restrictive. > > G you may think what you want - you may read what you want. > But UNTIL you actually are initiated into one of the 10 Dasanimi > Orders and actually live in india within that tradition there is no > way you can determine fact from made up press. And there is a LOT > of Made Up Press with Mahesh Yogi. Notice it is not Swami > Mahesh-Saraswati > Nor is it Mahesh-Giri , nor Mahesh-Bharati etc. He may claim to be a part > of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again > let > it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most > certainly > could have become an full initiate. - How so? His master was a Saraswati. He could initiate him only into Saraswati, but that he was not allowed, by the rules of that order. > > * I also agree lagely with the critics of MMY's public antics, with > the critics > of many that the focus of the movement shifted to all these side > issues, etc > > G so you can see part of it - Do you REALLY think that ANY Sampradya > would stand behind any of this ? Does it shed a good light on the > Tradition ? Well obviously a number of Shankaracharya successors, like Shantanad or Vishnudevanand or now Vasudevanand, who by the way has the key to the original mathas of Jyotir math and the Math in Allahabad, where I have seem him, and who is endorsed by the traditional Hindi party, the BJP, have endorsed Maharishi. As I say, I know there is a dispute about the Shankaracharya succession in the north, but the there aere also disputes if the successor to the Kanch Mutt was involved in murder, you see. > T: My Guru started a TM yahoo discussion group, there are already some > posts up about this subject: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > or try this: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TM_Discussion/?yguid=228252276 > > My Guru is from the same tradition as TM's Guru Dev. This is really funny! Why would you do this? Wouldn't it be enough to have a thread on your already existing yahoo-groups? > > G i am of two lineages Giri and Puri - i have connection with two > of the 10 Dasanami divisions. ---- Even in the US i still have ties > to the malibu temple which is connected with the southern Kanchipuram > Math. in Sept. we will be initiating a few into Sannyas. > > * Obviously not, as she is a westerner, and could not have been made a > swami in the saraswati order of he Dasanami Sampradaya. Lucky for, > otherwise she would also be a 'self-appointed Guru' > > G The Jhuna Achraya in fact has had women initiates and does allow them > for years. The Achraya is located in Haridwar. i know many of the Sadhus > that are around Rishikesh, Haridwar and Badrinath. Sure, there are many western sadhus and also women sadhus with the Juna Akadha. I have also contacts with the Avahana Akhada that is associated to the Juna, and they even have an italian as a mahant, I have seen them at the Kumbha Melas in Allahabad and Ujjain. I also saw a belgium woman there, being a sadhu, and a number of other women. I was also invited to join, but then I am not into smoking. But then, as stated above, the Naga babas are less peculiar about caste, because of the historical reasons described above. >My First Sadhaka was > a Sadhu living in one of the caves in Badrinath. Most of the dasanami's > traditions have been wanderers - they don't live in Ashrams. > Traditionally > while one is seeking they are to only remain in one place for a maximum > of 3 days - this is so they don't build up attachments. During the > rainy season > though they may remain in one place and then you give whatever teachings > you have to the people in that area. Now though more and more Sadhus > are building and staying in transient kutias (huts) for a time. When > living > outside one builds and maintains a Dhunni - this fire is a representation > of Shiva - it is kept with great respect. Unfortunately so many in > this tradition > have gone the way of taking charas and talking bullcrap most of the day > rather than doing the internal Sadhana that is required to enter > Realization. Yes that is true. But I have been in a tent full of Dasnami swamis not of the Naga type, and I can tell you they don't seem to be too much into meditation either. > IN Haridwar and Rishikesh this Swami is very much respected for the > fact that i am not a smoker of charas not of ganja ------- there are a > Few > that are keeping the tradition minus the drugs but they are becoming > fewer > and fewer. > > My suggestion is you go to india --- spend time with the Sadhus and > Sadhvis > within the Dasanami traditions and then you will find out with more > clarity just > where Mahesh Yogi comes from. The Dasanami's are the ones who during > Khumbamella are sky clad - sans clothing. We carry the Danda as a symbol > of Upholding the Tradition and will fight if need be to protect it. That is within the Nagas. I have been myself to India 8-9 times and been 3 times to Kumbha Melas. I would certainly investigate the Dasanamis more if i wasn't sold out already to another master - unconventional - self-appointed in your language (not Maharishi). But here in the house where I live, there is a Swami from the south who is head of several mutts, who are associated to the Dasanami, and I have been to his mutt in Tiruvannamallai this january and last year in his main mutt near Madurai. > and it also > represents that we are of the ONE divine Being. There is such a > disconnect > between reading about the Dasanami traditions and actually living it. > > i feel the tradition needs to be updated Especially in context of > living within > the US. Even in india things are going through a change. - but saying > this > before making changes within a tradition one has to First understand the > foundations of it. Sure, I agree on that > > Maha Shanti OM > 0 >
