Hello, I forwarded this to Swami G, there have been really a lot of eamils today.
Anyway, what is a Braman? Swami G has pointed out in the past what a Braman really is, as opposed to how it is practiced today- something like what american gem society did to clasify birthstones in order to sell the stones- but the selcetion of the gems was coming from a deeper science- this is only an analogy, not really necessary that I commented at all as I only was shown the tradition as Swami G is recomending that people witness so that it is removed from the book knowledge to some direct experience I will forward Swami G's response so hold off on making any comment from what I just wrote Tanmay --- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Ron" <sidha7001@> 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 outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way?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 > > >
