Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November 30th, 2011

Date: 30 Nov 2011 10:46:08 -0000
From: “Hariish Dev”
To: am-global@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Lack of Understanding About Guru

Baba

== RE: LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT GURU ==

Namaskar,
I appreciate the initial letter (link appended below) on this important topic and want to add something more. So this is a follow-up about the book Bhagavan Anandamurti by Narada (Suva) and why it is inappropriate to address Baba as being merely a bhagavan.

Specifically I am writing for those with problems understanding Baba’s teachings on this topic.

1. As was shown in the first letter, Parama Purusa is far higher than bhagavan. A bhagavan is anyone who has attained such attribution by practicing sadhana; whereas, Parama Purusa is that unique, singular Divine Entity. Yes Baba is bhagavan, but He is also so much more than that.

CANNOT INTRODUCE A RESPECTED PROFESSOR

AS A GRADUATE OF PRIMARY SCHOOL

2. If a respected professor with a Ph.D. in astro-physics who serves as the head of the physics department at a prestigious university is introduced to give a lecture, then the person making the introduction will not say, “Please welcome this person who is literate and has completed primary school up to class 5.”

Yes the professor did indeed complete primary school, but he also successfully completed years and years of study and advance research and received degrees from the finest universities. So although it is not false to say that he completed primary school, at the same time it is totally inappropriate because that type of introduction does not at all reflect his true qualification and scholarship. Hence, it is entirely misleading to introduce the professor in this way.

CANNOT INTRODUCE PURODHA PRAMUKHA

AS MERELY BEING A TATTVIKA

2a. In the same way if respected Purodha Pramukha Dada is escorted onto the stage to address an audience, then the person introducing him will not say, “Here I present to you a two-legged, living being.” Although it is correct that esteemed PP Dada is a living being with two legs, but to introduce him as such does not at all glorify his personae. Because PP Dada has much more status than just a living being. Thus to introduce him as such – overlooking the fact that he is Purodha Pramukha – is misleading, rude, and inappropriate.

CANNOT PRESENT PARAMA PURUSA BABA

AS MERELY BEING BHAGAVAN

3. Similarly, it is entirely misleading and inappropriate to introduce Baba as being merely a bhagavan when He is the God incarnate, Parama Purusa. When writing a book about Baba it should not be titled as Bhagavan Anandamurti nor should the aim of the book be to prove Baba as being bhagavan. Because bhagavan is a relatively common term attainable by an ordinary sadhaka whereas Baba being the Parama Purusa is so much more than just bhagavan.

Baba says, “The collective name of these six qualities [aeshvarya, viiryam, yasha, shrii, jina’nam, va’ra’gya] is bhaga, and one who has fully imbibed these six qualities is bhagaván. Any great person can be called bhagaván in this sense, but my Párthasárathi is not such a one. What is He? Krśńastu Bhagaván svayam – that is, “He is God incarnate.” He is Púrńa Brahma, Púrńa Bhagaván.” (Namami Krsna Sundaram, Disc 24: Párthasárathi Krśńa and Pariprashna)

According to Baba’s above teaching, any sadhaka who gets these occult powers can be called bhagavan. Hence Baba has respectfully given the titles Bhagavan Buddha, Bhagavan Shankaracarya, and Bhagavan Mahaviira etc. Over the ages, many have become bhagvan by their intense sadhana practice.

But we never classify these aforementioned sages as being Parama Purusa or Taraka Brahma or Purusottama. We do not say Parama Purusa Buddha, or Taraka Brahma Shankaracarya, or Purusottama Mahaviira etc. This is not done.

Thus we must acknowledge the clear-cut difference between bhagavan and Parama Purusa. To call sadhakas like Buddha and Shankaracarya as bhagavan is an honorable and respectable title as they gave much effort to attain that stance. But to call Parama Purusa Baba as bhagavan is not at all fitting as He is far beyond that ordinary stance of being bhagavan. Being the Parama Purusa He has an infinite number of attributions whereas a bhagavan possesses a mere six qualities. Thus there is no comparison.

So just as Baba guides us that Krsna is not merely a bhagavan but rather Parama Purusa incarnate, similarly we should think of and describe Baba in the same manner.

BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BHAGAVAN AND BHAGAVAN SVAYAM

4. Along these lines some are confused and think that bhagvan and bhagavan svayam are the same and interchangeable. When in truth these two terms are worlds apart.

Krśńastu Bhagaván svayam – that is, “He is God incarnate”

Bhagavan svayam refers to the Divine Entity Who has the inherent quality of being bhagavan as well as an infinite more number of qualities. Only Parama Purusa is bhagavan svayam. That is the specific point Baba has declared.

In stark contrast contrast, any ordinary human being can become a bhagavan by their sustained efforts in sadhana. They must get this status by doing pointed meditation.

Whereas, Parama Purusa need not do anything at all to be Bhagavan svayam. That is part and parcel of His Personae, along with so much more. By His mere existence He is bhagavan svayam.

So there should not be any confusion about this. None should mistakenly think that because Baba says that He is Bhagaván svayam that therefore He is a mere bhagavan. It is not like that.

Bhagavan svayam means Parama Purusa Himself whereas bhagavan merely refers to any sadhaka who has practiced sadhana and attained the six attributions or occult powers of bhagavan.

Bhagavan svayam only refers to that unique entity who is Parama Purusa Himself whereas bhagavan is a general title for any person who has gained those six qualities.

So the term Bhagavan svayam in no way denotes that He is merely a bhagavan. The term, Bhagavan svayam, means that He is Parama Purusa, i.e. that singular Divine Entity with whom no one can be compared.

If anyone is still confused about this they should do strong sadhana and then read Baba’s discourses. Then the matter will be perfectly clear.

Here is yet another of Baba’s teachings on this matter.

Baba says, “He cannot be compared with any other being, because He is incomparable, perfect in theory and also perfect in practice, the rśis of that time spoke of Him as ananyapáy [unparalleled]. They said of Him, Krśńastu Bhagaván svayaḿ [“Krśńa is Parama Puruśa Himself”].” (Discourses on Krsna and the Giita, Krśńa Unparalleled)

HOW TO RECTIFY THIS MATTER

Clear, practical steps should be taken to address the inherent error in writing a book called, Bhagavan Anandamurti, as Narada of Australia has done.

Basically those with that book should throw it away. Or at the very least the cover of the book should be completely torn off and in its place a note of warning should be attached stating:

“WARNING: The contents of this book are defective as Narada wrongly wrote this book to prove Baba as bhagavan, when in truth our Lord Shrii Shrii Anandamurtiji Baba is Parama Purusa and not just an ordinary bhagavan. Beware! This book should be tossed away or updated accordingly.”

Failing that, failing to alert others about the inherent defects of this book, our kids, new margiis, relatives and more will get a negative message by reading this text.

We may leave this world after few hundred years but books remain on this earth much longer and this particular book will spread a defective, dogmatic, and faulty message. We should raise our voice that this book be permanently banned until it is reprinted with a proper title and all its contents updated. The actual text must reflect the true spirit of Baba’s teachings.

Finally, some confused persons write such books just to show themselves as being “great intellectuals”. But they do not know how much harm they are doing by spreading their dogmatic views. Narada has done such a blunder. He stole others’ experiences and copied some of Baba’s teachings and then hastily made this book. All done to remove his inferiority complex of being an illiterate man.

We all know there are so many constructive ways of eliminating one’s psychic complex; but writing a dogmatic book about Guru is not one of them. Why should Narada try to overcome his complex by undermining Baba.

I have regard for Narada as a human being but on this ideological matter his dealing cannot be supported.

CONCLUSION

As disciples of Shrii Shrii Anandamurtiji, our main and sole intention in life is to glorify Him and spread His divine teachings. Thus no book about Baba should aim to prove Him as being a mere bhagavan. To do so is to undermine His lofty status as being the Parama Purusa. We should all be crystal-clear about this so we can best please and serve Him.

Namaskar,
Hari Deva

Note: LINK TO EARLIER LETTER ON THIS TOPIC

http://am-global-01.blogspot.com/2011/11/lack-of-understanding-about-guru.html

Advertisements

Read Full Post »