Oh … that Grain of Rice!

 

“We should feel the pain of the hungry doggie limping along on the road, the monkey mother who lost her baby, the tree whose branches were savagely lopped-off by the road maintenance crew, the aged lonely beggar-woman sitting by the roadside with not a friend in the world, the newcomer morosely sitting in the hall struggling with Vichara without a clue as to what its all about and being noisy, the grain of rice that was not consumed but lies forlorn on the plate as if saying “I survived storm and drought and locusts over many months to offer myself to you, but you abandoned me just like that …”; and then we may “be Love”...”

 

These lines are taken from my earlier post “Vidya of Vichara III; ‘Anbu Punume’” put up on 21st Apr 2013. I was trying to give expression to the idea of true compassion, of how we need to “be love”. Then, the compassion or love throbbing within us will, on its own, ensure that we are kind to those in need; and indeed, in the context of this post now, not let us waste even one grain of rice. The implication clearly was that Bhagavan’s great emphasis on not wasting anything at all, of clearing His leaf-plate of even the last morsel of rice when He ate, came from the great natural and inherent compassion (love) of the Jnani Sage; thus setting an example for the disciple to follow.   

I received an interesting, anonymous query asking (paraphrased):

Seshadri Swami was a great self-realized sage too. But we read of how he would eat only a little food and scatter most of it all around. He would enter a house or a shop and throw rice grains all around and into the mud. Does that imply that he had no compassion within him like what you describe, since he showed none towards the poor grains of rice? That he wasted precious food in the midst of so many hungry beggar-people in Tiruvannamalai? How would you reconcile the 2 positions, of one Jnani not wasting even one grain of rice, and the other tossing them away casually?

My unknown friend also makes it clear that he/she is rather fed up with the usual responses such questions get, such as: who knows about the behaviour of Jnanis?; the behaviour of a Jnani may not be understood by non-Jnanis; as many Jnanis, that many patterns of behaviour!; focus on your sadhana and do not waste time on understanding why a Jnani does what he does; and so on.

At the outset it may be appreciated that this query on the difference in behaviour with respect to the grains of rice as exemplified by Bhagavan and Seshadri Swami, is in effect a query on the broader question of why 2 Jnanis should show divergent behaviour. Given that Bhagavan has categorically stated that there are no degrees of Self-realization, and that the state of one Jnani is exactly the same as the state of any other Jnani, the query immediately becomes a very complex one. And one which, as a sadhaka like everybody else, I can only hope to rudimentarily answer.

[There may be some out there who may not be willing to accept that Seshadri Swami was Self-realized, and a Jnani. That does not really matter. For the purpose of this post they may take him as being representative of any acceptable, alternate, Self-realized  Sage, whose public behaviour was in stark contrast to Bhagavan’s].

The World to a Jnani

For a start we know that it is not possible for a non-Jnani to really understand and appreciate how the world is seen by a Jnani. But we have pointers and clues given to us by Bhagavan, other Gurus, and the sacred texts.

“That which is called ‘I’ (nan) having gone, that which is called ‘Self’ (tan) shines. Sometimes the universe itself does not appear.”

[sayings of Sri Bhagavan recorded by Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai under the heading ‘Sri Ramana Maharshigalin Upadesa Mozhigal’ from the Mountain Path, June 1995, Pg 47; article by Michael James on the text ‘Who am I’].

 

So again, as ordinary folks, we may not be sure whether a grain of rice was seen to be a grain of rice as such by Bhagavan or Seshadri Swami. But what we may be certain of  is that a grain of rice was seen (or not seen) in an identical manner by both. Simplistically put, both “saw” it as Brahman with no distinctions.

Seshadri Swami then, from the Jnani’s view of no differentiation, did not distinguish between the grain of rice and mud, or even the ambient “ether” which held the grain of rice. When he tossed the grains of rice all around, he might as well have been drawing with a white pen (like the type with the white correction fluid) on a white sheet of paper, if you get what I mean. For him then, in the distinction-less, amorphous mass (?) of whatever it is that the Jnani sees and experiences, a blow with his stick to the head of the person kneeling before him in devotion, would be the same as a loving, compassionate caress.   

But Bhagavan, despite having exactly the same “view”, would with care and attention, eat the last fragment of a grain of rice from his plate. And exhibit all the characteristic actions of compassion and love as are given in that para from Anbu Punume. In fact, every act of His throughout the day and night was carried out with perfection, laying down a paradigm of the ideal Guru, and an example of preferred behaviour for the would-be seeker.

 

And thus, one explanation for my unknown friend’s query suggests itself: that Bhagavan was also, specifically, carrying out the role of a great Guru.

 

 

The Great Atiashrami Guru

 

Let me refer to my last post ‘The Guru-shishya  relationship’ (11th Feb 2014), and bring in the great atiashrami Guru. The point was made that though Bhagavan Himself denied the role of a Guru in a formal sense, even a rudimentary study of His life and teachings brings out the fact that in effect, He was the exemplar nonpareil of one such. And so, every act of His was perfection itself, an example for others to follow, Supreme Dharma in its own right.

 

Every atiashrami is in a natural way a Guru, but Seshadri Swami’s role was more of the nature of those Sages who give darshan only, into whose presence devotees may passively  come and imbibe blessings; rather than of those who teach a great sadhana, give lots of instruction, and answer many queries. And, as he was not playing the “role” of a Guru, he had no need to be an exemplar of spiritual behaviour, and could behave in the erratic manner that he did.

Ah !  But ...

Folks, admittedly the foregoing explanation goes about half-way only in explaining this difficult issue. It works in this instance where the other Jnani in consideration is Seshadri Swami, who was not in the “role” of a Guru. But my unknown but very persistent friend who initiated the query in the first place will say - what if the second Jnani was a Guru too, one who interacted on an ongoing basis with sadhakas, whilst also displaying “aberrant” behaviour? Certainly, examples may be found of such Gurus.

And if we study the literature on this issue, we find some other explanations, all inadequate. The most common ones are:

-   That there are several categories of Jnanis: superior, middling, and inferior, and their actions are in concord with their “level”. But simple logic tells us that this is unsound. And also, more significantly, we have Bhagavan’s categorical statements that there are no differences between Jnanis.

-   That prarabdha karma carries on after enlightenment too, that the body is doomed, in a sense, to carry out its pre-ordained acts like an arrow shot from a bow that cannot be pulled back. And thus different Jnanis act differently as per their pre-determined karma playing out. Again, this was brushed aside by Bhagavan:

Sri Bhagavan: “If one says that the sage is free from the accumulated karma of past actions [sanchita] and the karma now being made [agamya] but is subject to the karma that is to be worked out in this life [prarabdha], that is only to satisfy others who ask about it. You should know that just as none of a man’s wives can remain unwidowed on his death, when the doer is gone, none of the three forms of karma can survive.” [From: “Sri Ramana Darsanam”, Pg 106; Also: Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, verse 33].

Actually, the problem lies our erroneously taking the actions of the Jnani in the world as his prarabdha karma playing out. Whereas, the ONLY prarabdha karma in play, in the first place, is ours and ours alone. Or to put it more accurately, the one Jiva’s.

The view from Eka-Jiva (One-Jiva)

It is my humble opinion that the only way to understand Bhagavan’s teachings in significant depth, and even the great truths from scripture, is from the viewpoint of eka-Jiva-vada (“the doctrine of eka-Jiva”). Though a detailed exposition on this topic is beyond the scope of this post, a few preliminary points may be outlined to enable us to tackle the issue at hand.

The basic theory is succinctly laid down by the great Madhusudan Saraswati in his Siddhanta Bindu [Para 76, translation by Sri S. N. Sastri, published by Adi Sankara Advaita Research Centre, Chennai]:

“... Consciousness limited by nescience is the Jiva. This is the main Vedanta theory, known as the theory of a single Jiva (eka Jiva). This itself is called ‘drishtisrishtivada’. In this view the Jiva himself is the material and efficient cause of the universe through his own nescience. All the objects perceived are illusory (like things seen in dream). The delusion that there are many Jivas is only due to there being many bodies. Liberation is attained by the single Jiva on realization of the Self as a result of the perfection of hearing, reflection etc., with the help of the Guru and the scriptures which are all conjured up by him. The statements about Suka and others having attained Liberation are only by way of eulogy…”  

 

We know that Bhagavan held that eka-Jiva is the ultimate truth [actually, though not so easily apparent, the doctrine of eka Jiva runs concomitant with Ajata]. Bhagavan’s detailed analogies comparing the seen world to the dream world are characteristic of the type of arguments put forward in this system. My earlier post (8th Feb 2013) entitled “Just as Dream and Magic…” gave a whole series of quotes by Bhagavan on this theme. And from there I will pick out just one to try and explain the query at hand.

[From: “Mountain Path”, 1969, Pg 89; “Wake Us Up”, by R. Narayana Iyer]

I once asked Sri Bhagavan: “If all that we see is mere illusion, and no more real than a dream, what about the form before us, on the couch talking to us about Truth and Reality?”

He remained silent for a few seconds. I repeated the question. He called for a Tamil book Ozhuvil Odukkam and read out and explained the second verse in it, which said that a Jnani is, to his disciple in jagrat (our state of wakefulness), like a lion in the dream of a mad elephant. The dream lion startles and wakes up the elephant – the lion, the dream and the elephant vanish and what is, remains. Even so the enlightened Guru wakes up the adept disciple to absolute Reality in which there is neither Guru nor sishya.

“Bhagavan, we are still asleep. Wake us up”, I said.

“Who is it that is asleep, and who is it that wants to be woken up. Find that out first, and all doubts will vanish”, said Sri Bhagavan. I was not satisfied. Then Sri Bhagavan said: “Last night you met a number of persons in your dream. Now, how would it look if I were to ask you to go and tell everyone of them, ‘you are not real’, ‘you are not real’, etc. What you say now is similar to that.

 

In the world seen by Arvind, who is the illusory dream-perceiver arisen in the “sleep” of the one-Jiva (that is nought but Brahman), every individual, object and event is just like an individual, object etc. seen in a dream. Therein, even the great Jnani Guru is just another dream character - albeit one much worshipped and loved by the said Arvind, who recognises Him as an infinitely superior and a very special entity. The Jnani-Guru is Brahman taken form out of Grace, with the sole intention of waking up the Jiva. Like the lion in the dream of an elephant, the Jnani-Guru startles the said Arvind into oblivion, and the Jiva wakes up as Brahman.  

The foregoing is especially set in terms centric to “Arvind” because that is how we have to view the unfolding of the eka Jiva logic. To elucidate further, Bhagavan has appeared in Arvind’s dream with specific attributes which would be efficacious in startling Arvind into oblivion and waking up the underlying Jiva. These attributes include those of spontaneous compassion and love which shines out even for a grain of rice, or a hacked up tree, or a limping monkey. What attributes other Gurus have or not have, or even if they are Jnanis in the first place or not, are all peripheral for Arvind. The Lion in Arvind’s dream is Bhagavan and Bhagavan alone.

So folks, for Arvind you all are objects in a dream. But for you, obviously, you are not. Each one who can feel herself/himself as an entity with a throbbing ‘I’ in the Heart, may substitute her/his own name for “Arvind” in the above, and see who is the Lion in their dream. Is it Bhagavan? Or is it Seshadri Swami? Or is it someone else? And then you have to be primarily concerned with the attributes as displayed by that “Lion”. The attributes of others are just like the differing attributes we find amongst the vast multitude of human beings. And comparing one to the other is as fruitless as comparing any one arbitrary person with another. Not that what the other characters do or say is meaningless. The whole scene is carefully crafted by the Lion to “startle”. The “movie” is, in fact, lovingly produced and directed by the Lion, every act and event being thus completely pre-destined.

And so, in Arvind's world, Seshadri Swami is just another character, albeit a much respected and loved one, and as a great Jnani Sage, again infinitely superior to the character Arvind. But his lines and actions too were written out carefully by the Director-Bhagavan for the perceiver-Arvind (like the lines and acts of every other entity). And specifically, perhaps, his act of tossing of rice all about him was written into the screenplay by Bhagavan for Arvind to pause and ponder “why so?”, and thus gain spiritual insights to take one step closer to be “startled” into oblivion, enabling Brahman to shine forth.

In Conclusion

If we were to be asked: why do any 2 ordinary persons behave differently? We would immediately come up with a reply of the type - they have different personalities, or that their intrinsic nature is different. But a Jnani having no personality and being Brahman Itself, is “reduced” to The Identity. All Jnanis thus, by following simple logic, should not exist at all in the world as they should disappear on Self-realization; or else, at least display identical behaviour. But in the world we see that Jnanis not only exist, but behave as differently from each other as do ordinary persons. This is the basic conundrum.

Folks, I believe that it is only from the eka-Jiva viewpoint on the lines as above, can any reasonable explanation for this conundrum be found. Admittedly, eka-Jiva is not a doctrine easily understood, or even palatable to many of us. I struggle too with some of the staggering conclusions that it leads to. But we know how firmly Bhagavan held this view. And for me at least, that gives it legitimacy like that of the highest scripture.

 

As always, comments are most welcome folks!
 

The Guru-shishya Relationship

“There is one thing though that I am absolutely, completely, certainly certain of: that a proper "Guru-shishya" (Master-disciple) relationship, as defined in scripture, exists between Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi and me.”

 

I wrote this in my Introduction as given in the “Profile” section of the blog. I received an interesting query via email as to what prompted the qualification “as defined in scripture”; and what exactly is mentioned in the sacred texts regarding the Guru-shishya relationship.

 

Now we know that the Guru-shishya relationship is not defined in any one place in scripture, but aspects of it are found scattered in many ancient texts. So wide and varied is the literature that the full gamut of this complex relationship can only be covered in a voluminous tome, and is much beyond the scope of a humble blog. This post therefore has a somewhat sharper focus – on examining the Guru-shishya relationship in the context of Sri Bhagavan’s extraordinary life, and His role as a Guru. It is well known that Bhagavan never accepted disciples in the manner we usually expect from Gurus. This apparently caused some confusion in people’s minds even when Bhagavan was in the body. Did they have a Guru-shishya relationship with Bhagavan or were they “devotees” only? And then, of particular relevance today would be the query – is it possible to have such a relationship with a Master who is no longer in the body? And one whom the disciple has never physically met during his (her) lifetime?



Preliminary

My remark “as defined in scripture”, so seemingly innocuous, makes a reply to the questions raised above complicated beyond belief. I have to start with a few basic concepts as a refresher then, to highlight the difficulties in viewing Sri Bhagavan as a Guru in the traditional sense.


I.   Roles of the Guru from “Tradition”

Three broad roles may be attributed to the Guru: first as the ‘Jagatguru’, literally meaning ‘Guru of the World’. A ‘Mathadhish’ (head of a ‘Matham’, a monastery, a religious Institution) can be a Jagatguru. He is thus a Guru for the general public, for all those who may (or may not) visit the Matham. As there is no specific ‘diksha’ (‘initiation’) given, no “formal” Guru-shishya relationship is established with the individual. Note that the term does not imply that any Guru who teaches to the public at large is a Jagatguru. Inherent to the meaning is the sense that the Master in this role has extraordinary spiritual qualities that are eminently suited for the instruction (and interpretation) of broad dharma for all, a Divine mandate of sorts. The Sankaracharyas of the Kanchi Matham over the centuries would be good examples of Jagatgurus.

A Jagatguru could also give diksha to certain members of the public, in which case he becomes the Guru for that individual, and a proper Guru-shishya relationship gets established. As already mentioned however, few Masters have the Divine mandate to be Jagatgurus. And so most Masters that we may come across would be “Gurus” only. Which implies that they would have a few (or many even) selected ‘dikshita’ (“initiated”) disciples, with the Guru-shishya relationship fully in play for each of them.

A Guru also becomes a ‘Kulaguru’ (‘Kula’ meaning the familial lineage), in that the Guru of the father is also the Guru, after a fashion, of the sons and descendants. There is no initiation for the descendants, but they show special love and respect for the father’s Guru, and receive the same in turn from the (Kula) Guru. The sons and descendants may also have a different Master as their own Guru.


II.   The responsibilities of the Gurus in these Roles

Let me carry on a bit on the Jagatguru, Kulaguru and Guru theme. We may keep in mind that the same Master can carry out all three roles depending on the counterpart, i.e. the entity/group on the other side. The direct responsibility with respect to teachings and actions narrows down from the first to the last.

In the role of the Jagatguru, the Master has for his canvas the whole universe. His teachings will be geared towards preaching the broad ‘dharma’ for the populace as a whole, for society. Most of the teaching will come via ‘pravachans’ (public discourses), or lectures given in small groups, or treatises written on spiritual issues. Individuals may extract appropriate aspects from the general teaching then, to assist in their personal spiritual growth. In a similar vein, the acts of the Jagatguru would be such that the general betterment of society may happen. For instance: doing puja for general welfare, the running of spiritual schools (such as vedapathashalas), opening of hospitals, development of backward communities, renovation and construction of temples, and so on. Again, a fine example being the role played by the Kanchi Sankaracharyas as Mathadishes.

Then, as the Kulaguru, the canvas narrows down to the one specific Kula or family. The Kulaguru is concerned about the spiritual and worldly betterment of the whole family. He may have specific teachings for the spiritual growth of the members of that family. And He could be assisting in the education of the children, their marriages, their death ceremonies, and so on.

And for the ‘Guru’ of course, the canvas is just the one individual, the shisya. With the Guru-shishya relationship in place, the Guru’s intense attention is then focussed on the spiritual advancement of that one person. He takes over the full responsibility for that individual.

III.   The role of diksha, ‘Initiation’

It is a given that diksha is the key element defining the Guru-shishya relationship. It is also vastly misunderstood by most of us in my humble opinion. Part of the problem is that the scriptural authority for it developed over the centuries in a curious manner.

Scriptural sanction for it can be traced back to the Vedas, though scholars seem to hold that the Rg Veda is silent on the topic. Mircea Eliade, the celebrated Polish scholar of religious studies wrote “The Rg Veda seems to know nothing of the diksha, but it is documented in the Atharva Veda” [In “Birth and Rebirth”, New York: Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 54-5]. But we know that the Rg Veda has an intricate symbolism all of its own, not easy to catch. I found some "chatter" on the net that “… mantro guruh punarastu so asmai” in Rg Veda (1.147.4) refers to diksha, and that may well be right. Mircea Eliade’s work, however, quotes the Atharva Veda (11.5.6) wherein the term “dikshita” first appears, Aitareya Brahmana (1.3) [“… Him to whom they give the diksha, the priests make into an embryo again ….”], and other texts. The imagery is that the Guru causes the shishya to die and be reborn, in a manner fit for the ritual, and hence spiritual discipline and achievements.

 

Thereafter, though there are scattered references to the process of diksha in texts like the Mahabharata (again in relation to the performance of specific rituals, in a manner analogous to the Vedas), the term diksha was specially refined and developed by works classifiable as “Tantra”. The ritual of diksha in Tantric schools achieves a “transference” of spiritual power from the Guru to the shishya. And as such the term diksha in general terms too, irrespective of whether the school was Tantric or not, came to be understood by most as the process by which the Guru transfers some or all of his spiritual powers to the disciple. Different texts will also classify diksha into several types: hasta diksha (initiation by hand), sparsa diksha (by touch), chaksu diksha (by look), sabda dikhsa (by voice), mano diksha (by mind), and so on. And nowadays most of us would consider the establishment of the Guru-shishya relationship to happen only via one of these methods.

 

In my humble opinion however, the term diksha simply signifies that a Guru-shisya relationship is established, howsoever it might be, transference or no transference. Diksha is nought but the Guru’s Grace. This Grace is ever-present. Upon the unconditional surrender to the Guru, the shishya can access the flow of Grace of the Guru. He (she) is then a dikshita. This is brought out in the sections that follow below.

 

 

IV.   Sri Bhagavan as Guru – the seeming contradictions.

 

We are all familiar with Bhagavan’s extraordinary life, and may now appreciate the problems associated with looking at Him in the context of a formal Guru-shishya relationship:

 

Do we look at Him as a Jagatguru or a Guru? Of course, the special Divine element needed for being a Jagatguru could not have been more abundant than in Him. But then what about the crucial public presence and interaction? He never made any public discourses or taught spiritual matters in any formal manner to any groups etc. All His teachings were essentially responses to individual queries. Nor was He involved in any generalized social or religious services of any sort. He did not associate with sastraic teachings, temple renovations or the running of a matham and so on. Sri Ramanasramam grew up around Him on its own, and He left its supervision strictly to the Sarvadhikari. So, taking the traditional meaning of the term, He could not be a “Jagatguru”. 

 

Nor did He ever accept anyone formally (or in the traditional sense) as a shishya. He never “gave” diksha to anyone by any of the methods enumerated above. He consistently maintained that He was not a Guru, and He had no disciples. He did not establish a school or lineage, and nor did He appoint a successor to carry-on the teachings. So He could not be a “Guru” either, in the manner usually understood by us. And once it is taken that He was not a Guru, then He could not have been a Kulaguru either.

 

But, of course, Sri Bhagavan carried out all three roles! The sections that follow examine exactly how this could be. 



Sri Bhagavan as Guru


I.   The Great ‘Atiashrami’

The word ‘ashrama’ comes from the root {shram}, meaning “weariness”, “toil” or “labour”. ‘Ashrama’ hence literally means “a place to rest from one’s toils”. Though nowadays the term is usually taken to mean a hermitage or monastery, a physical resting place is only secondarily implied.  It actually refers to the mini-gestalt within which a jiva (individual) “rests” as certain characteristic roles (toils) of his or her life progressively play out. Thus, scripture specifies 4 ashramas of life – brahmacarya (the mini wholeness wherein the childhood role is played out), grihasta (wherein the role of a family person is played out), vanaprastha (role of the forest dweller, or the start of the spiritual Quest), and sannyasa (role of the renunciate seeker).

In scripture the term usually used in this context will be ‘varnashrama’. ‘Varna’, also, comes from the root {vri} [we discussed this root in the context of ‘vritti’ in the previous post “Desire for the Self”]. Thus varna essentially means ‘a covering’, ‘a cloak’, ‘the exterior’, ‘the outward appearance’. Therefore the technical term varnashrama in its purest sense means something like “the mini wholeness within which the jiva seemingly rests, but which is actually just a veiling of the Real Thing within which he is actually resting, as certain characteristic toils of his life progressively play out”. It is only secondarily that the term varna became synonymous with “caste” or “social stage”. In the context of our discussion here, ashrama may be taken to be a shorter form of varnashrama, and identical with it.

Traditionally, every individual, whether shishya or Guru, will fit into one of these 4 categories. Usually though, the Guru will belong to the fourth, the sannyas ashrama. Needless to say, whichever the ashrama, he remains in the realm of the sastras and is bound by them.

Then there is the atiashrami.

The literal (and usual) translation would be “one who is beyond the ashramas”. Alternately, it can mean “one who is in the highest possible ashrama” (beyond which there is no other ashrama). Actually, if we follow the root meaning closely, atiashrama would mean “the ultimate Wholeness where that ‘one’ rests, who has nothing to rest from (or who has no toil or labour to do)”. I have put ‘one’ in inverted commas to specify that the sense is not of a person separate from the Wholeness, but as one with It. Thus the term atiashrami, meaning "the one who is in atiashrama", refers to a Jnani and a Jnani alone.

An atiashrami is beyond the sastras and is not bound to follow them. In fact, what he teaches or does, itself becomes sastra for his followers. If he chooses to remain within the fold of the Faith from which he emerged (as Sri Bhagavan did), his teachings and actions interpret and add to the sastras. If he chooses to establish a new Faith, then he establishes a new sastra, as did the Buddha. He may, in fact, in terms of the worldly role, still be in any one of the 4 ashramas, it does not matter.

[In recent times, the term atiashrami has come to be associated particularly with Swamis who display aberrant behaviour. Sadly, most do it deliberately. They will act like madmen perhaps, remain filthy, toss their clothes off in front of people, eat peculiar things, and so on. All this on the interpretation that the atiashrami is not bound by the rules of society or religion, that he can behave as he wishes. Which is a fundamental misconception, because in actual fact the only one attribute that the atiashrami has to mandatorily have is – that he has to be Self-realized, a Jnani, a Jivan-mukta. Some readers may be surprised if I state that genuine atiashramis who exhibited what would be considered “aberrant” behaviour of the sort above, have been very very few, the exception rather than the rule. Actually, from the examples we have of atiashramis from scripture, I cannot think of even one who did not exhibit exemplary behaviour in tune with the ashrama and role they seemingly carried out: Sri Suka as the great sannyasin, Risabha Rishi as the exemplary king, father and then mendicant, Sri Jadabharata as a Cakravartin emperor (these 3 were given by Bhagavan as examples of atiashramis in His deposition), Sri Janaka as the exemplary king again, and others.]

Still, I believe, if the sastras had to pick just one person as the perfect example of an atiashrami, they would unanimously pick Sri Bhagavan as that exemplar non-pareil. Not because any of the great ones mentioned above were any “less atiashrami” than Bhagavan, but because Bhagavan was the only one who throughout played the role of the perfect Guru and none other; that is, the role of a Guru dedicated solely to teaching the science of Self-realisation, of how an ordinary unschooled shishya may achieve moksha. The others were kings at one time, some were family men, sannyasis maybe in between, and then Gurus. Whereas Bhagavan was only and only the great “atiashrami Guru” and nought else. A role extraordinaire played out with such gentle nobleness of character, dignity, compassion and love, that if it were not recorded by witnesses, we would have had difficulty in believing it all.

But I jump the gun a bit. We need to consider the following issues first:

·         What is the scriptural evidence for the atiashrami?
·         Can the atiashrami be a Guru?
·         How can we be sure that Bhagavan was an atiashrami?


II.   The atiashrami from Scripture

Let me draw from the Sri Suta Samhita, which is found in the Skanda Purana, because we know how highly Sri Bhagavan regarded the work. In fact, Bhagavan had a booklet (in Tamil) called the “Suta Samhita Saram” with Him, which had selected verses from the work. He would refer to it for the characteristics of the “atiasharami”, and related aspects, when queried by devotees. The Sri Suta Samhita, even otherwise, has unquestioned sastraic authority. It is said that Sri Sankara read it 18 times before he commenced his celebrated Bhasya. And from the following verses from this great work, it may be clear that the atiashrami is fully sanctioned by scripture:

[Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, there is no English translation of the Sri Suta Samhita (though there is a Tamil translation done in 1918 by the noted scholar R. Ananthakrishna Sastrigal). One Indological publisher is translating the Skanda Purana in stages, but I am not sure whether they have reached the chapter containing the Sri Suta Samhita yet. Happily but, most of the verses on the atiashrami in the text were quoted by the great Vidyaranya Swami in his Jivan Mukti Viveka, for which there are several translations. The following are some of these verses. These are taken from the Advaita Ashram (Sri Ramakrishna Math) version, translated by Swami Moksadananda. Note – the Sri Suta Samhita uses the term ‘ativarnashrami’, this is the same as atiashrami and my note above on 'ativarnashrama' refers; the verse numbers for the Sri Suta Samhita verses are cross-checked and corrected from the Sanskrit work with me].


[From Jivan Mukti Viveka: Chapter 1 - Jivan Mukti Pramana Prakaranam; Pg 68 onwards] 

“The ativarnashrami – who has transcended the castes and stages of (social) life – has been described by Parameswara to Visnu in the fifth chapter of the section on Liberation in the Suta Samhita thus: 

The student (brahmacarin), the householder (grahastha), the forest dweller (vanaprastha), the religious mendicant (bhiksuka), and the one transcending all (ativarnashramin), if they are well versed in their respective professions, then, are superior in the order mentioned (i.e. the latter is superior to the former).  [Sri Suta Samhita III, 5, second line of 9 & first line of 10]

 

He who knows the Witness of all (Sakshi) which is different from the body and senses, self-effulgent, Bliss absolute, the Supreme Intelligence and the Supreme Truth, becomes the ativarnashramin.  [SS III, 5, verse 16 & first line of 17]

 

He, who, by hearing the great words of Vedanta, O Kesava, knows the Self who is God, becomes the ativarnashramin. [SS III, 5, second line of 17 & first line of 18].

 

He, who knows the great Lord who is free from the caste and stages of life and is the witness of the three states, becomes the ativarnashramin. [SS III, 5, second line of 18 & first line of 19].

 

Varna and asrama etc. are imaginary things imposed on the body through Maya (delusion) and thy have nothing to do with Me who is the Self, which is absolute Intelligence – this he who knows from the Vedanta becomes the ativarnashramin. [SS III, 5, second line of 19 & verse 20].

 

He who knows from the Upanisad that the universe is active due to My presence, even as men are active themselves in the presence of the sun, becomes the ativarnasramin. [SS III, 5, verse 21 & first line of 22].

 

He, who knows from the Vedanta that the varieties of ornaments – such as hara, keyura, kataka and swastika – are composed of gold (and they are nothing but pure gold) even as the universe is ever projected in Me through Maya, becomes the ativarnashramin. [SS III, 5, second line of 22 & verse 23].

 

He, who knows from the Vedanta that the whole universe beginning with Mahat (the principle) is projected in Me through Maya, even as the pearl is seen as nacre mistakenly, becomes the ativarnashramin. [SS III, 5, verse 24 & first line of 25].

 

O Purusottama, he becomes the ativarnashramin who knows from the Vedanta, that the Great Lord who is one, devoid of any relation, like the all-pervading space, ever pervades all beings, small or big, the body of candela, or bird, or beast, or brahmana, and all other beings high or low, as “I am indeed He, the Supreme Immortal One”. [SS III, 5, second line of 25 & verses 26 & 27].

 

He, who knows from the Vedanta that the quarters look alike to one, even after the correction of the mistake (by the help of stars etc.) just as the world appears to me even after its negation by the Supreme Knowledge, indeed it is not there, becomes the ativarnashramin. [SS III, 5, verse 28 & first line of 29].

 

He becomes the ativarnashramin who, from the Vedanta, knows that the world of my waking state is a fabrication of Maya, even as the world of my dream is the creation of delusion. [SS III, 5, second line of 29 & verse 30].

 

Through the realization of his Self he has cast aside all the conventions of castes and stages of life, and transcending all such things, he is settled in his Self. [SS III, 5, 31].

 

The man who, giving up his varna and asrama, is abiding in the Self is called the ativarnashramin by the knowers of the meaning of the Vedas. [SS III, 5, 32].

 

III.   Can the atiashrami be a Guru?

 

The next legitimate doubt may be whether scripture sanctions such an entity to become a ‘Guru’. We find that not only can the atiashrami be a Guru as is normally understood, he is the best possible Guru! Again from the Sri Suta Samhita (as quoted by Vidyaranya Swami in the JMV):

The ativarnashramin is said to the Guru of all men who are the rightful claimant of the above mentioned professions [i.e. the brahmacarin, grahastha, vanaprastha & bhiksuka], O Purusottama, like Me, he never becomes a shishya of anybody. [SS III, 5, 14].

 

The ativarnashramin, it is said, is verily the Guru of all Gurus; there is no doubt that in this world there is none who is equal to or superior to him. [SS III, 5, 15].

 

He, who knows from the Vedanta and (then) is firmly convinced of It by his own direct and immediate awareness of the Self, which is beyond the opposites, devoid of form, immaculate, ever-pure, devoid of delusion, and which is pure Intelligence, Existence and Bliss Supreme (sat-cit-ananda), I called the ativarnasramin, and he alone is the best Guru.  [SS III, 5, 41 & 42].

 

IV.   Sri Bhagavan as atiashrami

And finally, for this section, how can we be sure that Sri Bhagavan was an atiashrami? Of course it could be said that the foregoing verses of the Sri Suta Samhita describe Bhagavan perfectly. But then Bhagavan leaves us with no doubts about the fact by Himself stating categorically that He is an atiashrami. He said so in an extraordinary deposition He gave before the Court Commissioner appointed to look into the matter of ownership of Sri Ramanashramam. Extracts of this deposition are given in “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi” (Talks 281 & 291), and also in the Mountain Path, April 1967, Pg 150, in the article “The Human Status of the Maharshi”, by Dr. T. N. Krishnaswamy. It makes for a fascinating read:

 

 

[From: “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi”; Talk 281, on 15.11.1936] 

A certain man, who claims to have been Sri Maharshi’s quondam disciple, has filed a suit in the court praying for a declaration that he is the legitimate Sarvadhikari of the Asramam. Sri Maharshi was examined on Commission. There was a crowd but the proceedings went on smoothly in the room on the North East. The following are a few titbits therefrom: Sri Bhagavan’s answers were quite spontaneous and smooth.

Q.: To which asramam does Sri Bhagavan belong?

M.: Atiasramam (beyond the four stages).

Q.: What is it?

M.: It is beyond the four commonly known asramas.

Q.: Is it sastraic?

M.: Yes. It is mentioned in the sastras

Q.: Do you give upadesh? Have you ever done it?

M.: Visitors ask questions. I answer them as well as I know. It is for them to treat my words as they please.

Q.: Is it upadesh?

M.: How shall I say how others take it?

Q.: Have you disciples?

M.: I do not give upadesh in the ceremonial manner. For instance, keeping a kumbha, making puja to it and whispering to the person. The person may call himself my disciple or devotee. I do not consider anyone to be my disciple. I have never sought upadesh from anyone nor do I give ceremonial upadesh. If the people call themselves my disciples I do not approve or disapprove. In my view all are alike. They consider themselves fit for being called disciples. What can I say to them? I do not call myself a disciple or a Guru.

 

[From: “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi”; Talk 291, on 5.12.1936] 

Question: You spoke of atyasrama (beyond the asramas — beyond the orders of life) the other day. Is there any authority for it? Is it mentioned anywhere?

Maharshi: Yes, in the Upanishads, the Suta Samhita (Skanda Purana), Bhagavata, Bharata and other works.*

Q.: Are there any restrictions or discipline for that state?

M.: There are characteristics of it mentioned.

Q.: There are Gurus for each asrama. Is there a Guru for atyasrama?

M.: Yes.

Q.: But you do not admit a Guru.

M.: There is a Guru for everyone. I admit a Guru for me also.

Q.: Who is your Guru.

M.: The Self.

Q.: For whom?

M.: For myself. The Guru may be internal or external. He may reveal Himself internally or communicate externally.

Q.: Can the atyasramis own property?

M.: There is no restriction for them. They may do what they please. Suka is said to have married and begotten children also.

Q.: The atyasrami is like a householder in that case.

M.: I have already said that he is above the four recognised asramas.

Q.: If they can marry, own property, etc., they are only grihasthas.

M.: That may be your view.

Q.: Can they own property and convey the same to others?

M.: They may or may not. All depends on their prarabdha.

Q.: Is there any Karma for them?

M.: Their conduct is not regulated according to any rules or codes.

 

[* For atyasrama, refer to Narada Parivrajaka Upanishad, v. 1-15; Svetasvatara Up. VI. 21; Tejobindu Up. I. 47-48; Suta Samhita-Mukti Khanda Ch. V. v. 9, 14-43; Sivamahatmya Khanda Ch. V. 32, 37fi 55.]

 

Note: In Talk 281 above, Bhagavan speaks of ‘upadesh’ (spiritual instruction). I believe a little confusion may have crept into the text here. The first time the term upadesh is used (extract repeated below), the meaning is clear that He is referring to “instruction”: 

Q.: Do you give upadesh? Have you ever done it?

M.: Visitors ask questions. I answer them as well as I know. It is for them to treat my words as they please.

Q.: Is it upadesh?

M.: How shall I say how others take it? 

But then in the sequence just following, the translator has carried on with the term upadesh, qualifying it as “ceremonial upadesh”, which is probably a vague translation for ‘diksha’. Also, as some personalized spiritual instruction is usually given at the time of diksha by the Guru to the shishya, sometimes the word upadesh may be used for diksha, though the meaning intended is “initiation”. So the conversation should probably carry on as: 

Q.: Have you disciples?

M.: I do not give diksha [upadesh in the ceremonial manner]. For instance, keeping a kumbha, making puja to it and whispering to the person. The person may call himself my disciple or devotee. I do not consider anyone to be my disciple. I have never sought diksha from anyone nor do I give diksha [ceremonial upadesh]. 

This is borne out by the corresponding sequence in the Mountain Path article mentioned above. There Bhagavan is quoted as directly using the term diksha: 

“I have not given sannyas (the status of renunciate) to any one, nor have I taken sannyas from any one  … …  At no time have I initiated any disciples with diksha (formal initiation) or in any ritualistic way”.
 

 

A Guru-shishya Relationship with Sri Bhagavan 
 

“If the people call themselves my disciples I do not approve or disapprove. In my view all are alike. They consider themselves fit for being called disciples. What can I say to them? I do not call myself a disciple or a Guru.”

 

When trying to understand Bhagavan’s remarks in the extracts above with respect to the Guru-shisya relationship, we may keep in mind the extraordinarily lofty position from which He spoke. He was the great atiashrami Guru, teaching only the highest truths and the highest of sadhanas. So when Bhagavan says that He does not acknowledge anyone as His disciple, or Himself as a Guru, it is essentially a throwback to His primary position: all is nought but the Self; the shishya is an illusory entity arisen within the Self; the Guru is the Self personified; thus essentially the Guru and the shishya are the same; there is no diksha or “ceremonial upadesh” in the sense of a “transference” between that which is One from the start. 

So the atiashrami Guru sees no differentiation. But the devotee exists due to differentiation, and lives in the world of differentiation. He needs instruction and Divine Grace to get rid of this delusion. He identifies with his body, and looks for a body outside to give him this instruction, and Grace. Out of compassion the Supreme Self assumes form and appears as a body for this purpose. What is diksha ultimately? It is basically the Grace of the Guru for the shishya. Since the Guru is the Supreme Self, that Grace is ever-there, ever-flowing. The Guru may be in the body or not, physically present or far away, it does not matter. His Grace keeps on flowing in a flood towards all would-be-shisyas. Then from the would-be-shishyas, those who surrender to Him unconditionally and make a samkalpa in their minds that He is the Guru, establish the Guru-shishya relationship in every sense of the term and receive that Grace in full measure. [Note: A ‘samkalpa’ is ‘an intense solemn resolution formed in the mind towards a definite intent’].

The onus thus is thrown entirely on the would-be-shishya, to formally take the steps to establish the Guru-shishya relationship. Though the words “to establish” are used, thus implying a beginning, we may appreciate that this is only an approximation. There is no beginning for this relationship. The Guru is the Self taking form out of compassion for the shishya in the first place. The Guru-shishya relationship always existed from the time the would-be-shishya was born. It is just that the shishya only recognised it to be so at a certain point.

Many conversations are recorded in Bhagavan’s reminiscences along the lines as above. And, as I re-read and re-work these lines, I realise just how clumsy my attempts at a summarization remain! But Bhagavan’s words are direct and crystal clear. The following are just a few, representative conversations:


[From: “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi”, Talk 398, on 14th April, 1937; one line is put in italics by me] 

M.: What is medicine for? It is only to restore the patient to the original state of health. What is this talk of Guru. Grace, God, etc.? Does the Guru hold you by the hand and whisper something in your ear? You imagine him to be like yourself. Because you are with a body you think that he is also a body in order to do something tangible to you. His work lies within. How is Guru gained? God, who is immanent, in his Grace takes pity on the loving devotee and manifests Himself as a being according to the devotee’s standard. The devotee thinks that he is a man and expects relationship as between bodies. But the Guru, who is God or Self incarnate, works from within, helps the man to see the error of his ways, guides him in the right path until he realises the Self within. After such realisation the disciple feels, “I was so worried before. I am after all the Self, the same as before but not affected by anything; where is he who was miserable? He is nowhere to be seen.” What should we do now? Only act up to the words of the master, work within. The Guru is both within and without. So he creates conditions to drive you inward and prepares the interior to drag you to the centre. Thus he gives a push from without and exerts a pull from within so that you may be fixed at the centre. In sleep you are centred within. Simultaneously with waking your mind rushes out, thinking this, that and all else. This must be checked. It is possible only for the agent who can work both within and without. Can he be identified with a body? We think that the world can be conquered by our efforts. When frustrated externally and driven internally, we feel “Oh! Oh! There is a power higher than man.” The existence of the higher power must be admitted and recognised. The ego is a very powerful elephant and cannot be brought under control by anyone less than a lion, who is no other than the Guru in this instance; whose very look makes the elephant tremble and die. We will know in due course that our glory lies where we cease to exist. In order to gain that state, one should surrender oneself saying “LORD! Thou art my Refuge!” The master then sees “This man is in a fit state to receive guidance,” and so guides him.

…..

D.: Swami Vivekananda says that a spiritual Guru can transfer spirituality substantially to the disciple.

M.: Is there a substance to be transferred? Transfer means eradication of the sense of being the disciple. The master does it. Not that the man was something at one time and metamorphosed later into another.

D.: Is not Grace the gift of the Guru?

M.: God, Grace and Guru are all synonymous and also eternal and immanent. Is not the Self already within? Is it for the Guru to bestow It by his look? If a Guru thinks so, he does not deserve the name. The books say that there are so many kinds of diksha (initiations - hasta diksha, sparsa diksha, chakshu diksha, mano diksha, etc.). They also say that the Guru makes some rites with fire, water, japa, mantras, etc., and call such fantastic performances dikshas, as if the disciple (sishya) becomes ripe only after such processes are gone through by the Guru. If the individual is sought he is nowhere to be found. Such is the Guru. Such is Dakshinamurti. What did he do? He was silent; the disciples appeared before him. He maintained silence, the doubts of the disciples were dispelled, which means that they lost their individual identities. That is jnana and not all the verbiage usually associated with it. Silence is the most potent form of work. However vast and emphatic the sastras may be, they fail in their effect. The Guru is quiet and peace prevails in all. His silence is more vast and more emphatic than all the sastras put together. These questions arise because of the feeling, that having been here so long, heard so much, exerted so hard, one has not gained anything. The work proceeding within is not apparent. In fact the Guru is always within you. Thayumanavar says: “Oh Lord! Coming with me all along the births, never abandoning me and finally rescuing me!” Such is the experience of Realisation. Srimad Bhagavad Gita says the same in a different way, “We two are not only now but have ever been so.”

D.: Does not the Guru take a concrete form?

M.: What is meant by concrete? Because you identify your being with your body, you raise this question. Find out if you are the body. The Gita says: param bhavam ajanantah (Bh. Gita IX - II) – that those who cannot understand the transcendental nature (of Sri Krishna) are fools, deluded by ignorance. The master appears to dispel that ignorance. As Thayumanavar puts it, he appears as a man to dispel the ignorance of a man, just as a deer is used as a decoy to capture the wild deer. He has to appear with a body in order to eradicate our ignorant “I-am-the-body” idea.

 

[From: “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi”, Talk 317, on 6th January, 1937; 2 lines are put in italics by me]. 

D.: Realisation is said to be helped by Guru’s Grace.

M.: Guru is none other than the Self.

D.: Krishna had Sandipini for his Guru and Rama had Vasishta.

M.: Guru is said to be external for the seeker. The in-turn of the mind is brought about by the Guru. Since the seeker is out-ward-bent he is advised to learn from a Guru whom he will in due course find to be the Self.

D.: May I have Guru’s Grace?

M.: Grace is always there.

 D.: But I did not feel the same.

M.: Surrender will make one understand the Grace.

D.: I have surrendered heart and soul. I am the best judge of my heart. Still I do not feel the Grace.

M.: If you had surrendered the questions would not arise. 

[From: “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi”, Talk 434, on 28th December, 1937] 

D.: I am always at your feet. Will Bhagavan give us some upadesha to follow? Otherwise how can I get the help living 600 miles away?

M.: That Sadguru is within.

D.: Sadguru is necessary to guide me to understand it.

M.: The Sadguru is within.

D.: I want a visible Guru.

M.: That visible Guru says that He is within.

…..

 D.: Will Sadguru place His hand on my head to assure me of His help? I will have the consolation that His promise will be fulfilled.

M.: A bond will be the next requisition and a suit will be filed if you imagine no help forthcoming. (Laughter).

D.: May I come near, Sir? (for blessing).

M.: Such doubts should not arise in you. They contradict your statement of surrender. Sadguru is always on your head.

 

[From: “Day by Day with Bhagavan”, 9-3-46 Morning, Pg 168]
 

Dr. Masalavala retired Chief Medical Officer of Bhopal, who has been here for more than a month now and who is now also in temporary charge of the Asramam Hospital in the absence of Dr. Shiva Rao, put the following questions to Bhagavan and got the following answers:

Question: Bhagavan says, ‘The influence of the jnani steals into the devotee in silence.’ Bhagavan also says, ‘Contact with great men, exalted souls, is one efficacious means of realising one’s true being.’

Bhagavan: Yes. What is the contradiction? Jnani, great men, exalted souls — does he (Dr.) differentiate between these?

Thereupon I [Devaraja Mudaliar] said, ‘No’.

Bhagavan: Contact with them is good. They will work through silence. By speaking, their power is reduced. Silence is most powerful. Speech is always less powerful than silence. So mental contact is the best.

Question: Does this hold good even after the dissolution of the physical body of the jnani or is it true only so long as he is in flesh and blood?

Bhagavan: Guru is not the physical form. So the contact will remain even after the physical form of the Guru vanishes.

Question: Similarly, does the contact of a devotee with his Guru continue after the passing of the Guru or does it stop? It is possible that for a ripe soul his Self may act as his Guru after the going away of the Guru, but what is the unripe soul to do? Bhagavan has said that an outer Guru is also needed to push the mind of the devotee towards the Self. Can he come in contact with another adept? Is this contact to be necessarily physical or will a mental contact do? Which is better?

Bhagavan: As already explained, Guru not being physical form, his contact will continue after his form vanishes.

 

[From: “Day by Day with Bhagavan”, 9-1-46 Afternoon, Pg 101; one line put in italics by me]

 

Mr. P.Bannerji asked, “What is the difference between a devotee and a disciple? A friend here told me I should not call myself a disciple of Bhagavan and that I can only be a devotee.”

 Bhagavan: If we worship an object or person then we are devotees. If we have a Guru then we are disciples.

 I [Devaraja Mudaliar] added that his friend must have told him so for the reason that Bhagavan takes no disciples, i.e., formally initiates none, and so it may be misleading if any one says, ‘I am Bhagavan’s disciple.’

 P.B.: But what if I accept his teaching and regard myself as his disciple because I try to follow his teaching?

 I [Devaraja Mudaliar] replied, “Of course you may do that, as Ekalavya learnt archery from an image of Drona.”

Bhagavan then added, “After all, as in the above case everything comes from within. First the man feels that he is bound, in the bondage of samsara, that he is weak and miserable and that unless he leans upon and gets help from God who is all-powerful and can save him, he cannot get out of bondage and misery. Thus he makes bhakti to Ishwara. When this bhakti develops and the intensity of his devotion is so great that he forgets his entire self and becomes Iswaramaya and complete surrender has been achieved, God takes human shape and comes as Guru and teaches the devotee that there is but one Self and that That is within him. Then the devotee attains jnana by realizing the Self within him and then he understands that the Ishwara or Lord whom he worshipped and had bhakti for, the Guru who came in human shape, and the Self are all the same.”

 

I find the record above, from “Day by Day”, particularly interesting for 2 reasons: 

 

Firstly it brings out the significant scepticism and lack of understanding that existed even when Bhagavan was in the body with respect to Him being a personal Guru. Because He did not give diksha in the usually understood manner, some of the inmates and visitors would even tell each other that they cannot be ‘disciples’, only ‘devotees’. 

 

But what is of enormous significance in this conversation is: Bhagavan’s endorsement of the scriptural story of Ekalavya by saying: “After all, as in the above case [i.e. in the story of Ekalavya] everything comes from within”.

 

The story of Ekalavya appears in the Sambhava Parva of the Adi Parva in the Mahabharata. [In K. M. Ganguli’s work, from where the extract below is taken, it appears in Volume I, Section CXXXIV]. Ekalavya's heroic (and tragic) story gives us a clear endorsement from scripture for the shishya initiating and establishing the Guru-shishya relationship as a result of intense surrender and devotion towards his Master. And this happened even when the Master was not the great atiashrami (though as accomplished as any Master could be otherwise), had refused the role of Guru for Ekalavya, and was completely unaware that such a relationship had been established! 

 

 

The whole story, in toto, is as under (one line put in italics by me): 

“Vaisampayana continued, 'Thereafter Drona began to teach Arjuna the art of fighting on horse-back, on the back of elephants, on car, and on the ground. And the mighty Drona also instructed Arjuna in fighting with the mace, the sword, the lance, the spear, and the dart. And he also instructed him in using many weapons and fighting with many men at the same time. And hearing reports of his skill, kings and princes, desirous of learning the science of arms, flocked to Drona by thousands. Amongst those that came there, O monarch, was a prince named Ekalavya, who was the son of Hiranyadhanus, king of the Nishadas (the lowest of the mixed orders). Drona, however, cognisant of all rules of morality, accepted not the prince as his pupil in archery, seeing that he was a Nishada who might (in time) excel all his high-born pupils. But, O oppressor of all enemies, the Nishada prince, touching Drona's feet with bent head, wended his way into the forest, and there he made a clay-image of Drona, and began to worship it respectfully, as if it was his real preceptor, and practised weapons before it with the most rigid regularity. In consequence of his exceptional reverence for his preceptor and his devotion to his purpose, all the three processes of fixing arrows on the bowstring, aiming, and letting off became very easy for him. 

And one day, O grinder of foes, the Kuru and the Pandava princes, with Drona's leave, set out in their cars on a hunting excursion. A servant, O king, followed the party at leisure, with the usual implements and a dog. Having come to the woods, they wandered about, intent on the purpose they had in view. Meanwhile, the dog also, in wandering alone in the woods, came upon the Nishada prince (Ekalavya). And beholding the Nishada of dark hue, of body besmeared with filth, dressed in black and bearing matted locks on head, the dog began to bark aloud. 

Thereupon the Nishada prince, desirous of exhibiting his lightness of hand, sent seven arrows into its mouth (before it could shut it). The dog, thus pierced with seven arrows, came back to the Pandavas. Those heroes, who beheld that sight, were filled with wonder, and, ashamed of their own skill, began to praise the lightness of hand and precision of aim by auricular precision (exhibited by the unknown archer). And they thereupon began to seek in those woods for the unknown dweller therein that had shown such skill. And, O king, the Pandavas soon found out the object of their search ceaselessly discharging arrows from the bow. And beholding that man of grim visage, who was totally a stranger to them, they asked, 'Who art thou and whose son?' Thus questioned, the man replied, 'Ye heroes, I am the son of Hiranyadhanus, king of the Nishadas. Know me also for a pupil of Drona, labouring for the mastery of the art of arms.'

Vaisampayana continued, 'The Pandavas then, having made themselves acquainted with everything connected with him, returned (to the city), and going unto Drona, told him of that wonderful feat of archery which they had witnessed in the woods. Arjuna, in particular, thinking all the while, O king, Ekalavya, saw Drona in private and relying upon his preceptor's affection for him, said, 'Thou hadst lovingly told me, clasping me, to thy bosom, that no pupil of thine should be equal to me. Why then is there a pupil of thine, the mighty son of the Nishada king, superior to me?

Vaisampayana continued, 'On hearing these words, Drona reflected for a moment, and resolving upon the course of action he should follow, took Arjuna with him and went unto the Nishada prince. And he beheld Ekalavya with body besmeared with filth, matted locks (on head), clad in rags, bearing a bow in hand and ceaselessly shooting arrows therefrom. And when Ekalavya saw Drona approaching towards him, he went a few steps forward, and touched his feet and prostrated himself on the ground. And the son of the Nishada king worshipping Drona, duly represented himself as his pupil, and clasping his hands in reverence stood before him (awaiting his commands). Then Drona, O king, addressed Ekalavya, saying, 'If, O hero, thou art really my pupil, give me then my fees.' On hearing these words, Ekalavya was very much gratified, and said in reply, 'O illustrious preceptor, what shall I give? Command me; for there is nothing, O foremost of all persons conversant with the Vedas, that I may not give unto my preceptor.' Drona answered, 'O Ekalavya, if thou art really intent on making me a gift, I should like then to have the thumb of thy right hand.'

Vaisampayana continued, 'Hearing these cruel words of Drona, who had asked of him his thumb as tuition-fee, Ekalavya, ever devoted to truth and desirous also of keeping his promise, with a cheerful face and an unafflicted heart cut off without ado his thumb, and gave it unto Drona. After this, when the Nishada prince began once more to shoot with the help of his remaining fingers, he found, O king, that he had lost his former lightness of hand. And at this Arjuna became happy, the fever (of jealousy) having left him.”

 

[Great scripture does not balk at presenting even heroes in a harsh light occasionally, unlike us, who endlessly endeavour to colour them as perfect and without fault. The Mahabharata, without blinking, shows the great Guru Dronacharya and his equally great pupil Arjuna, as being herein small-minded and concerned only with personal worldly success. I especially gave the whole extract to show that there is nothing in the text to pass blame on Ekalavya, who must be considered far greater to both Guru Dronacarya and Arjuna. I mention this particularly because in recent times, due to an over-zealous and unnecessary show of bhakti by some Vaishvanite schools in the North, Ekalavya has been held as the one at fault here. Some sort of reasoning is also presented by these schools to bolster this view. This is off-topic in the context of this post, so I will not pursue it further. But if any reader feels that Ekalavya did anything wrong, please do put up a comment below, and I will be happy to discuss the issues further]. 

The story of Ekalavya is a stunning endorsement in scripture of, if I may put it a bit crassly, the shishya “appointing” the Guru; or to put it alternately, of becoming a dikshita without diksha. Ekalavya came from the lowest of castes, had no qualifications for archery to speak of, received no diksha in the traditional sense, and was not in the physical contact with his Guru. He still managed to learn all that Guru Drona had to teach. And this came about (from the text) “in consequence of his exceptional reverence for his preceptor and his devotion to his purpose”.  

We can see how well Ekalavya's story fits within Bhagavan's teachings as given in the extracts above. After all, the Guru was not the physical entity that was "Dronacarya", but the Self Itself. The Grace of the Self personified as the Guru is ever-flowing, ever-present. The moment Ekalavya surrendered fully to the Guru, he established the Guru-shisya relationship, and drank of this great flood of Grace in full measure. And since his samkalpa was related to achieving mastery in archery, from a Guru who was the Self personified as a great Master of the warrior skills, he received exactly that. 

And were the samkalpa of the shishya be related to achieving Self-realization, and the beloved Guru be a great Jnani, an atiashrami, that is exactly what the shishya would get; of course, given “Ekalavyan” levels of earnestness and dedication. 


That the would-be-shishya may “appoint” Sri Bhagavan as Guru was confirmed by His great shishya Sri Muruganar as well. The query was raised by Ms. Sarada Natarajan (of Sri Ramana Kendra Bangalore), when she was 13 years old.  

[Taken from: Mountain Path, Oct 1973, Pg 204; from “My Meeting with Sri Muruganar”, by Ms. Sarada Natarajan; Sri Muruganar had recently passed away (on Aug 28, 1973), and this issue contains several articles as a tribute to him].  

“Sometime back when I started reading a few religious books, I went through Sri B. V. Narasimha Swami's Self Realisation. After reading it, I felt inspired to do self-enquiry and that I could accept Sri Bhagavan as my Guru.  

But since the Hindu Scriptures emphasise on taking formal mantra initiation from a Guru, it was decided that Sri Muruganar should be consulted on the subject. Hence, when we visited the Ashram during the last vacation (June '73), we went to meet Sri Muruganar. When the question "Is it enough if I take Sri Bhagavan as my Guru and do Atma Vichara?" was posed before the great poet-saint, he was extremely moved. With tears welling up in his eyes, he said in a voice choked with emotion: "Enough! Enough! Hundred per cent sufficient!" He paused for a minute and again emphasised that point by saying that was even more than hundred per cent sufficient! He further said that Sri Bhagavan is the only everlasting illumination within us. His presence is the only existence everywhere and for all time.  

We sang a few songs on Sri Bhagavan from Sri Ramana Sannidhi Murai. Muruganar got very emotional and tears flowed from his eyes. I can never forget this incident in my life and it will always remain vivid in my mind. I am thankful for the golden opportunity I got of seeing Muruganar before his Samadhi and asking him my doubt which would otherwise have remained unanswered.”

 

Forgive me folks for an already long post, but at this stage it may be clear that scriptural (and anecdotal) endorsement is present for Bhagavan to be a Guru, the greatest of Gurus in fact. And going back to the 3 broad roles that the Master may play out, of Jagatguru, Kulaguru or Guru, we may see now that he carried out all 3 roles for different people at different times, albeit in a non-traditional manner. 

That He was the Guru for those who surrendered unconditionally to Him is already brought out. Sri Muruganar is one great example of one such shishya. From theory then, Sri Bhagavan also became the Kulaguru for Sri Muruganar’s family. We know from the records of reminiscences, how Sri Muruganar’s wife, Meenakshi Ammal, suffered as her husband increasingly got absorbed in Sri Bhagavan, and could not (would not) look after her as would normally be expected from a family man. Then Bhagavan took special care of her, made sure that she did not feel abandoned, and lived comfortably. This was Him carrying out the Kulaguru function. Many more examples can be cited on similar lines for other disciples, wherein Bhagavan fulfilled the Kulaguru role.  

And on Bhagavan as Jagatguru: We know that He never gave public discourses, or held public meetings, or wrote formal treatises on spiritual topics. But still, at the prodding and cajoling of His followers, He wrote enough verse and prose works to clearly bring out His teachings for all to read. Also, His replies to queries taken down by devotees over many years cover virtually every possible angle or doubt in the realm of spirituality. Overall, there would be easily 10,000 pages and more of material available to the public to read and assimilate. Which Jagatguru (of the traditional mould), from remote antiquity till date, has that sort of a public interface? So, curiously, though Bhagavan never interacted at public forums, he still did so in effect, and continues to do so, much as if He had been giving pravachans etc. in the Jagatguru mould.   

Similarly, and curiously again, though Bhagavan never Himself directly associated in running spiritual schools or renovating temples etc. (some of the traditional Jagatguru activities), we know that Sri Ramanasramam runs a great Vedapathashala, runs a hospital for the poor, and has undertaken numerous renovations like that of the pavilion in the big Arunachaleswara temple, and others.  

Finally, for me Sri Bhagavan was a Jagatguru in the Isvara mould, so great was the Divine mandate. Jagatguru is the appellation used in scripture sometimes for Lord Krishna for instance (as in the famous sloka: Vasudevasutam Daivam …. Krishnam vande Jagatgurum).  In which sense, I believe, the title sits naturally on every atiashrami, and particularly on Sri Bhagavan. 

And for all these reasons it may be said that Sri Bhagavan carried on the role of the Jagatguru too.



A Personal Note

Folks, as I repeatedly mention in my posts, this blog is all about a candid sharing of spiritual ideas, actions, experiences, and so on. So let me tell you, with all humility, what I did in my case to claim to be a shishya of Sri Bhagavan.

On my first ever visit to Sri Ramasramam some years ago now, I was, one day, unexpectedly offered the chance to sit in a very sacred spot, rarely allowed to be accessed. I sat there all alone with my eyes closed, and over the course of the next 15 minutes or so, used every ounce of mental focus and concentration I could muster up to surrender unconditionally to Sri Bhagavan, and make a samkalpa in the mind that He is my Guru. It was in a sense the formal submission of my “application” to be His shishya. This “application” was accompanied by some “attachments”:  an unconditional acceptance of all His teachings, the carrying out of His instructions for sadhana in letter and spirit, and trying to live every moment of one’s life in a manner that He would approve of. I believe that the Guru-shishya relationship irrevocably clicked into place that moment.

Let me elaborate slightly on the last 3 points, which I call the “Gurudakshina” points, crucial, in my humble opinion, in forging the Guru-shishya link:

I believe that as shishyas we have no leeway in picking and choosing from the Guru’s teaching. It has to be accepted in toto. Earlier, before I became a “shishya”, I could never really accept that the world and dreams are identical, both “unreal”, even after reading reams of Advaita literature to that effect. Afterwards, knowing that Bhagavan held that view as firmly as He did, I did too as well. I had to believe first, and then tried to improve my logic to fit that viewpoint. Which, I believe, is descriptive of the basic blueprint that the shishya has to follow. The belief in the Guru’s teachings is blind, and comes first. If one’s experiences are contrary to something in the teaching, the experience is flawed and has to analysed to find the error. If common-sense logic doesn’t support the Guru’s view, better logic has to be found. Else, this is not the Guru for you. And if the doubts persist, the Guru-shishya relationship will never hold.

[And so, we may appreciate how critically important it is to “check” out the Guru first, before becoming His shisya. The teachings, the way He lived His life, and so on, all may be examined thoroughly. In fact, it is even permitted to quiz the would-be-Guru (if in the body) directly on these matters! There is no ‘dosha’ (fault) in this. But once the plunge is made, the Guru’s teachings, His instructions and expectations are inviolable.]

Secondly, the Guru’s instructions with respect to practical sadhana have to be followed to the last letter. Bhagavan emphasised, overwhelmingly, on Atma-vichara as the primary sadhana for all and sundry. How much more so, then, for one who would claim a Guru-shishya relationship with Him? I believe that it does not even matter whether one can do Vichara effectively or not. But we are beholden to give it a try anyways for at least an hour or two every day, come what may.

And lastly, the shishya has to live his (her) life in a manner the Guru would approve of. Personally I feel that this can be done by a very simple process: by imagining that Bhagavan is present every instant with us, and lovingly watching everything that we do. And whenever we are faced with a dilemma as to what one should do in a particular situation, to just imagine how He would react to the choice made – would He have approved or not?



A Disclaimer

Folks, do note that the Guru-shisya relationship is NOT claimed (or claimable) from a “proficiency” standpoint. It is NOT because someone has become an adept at Vichara and doing it better than others, and also NOT because that someone has understood Bhagavan’s teachings better than most, that the claim to be Bhagavan’s shishya can be made. In fact, one could be the worst practitioner of Vichara possible, and really not have a clue about the great philosophical arguments that sit behind Bhagavan’s teachings, and still claim the Guru-shishya relationship with Him. Because the link is forged via surrender and complete obedience to His instructions, which come from pure love and reverence, that’s all. 

And which leads me on to a second aspect related to this – that the link does NOT, in the slightest, confer any particular qualifications or right to teach Bhagavan’s teachings as a Guru or equivalent, even if the shishya were to be extraordinarily proficient. And no “lineage” authority can get established. Because, once the Guru has categorically stated that He was not a Guru in that mould – one who initiated shishyas formally, had a doctrine to teach, and appointed one or several successors to carry on the ‘parampara’ (Guru-tradition established by Him), no shishya may “teach” the teachings. To do so violates the Guru’s implied wishes in this regard. The very claim of lineage or any authority to teach would immediately crack the Guru-shishya relationship. [Unless of course the shishya becomes a great atiashrami himself. Then who can say what he may or may not do?].

So, in my humble opinion, all that a shishya of Sri Bhagavan’s may do is, share experiences and insights with other shishyas or lay devotees, with the attitude of being just another of one of them; and never from a standpoint of presumed superior proficiency, in either the theory or practice. 


----------

Once again folks, this post is just a very humble presentation of a very personal approach to the Guru-shishya relationship. Certainly, there would be plenty of interesting ideas out there on this topic. It would be nice to have you share your views below …

----------


Bibliographical Notes:

Folks, the books from where direct quotes are taken are all detailed in the post itself. In addition, the following links may be of interest:


1.   “Kamakoti Mandali” website – has material on diksha from Tantric sources:

        http://www.kamakotimandali.com/srividya/diksha.html


2.    David Godman's informative article: "Bhagavan the atiasrami":

        http://davidgodman.org/rteach/atiasrami1.shtml


3.    Swami Shantananda Puri on the atiashrami:

     http://www.swamishantanandapurimaharaj.org/writings_swamiji/He%20is%20called%20Bhagwan.pdf


4.   The Sanskrit Suta Samhita in 2 volumes:

       https://archive.org/details/SutaSamhita-volume1

       https://archive.org/details/SutaSamhita-volume2

5.   The Tamil Suta Samhita by R. Ananthakrishna Sastrigal

       https://archive.org/details/SriSutaSamhita

       For those who may want to know more, there are some interesting biographical details
       of this great scholar and author here:

       http://radhakamesh.users5.50megs.com/RASastry/ra_intro.htm