Guru-disciple-enlightenment topic

[Natha Bhaktyananda]

The truth is that I was expecting some reaction by rising this difficult
question of guru/disciple/enlightenment, but this has surpassed my
expectations. Since there are so many related topics, I will attempt to
give a global answer, so excuse the length of the message:


Giri has written:
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Natha Bhaktyananda wrote:
> Though Ramana Maharshi may have denied any disciples, there are hosts of
> people : Sadhu Arunachala, Balaram Reddy, Kunju Swami, Ganapati Muni etc
>
> Interesting enough, all have appeared as *enlightened* disciples *after*
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
> the death (mahasamadhi) of the Maharishi -- unlike the cases of

        Oh, really ? Did they come to you and say they were enlightened
or
did you just assume it ? Please produce quotes from the four above
saying
'I am enlightened.'
---------------------------

Here you have really misunderstood me, dear Giri. The reason for which I
have put the word "enlightened" between two asterisms (*) in my first
message was precisely because it had also seemed odd to me that these
people have appeared as Self-realised beings (by their own statement or
merely by passively accepting others' statements about this!) *after*
the death of their masters and not *before* (as has happened with the
disciples of Ramakrishna, Shivananda, Lahiri Mahasaya, etc.). I am not
saying that it is entirely impossible that things are so indeed, but it
still strikes me as odd, especially when the path that they allege is
devoid of any other tangible proofs (siddhi-s, etc.) than the witness of
the master himself.

The only exception seems to be Ganapati Muni, who had achieved during
his lifetime a physical openning of brahmarandhra (the top of the head)
through the worship of Chinnamasta, so that he was in possesion of
unusual supernormal powers, including a halo of light around the head
that was said to be visible even to the normal eye (allegedly there
exists somewhere a rare photo of him in this state, but I have never
seen it with my own eyes).


Vidyasankar has written:
> Similarly, if it is correct that Ramana Maharishi did not formally
> initiate a disciple, his followers have the right to say that they regard
> Ramana as their guru, but talk of an associated lineage will raise
> suspicions.-----------------------------

I could also say that *I* regard Ramana as (one of my) guru(-s), and
there is nothing wrong in that, but if I introduce myself (or passively
allow others to do it!) as an *enlightened* disciple of the Maharishi,
the situation becomes entirely different...


Vidyasankar has also written:
Such instances
> abound elsewhere also, among advaitin gurus, visishtadvaitin gurus,
> dvaitin gurus, yoga teachers, tantriks and
 others.-------------------------------

Perfectly agreeing with you; however it is more difficult to fake it as
disciple of a great hatha-yogi or as pupil of a tantric siddha -- some
external signs are then also expected.


Cameron has written:
> You appear to suffer from the common delusion that sentient beings have
> some sort of 'free will' or volition.
>
> I can assure you that this is not the case. They act according to
> genetic and environmental factors.--------------------------------


This opinion of yours comes against the opinion of all the great masters
of the Tradition (reading some Shivananda will be enough to convince
you that it is so). Only the animals have no free will, Cameron. I can
also assure *you* that human beings do have a free will (although they
seldom seem to use it :-) The fact that you have a sense of I-ness
(which the animals don't have) is the very foundation of this free will.
Which would be the pedagogic role of karma, if you would be a helpless
tool of environmental factors? Karma would then be just a sadistic
force. One couldn't be deemed as guilty of anything (very modern idea
:-), and there wouldn't be anything to compensate! The "burning of sins
from hundreds of previous lives" (as the Yogic texts often write it)
would also appear as preposterous.


Cameron has also written:
In Maharaj's case, there never *was*
> an entity to choose to do bhajan, to tickle himself, or
 whatever,--------------------------------
Or masturbate, fornicate, kill, etc. I think Aleister Crowley would like
a lot the way you think, but not Ramakrishna or Shankara.


Cameron has finally written:
 before
> or after his 'enlightenment'. The same can be said of all sentient
> beings.--------------------------------

I can agree with none of these; they contradict both Tradition and
personal experience.


With blessings,

--
Natha Bhaktyananda <natha at dk-online.dk>
Kxbmagergade 28, 2., 1150 K
Denmark
Tf.: (45) 33930858, Fax: (45) 33930668