Avadhoota & Paramahamsa (fwd)

[Ravishankar Venkatraman]

<br><br><br>ravi

By this definition then, we cannot call Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa, a
Paramahansa. He was married and was never a Sanyasi. I see this word being
used for sanyasis who were jivanmuktas also. But, they may not have
relinquished everything (as in the case of head of mutts). I think that has
been used with Sri Ramakrishna who was a jivanmukta also the same way. Can
it not be used for any jivanmukta as opposed to a jivanmukta with a
particular life style?

There is an interesting episode about the meeting of Avadut Dattatreya and
Gorakshanath, a great Siddha and the perfect one in nath sect. Siddha
Gorakshanath, while roaming, reached the Girnar mountain, a favorite abode
of Lord Dattatreya. Gorakshanath was hungry and he sent his zoli(begging bag
made of cloth) to get some food by invoking his siddhis. As he was ready to
eat the food, a resplendent youth appeared before him. Gorakshanath offered
him food, but this youth politely refused to take food saying that it was
brought by yogic powers.

Gorakshanath was bewildered about the stature of the person standing before
him, and Dattatreya gave him milk from his kamandalu, which quenched
Gorakshanath's hunger as well as thirst. While Gorakshanath asked the youth
to drink the rest of the milk, the youth said that he was never hungry nor
thirsty and that he was nothing.

Gorakshanath could not know who this person was in spite of all his yogic
powers and he suggested that they play hide and seek. Gorakshanath hides
three times and he could no escape Lord Dattatreya's eyes. But when the
youth in disguise hides, Gorakshanath could not find him anywhere in this
universe and he concedes defeat.

Gorakshanath understood that this must be Lord Dattatreya and asked him
where He was hiding. Lord Dattatreya said, 'I did not go anywhere. I was in
front of you and was totally immersed in Para Brahman. There was not a
single atom in this universe where I was not present. The power in you
searching me was also me. So how and why can I seek I?'
Gorakshanath admitted in his monumental book "Siddha Siddhanta Paddhati"
that it is impossible to describe the state of  Avadhuta.

This is a story I am quoting from 'A Glimpse of Divinity: Shri Swami
Samarth", by Mukund Hanumante.


Thanks,
Ravi







>From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM>
>Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
><ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
>To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
>Subject: Avadhoota & Paramahamsa (fwd)
>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:22:46 -0400
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: RAMASWAMY BALU <jsrswamy at hotmail.com>
> > To: listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> > Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 17:51:04 +0530
> > Subject: Avadhoota & Paramahamsa
> >
> >    What is the difference between an Avadhoota and Paramahamsa?  Do both
> > the terms represent a Brahma Gnani?
>
>Both terms are similar in that they refer to those sannyasins who have
>totally abandoned all conventions of society.
>
>Avadhuta litrally means "cast off".  Just as we would throw away old and
>wornout clothing without a second thought, the avadhuta casts off all the
>social norms.  Bhagawan Dattatreya is said to be the founder of the
>avadhuta marga.  An example of an avadhuta is the Bhagavata Purana is
>Bharat who was called Jadabharata because people thought he was insane.
>
>Hamsa means swan or goose.  Poetically, the hamsa is supposed to have the
>power to spereate amrit from water.  Swami Vidyaranya explains that the
>Paramhansa is the highest grade of Sannyasi.  A paramhamsa has no danda or
>kesari robes or othr signs of sannyasa, not even a begging bowl, he
>receives bhiksha in his hands.  He has no mantra or shastra except Omkar.
>He avoids the company of worldly people and doesn't stay in one place for
>more than three days.  Whereas other sannyasis are vividisha or still
>seeking Brahman, the paramhamsa is a vidwan, a knower of Brahman or in
>other words, a jivanmukta.
>
>--
>Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Wed Aug 15 10:09:14 2001
Message-Id: <WED.15.AUG.2001.100914.0400.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:09:14 -0400
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Avadhoota & Paramahamsa (fwd)

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:00:49 -0400, Ravishankar Venkatraman
<sunlike at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

><br><br><br>ravi
>
>By this definition then, we cannot call Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa, a
>Paramahansa. He was married and was never a Sanyasi. I see this word being
>used for sanyasis who were jivanmuktas also. But, they may not have
>relinquished everything (as in the case of head of mutts). I think that has
>been used with Sri Ramakrishna who was a jivanmukta also the same way. Can
>it not be used for any jivanmukta as opposed to a jivanmukta with a
>particular life style?
>

As per the Jivanmuktiviveka of Sri Swami Vidyaranya, jivanmukti is the
prerequisite for vidvat sannyasa. Only paramhamsas can take vidvat sannyas
because they become paramhamsas on the onset of jivanmukti. So Sri
Ramakrishna was a Paramhamsa. He never formally took sannyas diksha but
even that is not necessary as we see that Rishi Yajnavalkya took vidvat
sannyasa without any initiation. In fact, no diksha is necessary for taking
vidvat sannyasa - the only prerequisite being jivanmukti.

ashish