[Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami

[Kripa Shankar]

Please note that I was interested in Dayanand Saraswathi's views only in the context of that interview. To be honest, I don't know much about Chinmayananda or Chinmaya mission. 

You have got me wrong. In my earlier mails, I had made it clear that I have no respect for Kanchi mutt and it's gurus. I don't pretend otherwise unlike some impostors here. I had also provided a valid source regarding that. Opening a can of worms here, but Kanchi mutt is at the center of all ‎disputes today. It seems strange to me that when Kanchi mutt or it's sepoys try to discredit Adi Shankaracharya, no one seems perturbed. But when the same claims are questioned, they become too holy to point fingers at. 

This whole 'maharshi' and 'paramacharya' ‎game of - you pat my back and I'll return the same happened during the same time. It should also be noted that, this game picked momentum after HH Sri Sachidananda Shivabhinava Nrsimha Bharati had made great efforts to revive traditional ways. All claims of the praise for ramana by Sringeri Acharyas are a bundle of lies. 
‎
It's good to know that you have studied Vedanta under him. Like I said, I was only referring to the comment made in the interview. If he indeed commented on ramana's work, still that doesn't change anything(wrt to the current topic). I think he expressed his views quite clearly in the interview.  ‎

Regards 
Kripa 
‎
AchArya ghAtinAm lokA na santi kulapAmsana ~
There is NO region, O wretch of your race, for those who seek to slay an AchArya
  Original Message  
From: Praveen R. Bhat
Sent: Friday 13 January 2017 6:04 PM
To: Kripa Shankar
Cc: Advaita discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami


Namaste Kripaji,

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:

I completely understand your (and the forum's sentiments) with regards to Ramana. Hence I did not add any comment but merely shared the link which I stumbled upon. Let me make it abundantly clear that I do not subscribe to the blogger's introductory remark(conclusions/implied / whatever). I was only interested ‎in the views of Dayanand Saraswathi.‎

I hope you're also interested in the views of Chinmayanandaji, who was Swamiji's guru. Please read the comment posted by someone on that very blog. :)
 
‎‎
As you said that, you regard Dayanand Saraswathi greatly, it is clear then that you should acknowledge what he is saying, not me.

Let me also have an opinion about what you should acknowledge. How about views of earlier Shankaracharyas of Sringeri and Kanchi, assuming you respect them greatly, who commented positively on the Maharshi?
 
The Swamiji makes a distinction between a Vedantin and a mystic. I don't want to elaborate on this topic, but just gave clarification. 

I know exactly what Swamiji says, since I have studied Vedanta under him and his disciples for a good while. And I safely assume that you don't. If you think that is a distinction made by him about Bhagavan Ramana, why would he teach Upadesha Saram and write a commentary on it?! And Upadesha Saram itself would then mean the essence of the "mystic's teaching"! :)

ramaNArpaNamastu,
--praveen