There are only two things of real interest to man: the breasts of a beautiful young woman and the forest (for renunciation, enlightenment etc). - Kalidasa
Siddhi vs Nirvana
Siddhi in layman terms means some kind of spiritual super power – like levitation, reading other peoples minds, greater physical endurance etc. If you practice yoga over a period of time you definitely have the potential to attain some siddhi. But this is not nirvana which is the final goal of yoga. Patanjali himself warns yoga aspirants to not be seduced by siddhis but to focus on the ultimate goal of spiritual liberation.
So Nityananda who obviously practiced yoga for considerable time probably developed some siddhis. But whether he is ‘enlightened’ is another matter altogether. The ancient shaastraas lay down a singular quality of the enlightened : lack of desire. So it is for those who know him to say whether he lacked desire or not.
When people busy in our industrial world, go to a guru and even if he teaches them breathing exercises which will show them psycho/physical benefits even in the short term, they can be impressed with the guru – whether he really be enlightened or not. So if you have a few siddhis people are going to be even more impressed. So it is quite possibly the reason that the swami became so popular.
Sex and spirituality
There is an argument that spirituality through sex is a valid practice in Indian traditions.
But this is not really true. Indian spirituality is about seeking the spirit within the psycho/physical faculties. Though almost anything related to the psycho-physical faculties can be used as a gateway to access the spirit, still sex is considered very dangerous to mix with spirituality.
The Buddha asks his disciples to turn away at the sight of a woman. Shankarachaarya warns disciples of dire consequences if they do not control their bodily lusts and still try to intuit the inner self.
Though it is true that historically a branch of Tantra (the so called ‘left hand’/vamachara tantra) did teach spirituality though sex, still it is to be noted that it was not accepted by tradition. But rather existed in the shadows – scorned and condemned by tradition. The orthodoxy historically hounded out this practice as being dangerous to spiritual practice and society.
So to claim that Nityananda was trying to teach spirituality through sex is a dubious claim – especially the argument that such practice has the support of tradition.
The Razor’s edge
The Kathaa Upanishad equates the spiritual path to the walking on the edge of a razor. To be one with the spirit is literally to turn away from each and every small pleasure that we enjoy in this world – for all pleasures are linked to our psycho physical faculties. It is indeed an arduous path which only one in a million can really succeed.
Tradition has always relied on mentors to groom spiritual aspirants. A junior shankarachaarya is groomed by his older counterpart and guided through the arduous path till he is capable of living by the sanyaasa dharma. Likewise the relationship between a guru and a sishya in almost any parampara.
However talented or intuitive one might be in the spiritual sense, it is very easy to fall prey to the pleasures of the world. The Vivekachoodaamani bearing this in mind warns spiritual aspirants that even if they have actually intuited reality, they should diligently practice austerity for it is very easy to succumb to one’s desires.
In orthodox traditions sanyaasis seldom meet women alone. Or even if they interact with them it is always in the presence of others but never alone.
Public hypocrisy
But public hypocrisy regarding such issues has always surprised me.
Today in India morality and ethics have zero relevance especially encouraged by our so called ‘establishment’ for which only material prosperity seems to be the sole important criterion of ‘development’. Thieves and murderers and rapists are our political ‘leaders’ today and rule our country. Corruption is endemic in our public sphere. Bollywood sluts and pimps are being graced with Bharat Ratnas. No less than our ‘chief justice’ supports sex outside of wedlock. That is the condition of our society today.
Good is primarily defined as service in the interest of somebody else – where our personal interest is not involved. How many of us do a single ‘good’ in a day?
These we know about Nityananda :
that he was spiritually talented and aspired for something higher.
that he taught meditation etc to people's benefit.
that his organization did help out the society with charities and public works.
When our day to day life is primarily aimed every second at getting us closer to one or the other desire of ours, on what basis can we condemn somebody who lives the greater part of their lives for the greater good?
Yes Nityananda might have committed wrong by indulging in sex with women when he claimed brahmachaarya. But our selfish public have little moral/ethical ground to condemn him. It is this very same public that for its selfish ends has reduced the society to what it is today.
Nityananda is pretty much the sign of the times in the degenerate Indian society of today with its filmdom exerting an all pervasive negative influence. As a sharp old lady once told me : "In yesteryears if they asked 'who is the important person in the society', they would say this thinker or that social worker. But today they say 'Kushboo' etc". So little wonder that while the ancient Tamil society produced Thiruvalluvar, the Bhakti saints etc, today it can only produce the likes of Nityananda.
And all the usual suspects in the media which condemn him : the ‘porn’ Times of India, NDTV, political party run TV channels etc, all of which subvert traditional culture and promote western hedonism - it is not as if they are paragons of morality and honour. When they themselves in so many ways encourage much of what Nityananda is condemned for, so what is their grouch against him - that a Hindu aspired for something higher especially in the traditional way? Their tirade against Nityananda is like the glee of pigs in the gutter when a calf falls in the muck.
Dubious reactions
When the Nityananda scandal broke out there were reports of violence. Apparently a bunch of people attacked and destroyed stuff in his ashram. Nityananda was mainly an urban guru catering mainly to the middle class working class. People who go to him are those who seek peace in their life and hardly have experienced any violence in life. And we are to believe that these are the people who reacted with violence against Nityananda’s ashram?
The kind of mass violence that we saw speaks of organized orchestration and not spontaneous reaction of spiritual aspirants.
So who orchestrated it?
Our ‘political leaders’ have a long history of seeking a share of wealth of anybody who acquires it on our society – be it successful industrialists or swamis.
The church also has a long history of subverting swamis who grow popular – especially using the ‘honey trap’. And often they are in cahoots with our political leaders.
So one can only wonder which was involved in the ‘violent reaction’ against Nityananda.
Spirituality for sale
When did we last hear of Veda Vyasa or Shankara or Buddha or Ramana Maharishi teaching brahma vidhya for money? But modern day 'gurus' - from Mahesh Yogi to Nityananda charge money to teach meditation etc - especially to foreign spiritual aspirants (I think Nityananda charged like $6000 for a 3 month course!). I have heard the argument from some worthies from such organizations that it was meant to make the aspirant to take the teaching more seriously - yeah right!
All those meditational sciences were developed by our ancient rishis and is a part of our civilizational heritage and so cannot be put on sale by modern pretenders. This attempt to put spirituality on the market for sale should be stauchly opposed - by tradition and law.
There is an argument that Nityananda was supportive of defending the dharma from the attacks of anti-hindu forces and so is deserving of sympathy etc. Apart from the fact that that doesn't justify his sexual misconduct, also we do not want dharmic traditions to be reduced to the concept of world domination through organized religion of the Semitic streams. That would atbest only be yielding to the same evil which is controlled by Hindus instead.
Siddhi vs Nirvana
Siddhi in layman terms means some kind of spiritual super power – like levitation, reading other peoples minds, greater physical endurance etc. If you practice yoga over a period of time you definitely have the potential to attain some siddhi. But this is not nirvana which is the final goal of yoga. Patanjali himself warns yoga aspirants to not be seduced by siddhis but to focus on the ultimate goal of spiritual liberation.
So Nityananda who obviously practiced yoga for considerable time probably developed some siddhis. But whether he is ‘enlightened’ is another matter altogether. The ancient shaastraas lay down a singular quality of the enlightened : lack of desire. So it is for those who know him to say whether he lacked desire or not.
When people busy in our industrial world, go to a guru and even if he teaches them breathing exercises which will show them psycho/physical benefits even in the short term, they can be impressed with the guru – whether he really be enlightened or not. So if you have a few siddhis people are going to be even more impressed. So it is quite possibly the reason that the swami became so popular.
Sex and spirituality
There is an argument that spirituality through sex is a valid practice in Indian traditions.
But this is not really true. Indian spirituality is about seeking the spirit within the psycho/physical faculties. Though almost anything related to the psycho-physical faculties can be used as a gateway to access the spirit, still sex is considered very dangerous to mix with spirituality.
The Buddha asks his disciples to turn away at the sight of a woman. Shankarachaarya warns disciples of dire consequences if they do not control their bodily lusts and still try to intuit the inner self.
Though it is true that historically a branch of Tantra (the so called ‘left hand’/vamachara tantra) did teach spirituality though sex, still it is to be noted that it was not accepted by tradition. But rather existed in the shadows – scorned and condemned by tradition. The orthodoxy historically hounded out this practice as being dangerous to spiritual practice and society.
So to claim that Nityananda was trying to teach spirituality through sex is a dubious claim – especially the argument that such practice has the support of tradition.
The Razor’s edge
The Kathaa Upanishad equates the spiritual path to the walking on the edge of a razor. To be one with the spirit is literally to turn away from each and every small pleasure that we enjoy in this world – for all pleasures are linked to our psycho physical faculties. It is indeed an arduous path which only one in a million can really succeed.
Tradition has always relied on mentors to groom spiritual aspirants. A junior shankarachaarya is groomed by his older counterpart and guided through the arduous path till he is capable of living by the sanyaasa dharma. Likewise the relationship between a guru and a sishya in almost any parampara.
However talented or intuitive one might be in the spiritual sense, it is very easy to fall prey to the pleasures of the world. The Vivekachoodaamani bearing this in mind warns spiritual aspirants that even if they have actually intuited reality, they should diligently practice austerity for it is very easy to succumb to one’s desires.
In orthodox traditions sanyaasis seldom meet women alone. Or even if they interact with them it is always in the presence of others but never alone.
Public hypocrisy
But public hypocrisy regarding such issues has always surprised me.
Today in India morality and ethics have zero relevance especially encouraged by our so called ‘establishment’ for which only material prosperity seems to be the sole important criterion of ‘development’. Thieves and murderers and rapists are our political ‘leaders’ today and rule our country. Corruption is endemic in our public sphere. Bollywood sluts and pimps are being graced with Bharat Ratnas. No less than our ‘chief justice’ supports sex outside of wedlock. That is the condition of our society today.
Good is primarily defined as service in the interest of somebody else – where our personal interest is not involved. How many of us do a single ‘good’ in a day?
These we know about Nityananda :
that he was spiritually talented and aspired for something higher.
that he taught meditation etc to people's benefit.
that his organization did help out the society with charities and public works.
When our day to day life is primarily aimed every second at getting us closer to one or the other desire of ours, on what basis can we condemn somebody who lives the greater part of their lives for the greater good?
Yes Nityananda might have committed wrong by indulging in sex with women when he claimed brahmachaarya. But our selfish public have little moral/ethical ground to condemn him. It is this very same public that for its selfish ends has reduced the society to what it is today.
Nityananda is pretty much the sign of the times in the degenerate Indian society of today with its filmdom exerting an all pervasive negative influence. As a sharp old lady once told me : "In yesteryears if they asked 'who is the important person in the society', they would say this thinker or that social worker. But today they say 'Kushboo' etc". So little wonder that while the ancient Tamil society produced Thiruvalluvar, the Bhakti saints etc, today it can only produce the likes of Nityananda.
And all the usual suspects in the media which condemn him : the ‘porn’ Times of India, NDTV, political party run TV channels etc, all of which subvert traditional culture and promote western hedonism - it is not as if they are paragons of morality and honour. When they themselves in so many ways encourage much of what Nityananda is condemned for, so what is their grouch against him - that a Hindu aspired for something higher especially in the traditional way? Their tirade against Nityananda is like the glee of pigs in the gutter when a calf falls in the muck.
Dubious reactions
When the Nityananda scandal broke out there were reports of violence. Apparently a bunch of people attacked and destroyed stuff in his ashram. Nityananda was mainly an urban guru catering mainly to the middle class working class. People who go to him are those who seek peace in their life and hardly have experienced any violence in life. And we are to believe that these are the people who reacted with violence against Nityananda’s ashram?
The kind of mass violence that we saw speaks of organized orchestration and not spontaneous reaction of spiritual aspirants.
So who orchestrated it?
Our ‘political leaders’ have a long history of seeking a share of wealth of anybody who acquires it on our society – be it successful industrialists or swamis.
The church also has a long history of subverting swamis who grow popular – especially using the ‘honey trap’. And often they are in cahoots with our political leaders.
So one can only wonder which was involved in the ‘violent reaction’ against Nityananda.
Spirituality for sale
When did we last hear of Veda Vyasa or Shankara or Buddha or Ramana Maharishi teaching brahma vidhya for money? But modern day 'gurus' - from Mahesh Yogi to Nityananda charge money to teach meditation etc - especially to foreign spiritual aspirants (I think Nityananda charged like $6000 for a 3 month course!). I have heard the argument from some worthies from such organizations that it was meant to make the aspirant to take the teaching more seriously - yeah right!
All those meditational sciences were developed by our ancient rishis and is a part of our civilizational heritage and so cannot be put on sale by modern pretenders. This attempt to put spirituality on the market for sale should be stauchly opposed - by tradition and law.
There is an argument that Nityananda was supportive of defending the dharma from the attacks of anti-hindu forces and so is deserving of sympathy etc. Apart from the fact that that doesn't justify his sexual misconduct, also we do not want dharmic traditions to be reduced to the concept of world domination through organized religion of the Semitic streams. That would atbest only be yielding to the same evil which is controlled by Hindus instead.
0 comments:
Post a Comment