The Maharishi and The Maha-Svami(Paramacharyaar of Kanchi)

[Guest guest]

The Maharishi and The Maha-Svami(Paramacharyaar of Kanchi)

 

Ra. Ganapati

Two reports I heard from the servitors of the Maha-Svami relating him

to Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi I could myself easily attribute to

their creative artistry in elevating their own Master over every

other holy man. Yet I wanted to get confirmation from His Holiness

himself for certain reasons.

The Maha-Svami, ever bubbling with wit and witticism had a unique way

of saying things. He said he did not want to give the same judgment

on both reports and so would call one of them as pettal (colloquial

for pitatral) and the other as ularal. The fun of it is that both the

words mean the same, viz., talking nonsense!

To come to the two reports. One of them was that when the Maha-Svami

was circumambulating the Holy Hill during his camp at Tiruvannamalai,

Sri Ramana Maharishi purposely came out of his living room in the

Ramana-Asrama and walked to a particular spot from where he could see

the Maha-Svami at a distance.

Even as I heard it I could write it off, because Maharishi was to me

surely one to whom the triad of the seer, seen and sight had

dissolved in the oneness of the only Self. (So it was to His

Holiness. But he donned the role of the Teacher exemplifying the

ideal to the humans, and therefore was ever on the move to see people

and holy places.)

Decades back, a lad of sixteen, the Maharishi fled home to

Tirvannamalai, afire with the raging ardor to see the Fire-Linga of

lord Arunachalesvara. He took darsan, just one darsan, and with that

the very idea of an object to be seen apart from the self was burnt

out! Though he lived in the very temple precincts for the next five

or six months, he did not visit the sanctum sanctorum again. To

assert that, contrary to what the Asrama sources say, he did come out

to see that Maha-Svami is, as the Svami himself said, nothing but

pettal (nonsense).

Our Acharya Maha-Svami visited Tiruvannamalai twice, once in 1929 and

again in 1944, both for the Kartika Deepam festival (when the holy

beacon is lighted atop the Hill). On both the occasions he also made

the customary Giri-pradakshinam (circumambulation of the Hill). The

Ramanasraman lies on the route. I have heard reports from two very

reliable and respected persons attached to the Asramam, Sri Kunju

Svamigal and Mme. Suri Nagmma about what transpired when the Maha-

Svami passed along the route. Kunju Svami must have been present on

both the occasions and Nagamma on the latter one.

Bhagavan had already prepared the asramites not to take it amiss if

the Acharya did not enter into the Asramam and see him; because,

according to one tradition, one in the Jagadguru Peetham (Seat of the

World-teacher) must not call on another holy man on his own. As for

himself, though he did not say it, he would not extend an invitation

to anyone for the simple reason that he did not have any desire or

need to see any body, anything. As for the asramites, they could, if

they so wished, gather outside and have darsan of the Acharya as he

moved along.

And most of them did.

The asramites had great respect for the Acharya, especially by the

forties, because it was he who almost compelled Paul Brunton the

Maharishi's feet, and it was Brunton's soulful account of the

Maharishi that threw open the window of the West of the light of the

Illumined Master. The book clearly shows that the Acharya considered

the Maharishi as "a high master" who can give "initiation into the

real yoga of the higher kind".

In one of his discourses in Madras in the early thirties, the Acharya

had raked the Maharishi, whom he referred to as Ramana Svamigal,

among the jivan-muktas (liberated even while living in a body). The

asramites were naturally happy that the respected head of a Sankara

Math, uncompromising in such matters, gave such praise to the

Maharishi in public.

On both the occasions of his visit to Tiruvannamalai, the Acharya

turned his eyes towards the entrance of the Asrama, stopped for a few

seconds looking round and continued to walk, a still picture in

motion!

Reminiscing the second visit Nagamma said, while all the other

asramites went out and waited at the gate for His Holiness, she alone

was left with the Maharishi.

"Why have you not joined them?" he asked her.

"Because the Svami does not see Brahmin widows who have not shaved

their heads", Nagamma replied.

Though mature and tolerant not to denounce the orthodox custom, she

felt a tinge of sadness.

The Maharishi just nodded his head and looked at her with compassion,

The compassion assuaged her sadness. The simple nod too conveyed a

lot to the discerning disciple. It signified the Maharishi's

acceptance of both the Acharya's adherence to the institutional

customs, and Nagamma's wisdom in not following the other such windows

who used to peep at the Acharya from a hidden place.

Here comes something antipodal between the Maha-Svami and the

Maharishi. the former stood foremost in strictly observing all the

distinction laid out by the Dharma sastras and orthodox traditions,

whereas the latter stood foremost in practicing equality. Even to

merit the glance of the Maha-Svami one had to fulfil conditions; a

millionaires Brahmin widow was disqualified if she was not tonsured!

On the other hand, even an untouchable beggar could sit right by the

side of the Maharishi and eat along with him. Nay, if he so felt,

there was no restriction to his feeding the Maharishi from out of the

alms in his begging bowl! How rude, crude and cruel does the one

appear and how suave, soft and sweet the other? How is it that the

Sweet gives his nod of approval to the Cruel?

If the Sweet cannot appreciate the Cruel, equally true is the vice

versa. But whereas the Sweet's appreciation of the Cruel came out in

`just nodding,' the Cruel's appreciation of the Sweet came out in a

verbal flow. That was in the public discourse given by the Maha-Svami

the very night. To quote Nagamma, "The Swami spoke at great length

saying that every head of a religious organisation has to observe

established traditions while one who is an Athyasramite (one

transcending the four stages of life prescribed by the Dharma

Sastras) has no such inhibitions... (To) attain that state is very

difficult and that had been possible only for a great soul like

Ramana Maharishi."

The devotees of the Maharishi exulted at this unstinted tribute the

Acharya paid to their Master in their home-town.

 

But close on it wake the Acharya gave a rude shock to them. They felt

that he had dealt a direct blow on what they held in worshipful

respect in the Asrama, viz., the temple over the spot where the body

of the mother of the Maharishi was buried. When she passed away, the

Maharishi favoured the idea of putting up such a structure because in

his view (which was not just a view, but perception of truth) she was

a Sannyasini who attained the Jnani's liberation of Oneness. Vedic

priests offered their chants and ritualistic services at the temple

as they did in any other `regular' temple. But, to their dismay when

they went after one such service there to participate in the evening

Puja at the Acharya's Math, they were asked to enter only after

taking a purificatory bath. Because, first of all opinion was divided

among the orthodoxy on first of all, opinion was divided among the

orthodoxy on the very question of the eligibility of women for

sannyasa; and even if that was accepted, the mother of Maharishi was

not initiated to that order in the formal, scriptural way. So the

place of her burial was just a grave-yard (which pollutes the

entrants).

The directive of the Acharya to the priests struck the asramites as a

bigoted, book-learnt judgement over the intuitive judgment of their

enlightened master. As most of the priests were also devoted to the

Maharishi, they were deeply perturbed when the Pontiff, who was the

bulwark of the priestly tradition in the changing world, pronounced

the stricture.

Early next morning the asramites and priests went to the Maharishi.

In spite of the asramites' efforts to restrain themselves before

their august Master, they could not keep their tempers. They

complained about what all `that Svami' was doing with his

differentiating outlook in contrast to what `this Bhagavan' was doing

in his all-embracing outlook. "The priests want to give a reply to

him. (They actually wanted to teach him a lesson!) Bhagavan should

give the reply."

As ever unruffled, the Maharishi heard it all and in his stately

composure gave his judgement on the judgement of the Svami on his

previous judgment. It was Neutrality itself that spoke!

"Why say that person, this person? Say there, here. That is the

correct expression. Viewed so, what all has happened will also be

understood as correct. (For the benefit of the Tamil-knowing readers,

let me give the original simple, concise and powerful words of the

Maharishi as faithfully conveyed by Sri Kunju Svami: That is an

orthodox Peetham, and this an independent ashram. Who ever is here

would be like this. So long as that svami is the head of that Peetham

he must only follow (more precisely, `demonstrate', because the

Maharishi said not the ways and rules of the Peetham. He had

therefore issued that directive.

"Why reply? Then there will be a counter to it, a counter to the

counter and it will go on like that. (Looking at the asramites) Let

us carry on in our way silently here, come. The others may withdraw.

let not anybody raise questions and arguments."

Is it not clear that Maharishi considered the Maha-svami to be a

Brahma-jnani in reality who was just `demonstrating' certain ways

because he happened to be in a certain place! The Brahma-jnani alone

can take the colour of any surroundings. Chameleon-like? But the

chameleon does that to save itself; the jnani, to save the

surrounding! The particular surrounding of our Brahma-jnani conferred

on him the uniqueness of being the only Maha-Purusha of the recent

times to apparently bind his state of unbound freedom with shackles

of the strictest codes of the orthodox tradition. Much in it would be

rude, crude and cruel in the eyes of the changing free world. But in

Nature's order freedom too must be balanced by discipline, which is

another name for restraint. When almost the whole world plumbed in

for freedom and its consequent break from the past to its rude, crude

and cruel extreme, it was as though Nature threw up the Single Entity

on the Acharya to counter balance it by his total adherence to the

past tradition in its extreme form. Though noble motives and ideals

are not lacking n the Modern Movements, in actually it has only

`helped its adherents in self-pampering in various ways. In contrast,

however base orthodoxy appeared to be, people saw with open eyes in

its Ace-adherent the living example of self-paupering. They realised

that he was more `cruel' in his self-denial than in denying them the

many rights they clamoured for. It was the power of this self-

abnegation, added to that of his unbounded love deep within, which

knew no differentiation, that gained universal respect for him.

But human nature being what it is, respect gives way to remonstration

when personally picked. That happened with the Ramana-asramites too.

But the Maharishi, who had no person to be pricked, dissolved it by

counseling sympathetic acceptance.

These are various systems of medicine. In the Unani system we have

sweet and soft drugs, in the Ayurveda bitter and pungent ones. Does

that mean the hakim only is kind an the vaidya cruel? Whatever the

patient may think, the hakim and vaidya, if open-hearted, will

acknowledge the merit of each other. That was what our vaidya Maha-

Swami and hakim Maharishi did. That was the secret of the mutual

appreciation between the `Cruel' and the `Sweet'.

(It is also generally accepted by the Masters that when we are in the

initial stages of cleansing the mind the Ayurveda of (the Karma-marga

of) the Dharma Sastras is more called or, and only afterwards the

Unani of Jnana Marga.)

According to my sure understanding, the orthodox interpretation the

Maha-Svami gave of touching the place of burial of Maharishi's mother

must have changed later on.

For nearly a decade from the early seventies I often felt an

irresistible urge to visit Ramanasrama. At that time I had asked the

Maha-svami about my going to what was said to be the Mother's temple

there.

He said with a smile, "I think you say `what is said to be' because

you have heard about my pronouncement (uttravu) on that", he

continued, "That was before the Kumbhabishekam (formal consecration

of the structure as a temple) was performed there quite elaborately.

Among the many santi karmas (expiatory rites) in that, what was

necessary in the particular matter was also carried out, perhaps

without the knowledge of the people of the Asramam themselves."

Though this may appear rather scrappy to the readers, the eloquent

sannidhya (divine personal radiation) of the Maha-Svami added to his

verbal statement gave me, personally, the full answer. I could

construe with certainty that by `what was necessary in this

particular matter was carried out' he meant tat what was scripturally

ordained for conferring the status of a temple to a structure that

had come up in a burial ground was carried into effect. "Perhaps

without the knowledge of the people of the Asramam themselves": my

sure guess is that somebody on behalf of the priests to perform the

Kumbhabishekam, evidently having in mind the Maha-Svami's previous

stricture, had independently sought his advice before taking up the

consecration and the Maha-svami must have told him to see if any rite

to formally authorise a temple that had come up in a graveyard was

given in the Sastras, and if found, that must be carried out in the

present case. Actually finding some such, the priests must have duly

fulfilled that. Not a raise any unpleasant thoughts among the

asramites, the Maha Svami must have, in his abounding sympathy,

advised the priests to keep this back from them.

Apart from this `sure guess', it is a fact that the Maha-Svami

permitted me, who may be said to be on the side of the orthodox, to

visit the place as a temple. That applies to all others of the same

persuasion.

Deep within, the sweet water and tender pulp of love and compassion,

but on the outside, the hard shell and the husky rind of the orthodox

cannons and customs such a coconut the Acharya was. If we acknowledge

that he did also partake of the dualism of the world in this Avataric

semblance to humanity, we will realise that his loving heart would

have undergone more pain than the `victims' of his stringent

strictures - as in the present had to veto the verdict of the very

person whom he respected as the perfect example of non-dual

perfection. Who knows the number of times something akin to the

episode of Sri Rama banishing his beloved and spotless Sita for the

sake of upholding his dharmic duty happened in the life of the

Acharya! The imperceptible influence of this spirit of sacrifice

enhanced the unexceptional respect he elicited.

We come to the second of the reports, the ularal one.

What the whole world came to know as the unique `aspect' of the

Maharishi was his total indifference to whatsoever happened to the

body. Even in his teens he was thoroughly obvious of the worms and

insects eating into his thighs and nates when he was absorbed in the

Self in a subterranean cavern. When at the end of his life, sarcoma

was perforating his arm, the world wondered at his perfect unconcern

over it. But my Math friends belonged to a different world, the world

of the Maha Svami's one-up manship over all other holymen! So their

Maharishi sent word to their Maha-Svami about his protracted

suffering, asking why it should be so. (Thank God the friends did not

go to the extent of saying that the Maharishi prayed for the Maha-

Svami's grace for relief) the Maha-Svami in return sent the

message, "It is will known to you that the body is not you. (It was

gracious of the friends to accept this!) Then what is there except

keeping on to it?"

Even as I heard it, it struck me as stark absurd. But when I saw even

knowledgeable people believing in it, I took the matter t the Maha-

Svami's ears.

And he just dismissed it as ularal.

He went on, brimming with his admiration for the Maharishi. "We have

read in the books about the Atma Nishthas (those absorbed in the

Self), Braha-Jnanis (knowers of Brahman) and Jivan-Muktas (those

liberated even while living in the body), to whom the existence and

extinction of the body made no difference and who, fully one (with

the Self) did not have an inkling of desire to see or hear anything.

Ramana Rishi was among the few extra-ordinary (apurva) persons of the

recent times who have demonstrated all that as true. He is the one

who has brought, for the world to see, the hoary Jnani-tradition down

to the present day."

"Authentic saint?" I said, partly in the affirmative, partly as a

question.

"And a jnani at that. Authentic jnani" he amended.

(Many, perhaps most, of the saints do not have the non-dual

realisation of the jnani.)

On another occasion the Maha-Svami said that it was a matter of pride

for us (of Tamilnadu) that such one as Ramana Rishi lived among us in

the present (degenerate) day. This was in private.

But there was a public occasion when he lauded the Maharishi's

spiritual power in a moving way in his staggering humility. That was

at the farewell gathering at the end of his eighteen-month-long stay

in Madras, from Sep. 1957 to March 1959. He said that though he moved

from place to place and lived in the midst of the people them back to

the sastraic way of life. In contrast, he cited the Maharishi and Sri

Aurobindo who did not move out of their asramas and yet drew even

foreigners to their respective paths.

But there is a world of difference here. Whereas the Maha-Svami's

path of the Dharma Sastras is for the world at large, the Maharishi's

Jnana and Sri Aurobindo's Yoga are only for the little minority with

the required competence and inclination. Such people also have the

antenna to discover their master even if they live in the distant

corner of the world, and also the diligence to steadfastly follow the

master's path to the end. But the masses are very hard to reclaim,

and the more so, to a path to which they are not attracted by native

choice.

Though in his humility Maha-Svami under-rated his influence, we must

underscore the fact that he too had turned many a mod and agnostic to

the sastraic path, sometimes even in a instant. Not only that. He has

turned many to the paths of Jnana and Yoga too. Especially in the

last decades of his life his influence spread the world over and drew

considerable number of foreigners to the paths of Jnana and Yoga,

which included the initiates of Paul Brunton himself.

It did not end up with the mutual esteem each had for the other.

Higher above each has unmistakably indicated his very identify with

the other.

Smt. Kanakamma was born in a family deeply attached to the Kanchi

Math and its Acharya. But she took to the Maharishi with fervour. Her

relatives were against it. Her grand-mother took her to the Acharya,

made the complaint and petitioned to him to wean her from the

Maharishi and take her into his fold.

Pat, yet soft, came his reply: "What if it is here or there?'

The judgement from their very Court silenced the members of the

family.

We saw before the Maharishi saying that the different prescriptions

were due only to the two places and not to the two persons. Even

there, the perceptive reader would have heard in undertone a hint to

the non-difference between the two persons. Now, when the Maha-Svami

referred by `here' and `there' not the two places, but the two

persons, we have a more audible indication of their non-differences.

We are blessed to have a more explicit expression of this identity

from the lips of the Maharishi. I quote from Sri. G.V. Subbaramayya*:

Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham was now (end

of Oct. 1947) camping near Tiruvannamalai. Someone asked whether His

Holiness and Sri Bhagavan ever met. Sri Bhagavan replied:

"When were we separate that we should not meet? We are always

together."

Actually, `togetherness' was only `oneness to that Advaita Jnani.

Their unity in the sublimity of Advaita may be out of our

comprehension. Both are identical in their utter simplicity born of

that very sublimity. Her we can certainly understand, admire and

adore the oneness of the Maha-Svami and the Maharishi and exclaim "O

sancta simplicitas ! (O holy simplicity!)"