Criticisms by the Chief Minister! Article 3
In the second article I posted on Facebook , I pointed out that the Kerala Chief Minister’s views include several commendable corrections.
In his speech, he highlights the influence of Sree Narayana Guru on Mahatma Gandhi, the role of Guru’s philosophy in presenting the anti-untouchability resolution at the Kakinada Congress session, and the contributions of T.K. Madhavan. All these represent healthy progressions from the party’s earlier positions.
However, I find myself unable to agree with certain opinions of the Chief Minister. Pay attention to these criticisms:
1) “Sree Narayana Guru was neither a proponent nor a practitioner of Sanatana Dharma. Instead, he was a revered Sanyasi who reinterpreted that Dharma and proclaimed a new-age doctrine suited for modern times. In India, there have been three streams of thought regarding Sanatana Dharma: those who adhere to it, those who view it with skepticism, and those who challenge and defy it. Guru represents the third stream.”
(This statement is being discussed in today’s article.)
2) He argues that “Sanatan Dharma is nothing but the Varna-Ashrama system as outlined in the Smriti texts.” In other words, the attempt is to establish that Sanatan Dharma is nothing but a caste system. Whether this is true or not will be examined in detail in the upcoming articles.
3) “Guru’s New Age Humanitarian Dharma challenges and transcends the Varna-Ashrama Dharma, and aligns with the current times. Guru’s New Age Dharma is not a religion that has been defined. Has any religion until now proclaimed that it is enough for a person to be good, regardless of their religion? No. Has any religion stated that the essence of all religions is one? No. So, what becomes clear here? Guru has embraced a humanistic worldview that acknowledges the intrinsic value of humanity beyond religious boundaries. To attempt to fit this into the rigid framework of Sanatana Dharma would be a great disservice and disrespect to the Guru,” he continues.
If the Chief Minister’s statement is aimed at highlighting the greatness of Sri Narayana Guru, there is no opposition to that. However, if the Chief Minister is attempting to establish that Guru’s philosophy of unity and his perspective on humanistic Dharma are not part of Sanatan Dharma, or that such ideas were never expressed by the ancient Gurus, then this cannot be accepted. The reasons for this will be clarified with evidence in the forthcoming articles.
4) “The Mahabharata raises a question mark of doubt without providing a clear answer to the question, ‘What is Dharma?'”, is his next criticism.
The Mahabharata contains numerous discussions on the concept of Dharma through various characters. However, it ultimately concludes that Krishna’s (Pandavas’) side is correct. Therefore, this criticism does not stand. If necessary, we can revisit and discuss this issue further at a later time.
5) “The term ‘Sanatana Hindutva’ seeks to establish the old Brahmanical dominance of the past monarchy.”
It is worth examining whether there is any basis for this “Sanatana Dharma-phobia.”
6) He also criticizes the well-known Vishwa Shanti Prarthana (which ends with “Lokaah Samastaah Sukhino Bhavantu”) and its reference to “Go Brahmanebhya.” A response to this criticism is already provided within this series of articles.
In brief, these are the main criticisms of Sanatana Dharma put forward by Sri Pinarayi Vijayan. Each of these allegations can be answered and explained in detail. However, it should not be assumed that the sole purpose of this series of articles is to respond to the Chief Minister. The aim here is to correct some misconceptions and harmful propaganda that have taken root among the general public, using as much evidence and authoritative facts as possible. Those interested in the pursuit of truth are welcome to join this discussion. I am ready to respond to various opinions and doubts. Healthy criticism is also welcomed.
Let us consider Sri Pinarayi Vijayan’s first criticism. It is as follows:
1) “Sree Narayana Guru was neither a proponent nor a practitioner of Sanatana Dharma. Instead, he was a revered Sanyasi who reinterpreted that Dharma and proclaimed a new-age doctrine suited for modern times. In India, there have been three streams of thought regarding Sanatana Dharma: those who adhere to it, those who view it with skepticism, and those who challenge and defy it. Guru represents the third stream.”
Is this statement accurate?
If the Chief Minister is using the term “reforming” to refer to the efforts of removing the conservatist and fundamentalist views that had crept into the Hindu society, then it is entirely in agreement with the reality of the Guru’s actions.
Gurudeva’s unparalleled contributions!
1. It is indeed true that Sri Narayana Guru provided guidance and models for the modern era. His teachings, such as “Enlighten yourself through education, empower yourself through organization, and prosper through industry,” “One caste, one religion, one God for humanity,” “Do not ask about caste, do not speak of it, do not think of it,” and “It is enough for a person to be good, regardless of their religion,” are just a few of his profound messages.
There has been no other Rishi who composed Divya Stotras (divine hymns) in three languages—Sanskrit, Malayalam, and Tamil. While Sri Shankaracharya wrote a commentary on the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana, Sri Narayana Guru authored a work itself called the Vedanta Sutra. Following the path of the Vedic Rishis, he also composed new mantras, such as the Homa Mantra.
Gurudeva’s temple models!
Here’s a refined version of the translation:
“It is important to highlight the countless temples that have been consecrated through the proper rituals of Prana Pratishtha, as well as the temple models constructed in accordance with the principles of Sanatana Dharma, rather than following the conventional conservatist approach.”
Shri Narayana Guru was not the first person from the so-called ‘backward class’ to perform a Pratishtha; it was a young Yogi from the Pulaya community, Omalan, and Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker, who performed Shiva Linga Pratishtha before Gurudeva. (Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker only oversaw the construction of the temple.) However, the distinctive feature of Shri Narayana Guru’s temple models lies in the widespread construction of temples based on pure principles of Tantra, alongside the establishment of Renaissance-driven, social reform, educational, employment, industrial, and service initiatives. The concept of the temple according to Aarsha Dharma is “Kshayath trayathe iti Kshetra” (A temple should be a place that liberates individuals and society from all forms of suffering). It is in this manner that Gurudeva meticulously planned and built these temples.
He instructed that there should be no elephants and fireworks in the temples. He put an end to practices like animal sacrifice, alcohol offerings, and Thullal in the temples. In place of unnecessary and extravagant rituals, he introduced a simple and devotion-centered system. He established gardens, libraries, schools, and industrial-employment institutions attached to the temples. Instead of caste purity, he emphasized on individual and community cleanliness and hygiene and made bathing facilities.
Gurudeva’s view was that temples should not be used solely for worship. The Kshetra Vavoottu Yogam (Temple Society) attached to the Aruvippuram temple later evolved into the S.N.D.P. Yogam. To facilitate organization and awareness, he established numerous assemblies for administrative purposes in connection with the temple—where arrangements for Satsang gatherings and spiritual discourses were also made. It is uncertain whether many people today truly recognise the importance of Gurudeva’s suggestion to allocate temple revenue for the training of Dharma Pracharaks and to reserve funds for the Pracharana and Samrakshana (Promotion & Protection) of Dharma.
It is also true that his unique contributions include modern models of Sansyasa (monastic) institutions, organizational structures, and efforts to eliminate social evils.
It is also true that his unique contributions include modern models of Sansyasa (monastic) institutions, organizational structures, and efforts to eliminate social evils.
However, all of these were interpretations of Sanatana Dharma suited for the times and actions aimed at removing degeneration. They were efforts to protect Hindu Dharma, responding to the challenges of the times. These actions represented courageous struggles against ignorance, both internal and external.”
However, the Chief Minister says otherwise, stating, ‘Shri Narayana Guru is a representative of the third stream of people that challenge and condemn Sanatana Dharma.’ How can one agree with this stand?
Some questions:
1)Which philosophy or aspect of Sanatana Dharma did he question?
What evidence supports this?
2)When, where, and in what manner did he challenge or condemn Sanatana Dharma?
3)Did Shri Narayana Guru or his close disciples challenge Sanatana Dharma during their lifetime?
Let us examine the stance of Kumaran Asan as an example. The essence of Sanatana Dharma is glorious, and it is the conservatist fundamentalist arguments that must be opposed—this was the same viewpoint held by Shri Narayana Guru, and also by his dear disciple, the great poet Kumaran Asan, who was the first General Secretary of the S.N.D.P. Yogam. His work ‘Matha Parivarthana Rasavaadam’ is a prime example of this. There is plenty of evidence to clarify this, but for now, only a few can be pointed out.
The four Vedas praise the one reality without differences’ – Kumaran Asan points this out in his work Duravastha.
The four Vedas praise the one reality without differences’ – Kumaran Asan points this out in his work Duravastha.
The Aarsha Guru Paramparas in Sanatana Dharma, the Vedas and Upanishads, the Divya Stotras (divine hymns) composed by the Siddhas, and the philosophy of the unity of Parabrahmam or Parameshwara, Sarvavyapi Siddhanta (the theory of omnipresence), Sarvantaryami Siddhanta (the theory of immanence), and the philosophy of non-dualism of Prakrithi (Nature) and Purusha (Spirit)-(Advaita philosophy) all clearly proclaim these truths. Thousands of shining examples can be pointed out to support this.
Sanatana Dharma is the philosophy that declares the philosophy of ‘All human beings are equal,’ and above that, the theory of JeevaBrahmaikya; ‘the oneness of all living beings.’ This non-dualistic philosophy is a higher philosophy than equality.
Sarvavyapi Siddhanta (theory of omnipresence) is the theory that Parmeswara (Parabrahmam) pervades all worlds. Sarvantaryami Siddhanta (theory of immanence) asserts that the Aatma (not life, but the soul), resides in all entities, both conscious and unconscious, from the smallest atom to the largest being.
Moreover, the essence of Advaita Vedanta is the belief that all beings—whether animate or inanimate—Prakrithi (nature) and Ishwara, are one. In other words, fundamentally (and ultimately), there is nothing other than Ishwara. ‘Tat Tvam Asi,’ ‘Prajnanam Brahma,’ ‘Aham Brahmasmi,’ ‘Ayamatma Brahma,’ ‘Prajnanam Brahma,’ ‘Soham,’ ‘Hamsa,’ ‘Shivoham’—countless sacred sayings! Who can deny these brilliant philosophies, which cannot be found outside of Sanatana Dharma? Yet, what did the conventionalists and anti-casteists of that time do to Sanatana Dharma?
Moreover, the essence of Advaita Vedanta is the belief that all beings—whether animate or inanimate—Prakrithi (nature) and Ishwara, are one. In other words, fundamentally (and ultimately), there is nothing other than Ishwara. ‘Tat Tvam Asi,’ ‘Prajnanam Brahma,’ ‘Aham Brahmasmi,’ ‘Ayamatma Brahma,’ ‘Prajnanam Brahma,’ ‘Soham,’ ‘Hamsa,’ ‘Shivoham’—countless sacred sayings! Who can deny these brilliant philosophies, which cannot be found outside of Sanatana Dharma? Yet, what did the conventionalists and anti-casteists of that time do to Sanatana Dharma?
Kumaran Asan continues:
In Malayalam, “Vaidikamanikal martyaril bhedavum bhedathil bhedavum jalpikkunnu”, which means – The Vedic authorities propagate division among mortals, and within that division, they create further distinctions.
Asan is implying that those who claim to follow the Vedas are, in fact, working against its true teachings.
Asan laments the subversion of the fundamental principles of the great Brahma Vidya!
In Malayalam – “enthoru vaikritham brahmavidye ninni- lenthaanikkaanunna vaipareethyam? nirnayam ninneppol paariladhogathi vinnavar gangaykkumundayilla”.
The contradiction between Sanatana Dharma and caste-based conventionalism is clear for all to see.
The reality that caste-based conventionalism, which creates divisions among humans, is contrary to the Vedas, was well understood by both the Guru and his disciples.
The questions here are clear. Is Asan speaking against Sanatana Dharma, the Vedas, or Brahma Vidya? Isn’t he referring to the degeneration that has occurred? Isn’t it evident from this that Kumaran Asan and his Guru worked against the distortions made to the great principles—subverting, limiting, and distorting them, as in mixing water—rather than opposing the great teachings and knowledges?
The subversions carried out by certain vested interests against the Ishwara Darshana (concept of God) and Jeevana Darshana (concept of life)—core, inseparable elements of Sanatana Dharma—along with the natural deterioration caused by the lack of proper Swadhyaya and the resulting decline, were the true challenges that needed to be addressed.
It is this conventionalism that Gurudeva opposed, not Sanathana Dharma itself!
Various Aarsha Guru Paramparas, Natha Siddha yogis, the Siddha tradition of Tamil Nadu, Shri Shankaracharya, Basaveshwara, the Acharyas of the Bhakti movement, the Ramakrishna Mission, Brahmo Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, Arya Samaj, Theosophical Society, Aurobindo Maharshi, Thaikkad Ayyavu Guru, Ayya Vaikuntha Swami, Chattampi Swami, Sadananda Guruswami, Shubhananda Gurudevan, Vagbhatananda, Brahmananda Shivayogi, Shivananda Paramahamsa, Agamananda Swamis, the disciples of Shri Chattampi Swami and Shri Narayana Guru, and others, all stood as advocates of Sanatana Dharma and fought against conventionalism and superstitions that were against it.
All the gurus of this long-standing renaissance tradition, who worked in states from Kerala to Kashmir, strived to save Sanatana Dharma from conventional beliefs. This was also the goal of Gurudeva. In other words, they had realized that ‘to kill the mouse, you don’t need to burn the house.’
If the Chief Minister’s statement was based on these evident facts, then everyone should have wholeheartedly welcomed it! At the very least, he could have mentioned the revival of Sanatana Dharma or the rejuvenation of Hindu Dharma! Instead, his statement suggests that both Sanatana Dharma and its principles should be rejected. The truth is that the reformers, including Shri Narayana Guru, never agreed with such a perspective. To say otherwise is tantamount to demeaning their blessed lives.
Even in the face of the cruelties of the caste system, they were unwilling to attribute it to Sanatana Dharma, nor were they ready to reject Dharma or speak against it. Furthermore, they corrected those who held such views with compelling evidence. Like Shri Narayana Guru, all these renaissance Gurus took a stand against religious conversions. They also focused on reclaiming those who had strayed away.
Pay attention to the works of Chattampi Swami, and the books he authored including Vedaadhikara Niroopanam and Christu Matha Chedanam. Sadananda Swami, Subhananda Gurudevan, and Agamananda Swami, who had a significant influence on Ayyankali, all followed the same path.
Modern-day party leaders, who lack the time to study the principles of Sanatana Dharma, Sri Narayana Dharma, the life history of Gurudeva, his works, and the history of the renaissance, may not have a proper understanding of these topics. They will not hesitate to portray Sri Narayana Guru as ‘anti-Hindu Dharma’ and ‘atheistic.’ Is this not what is being publicly claimed—that Gurudeva questioned, criticized, and challenged Sanatana Dharma? However, this was not how Sri Narayana Guru was assessed by E.M.S. Even with his differences, E.M.S. referred to Sri Narayana Guru as ‘the messenger of the Aarsha Sandesha.’ This will be highlighted in the next article.
(To be continued)