Gurudeva – “A perfect Hindu!”, “A Vedanti!!”, “A preacher of the Aarsha Sandesha!!!” – E. M. S.
Gurudevan is Sanatana Dharma Aacharya, but he is against conventionalism!
Gurudevan is Sanatana Dharma Aacharya, but he is against conventionalism!
Sanathana Dharma x Conventionalism
During the period of degeneration of Hindu Dharma, conventionalism (referred to by critics as Brahmanism or Brahmanic ideology), which was opposed to the Aarsha Sandesha (teachings of the Rishis), message of the Vedas and the philosophical thoughts of the Upanishads, began to limit, distort, misrepresent, and undermine the principles of Sanatana Dharma. The root cause of this conventionalism or conservatism was the ignorance resulting from the lack of Swadhyaya. Spiritual indigestion, contamination of ideologies, superstitions, unnecessary rituals, immorality, distortion of good practices or virtues (Sadguna Vaikrutham), caste discrimination, caste supremacy (belief in the superiority of one caste over others), caste hatred, caste-based leadership, exploitation, caste-based humiliation, social boycott and false doctrines were all products of this conventionalism. Sri Narayana Guru worked peacefully and persistently against all forms of conventionalism, standing firmly on the side of Sanatana Dharma.
The Parameshwara Darshana (concept of Ishwara) in Sanatana Dharma, the concept of life, the philosophy of oneness of humanity, the universal perspective, the non-dualistic philosophy, and the concept of temples—all these were undermined by the proponents of conventionalism.
The statement of Gurudeva, ‘I have consecrated not your Shiva, but our Shiva,’ becomes relevant here. This does not mean there are two Shivas. Gurudeva who is renowned for his concise and thoughtful words, is contrasting two concepts of god here.
The Parameshwara Darshana (Parabrahma Darshana) as expounded in the Vedas, Upanishads, Yoga Vidya, Tantra Vidya, Vedanta, and the other Para Vidyas of Sanatana Dharma, which are part of the Aarsha Guru Paramparas, is the philosophy that Sri Narayana Guru practiced and preached. This is what Gurudeva referred to as ‘our Shiva.’ He clarified that the concept of God as described in the Puranas, folklore, traditions, myths, fraudulent astrologers, and by fake priests—none of these belong to him (or to Sanatana Dharma).”
He proclaimed, “First, let Siva come, and then everything will settle on its own“. He refrained from performing Pratishtha of concepts of God as described in stories from the Puranas. For instance, he was unwilling to perform the consecration of the Dashavataras, which is described in various forms across different Puranas. However, he respected Sri Rama and Sri Krishna as Avatars and composed Stotras or hymns in their praise. He declared that the concepts of God that are pleased with animal sacrifices lead to suffering and misery (see the prose essay ‘Daiva Chintanam’).
Those who have read the Bible and the Quran are aware that the Semitic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—advocate for animal sacrifices through the worship of god concepts like Yahweh and Allah. Such evil practices were not limited to the Abrahamic faiths but were also present in Hindu society, particularly in certain temples in Kerala. However, Gurudeva never compromised with such rituals. He not only rejected ceremonies steeped in superstition and misconduct but was also willing to remove certain idols. In their place, he established temple models rooted in the noble concept of Sanatana Dharma.
Those who have read the Bible and the Quran are aware that the Semitic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—advocate for animal sacrifices through the worship of god concepts like Yahweh and Allah. Such evil practices were not limited to the Abrahamic faiths but were also present in Hindu society, particularly in certain temples in Kerala. However, Gurudeva never compromised with such rituals. He not only rejected ceremonies steeped in superstition and misconduct but was also willing to remove certain idols. In their place, he established temple models rooted in the noble concept of Sanatana Dharma.
Guru Deva had no intention of creating idols for the purpose of gathering followers or providing something for the common people to worship! These were all re-consecrations of the Parameshwara Darshana, worshipped by Badarinarayana in the Krita Yuga, Sri Rama in the Treta Yuga, Sri Krishna in the Dwapara Yuga, and upheld by the Aarsha Guru Paramparas throughout all ages. The construction of temples was based on this clear philosophy.
Guru Deva made significant efforts to prevent religious conversion. He took the initiative to bring back those who had been converted due to misunderstandings, temptation, or harassment of the casteists.
However, some have depicted Sri Narayana Guru as one who accepted the misconceptions prevalent at the time and the concepts of God found in various religions, hiding these realities. This is contrary to the truth.
Similarly, it is also incorrect to try to separate Sri Narayana Guru from his Parameshwara Darshana, the Aarsha Guru Parampara he represented, Sanatana Dharma, and the philosophical teachings of Yoga, Vedanta, and Siddhanta. Some wish to depict him merely as a community leader or as a leader of the oppressed against the upper castes, which is not an accurate representation.
However, the truth is that none of these efforts will succeed! Sri Narayana Guru is the shining star in the long lineage of Aarsha Guru Paramparas that worked in accordance with the path of Karma Yoga from Kerala to Kashmir, representing the side of Sanatana Dharma. They all fought not against Sanatana Dharma, but against conventionalism. Their lifelong effort was to correct the distortions and purify Hindu Dharma. The inability to recognize the differences between Sanatana Dharma and conventionalism is the weakness in the perspective of some individuals. This is why people like the Kerala Chief Minister have described Gurudeva as someone who opposed and challenged Sanatana Dharma.
Double standards!
There is even a greater double standard here. Politicians never say that the reform efforts within the Islamic and Christian communities are against Islam or Christianity. It is noteworthy that social reformers within these communities are never portrayed as challengers or defiers of their respective religions. When referring to those who took the lead in such reforms, they are always described as those who fought against the distortions within their communities. However, when it comes to Hindu Dharma, the stance becomes completely contrary. Even a staunch advocate of Sanatana Dharma is labeled as ‘anti-Hindu’!
It is clear that even when facts, supported by hundreds of pieces of evidence, are presented in a way that anyone who hasn’t lost their common sense can understand, some will still refuse to accept them. However, it is impossible for Sri Pinarayi Vijayan and Sri M.V. Govindan to disregard what their political guru and the ideological leader of the CPI(M), E.M.S. Namboothirippad, has said. That is why E.M.S. is being quoted here.
According to E.M.S. Namboothirippad, who was a Marxist theoretician, Sri Narayana Guru is someone who, while firmly standing by Sanatana Dharma, fought against the distortions within it.
1) The Reformists fought against the conservatives – E.M.S.
‘Ram Mohan Roy and Vivekananda, along with those who followed them in Bengal, took the initiative to form movements that shocked the conservatives in both social life and cultural attitudes. The same was done by Chattambi Swamigal, Narayana Guru, and other spiritual leaders in Kerala.’
See Image 1 accompanying the article. (E.M.S. Sampoorna Kritikal (Malayalam) – Volume 42, Page 107)
2) EMS stated that Gurudeva fought against ideological corruption based on the universal philosophy of Hindu Dharma!
E.M.S. clarified this in the column ‘E.M.S.’s Diary’ in the Desabhimani weekly, in the article ‘Atmavidhya of Vagbhatanandan’ (dated 27-04-1997).
E.M.S. clearly observes, ‘It was the banner of rebellion against the distortions that had come to religions that Sri Narayana Guru, Chattambi Swamigal, Brahmananda Shivayogi, and Vagbhatanandan raised.’ However, the communist in E.M.S. cannot reconcile with the fact that they worked based on the principles of Sanatana Dharma.
He continues, ‘They all opposed the distortions that had come to Dharma based on the universal philosophy of Dharma. This weakness is present not only in the philosophy of Sri Narayana Guru, Chattambi Swamigal, and Brahmananda Shivayogi, but also in the vision of Vagbhatanandan.’
See Image 2 (“Vagbhatanandan’s Atmavidhya – Desabhimani Weekly, E.M.S.’s Diary – 27/4/1997), Sampoorna Kritikal (Malayalam) 94 – Page 61.
Now, tell me, according to E.M.S., did Sri Narayana Guru fight against Hindu Dharma itself, or against the practices and ideologies that were distorting it? The matter is clear here. It was not against Hindu Dharma, but against the distortions that had crept into it. This struggle was based on the ‘general philosophy of Hindu Dharma.’ What could this struggle be for? Naturally, the efforts to remove the ideas contrary to the very principles of Sanatana Dharma and purify them would be aimed at the protection of Hindu Dharma.
3) E.M.S. also stated that the reformists fought against the cultural elitism that sought to monopolize knowledge.
In his article “Chattampi Swamikal”, EMS refers to the Brahminical hegemony that denied the “wealth of knowledge” to the downtrodden.
E.M.S. states, ‘The knowledge wealth of that time was mostly in Sanskrit, making it inaccessible. It was Thunchath Ramanujan who first worked against this monopoly on knowledge. He made the Puranas and Ithihasas available to the oppressed classes in simple Malayalam. However, even Ezhuthachchan could not make the Vedas and Upanishads accessible to these ‘lower’ classes. It was Chattambi Swamigal who began to break this monopoly. Swamigal established that the oppressed castes have the right to study not only the Puranas and Itihasas but also the Vedas. Those who completed the work started by Swamigal were Vallathol and O.M.C Namboothipad.’
‘With the publication of the works of Vallathol and O.M.S., the dream of Chattambi Swamigal became a reality.’
What is this knowledge wealth he is referring to? The Hindu religious texts – the Vedas, Upanishads, and Ithihasas – are what E.M.S. is referring to, aren’t they? Did the reformers like Gurudeva fight against this knowledge, or against its monopolization?
See Images 3 & 4 – Desabhimani Weekly (29/10/1995), E.M.S.’s Diary – Chattambi Swamigal – E.M.S. Sampoorna Kritikal (Malayalam) 94, Page 44.
4) See E.M.S.’s description of how Sri Narayana Guru broke the ‘cultural monopoly of the upper castes’ (note, this was not of Sanatana Dharma!).
E.M.S. continues, ‘Sri Narayana, a contemporary of Chattambi Swamigal, also broke another cultural monopoly of the upper castes. He showed that temples and places of worship, which were the strongholds of the upper castes, could be accessible to the lower castes too. The temples he established, the Sri Narayana Dharma he founded, and the sanyasis who promoted it, all contributed to a cultural revolution in Kerala. Just as Sri Narayana Guru and Chattambi Swamigal did in Travancore, in Malabar, Brahmananda Shivayogi and Vagbhatanandan, laid the foundation for the Renaissance movement that began with spirituality and culminated in modern nationalism.’
See Images 3 & 4 (29/10/1995 – Desabhimani Weekly, E.M.S.’s Diary – Chattambi Swamigal) – E.M.S. Sampoorna Kritikal (Malayalam) 94, Page 45.
Did the reformers, including Sri Narayana Guru, oppose the principles of Sanatana Dharma, the Vedas and Upanishads, temples, Mathas, and sanyasa, or did they oppose the caste supremacy that had turned these into instruments of oppression? E.M.S. has no doubt that Gurudeva and his followers rejected not the Hindu Dharma itself, but the ideas and actions of the upper castes or caste conservatives.
5) E.M.S. states that Gurudeva worked from the foundation of Vedanta philosophy!
“In modern times, both Vivekananda at the national level and Sri Narayana Guru in Kerala used their Vedanta philosophy to address social issues and promote cultural renaissance.” In the article ‘Sri Narayana Sandesham: Moonu Mukhangal’ in the Desabhimani Weekly dated 15/1/1995, E.M.S. presents his views.
(See Image 5. E.M.S. Sampoorna Kritikal (Malayalam) 1996-1998, Volume 94, Page 34.)
6) E.M.S. states that Guru is following the philosophy of Shankaracharya.
E.M.S. views it as a contradiction that many of today’s Sanyasis, who follow the footsteps of Swami Vivekananda and Narayana Guru—both of whom have interpreted Shankaracharya’s philosophy—accept Shankaracharya’s teachings as a philosophy of equality among humans.
(‘Pizhachath Parameshwaranaanu’ – an article written on 7/7/1989)
See Image 6. (E.M.S. Sampoorna Kritikal (Malayalam) – Volume 42: Page 320).
7) E.M.S. states that Sri Narayana Guru was a true follower of Hindu Dharma!
Some politicians complain that they are trying to ‘Hinduize’ Sri Narayana Guru. However, E.M.S. was certain about this as well.
‘Sri Narayana Guru was a true follower of Hinduism. The central aspect of the revolutionary work he carried out was the Shiva Linga Pratishthas and the temples he established in various parts of Kerala. The Sanyasi Sangha (monastic order) he founded continues to function even today.’
See image 7 A, B – Deshabhimani Weekly – Section – E.M.S. Diary – 5/1/1997 article ‘Sri Narayana Guru and Brahmananda Shivayogi’ Compilation – E.M.S. Sampoorna Kritikal (Malayalam) (Volume – 94, Pages 53, 54).
8) E.M.S. in his work Indian Swatantrya Samara Charithram (Indian Freedom Struggle History) refers to the activities of Sri Narayana Guru in the section titled “Haindava Punarutthanam desheeyatheyude vikruthroopam” (Hindu Revivalism – A Distorted Form of Nationalism).” Although E.M.S. critiques it as “a distorted form of nationalism,” he still places Sri Narayana Guru among the group of “Hindu revivalists.”
The description includes images of prominent figures such as Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, and Sri Narayana Guru.
E.M.S. points out that Sri Narayana Guru and other similar figures were involved in three major activities: social reform, cultural renaissance, and Hindu revivalism.
Page 134 – “Although apparently distinct from all of this, another movement that played a significant role in the growth of bourgeois nationalism also emerged during this period. That is the revival of the old Hindu culture and religious beliefs.
The social reform and cultural renaissance movement that emerged under the leadership of Raja Ram Mohan Roy also shows elements of this. Ram Mohan, who took the initiative in modernizing Hindu society, its rituals, and cultural perspectives, had previously been noted for his strong opposition to Christian missionary work and the methods of proselytizers. In his envisioned reform process, Ram Mohan made a conscious effort to incorporate various elements of ancient Hindu culture.
While placing greater emphasis on modernization, social reform and cultural renaissance movements like the Brahmo Samaj in Bengal and the Prarthana Samaj in Maharashtra also sought to revive ancient Hindu culture.”
He continues, ‘Movements like these aimed to uplift communities oppressed under the caste system by imparting the wealth of ancient Hindu culture to them, both socially and culturally. In their efforts, social reform, cultural renaissance, and Hindu revival were intertwined.
(The most prominent example of this in Kerala is the movement led by Sree Narayana, who established separate temples and monastic centers for the backward Hindu castes, thus elevating them.)
(The most prominent example of this in Kerala is the movement led by Sree Narayana, who established separate temples and monastic centers for the backward Hindu castes, thus elevating them.)
Images – 8 A (Book Cover), 8 B (134), 8 C (135) History of the Indian Freedom Struggle – E.M.S (Pg No – 134, 135, Chapter 19 – Hindu Revivalism: A Distorted Form of Nationalism)
9) Gurudeva was the propagator of the Aarsha Sandesha – E.M.S!
E.M.S. had no doubts regarding the fact that Sri Narayana Guru sowed the seeds of spiritual thought by establishing temples and monastic centers, and that the message of Aarsha culture was what he propagated.
See pages 193 and 194 in his book Kerala History from a Marxist Perspective, in the chapter Modern Kerala: Origin and Growth on (Image – 9 A (Book Cover) – B, (193) C (194)).
E. M. S. writes: ‘From Kannur to Kollam, across various regions of Kerala, the temples and the worship rituals performed by the Ezhava priests are in accordance with Hindu customs, the festivals and other ceremonies similar to those held in ‘upper-caste’ temples, and there are Ezhava Sanyasis who lead a Sayasa life according to the Hindu Sastras, — all of this is inspired by the guiding force of Sri Narayana Guru.’ – E. M. S. evaluates Sri Narayana Guru.
(I cannot agree with E. M. S.’s perspective that limits Gurudeva to being merely a community leader. Gurudeva’s first disciples, such as Shiva Linga Swami, Satyavrata Swami, Chaitanya Swamiji, Dharma Nanda Tirtha, and his final disciple, Anandatirtha, all came from the ‘upper-caste’ groups. He did not only train priests from the Ezhava community but also from the Pulaya, Paraya, and other marginalized castes.)
E. M. S. continues: ‘Though Swami laid the foundation for temples and Mutts, what rose above them was the edifice of social equality; though he sowed the seeds of spiritual thought, what sprouted was the demand for social and political rights; though he spread the message of the Aarsha Samskara, what reached the ears of the listeners was the Western-modern message of “liberty, equality, fraternity.”’
E. M. S. clearly observes in his words that Sri Narayana Guru was the one who spread the Aarsha Sandesha (teachings of Aarsha Gurus).
The fact that the worship rituals, festivals, and other ceremonies in the temple were organized according to Hindu customs, and the reality that Sanyasis embraced Sanyasa life (wearing the traditional robe!) according to Hindu Sastras, were all inspired by Sri Narayana Guru. Recognizing this truth—acknowledging that all of these were inspired by him—was something anyone (including E. M. S.) could have easily understood!
(In the article titled ‘Chathayadina Chinthana’ under the heading ‘E. M. S.’s Diary,’ published in Desabhimani magazine on 27th September 1992, E. M. S. reiterates that it was Sri Narayana Guru who spread the message of the ancient culture.)
(See E. M. S. Sampoorna Kritikal (Malayalam) 1996-1998, Volume 94, Pages 15, 16.)
10) EMS says he was influenced by the message of Sree Narayana!
While E. M. S. acknowledged Gurudeva’s social reform efforts, he also took a firm stance against the Sanathana Dharma upheld by Gurudeva, as well as the spiritual principles that inspired him, and the tools of action such as temples, Mutts, organizations, and institutions. However, an intriguing contradiction arises here. E. M. S., who stated that Sri Narayana spread the teachings of the Aarsha Samskara, and who admitted that the social reform activities were organized based on Vedantic philosophy, and was also a Marxist theoretician who recognized that temples, monasteries, and asceticism were the domains of Gurudeva’s work, states that it was under the influence of the teachings of Sri Narayana that he and others entered the political movement.
“Even though I was born into an upper caste, people like me entered the public democratic political movement of this state under the influence of the teachings of Sree Narayana.”
(Article Sri Narayana Sandesham: Moonu Mukhangal. E. M. S. Sampoorna Kritikal (Malayalam): Volume 94, Page 36 (See Picture No: 10). It is unclear which specific message of Sri Narayana Guru E. M. S. is referring to here.
11) E. M. S. states that the influence of the Advaita philosophy is what led people like him into social revolution!
E. M. S. not only acknowledges the influence of Advaita philosophy on him but also states that he and others became social revolutionaries under the influence of Advaita philosophies, including that of Sri Narayana Guru.
‘It is on the ground that Sri Narayana Guru tilled and turned that both communists and congressmen rose to power,’ says E. M. S.
K. Aravindakshan wrote in Mathrubhumi magazine (Issue 22, Volume 72).
E. M. S. made this statement while responding to a person who raised doubts about this reference. He writes:
‘The answer to the first question of the questioner has already been clarified in this line and in several other places. However, for the benefit of the questioner, let me briefly explain once again.’
1) Just as Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi, and others like Chattambi Swamigal and Brahmananda Shivayogi worked across India, Sri Narayana Guru, more extensively than Chattambi Swamigal and Brahmananda Shivayogi, used Advaita philosophy as a weapon against caste supremacy in Kerala. In this regard, communists hold him in high esteem. This writer, along with many other communists and social revolutionaries, was influenced by the Advaita philosophies, including those of Sri Narayana Guru, which led them to become involved in the social revolution.”
“Sri Narayanan is a great leader who, like Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi at the national level, and Chattambi Swamigal and Brahmananda Shivayogi in Kerala, used Advaita philosophy to combat casteism—though his influence was even broader than that of Chattambi Swamigal and Brahmananda Shivayogi. In this regard, communists hold him in high regard. This writer, along with many other communists and social revolutionaries, was influenced by Advaita philosophies, including those of Sri Narayana Guru, which led them to engage in the social revolution.”
(E. M. S. Sampoorna Kritikal (Malayalam), Page 174 (Volume 64) – See Picture No: 11)
The current opposition to Sanathana Dharma will also change!
There is no doubt that E. M. S. had no confusion regarding Sri Narayana Guru being a proponent of Sanathana Dharma, as is evident from the relevant sections provided here with images. It is clear that E. M. S. recognized this truth. What the party’s current stance on this matter is, must be clarified by the leaders themselves. Though the leaders may have understood E. M. S. ‘s position, may they have the goodwill to correct it!
There are thousands of pieces of evidence from his works that prove Sri Narayana Guru was a proponent of Sanathana Dharma. Every line he wrote serves as an example of this. It is truly astonishing that some still resort to such distortions when his life and actions stand as clear testimony to this fact!
When the Chief Minister and party leaders, who hold responsible positions, say things like ‘Sri Narayana Guru defied and challenged Sanathana Dharma,’ think about how many people are misled by such statements! It is to correct all these misconceptions that E. M. S.’s observations have been pointed out here.
E. M. S.’s perspective on Gurudeva: Many disagreements!
Not all of E. M. S.’s positions on Sri Narayana Guru can be agreed upon. However, the observation that Gurudeva worked against social injustices from within the framework of Hindu philosophy is truthful. Yet, E. M. S. held the view that Sri Narayana Guru and his Dharma were opposed to the ideology and interests upheld by his party. For some of today’s leaders, Sanathana Dharma may seem ‘obscene,’ and similarly, for E. M. S., Sri Narayana Guru, his dharma, Shivagiri, and pilgrimage were all viewed in the same way. (There are strong disagreements regarding some of E. M. S.’s positions on Sri Narayana Guru, which will be discussed later.)
However, in Pinarayi’s speech at Shivagiri, we see the party’s old positions being corrected. If this is sincere, it is to be welcomed.
Just as the aversion towards Sri Narayana Guru and his Dharma have changed, we can also hope that in the future, the blind animosity of politicians towards the term and concept of Sanathana Dharma will fade. In short, the natural antagonism that arose was due to the misinterpretation of the caste-based hierarchical system as Sanathana Dharma. This misinterpretation is what made some individuals opponents of Sanathana Dharma and proponents of its eradication. Aarsha Vidya Samajam is confident that these misconceptions can be cleared through dialogue, because it is a movement that puts up intellectual ideological struggles against the six types of brainwashing that influence people from a young age in various ways.
“Guru’s message must be spread everywhere in the world” – Kerala Chief Minister
Completely different from the old party stance, Pinarayi Vijayan, in his Shivagiri speech, suggests that not only do Sri Narayana Guru and his ideas hold contemporary relevance, but they must also be promoted everywhere.
The call to spread Sri Narayana Dharma (whatever that may be!) everywhere in the world is not only welcome but also draws significant attention and seriousness.
Based on the stotras, prose and poetry compositions, temple consecrations, institutions, organizations, rules, activities, works, and teachings that Guru Deva devotedly wrote in Sanskrit, Tamil, and Malayalam, the modern scripture ‘Sri Narayana Dharma’ and authentic biographies—when studied sincerely—will enable anyone to understand what Guru Dharma truly is.
It is certain that the Sanatana Dharma promoted and transmitted by the Aarsha Guru Paramparas is the same as Sri Narayana Dharma, and it can be made clear to anyone. Therefore, the Chief Minister’s call serves as an inspiration for us to move forward in the mission of spreading Sanatana Dharma.
(To be continued)