Talk:Narayana Guru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] Narayana Guru and Atheism

I disagree with the text in this section. Associating Narayana Guru with atheism clearly shows the lack of knowledge of the originating author on the Guru's philosophical and metaphysical works and perspective and reasoning of the Universe. Proclaimed atheists being associated with an individual in social reform initiatives does not by itself make the individual an atheist.

Also there is a clear distinction between rationalists and atheists.

This section needs to be edited.

Aaroamal

5 Feb 2005

[edit] Narayana Guru and Sahodran Ayyappan

Narayana Guru had disagreed with Sahodaran Ayyappan when the latter tried to corrupt Guru's teachings with Atheism.In fact Ayyappan requested Guru's permission to modify the slogan 'Oru Jati , Oru Matham, Oru Daivam Manushyanu' as 'Jati Venda, Matham Venda, Daivam Venda'. However, Guru ridiculed him by asking " If Ayyappan wants to collect Rs.1 from each person to set up a library, you will ask ' Give One Rupee,Give One Rupee,Give One Rupee'. Does that mean ' No Rupee,No Rupee,No Rupee " ?

This 'Sahodaran' kept quiet at that time.However, he renewed his Atheist activities after the samadhi of Guru, thereby corrupting Guru's ideology. Vested interests fully exploited this confusion to corrupt Guru's teachings by projecting this 'Sahodaran' even above Guru.

Krishnan

06-Feb-2005

[edit] Clarification on Atheism

No where in the article did I say that Naryanaguru was an atheist. What I wrote was “his attitude towards the existence of a personal god is considered quite ambivalent” and that many of his followers had considered him an atheist. Can somebody point out which sentence of the article gives such an impression that he was an atheist? It goes to the credit of Sri Narayanaguru that in spite of being a theist, he openly accepted even atheists as his core desciples. The importance of this can be guaged only if one consideres the period in which he lived.

One also has to be clear about the kind of thiesm Narayana Guru adovocated. It definitely was not the one associated with the brahaminical/casteist Hiduism.

I find it bit difficult to comprehend why this section on atheism and atheist followers of Narayanaguru should be edited out. A discussion/debate on the philosophy of Narayanaguru is thoroughly understandable but I find it puzzling that the followers of Narayanaguru are getting overly agitated on hearing the word atheism. Pity indeed!

And I agree with Aaroamal that there is a distintion between rationalist and atheist. That is precisely why I assert in my user page of wikipedia that I am both an atheist and rationalist.

MANOJTV 09:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on Atheism

Manoj, True, you did not explicitly write that Narayana Guru was an atheist. However, you implicitly structured a (misinformed and incomplete) statement as follows:

  • “When Sahodaran Ayyappan modified Narayana Guru's famous catchphrase, Oru Jati, Oru Matham, Oru Daivam Manushyanu (One Caste, One Religion, One God for Humanbeing) and re-written it as Jati Venda, Matham Venda, Daivam Venda Manushyanu…the latter did not protest”.

Obviously by stating that “…the latter did not protest”, here you are clearly implying that Narayana Guru accepted Sahodaran Ayyappan’s atheistic view as amendment to the famous catchphrase. I am sorry to say that this is absolutely false!

Everybody appreciates that Narayana Guru was tolerant of atheists because he respected an individual’s fundamental right and freedom to belief, or disbelief, in the exitence of God. That tolerant attitude however should not be misinterpreted to imply otherwise.

As Krishnan has already pointed out, Narayana Guru’s reaction to Sahodaran Ayyappan’s revised version of the slogan was a clear protest, so it is not true to say …”the latter did not protest”.

Please could you explain what you mean by saying, “his attitude towards the existence of a personal god is considered quite ambivalent”; are you referring to any of Narayana Guru’s writings, if so which one? Which serious scholar of Narayana Guru has so commented? Also, in what context is that statement being included under the heading “Narayana Guru and Atheism”.

Futher you state that “Many of his followers infact considered him as an atheist” – Please could explain the bases of such consideration, rather than a very general statement as such. Is it not just the miniscule minority atheist followers, if at all, that try to portray the Guru likewise; did any of his majority theist followers consider the Guru an atheist? So, again the statement “many of his followers” is misleading.

Again we should not forget that Narayana Guru was a multifacted genius. His followers would have been (and still are) from the various disciplines in which he was a mastero. So his atheist followers would have been good social reform activists, poets, yogis and so on, and therefore entertained as his followers in each of the respective disciplines (not necessarily in the religious or theistic discipline alone).

At least I am not agitated by the article for the reason that Wiki articles are dynamic and can be edited and improved. However, I believe in a healthy discussion to remove potential distortions to social history and the profile of historical personalities. So let us take this forward as open and friendly discussion. Your contribution is otherwise appreciated - don't get me wrong!

Aaroamal

10 February 2005

As an unskilled reader coming by chance to the article I would say the wording is controvercial. My personal opinion is that "...did not protest..." implies some sort of endorsement in modern european culture (I am personally from Bulgaria). As ahimsa is also in the list of possible explanations we can leave to the reader to judge.
"Many of his atheist followers ..." may also be considered taking side. For me personally to understand it would be interesting to know also the opinions of non-ateistic followers (regardless of their religion). Knowing almost nothing about India in general I cannot know how many of Guru's followers were religious and how many were ateists.
What I know for certain is that after reading this article I've got my spirit lifted because such person have lived. Thank you for the work all of you have done. -- Bggoldie 10:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't undermine Guru's relevance

Narayana Guru had attained the supreme state of oneness with the Supersoul(Brahman).As such it was not required for Him to follow routine rituals like normal men. But, He was extremely concerned about the spiritual health of His followers and this aspect reflects in His teachings. Guru never shied away from correcting His followers' mistakes. Had He chosen Atheism, the honest Gurudevan would have definitely abolished own temples during His period itself.

Many learned men interpret Philsophies to suit with own objectives, without thinking about the potential ill-effects on people of lesser intelligence. The scriptures say " One who is learned and experienced should not bewilder the intelligence of ignorant people by inducing them to give up their prescribed duties. Rather by properly performing all his own actions in a composed and detached state of mind, he should encourage them to perform their prescribed duties".

The post-Guru, reformist 'Apostles'like Sahodaran Ayyappan deliberately corrupted Guru's teachings for selfish political gains. As a result of this, Ezhavas lost their spiritual power, and were filled with 'false ego' and 'arrogance'. This created hatred,selfishness and disunity in the community.

Mr.Manoj, you have repeated the historical mistake by superimposing 'Sahodaran Ayyappan' over 'Guru' (by discretely hiding Guru's refusal to adopt Atheism). Why are you silent on Nataraja Guru ?. Is he inferior to 'Sahodaran Ayyappan'?.As Guru's followers, our words and action(s), should not undermine Guru's relevance.

Krishnan 10-Feb-2005.

[edit] Consecration of Aruvippuram Temple.

This historical act of Gurudevan is most notable, as He successully brought Lord Siva's divine presence to the Sivalingam. Prior to the consecration, Guru had entered in to deep mediation for several hours glowing like a radiant star.During the auspicious 'Brahma Muhurtam', He plunged in to the nearby river and came up with a perfect sivalingam.The consecration was done meeting the specified requirements of 'AGAMAS'.

It is the absolute correctness of the Consecration and Guru's spiritual qualification that overwhelmed the elite Brahmin Tantrics , who had challenged Him .

Krishnan

11-Feb-2005


[edit] Don't publish Nonsense

  • This page of course is for discussion. But please don't write nonsense such as glowing like a radiant star and perfect shivalingam. First, no one was around when Narayanaguru went into deep meditation. The people came to know about the consecration only later. If no one was around, how can one say that he glowed like a radiant star? Second, what is a perfect shivalingam? Is there any given specification to be measured upto? Can somebody publish a clear image of the Shivalingam at Aruvippuram so that the readers of this page can compare the same with any normal shivalingam, not necessarily a pefect one?

If any body wants to practice their skills in using adjectives in English language why can't they use any other forum leaving Wikipedia alone? Indianskeptic

[edit] Don't publish Nonsense - Very true!!

I am sorry to point out the gross anomaly in Indianskeptic’s statement “First, no one was around when Narayanaguru went into ‘deep meditation’. The people came to know about the consecration only later”, which is absolutely false and baseless!

Sree Narayana Guru performed the consecration at Aruvippuram NOT IN ISOLATION, NOR OUT OF THE BLUE! The consecration was done at the climax of a large spiritual congregation participated and witnessed by hundreds of followers and key disciples of the Guru at the time. The consecration was done by the Guru amidst the synchronous chanting of the “Ohm Namashivaya” mantra rising from the thronging crowds gathered on either side of the river at Aruvippuram (as described by even sceptical writers of that time).

Indianskeptic, I wish you had researched facts before you poked holes in anybody else’s statement. A few descriptive adjectives used by Krishnan would do much lesser harm than your misinformed contribution to distort history.

Cynicism should not stop anybody from researching the documented social history of Kerala.

Aaroamal 12 Feb 2005


  • I am very much aware that Narayana Guru consecrated the Ezhava Shiva in front of a large number of people. But I was just taking on Krishnan for the usage of unwanted exaggerations and superlatives which may suit a hagiography and not a biographical article in an encyclopedia. There has been a tendency to attribute supernatural powers to Narayana Guru.This is unwarranted. He is a great man even without attributing any of these gimmicks.

Now here is the flow of my reasoning: Either Mr. Krishnan used meaningless adjectives or what he wrote was literally true. In the first case, such an adjective does not suit wikipedia.

If what he wrote was literally true, there was no chance of being anybody present during he performed the consecration. Because everybody present then would have instantly disintegrated into minute particles due to the extreme heat accompanying the glow of the radiant star! Only aliens light-years away would be able to vouch for such a phenomena! Not earthly beings like Krishnan, Raman or Indianskeptic.

Any way, take it lightly. Some how I can't stand claims of supernatual powers being attributed to humanbeings. And particularly to such an eminent social reformer as Narayana Guru. I am sorry for being aggressive.

Indianskeptic

[edit] Tolerance of views and perspectives

Dear Indianskeptic

Appreciate your regret note. However, your perception of where the article resides in Wikipedia is to be revisited. This article on Narayana Guru is rightly classified under Wikipedia categories 1. Hindusim and 2. Indian Religious Figures. What might seem “unwanted exaggeration and superlative” to you might not seem the same to Krishnan. It is a matter of perspectives, is it not? So, to Krishnan the article is very much hagiography (i.e. the biography of the saint Sree Narayana Guru), for which you admitted that is appropriate to describe likewise!

Again to test your flow of reasoning, may I suggest that you adopt a different frame of reference to your own perspective of being next to the star in rationalising Krishnan’s remark “glowing star”. If I look at the night sky from where I live on Earth, I can see the glow of many a thousand stars without being annihiliated! You don't have to stand next to the star to see its glow. Interestingly, the glow I see today may be stars that vanished a thousand years ago. Again, it is a matter of perspective.

When you say, “I can’t stand the claims of supernatural powers being attributed to human beings”, you are only talking for yourself. Would you dare go the articles in Wikipedia on Muhammad and Jesus Christ to challenge the supernatural powers attributed to them? If so, I am sure that will lead to precisely tracing your IP address and charging you for blasphemy! Please do not seek to exploit the pacifist and tolerant approach of Hinduism for gaining mileage in any manner.

Finally, if you take pains to closely study Narayana Guru’s philosophical works such as Atmopadesa Satakam and Darsanamala, you will, on the one hand, as I understand, a person who reveres the Guru and on the other hand as a rational thinker, tend to gain a better understanding into the Guru’s vision of the fourth dimension (i.e. spacetime). In fact in 1897 Narayana Guru had explained space and time in parallels to what Einstein did in the 1920s to explain relativity to the common man. So it might amount to shutting off the doors to knowledge for any rational person to preclude that there is nothing called the supernatural. Our knowledge of what normally happens in the three dimensions is what we accept as natural. It is only for those few who have (“tasted the cream of absolute wisdom” in the words of Narayana Guru), been able to experience or envision the fourth dimension, to explain the truth beyond our common perspectives of the Universe. So, let us be tolerant and open to other perspectives when being rational. Only then will rationalism lead to gaining knowledge and become a pleasure to live with. I am sure it will open new worlds for you too, beyond what you have experienced to date.

All this said in good spirits, by the way.

Aaroamal 14 Feb 2005

[edit] Clarification

While reading Mr.Manoj's very casual narration about the Consecration of Aruvippuram temple, my conscience asked me to write what I had learnt from a scholar of SriNarayana Dharma (my relative). I have based the usage' Glowing Radiant Star' on Oxford English.Glowing= Very Enthusiastic, Radiant=Looking very bright and happy & Star = Brilliant person. Those who know about Yoga, Meditation and Kundalini will not be surprised about Guru's Sidhis, therein.

I have just done my duty toward Gurudevan and not mislead to promote any hidden agenda.

Krishnan

17 Feb 05

[edit] Towards truth and reconciliation

Is it now possible for us to keep aside the bitterness (for which I am mainly responsible) and seriously discuss certain issues related to Narayana guru's philosophy and belief?

Regarding Naryana Guru's silence over his disciple Sahodaran's slogan No caste, No religion, No god, the wikipedia article seems to be correct. In a recent article written by T.N.Jayachandran, former addl.Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, and Vice-Chancellor of the Calicut University, it is asserted that Narayana Guru did not object to Sahodaran's modification. (See, Yukthireka special issue (August 2004) commemorating the 150th birth anniversary of Narayana Guru). Now, it is entirely possible that this assertion was thoroughly misconceived and the version given by Krishnan was the correct position taken by Narayana Guru. But can Krishnan or anybody else give the source of the information? I am not throwing a challenge, this is a genuine query.

The statement in the article as to the ambivalent stand taken by Narayana Guru on the possibility of a personal god also seems to be not off the mark. In one of the last dialogues with Natarajaguru, Narayana Guru tried to clarify what he had meant by god. I give the gist of what he said: Matter is divisible and if one divides matter indefinitely one may reach the state of void. But this void is not mere nothingness. It is the essence. It is god. (This is not a quotation, but just the meaning of what he said. The exact quotation appears in the book Word of the Guru written by Natarajaguru. I read it in a Malayalam translation done by Guru Nitya Chaitanya Yeti. (Page 407, Narayanaguru: Jeevitham, Kruthikal, Darsanam - Editor K.N.Shaji. It would be advisable if someone could quote the exact text in English as given by Natarajaguru. I do not possess the book, Word of the Guru.). If this was the concept of god for Narayana Guru, definitely it does not point to a personal god. At the same time, he did write a number of devotional verses praising many a Hindu god. What stand one should take in such a situation? To me (yes, it is a personal opinion), it seems, there was a steady progression in Narayanaguru's philosophy from a personal god to an impersonal god. He got more and more identified with the philosophy of advAita.

Even the temples he built over a period of time do not indicate any idea of a personal god. While the first temple had a crude Shivalinga as the idol (according to Kumaranasan approximately resembling a shivalinga; (ethandu oru shivalingakruthiyulla; Page 30 Guru - Kumaranasante Drushtiyil : DC Books, Kottayam, Kerala,), it took a variety of forms later on – for instance, a lamp in Karamukku, mirrors in Kalavangodu and Ullala, a beautiful slogan (Sathyam, Dharmam, Daya, Sneham) in Murukkumpuzha and no idol at all in Aluva. By 1917 he got fed up with demands for more temples and then pronounced, in no uncertain terms, not to have any more temples.

It is pertinent to point out here, also, that he offered earlier, in a dialogue with T.K.Madhavan, to build churches and mosques if a request was made by people from the respective faiths.

Again, it would not be entirely correct to call him a Hindu sage and hence the wikipedia categorization does not seem to be correct. His most famous message, One Caste, One Religion, On God, in no way means that the caste is Ezhava, the religion is Hinduism, and the God is a Hindu god. Moreover, in 1916 he declared: It is years since I left castes and religions. Yet some people think that I belong to their religion. That is not correct. I do not belong to any particular caste or religion.

I do not deny that Narayana Guru had accepted a lot from Hindu philosophical heritage but it does not automatically mean that he accepted Hinduism per se as his creed. He was above every caste,creed and sect. He even came out of the organization (SNDP) he helped to found, when he realized that it started diverging from its initial ideals and goals. That was Sri Narayana Guru, the eminent social reformer.

I have differences, too, with Narayana Guru on many an issue. But this is not a platform to delve into that, at least now.

Indianskeptic

[edit] God is Inseparable from Narayana Guru's Philosophy

With reference to Indianskeptic's last posting, for the time being, please read the following words of Narayana Guru, as relevantly quoted by Nataraja Guru in the English language:

"Matter is divisible. Nothing has indicated anything to the contrary. Imagine a body subjected to division and sub-division ad infinitum. We can imagine that we thus reach what one would be tempted to conceive as 'nothing'. But it is something still. This is the primordial Substance, This is God or whatever you may choose to call it. This is one way of arguing the point."

Then the Guru added:

"There are other ways of arriving at the same point. They appear more complicated and involve postulates less easily acceptable to the world, but there is nothing wonderful or secret or difficult about this knowledge. It is the simple essence of Vendanta."


Will shortly get back to explain the context, plus respond to other points of discussion. Be assured that there is no ambivalence in the Guru's philosophy; it is crystal clear for those who have studied it with an open mind. However, sorry guys, am too busy this week for any further input.

Aaroamal 21 February 2005

  • Dear Aaroamal,

Thank you for the original quotation from Natarajaguru. Eagerly waiting for further comments.

Indianskeptic

[edit] On Aruvippuram Temple

It is surprising that the user User:130.126.229.198 who demands, rightly, historic evidence for the usage of Ezhava Shiva fails to give any such evidence for the use of Not Their Siva. S/he should have done so before excising the word Ezhava shiva. Will the user, atleast now, come out with the evidence s/he her/himself asked for?

The extensive information on Nataraja Guru, though important in a page on Nataraja Guru, is not very relevant here. The user may add that information there. The page on Nataraja Guru now doesn't give much information. Will the user be able to expand the article?

The translation of Shiva Linga as Shiva Idol is not correct. Though it may sound sacrilegious today, the worshipping of Shiva Linga is related to fertility cult which was quite prevalent in India in the past. It may be noted here that fertility cult was prevalent throuhout the ancient world.Worshipping of human sex organs, both male and female, is part of such a culture. One can find its resonance even today in the tantric practices. My uderstanding is that the correct translation of linga here is penis/phallus, though the theological scholars of today have built a lot of mumbo-jumbo around it, obliterating the original meaning. Not only scholars, even the common people who worship Shiva Linga today do not relate their worship to the ancient fertility cult. Narayan Guru himself would not have thought about it while he consecrated it. But that does not alter its meaning.MANOJTV 09:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guru and Shivalingam

Dear Manoj: I am the User:130.126.229.198. First of all let me thank you for making a page on Narayana Guru. Also thanks for your comments and thoughts on my editing. The question of Ezhava Shiva had been discussed and debated for decades. My main point to delete such word from the article was the realization of Advaita-Vedantic teaching of Guru and his strong protest against caste based classication (and subsequent descrimination) of human beings. You will never encounter a word Ezhava in any of his writings. More over his famous saying " Dont ask cask caste, say caste and think caste" clearly indicacates his position in this issue: how a person who said to his deciples not to say caste can himself violate his own sayings. This was the main argument Guru Nithaya Chaitanya Yati had given against the theory of Ezhava Shiva in his mastepiece " Samyag Darshanam". Also Narayana Guru wrote two small works dismissing the the real exsistance of caste: see Jati Nirnayam and Jati Lakshnam. Historical evIdence is needed only for those who doesnt understand Gru completely. I put that in the article to quell the thoughts of such people.

I do agree that Shiva idolis not the correct word for Shiva Lingam. However, your understanding on the meaning of Shivalingam is highly misplaced. Each idol or diety in Hindu temples speaks a a secrtet language (protolangauge) and Shivalingam is not an exception. Its a symbolic representation of union bettween Shiva (male or positive counterpart) and Shakti (female or negetive counterpart) validating the existance of of the NeutralAbsolute (the God). The real worshipper who worship Shiva on Shivalingam should understand this and his goal should be to identify himself with that Absolute to atain the Existance-Consiousness- Bliss (sat-Chit-Ananda). The deciphrerence of protolasnguage can be found in Nataraja Gurus book Word of the Guru and also Nitya Chaitanya Yatis " An intelligent mans guide to Hindu religion". Narayana Guru was well aware of the meanings of his consecrations. When the worshipper and worshipped becomes one for that person the Shivalinga is just a stone and guru clearly say this in Darshana Mala (Chapter 2 versec 10)

"kam satyam na dvitiyam hyasatyam bhati satyavat silaiva sivalingam na dvitiyam silpina krtam"


One (alone) is real, not a second, What is unreal, indeed, seems as being real. The Siva Lingam is stone itself, Not a second made by the mason.


EKAM SATYAM, one (alone) is real, DVITIYAM NA, not a second, ASATYAM HI, what is unreal indeed, SATYAVAT BHATI, seems as being real, SILA IVA SIVA LINGAM, the siva lingam is stone itself, SILPINA KRITAM DVITIYAM NA, not a second made by a mason

Meaning:

It is the Self that alone is real. Anything other than the Self is not at all real. The unreal world merely has a semblance of the real. That which seems like the Siva-lingam (i.e. the phallic emblem of Siva) is really the stone itself. As for the Siva-lingam it merely seems as if it is a reality independent of the stone. What is real is the stone and the Siva-lingam is what is supposed on the basis of what really exists. The Siva-lingam, is not one that the mason made independently of the stone. It is the stone itself. The stone is real and the Siva-lingam is unreal. In the same manner the Absolute is real and the world is unreal. The unreal world (only) seems real.


About Nataraja Guru: Sure I can post an article about Nataraja Guru.

Pradeep

P.I. Pradeepkumar, Ph.D. Roger Adams Lab, Dept of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA,

[edit] On Ezhavashiva, Shivalingam and other matters

Dear Pradeep,

I have no quarrel with those who contend that Narayanaguru never used the words ezhava shiva if he had never used that phrase. But the prevalent knowledge amongst the people of Kerala is otherwise. It could be possible, as Pradeepkumar claims, that this was part of a deliberate malicious propaganda.

But when one tries to overturn a generlly accepted knowledge, it is imperative on his/her part to give evidence. The statement such as Historical evidence is needed only for those who doesnt understand Gru completely won't suffice. Any historical personality, Narayanaguru included, should be judged and her/his works (both textual and practical) analysed in the context of the historical period in which s/he lived. It won't be entirely fruitful or correct to construct a personality based solely on her/his textual works as Pradeepkumar tries to do.

Even if Narayanaguru had used the phrase Ezhava shiva during the initial phase of his life, it would not have anyway diminished his importance because he was a humanbeing born in a sudra caste rebelling against a caste-ridden Kerala society. Is it so repugnat to say that there was a steady evolution/progress/change in Narayana Guru's thought?

The tendency among the followers of eminent personalities to build up supermen out of their heroes clensing them of all possible human frailities should be discouraged.

On Shivalingam: The talk of a symbolic representation of union bettween Shiva and Shakti etc etc is all, in all possiblity, a later day development and may nothing to do with what the original worshippers of shivalinga conceptualised. One may attribute any meaning to anything but atleast the translation should be correct. MANOJTV 11:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anjengo

The article contains this curious line :

>> At Varkala a temple for Anjengo (Anjaneya) was built.

Anjengo (Anjuthengu) is a place near Varkala. This article says that Guru built a temple in Anjengo in 1904. Googling for it comes up with the exact line quoted above from different sites. The phrase 'At Varkala, a temple for Anjengo' is nonsense.

Does anyone know whether the temple in Anjengo was for Hanuman ? If not, I propose changing that line to 'He built a temple at Anjengo' or something to that effect. Tintin 23:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the Section on Atheism

This section hardly makes any sense. It hardly represents a major thrust of NG's work and so calling it out as a separate section is a distortion when such sections do not appear for major discussions of the philosophy that NG did speak of. It appears more in form of an apologia from someone who is enamored of Atheism -- something which is itself a questionable category in the Indian discourse.

In other words, the existence of non-existence of "God" is a Western obsession. This is not a major point of discussion in the Indian traditions other than in studies that resurrect side discussion in the mirror of the Western debate. Balagangadhara's work, The Heathen in His Blindness argues that Atheism is a *religious* category of Western culture, which is itself formed by religion. Puck42 01:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Reinstating section on Atheism

The person who deleted the section on atheism does not seem to have any clue as to atheism, Indian or western culture or even Narayanaguru.

As the section shows, some of the most important followers of Narayanaguru and leaders of the movement he spearheaded during the latter's life-time (and even later) were atheists. And they considered, rightly I think, some of the important currents of Narayanaguru's thought had affinity to atheism.

Before deleting any information on atheism, it is better to have atleast some basic knowledge about that concept. For starters, it is available in Wikipedia iteslef: Atheism.

The comment to the effect that atheism is alien to Indian culture is pure nonsence, to say the least. The thoughts of the ancient Indian materialist/atheist philosopher Carvaka (whose works were destroyed by his Brahminical opponents) were so prevalent even as late as 14th century India that Madhavacharya, thought it very important to refute it first to establish his idea of advaita in his work Sarvadarshan Sangraha.(Whether he succeedes in his attempt is a different matter). Buddhism and Jainism, two of the great religions originated in India, are evidently atheist. Many other imporant branches of Indian philosophy such as Viseshika, Sankya, etc too are either opposed to or silent about the idea of a god. A number of books written by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya explores the materialist/atheist philosophies in ancient India. Even Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, who himself was not an atheist, thought that many major Indian philosophies and religions were atheistic. His eminently readable two-volume work 'Indian Philosophy would give a wealth of information on materialist philosphies in India.

No Balagangadhars or any other exponent of Brahminical thought can erase the great idea of atheism from Indian history. MANOJTV 06:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Manoj, Appreciate the paragraph you posted today, demonstrating Naryana Guru's vision way beyond existing religions at the time. However, I strongly feel that parts of the earlier paragraph in the section are grossly misleading in terms of Narayana Guru's view of God (within his own definitions, which he never gave up until the end). He never could be considered an atheist under any definition of the term atheism. When someone disassociates from existing religions, for the reason that they segregate and discriminate the human genus, he cannot become an atheist. So I suggest you edit the part (Many of his atheist followers in fact considered him as an atheist. For instance, one of his prominent disciples Sahodaran Ayyappan was a militant atheist and one of the founders of Yukthivadi, the first rationalist/atheist magazine in Malayalam. When Sahodaran Ayyappan modified Nārāyana Guru's famous catchphrase, Oru Jati, Oru Matham, Oru Daivam Manushyanu (One Caste, One Religion, One God for Humanbeing) and re-written it as Jati Venda, Matham Venda, Daivam Venda Manushyanu (No Caste, No Religion, No God for Humanbeing), the latter did not protest.). The first part/sentence itself indirectly undermines the knowledge of this atheist followers - by saying that they considered him an atheist. Perhaps many of them would have seen him as a rational thinker, which is different, from thinking him an atheist. At least not so if at all they had really studied his philosophical works. The second part/sentence of course is not true. Narayana Guru's reaction was a negative one, i.e. to change in the catchphrase. Aaroamal, 8th Nov, 2005.
  • "Frustrated by the attempts made by a section of his followers to identify him with Hinduism" would not be the correct pharsing, because the Guru did not ever have a problem with the principles of Hinduism, which he endorsed and often said that his philosophy was not different from Advaita. The Guru clearly stated that certain outrageous practices of Hinduism that got embedded in society was what needed to be deplored and changed; and he clearly differentiated the two (priciples and practices) and said that the reform of practices would only amount to 'social reform' and not necessarily amount to 'religious reform'. Also we should bear in mind the Guru had such an elevated thinking that his vision of his own identity was never limited to Hindus alone. Invariably he belonged to the larger world beyond the Hindus and other religions and included all of humanity, be it believers or non-believers in religions or God. The right wording would be Avoiding attempts made by a section of his followers to identify him with Hinduism alone,..........Aaroamal, 8th Nov, 2005.
    • I have to say this about the points/suggestions made by Aaroamal. To take the second one first, I don't think I need to have any objections to the re-phrasing of the sentence as suggested by Aaroamal though I don't completely agree with the reasons highlighted by him. I agree with the re-phrasing because I am not sure whether Narayana Guru was in fact frustrated. Since I don't know for sure what mental state Narayana Guru was in when he sent out the message, it won't be right on my part to stick on with the phrase. About my disagreement with Aaroamal, I will come back to it some time later.

About atheistic interpretations of Narayana Guru's teachings, I completely disagree with Aaroamal. There are umpteen number of individuals (I am not one among them!) who reads atheism into Narayana Guru's messages. A very clear case is that of M.C.Joseph, the apostle of rationalism/atheism in Kerala, who very cogently argued that Naryanaguru was in fact aiming at atheism and philosophy of irreligiousness. (See, for instance, his essay Matha virodhathinte Matham - The Religion of Irreligiousness. (Page 322-325 in Narayanaguru: Ed: P.K.Balakrishnan, March 2000 (First Edition 1954) , Kerala Sahitya Academy). While I do not agree with this radical interpretation making Narayana Guru an out-and-out atheist, I do think that a lot of his teaching has affinity to atheism as I have understood that concept.

As to Sahodaran Ayyappan's rephrasing of Narayana Guru's famous catchphrase, I am yet come across any material supporting Aaroamal's contention that Narayana Guru had disagreed with Sahodaran. And I don't see any reason why he should have objected becasue there was nothing in Sahodaran's work or in his re-worded catchphrase that would have invited such an objection from Narayana Guru. To quote his catchphrase in full:

Jathi Venda,Matham Venda
Daivam Venda Manushyanu
Dharmam Venam, Dharmam Venam
Dharmam Venam Yethochitham

Yet I wm willing to accept Aaromal's contention, if I am given sufficient proof. MANOJTV 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guru , God and Atheism

Instead of reading Gurus works or by the people who had studied in and out of Gurus Philosophy (like Natataraja Guru, Nitya Chaitanya Yati and Muni Narayana Prasad) Manoj is trying to establish that Guru is an atheitst by borrowing arguments from his atheist followers who were never serious in studyig Gurus philosophical works. Manoj can you site any article by Joseph or ayappan or Jayachandan which examines Gurus philosophical works? If one read Gurus famous work Atmopadesa satakam or Darsana Mala carefully, there are ample evidences sugests that Guru never rejected the concept of God. or If he was an atheist why did he write Daivadasakam: A Universal prayer? There are are a new class of self proclaimed intellectuals who want to corner Guru as social reformer or Religious reformer or Atheist or Marxist rather than a reevaluator of Vedanta Philosophy. They just wasting time as Guru said in Atmopadesa satakam like blind men trying to explain elephant. Reasoning is the basic frame work of Vedanta so there is no need to resatte that Guru was a Rationalist. In vedanta there is only one god so Guru accepted that fact. Any serious seeker in Gurus vision must read two books (1) The Word of the Guru by Nataraja Guru (2) The Philosophy of Sree Narayana Guru by Muni Narayana Prasad. Without reading those authetic books, writing and and arguing in Internet forums are really a blot to what Guru preached " Our aim is not to argue and win but to know and let know". I quote from the Guru prasads books The Philosophy of Sree Narayana Guru

Chapter 19, GOD TEMPLES AND RITES

" Narayana Guru an enlightened person was hounoured by everyone irrespctive of their walk of life or view of life. His vision being all comprehensive and unitive, no one could see and outlander in him, and more those of different perceptions had the feeling that Guru was with them. Even atheist were among his close followers.

Was he a believer? Yes; only that it is in ascientific sense. God the one reality that underlineseverything that apperars in the world, here or hereafter, was more than matter of belief for Guru. Admitting the existance of world means admitting the realness of God, for the world cant appaer to be causual Reality underlying (see Darsanamala 2.2). Likewise admitting GOd means admitting the existance of world as the appaarent form in which God becomes manifest. God, atman, Brahman, arivu (Cit) were interchangable terms to him. God and the world are inseperably one, as are water and waves, as are gold and ornaments.

Does God exist? The direct answer to this question derivable from Gurus philosophy would be, " God alone exists, all that appear forming the world are simply various manifestations of one God". Can you see God then? Yes, God alone is what you see, you simply mistake it as the world."

So what does it mean? One who had understood the basic frame work of Gurus philosophy (not necessarily in detail) wouldnt make blunders in portayig him as an Atheist.

Pradeep.

        • The following points may be of relevance to the ongoing discussion on Narayana Guru.
  1. I have read some of Narayana Guru's works in verse (including Atmopadesa Sathakam) and almost all of his works in prose. I don't claim that I have understood him completely. The Malayalam style of his period is definitely a barrior for me in understanding his works throughly.
  2. I don't claim, I repeat, that Narayana Guru was an atheist. But many atheists, I repeat, did/do claim that his works definitely pointed towards atheism. It was in this context that M.C.Joseph's name was brought in.
  3. One has the freedom to believe that Nataraja Guru, Nitya Chaitanya Yeti, Muni Narayana Prasad et al have read Narayana Guru's works "in and out" and are the ultimate authority on him. But I don't think so. To me, they have read too much of brahminical hinduism in Narayana Guru's works.
  4. Naryana Guru, in spite of writing a number of verses in praise of hindu deities, did not write a single sentence on The Geeta, the ultimate Hindu book. And, to me, this is not accidental. But the above referred triumvirate who claimed to have read Narayana Guru "in and out" are all in praise of the very same book. This, to me, is not accidental too.
  5. I don't have much information on Nataraja Guru. But my understanding is that he did not take sanyas from Narayana Guru. He did so, after the death of Narayana Guru.
  6. One has every right to believe that the real Narayana Guru is the one who wrote verses in praise of hindu deities. And the Narayana Guru who revolutionised the social and religious life in Kerala is only an unwanted appendage. But I take a view which is diametrically opposed to it.
  7. Sahodaran Ayyappan was a nobody. Sahodaran knew nothing about Narayana Guru. Pradeep's is the final word. Hail! Vellappally. MANOJTV 08:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


        • Reply to Manojs comments


  1. The core Wisdom of Gurus Philosophy is described in his poetic compositions such as Atmopadesa satakam, Darsana Mala, Arivu, Advaita Deepika, Vedanta Sutra... Among these Darsana Mala is one of his last compositions which are free from any religious symbols. His prose works are composed very early and doesn’t explore the all aspects his complete vision of Vedanta. Without proper commentary his poetic works are difficult to grasp. Now we have excellent commentaries on all his works to do proper study

2. If you don’t claim, the importance you had given on those aspects has to be reevaluated. For me, you had given so much emphasis on this point! I agree with the second part in your comment

3. Without properly reading Gurus works and the works of Natataraja Guru and his disciples, how you can make such a floppy statement. Narayana Guru himself told to his disciples that his philosophy is not different from the Advaita- Vedanta of Sankara. In advaita-vedanta philosophy there is nothing to be attributed to Brahminical hegemony. The sad truth is that Brahmins hide these core facts and twisted such Philosophies for there own sake for thousand of years. What Nataraja Guru and his disciple did was to show the world how Narayana Guru revaluated and restated the Advaita Philosophy in a scientific way. In doing so Natararja Guru even criticized Sankara on his silence about the caste discrimination described in the verse of Brhma Sutra. I quote Nataraja Guru from his book “An integrated Science of the Absolute"

Philosophizing with matter as the starting point was repugnant to Socrates who openly objected to the hylozoists, whom he charged with being interested only in mud and stones, and not in the world of the intelligibles. In India this same contempt is revealed by Sankara in his Brahma Sutra commentary. It is not difficult to discover, by carefully reading between the lines, how Sankara's philosophy is also tainted with this prejudice. A large part of his commentary contains a rather matter-of-fact polemical denunciation of the Samkhya and Nyaya-Vaiseshika approaches. He takes his stand quite rightly on the claims of sabda pramana (the validity of the scriptural texts)i, but his way of upholding the a priori and axiomatic method is not altogether scientific. In standing for the notion of the Absolute in all its independence and purity, Sankara never tires of stating again and again his objection to the ontological pradhana of the Samkhyas. He also summarily dismisses Buddhist philosophy and the paramanu (ultimate atom) doctrine of the Vaiseshikas.


No credit is given to the ancient rishis (sages); Kanada, and even the great Buddha are supposedly unable to counter the arguments of the Vedic lawgiver, Manu. The slightest criticism of the Vedic word, even when impossible and contradictory positions are found, is nonetheless endorsed by both Sankara and Ramanuja. This extreme intolerance in the name of orthodoxy unmistakably comes into evidence when the question of caste and Vedic orthodoxy are mentioned. In the apasudra-adhikarana (section denying Vedic rites, religion, etc., to the proletarian), the spiritual status of the sudra is discussed. This orthodox attitude denies any rights and dignity whatsoever to the common person. It is comparable only to the instances of slavery and lynching in America and the anti-Semitism of Europe and Hitler before and during the last World War. This section of the Brahma Sutras is a blot on human nature and genuine Indian spirituality should not be confused with it. We find mention of permission given to punish sudras by killing them if they happen to know the contents of any part of the Vedas. If they innocently happen to hear the Vedas being recited it is permitted to pour molten lead or wax in their ears. If the sudra is caught uttering any Vedic passage he is to have his tongue cut out. Although exceptions to this rule are mentioned and reluctantly approved using far-fetched and irrelevant arguments, as Max Muller pointed out, this section of the Brahma Sutras (I.3.34-38) sufficiently reveals the nature and intensity of the intolerance and exclusiveness of a group of orthodox Hindus. The claim of Hindu tolerance made by Swami Vivekananda in his famous Chicago Address seems very weak when viewed from this particular perspective.


That Sankara has no word to say against this in his commentary is rather strange because his position regarding caste is different in the Vivekacudamani, where in verse 297 he compares caste to a rotting corpse. Also in his Upadesasahasri (A Thousand Advices) in Verses 14 and 15 he tells the student it is wrong to think of himself as being a Brahmin. Whenever Narayana Guru met an orthodox person claiming to represent Vedanta, invariably the first question he put to him was whether or not there was any justice or kindness in the section of the Brahma Sutras dealing with the status or dignity due to sudras.

We have alluded to this section of the Brahma Sutras at some length merely to show how spirituality can degenerate into something closed and static. This tendency is evident in Sankara's commentary where he does not even succeed in covering up his intention of completely destroying all philosophical views different from those of the Brahma Sutras. He never accepts another's standpoint, but always clings tenaciously to his own. His conclusion found in II.2.17. regarding the Vaiseshika philosophy is summed up as follows:


"It thus appears that the atomic doctrine is supported by very weak arguments only, is opposed to those scriptural passages which declare the Lord to be the general cause, and is not accepted by any of the authorities taking their stand on Scripture, such as Manu and others. Hence it is to be altogether disregarded by high-minded men who have a regard for their own spiritual welfare."13


The only relieving feature of Sankara´s commentary is the extremely subtle nature of some of his speculation revealing delicate fencing tactics directed against a number of imaginary opponents. Unfortunately, many of these opponents are not true representatives of the schools of philosophy they are supposed to represent, but instead are mere caricatures. Sometimes they are even degraded to a lower position and presented as unintelligent. This device is used for the glory of Vedism and Vedanta. It appears that this work must have been written for the training of a group of Vedic Brahmins for use against their more philosophical and spiritual opponents.

Fortunately the position of the Brahma Sutras is openly and dynamically revalued by the Bhagavad Gita. In contrast the approach of the Bhagavad Gita is strikingly different to that of the Brahma Sutras. The Gita is strictly in accordance with scientific norms of thought and completely open and dynamic when it says in Chapter IV, Verse 11:


""My very path it is, that all men do tread from every possible approach."14


This open outlook is further evidenced when it says in Chapter IX Verse 32 that sudras, women, and even those of sinful origin can attain to the supreme goal.15 The Samkhya philosophy also receives complete recognition in Chapter XVIII, Verses 13-1616 The purpose of the Gita is to revalue the restate both the orthodox and heterodox currents of thought of its time. In Chapter V, Verses 4 and 517 the emphasis is on complete equality of status between orthodox and heterodox disciplines. In Chapter IX Verse 32 reference is made to five distinct levels or categories in the context of a philosophical analysis of the Absolute."

Because of this ignornace, J Reghu made similar comments on Nataraja Guru. Also if Nataraja Guru is not the authority, tell me who is the authority on Narayana Gurus philosophy?


4. About Gita:

This is a new theory floating around in Kerala after the publication of K. P Appanns book on Guru. Even scholars like him is completely mistaken or misguided in this issue. First of all Gita is not a religious text. It’s a text book of yoga (dialectics) which teaches Brhamavidya. Religion has no scope in the whole book. Scholars like Radhakrishnan, Gandhi, and Tilak all made such mistake in considering Gita as a religious text. One noted exception is Sri Aurobindo, who clearly demonstrated the Universality of Gitas teaching. Second fact is that Naraya Guru wrote books par excel with Gita. So there is no need for him to write anything about Gita. Moreover, unlike Sankara, Narayana Guru never wrote any commentary on Upanishads which is also text books on Vedanta. Instead he translated Isoupanishad to Malayalam. There are evidences suggests that in Guru encouraged people to read Gita. In Sivagiri students used to read and discuss Gita along with other Upanishads while Narayana Guru was alive. Moreover Narayana Guru discussed philosophy of Gita with Nataraja Guru and encouraged him to write the commentary in a new perspective. This can be found in Nataraja Gurus Gita commentary (Introduction)> I quote that section here: “Besides the immediate prompting of circumstances there was the deeper and remoter stimulus which had brought me to study Gita. This came fromNarayana Guru himself over thirty years back from centennial year. It was on a certain sunny afternoon, I resided as a disciple of the Guru at Ashram at Karkalla on the southern Malabar cost in 1925 that the Guru put me gently the unostentatious question: How could Krishna ask Aruba to Kill? Finding no ready answer I Guru replied in a low voice, “He would have regretted later". This cryptic response reminded in my memory, but I couldn't see at once the whole implication of what Guru meant.

Once more after an interval of two years while again living with guru, the conversation turned to Gita. This time it was the disciple who had the idea. He suggested that in the study of the Gita the blemish of the canvas should not be attributed to the picture in the mind of the painter. The canvas was the historical setting of the Mahabharata war as described in the epic poem, and the painting was the Wisdom teaching of that Vyasa wanted to transmit to future generations through this medium. The Guru seemed pleased this way of looking at the teaching of the Gita. Not only was his approval was thus given, but Guru also added that the view deserved to be made known. Such are the remoter circumstances that have prompted this book. " From this firs hand account, it is evident that Guru hadn’t had any problems with the philosophy of Gita but only with the commentators.

5. I am expanding the Wiki page on Nataraja Guru you had created. Yes you are right; Narayana Guru didn’t give sanyasa to Nataraja Guru. Watch that space for more info. Also, I recommend you to read his autobiography “Autobiography of an Absolutist". Whatever I had written is based on that book.

6. I don’t say that Narayana Guru didn’t reform anything. His reform movement is the outcome of his though going Absolutist outlook. So I have only problem with people who portray his as mere Social reformer.

7. I never criticized Ayyappan for his revolutionary social activities. He had all blessings from Guru himself. I believe that Ayappan and his atheist followers were never interested in Gurus Advaita Philosophy.

8. I am not an expert on Gurus philosophy. I am slowly trying to understand his teachings. So don’t ridicule me by calling an expert since guru himself dissociated from SNDP (there is a letter had written to yougam president), I don’t want to say Zindabad to Vellapalli! PRADEEP

[edit] Narayana Guru and his commentators

I don't think it is meaningful to discuss the philosophy of Gita, Mansusmruti, Sankara etc in this page. The question I raised is whether Narayana Guru himself ever wrote anything on the Hindu Text. And this is not a new theory. I remember reading, a few years back, an essay written by M.V.Devan, the well known artist, precisely on this topic. The essay is also included in his book, Devaspandanam, published by D.C.Books. I am yet to come across the book written by K.P.Appan. So, definitely, this has nothing to do with K.P.Appan and his book. And thank you for informing me of Appan's book. I will grab it when I visit Kerala next time!

The book that is necessary to understand Narayana Guru's works today is a book on Malayalam langauge of that period. And a Malayalam Dictionary too. Commenteries upon commentories by the so-called experts who knew them in and out may be worth reading for its own sake. And, why should the commentaries by his Hindu theological followers should be so sacrosanct and those by his atheist followers nothing but blasphemous?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An article on anybody or any topic should exposit the many facets of that personality or subject. May be in the coming days, one of those who think that Narayana Guru was an atheist may comment upon that. What is needed is facts and logical conclusions. Why should one get too much perturbed?

Vellappalli's movement, to me, is an extreme and lumpen-political manifestation of the attempts of Hindu ideologues to transform Narayana Gurua into Hindu sanyasi.

And I did not create the page on Nataraja Guru. Please check the page history!MANOJTV 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Narayana Guru and Brahminical dominance

From the way my editing of the article on Narayana Guru (to incorporate Guru's contribution in challanging Brahminical dominance in all areas of life - especially in religious matters - that characterised the social life in Kerala in the first quarter of the last century) are being reverted, it requires, it seems to me, some clarification.

Probably the usage "brahminical order" in the sentence ....he revolted against the brahminical order.." is not very accurate as the word brahminism is used with a variety of meanings (both positive and negative) as can bee seen from the Wikipedia article on brahminism. But when I used the term, I meant the "Brahminical dominance". Hence in the present editing I use the term "Brahaminical dominance" instead of "Brahaminism". I hope this may satisfy the user who frequently reverts the editings.

But, if the user does not want to have any reference to brahminical dominance appeaing in the wikipedia article on Narayana Guru, that will substantially negate the colossal contribution made by Narayana Guru in reforming Kerala society.

Towards understanding this aspect (that of challanging the brahminical dominance) of Narayana Guru's movement, I quote below a few sentences from Guru's biography written by Murkot Kunhappa and published by National Book Trust, India. I quote:

"Consecration of an idol of siva by Nanu Swami administered an electric shock to the crowd assembled there...

"This shock given at about the middle rung of the caste ladder, viz. the Ezhavas, was transmitted upwards to the Nambudiri Brahmins and downwards to the lowest among the several castes below Ezhavas.....

"The magnitude of this act of consecration of a Siva idol by the Guru can be better understood by a glance at the customs of the day. In Kerala, the Ezhavas and the castes below them were, as already stated, denied entry into Hindu temples. For that matter, they were forbidden even to walk along the public roads adjoining the temples. When the idol of a temple was taken in a procession round the town, the lower castes had to clear out of their own houses situated along the route of the procession.

"...And yet, here was an Ezhava performing this most sacred ceremonies, knocking out the very bottom of the caste system and all that it stood for, at one stroke." (Page 24-25, Narayana Guru - Murkot Kunhappa, Published by National Book Trust, India)

Ashaan is not a sub-caste of Ezhavas. This was/is a Malayalam term used to address anybody who is a teacher. Naryana Guru spent some time in his early life teaching school children. Hence the name. MANOJTV 12:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Works by Nārāyana Guru

He also published works in the Tamil langauge. It would great to list them out too.

RaveenS 10:03, 3 March 2006 (EST)

[edit] The leftist outlook

Guru was a writer(a poet) of great mastery in both Malayalam and Sanskrit.We can read them to understand his philosophy and position on religious matters. This article portrays an atheist/leftist view on the great Guru. Why can't the leftists limit their writings to Marx, EMS or E.K Nayanar? If a leftist write about Christ or Muhammed, we know where it will take us! Persons who read about the Guru for the first time will get a wrong perspective.

[edit] Narayana Guru is not a mere Social Reformer

Those who distorted the Wiki Page on Guru by projectiong their casteist/classist/atheist outlook in him must read this illuminating article

Narayana Guru is not a mere Social Reformer

by Swami Vinaya Chaitanya

Every year, two days after Onam comes the birth-anniversary of Narayana Guru (1854-1928).The message of fraternity, oneness of Life and compassion Narayana Guru envisioned and exemplified, continues to inspire disciples in every part of the Earth, regardless of cast, creed, and cultural differences.

Narayana Guru began his efforts to better the lives of people below his mountain-cave, by installing a sivalinga, at Aruvippuram, near Thiruvananthapuram. The linga was a stone that he had picked up diving into the depths of a pool, chiseled by the waters of ages. The Guru had written on the temple-wall:

Devoid of dividing walls of caste or race Or hatred of rival faith, We all live here in brotherhood, And know this place to be, ‘This model-foundation’.

While everyone agree that his ideas -- Humanity is of One Caste, One Religion and One God -- is more relevant now than ever before, the common error in treating the Guru as a mere social reformer worked for the benefit of backward castes/classes is due to an improper assessment of his real contribution to human thought in general and Indian philosophy in particular.

Calling a guru “not a mere social reformer” doesn’t belittle social reform; it is only to draw attention to the principles of Guruhood. Those principles have been dear to people all over the world, though India can claim to have fostered such wisdom unbroken to the present day. All such gurus, regardless of the age they live in, have exemplified universal values, which serve as guiding principles of human life. For this reason, such teachers are called world-teachers or jagad gurus.

Viewing Narayana Guru’s teachings -- oneness of the human species, oneness of human effort and faith and oneness of God - in the universal context would make more sense. Hence, it is incorrect to limit his teachings to social reforms; it goes against the whole spirit of his teachings. Guru specifically says: manushyanam manushyatvam jatir gotvam gavam yatha (humanity is man’s caste, just as bovinity is the caste of the cow). Talking to disciples, he even lamented mankind’s inability to accept fellow humans as part of the species, while a dog recognizes another dog to be its own kind.

A proclamation by the Guru, published in Desabhimani in 1916, makes his stand on issues such as caste unequivocally clear:

Man-made divisions like caste that exist now, are meaningless and evil. It must end. The very thought of higher and lower castes must be wiped out. Mankind has long since renounced the thought. It is wrong to associate social issues with religion, just as it is wrong for religious beliefs to be subjected to social considerations. Social issues must be kept away from religion. Religion is a matter of perception.

No one’s religious freedom should be obstructed. There has to be different religions, so that it reflects the different kinds of people, their natures and the way their minds have developed. It will suffice if each follows the religion that he likes. We have founded some temples according to the wishes of some of the Hindus. If others, like Christians or Muslims, wish so, we shall ever be happy to fulfill them. When we say that we have left caste and religion, it only means that we have no special attachment to any particular caste or religion.

Narayana Guru has two poetic compositions to his name -- Jatimimamsa and Jatilakshanam. While the former deals with the basis of tradition and scripture, the latter indulges in a biological argument, that humanity is of one caste.

Not surprisingly, visions of saints like Allama Prabhu, Basavanna and Narayana Guru are strikingly similar, as we recognize them to be jagadgurus. Going back in our history, we would see the long line of teachers who enlightened humanity, as Narayana Guru shows the way in his Scriptures of Mercy (Anukampa dasakam). In this poem, Guru identifies arul, anpu, anukampa (Grace, Love, Mercy) as the essence of all religions and scriptures. The Jana, the Buddha, Krishna, Jesus Christ, The Prophet, Sankara, Thiruvalluvar and others are referred to as being the embodiments of this High Value of Grace/Love/Mercy.

Narayana Guru felt strongly the need for India to free itself from the evils of caste and religious rivalry. To have a society based on a vision of truth, it also becomes necessary to wipe out falsehood, like clearing the land of weeds before planting fresh seeds.

In a simple and profound prayer he wrote ‘for the children’ in the gurukula, Daivadasakam, Guru equates living beings to ocean’s waves and God to its depths. ‘We must find universal core of existence within us, to which we can relate. Let us be human beings first, and then we can be whatever else we wish to be.’ Again we quote the Guru Narayana: ‘Whatever be the religion, it would suffice if it makes a better man. May such wisdom, which has sustained humanity through time, guide us; the prayer with which these few flowers are offered, to you, and through you, to all the gurus.’

[edit] In the name of TN Jayachandran

Reading through these discussions, I note that some of the contributing authors, with an atheistic slant, have tried to portray TN Jayachandran as having implied that Sree Narayana Guru (SNG) had atheistic views; or that SNG’s alleged silence (to S. Ayyappan's rephrasing) substantiates a drift from SNG’s own spiritual path. TN Jayachandran does not share the view that SNG’s philosophy drifted from theism. Kindly do not drag TN Jayachandran’s name into a discussion in the wrong light. Aaroamal 06:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/r/Talk%7ENarayana_Guru_8a9c.html"