Written by
and © Udayabhanu Panickar
Shree
Chattampi SwAmikaL (ചട്ടമ്പിസ്വാമികൾ) and Shree NArAyaNa
Gurudevan (ശ്രീ നാരായണ ഗുരുദേവൻ) were two Yogis who
exemplified the Spiritual, Cultural and Social fiber of our land on par or
above any other Yogi. They both should be regarded as the Spiritual guiding
light for all of the populous; if not, we the people shall be the losers. They
were complimentary to each other, yet very much comprehensive in their own
individual divinity and nourishing all with it. There is no need for any
comparative or competitive evaluating to see who is better. And there is none
capable to gauge them and find who is better. The best to do is to accept them
both and apply the knowledge they provided to advance the life.
However,
since Christian Era 1914 (1089/90 Kollam Era – കൊല്ലവർഷം), (here after written
as CE and KE); there is an effort to establish that Shree Chattampi SwAmikaL
was Guru of Shree NArAyaNa Gurudevan and thus superior, even though both denied
a “Guru-Shishya” relation between them. So far, this remained within Keralam
(Malayalam speaking people). But recently an article titled “Chattampi Swami’s
Long Shadow” was published in “Hinduism Today”, an English language Magazine
published from Hawaii with the same claim, thus made it an international issue.
The following is a combined edited version of two responses to the Editor of
the magazine and the author. The purpose of this article is to examine some of
the arguments put forth by the people who claim a “Guru-Shishya” relation
between them. Shree Chattampi SwAmikaL or ParamabhattAraka VidyaDHiraja TherdhapAda
Chattampi SwAmi ThiruvTikaL (പരമഭട്ടാരക വിദ്യാധിരാജ
തീർത്ഥപാദ ചട്ടമ്പി സ്വാമി
തിരുവടികൾ) and Shree NArAyaNa Gurudevan shall be referred,
respectively as “SwAmikaL” and “Gurudevan” here after, in this article.
As
per every written record prior to 1914 CE, SwAmikaL and Gurudevan met in 1060
KE (1884/85 CE) at ANiyoor (അണിയൂർ) Temple at VAmanapuram
(വാമനപുരം) near Thiruvananthapuram (തിരുവനനന്തപുരം). Later biographies of
SwAmikaL are showing it as 1058 KE (1882/83 CE). After the acquaintance,
SwAmikaL introduced Gurudevan to Ayyavu SwAmi (അയ്യാവു സ്വാമി).
They both learned “YogabhyAsam” (യോഗാഭ്യാസം), from Ayyavu Swami and
parted company in 1062 KE.
A
biography of SwAmikaL was published in1910 CE (1085-86 KE); written by
ARanmuaLa NArAyaNa Pillai (ആറൻമുള നാരായണ പിള്ള)
in SamskRutham (സംസ്കൃതം-Sanskrit) named “Sadguru SaRwaswam” (സദ്ഗുരു
സർവ്വസ്വം). A periodical published by Neelakhanda TherdhapAdar (നീലകണ്ഠതീർത്ഥപാദർ) on
the teachings of SwAmikaL was named “Sadguru” (സദ്ഗുരു). Both names indicate
that SwAmikaL was also known as “Sadguru”. “Sadguru SaRwaswam” contained
a list of
His disciples and write-up on each of them. Neelakhanda TheerdhapAdar (നീലകണ്ഠതീർത്ഥപാദർ) and
TherdhapAda HamsaR (തീർത്ഥപാദഹംസർ) ware listed as first and
second disciples. Ten disciples are listed and none of them was named Shree
NArAyaNa Guru or NANu Guru. In 1911 CE (1086/87 KE) Neelakhanda TherdhapAdar’s
biography named “Shree NeelakandhAmRutham” (ശ്രീ നീലകണ്ഠാമൃതം)
was published. This book also has no reference to Gurudevan as a disciple. In
1914 CE (1089/90 KE) SwAmikaL's ShasTipooRthi (ഷഷ്ഠിപൂർത്തി) was observed. On that
occasion, a function was held at a village named Ezumattoor (എഴുമറ്റൂർ)
in Thiruvalla (തിരുവല്ലാ) Taluk. A book named “ShasTipooRthi Prashasthi” (ഷഷ്ഠിപൂർത്തി
പ്രശസ്ഥി) was published at that time. Gurudevan is not shown as a
disciple in this book either. Also Gurudevan did not attend this ShasTipooRthi
celebration. In some of the StothRams (സ്തോത്രങ്ങൾ) written about SwAmikaL
during that period, there are mentions of His disciples. But in none of them,
Gurudevan appears as a disciple.
A
book to establish a separate Pooja procedure for Nair community named
“AachArapaDDhathi” (ആചാരപദ്ധതി) was published in 1914
CE (1089/90 KE). For the first time, the name of Gurudevan was incorporated in
this book as a disciple. The proponents of “Guru-Shishya” theory claim it as
proof for their theory. In the introduction of this book, it was claimed that
Gurudevan was the first disciple of SwAmikaL. The statement was attributed to
SwAmikaL also. But that writing itself has some flows. (1) There is no logic to
mention Gurudevan as SwAmikaL’s Shishyan in a book written to establish Pooja
procedure for Nair community? (2) It is written that Gurudevan lived with
SwAmikaL for “numerous” or “many” years; (“anEkavarshakkAlam”-“അനേകവർഷക്കാലം”
in Malayalam). This cannot be true as they were together only for three years.
Even if we take the longer period into consideration, which is five years; it cannot
be “numerous years” or “many Years”. In 1062 KE, (1886/87 CE) Gurudevan started
living at AruvipuRam (അരുവിപ്പുറം), parting company with
SwAmikaL and started His public life. Also, within this three year period
they both were learning “YogabhyAsam” (യോഗാഭ്യാസം), which was also called
“YogAsanam” (യോഗാസനം) and now erroneously called “Yoga”. (3) An
examination of the language used in the two quotes from that introduction,
reproduced by some authors; one referring to Gurudevan, and another referring
to a different subject; reveals a very distinguishable difference in style and
usage of words, between them. This indicates that both were not written by the
same person. It seems that the part referring to the “Guru-Shishya” relation
was written by someone else as the other quoted part is very similar to
SwAmikaL’s writings. There are no chances for SwAmikaL to write thus, when that
is not the truth as per his own statements. So, we have to assume that; that
part of the message to be forged. (4) Apart from these, Gurudevan also had
categorically stated that they are not “Guru” and “Shishyan”.
Some
of the supporters of the “Guru-Shishya” relation theory accuse KumAran AshAan (കുമാരാൻ ആശാൻ) for “spear-heading” the “Guru–Shishya
controversy”. KumAran AshAan did not “spear-head” any controversy. He did not
even start it. It was started by the people who worked behind the book,
“AachArapaDDhathi” (ആചാരപദ്ധതി). Until its
publication, there was no controversy. Some even say there was a deterioration of relation between KumAran AshAan and Gurudevan due to the
controversy. But none of the authentic biographies of Gurudevan or any of His
known associates says this or attest to this. The supporters of the “Guru-Shishya” relation
theory bring up a
conversation between Gurudevan and some others, after KumAran AshAan left for
the travel in that boat, which was involved in an accident and took his life. They
try to show that there was deterioration in their relation, by using wrong
interpretation of that conversation. In actuality what Gurudevan said in that
conversation was to indicate to them that He did know KumAran AshAan left for
his last journey. Some of the proponents of this theory also bring up the name
of one “Pichayamma” as “a very close associate of Gurudevan” attesting to this “deterioration”.
None of the authentic biographies has ever recorded such a person as
Gurudevan’s associate. KumAran AshAan was the closest person to Gurudevan until
He passed away. Their relation never deteriorated. It looks like those who
write such baseless stories don’t even know that an enlightened AtHman (ആത്മൻ)
never dislikes anyone or their relation to anyone never deteriorates. Their
outlook towards others is very much different than the rest of us. For them,
there is no ‘other person’; it is all themselves (Himself) and that is what is
Adwitham (അദ്വൈതം). So, there is no chance for any deterioration of relation.
Even though AshAan never become a SanyAsi, he was known as “Chinna SwAmi”
indicating his closeness to Gurudevan. KumAran AshAan just wrote in the
biography of Gurudevan he authored, that ‘a person named Kunjan Pillai, (കുഞ്ഞൻ പിള്ള) whom Gurudevan acquainted, took Him
to Ayyavu SwAmi’ (അയ്യാവു
സ്വാമി). He did not
mention anything more, because there was nothing more to mention. Then what is
the controversy KumAran AshAan “spear headed”?
Some even
claim; “there started emerging a divide among the two major communities” due to
this controversy. The fact is that the “divide” was there long before SwAmikaL and Gurudevan were even born. But they
both never bothered about it and did associate with people of all communities.
Because of this, some of the members of His own community even boycotted
SwAmikaL, specially the leadership. Community leadership never accepted Him.
The friendship between Gurudevan and SwAmikaL did start a growth of closeness
between the members of the communities. However, the controversy created with inclusion of the
baseless “Guru–Shishya”
theory in the book “AachArapaDDhathi”
did destroy it. (It is strongly
felt that the recent article in “Hinduism Today” is a way to put some
obstructions to the co-operation emerging between the two communities, in
recent times.)
There
is also a claim that Ayyavu SwAmi asked Chattampi SwAmikaL to teach
“YogabhyAsam” (യോഗാഭ്യാസം) to Gurudevan and SwAmikaL did instruct
Gurudevan and thus He is Gurudevan’s Guru. It was a common practice to assign
senior students to instruct junior students. But that do not make the senior
student the junior student’s Guru. Also Chattampi SwAmikaL went to other
teachers after they left Ayyavu SwAmi including a teacher whose name is
unknown, again for YogabhyAsam (യോഗാഭ്യാസം). Some of the other
teachers He went to were SwaminAdha DeshikaR (സ്വാമിനാഥ
ദേശികർ) for
Tamiz (തമിഴ്) language, SubbADhapAdikaL (സുബ്ബാജടാപാഠികൾ) of KallatakkuriCHi (കല്ലടക്കുറിച്ചി)
in TamiznAdu (തമിഴ്നാട്) for Vedah (വേദഃ), VedAntham (വേദാന്തം),
Tharkkam (തർക്കം) and VyakaraNam (വ്യാകരണം). The biographies of
SwAmikaL I read; have not given the years of training for these. In fact there
are only five events given with year. Even the year of death of his mother is
not given. As per the chronology of the given years in the biography, we have
to assume that He continued His learning process even after the training under
Ayyavu Swami after which, SwAmikaL and Gurudevan went in two different directions, carrier wise.
A
“proof” (!) the proponents of “Guru-Shishya” theory bring up is the word
“Sadguru” (സദ്ഗുരു), Gurudevan used to refer SwAmikaL in a poem Gurudevan
dictated to SuguNAnandagiri SwAmi (സുഹുണാനന്ദഗിരി സ്വാമി)
when SwAmikaL attained SamAdhi. One of SwAmikaL’s biographers has put forward
an argument pointing to one mantRam each, from CHandogya and Mundaka UpaniShads
and claimed that, these two, coupled with the poem mentioned above, is the
admittance by Gurudevan that SwAmikaL was His Guru. However in light of the
names of His biography “Sadguru SaRwaswam” (സദ്ഗുരു സർവ്വസ്വം)
and the periodical His disciple published with the name “Sadguru” (സദ്ഗുരു),
it should be very clear that “Sadguru” was used in the poem as SwAmikaL was
known as “Sadguru” also. Over and above this, while transcribing the above
mentioned poem; SuguNAnandagiri SwAmi expressed his opinion that, ‘people may
take the word “Sadguru” and interpret it’ to be that; ‘SwAmikaL was Gurudevan’s
Guru’. To this Gurudevan asked him a question countering his opinion; “Why? (Do
you think), I do not know how to write (the word) “Madguru” (മദ്ഗുരു)?
(“Madguru” means “My Guru”.) (“EnthA, ‘Madguru’ ennezhuthAn namukkaRiyillE?” – എന്താ?
മദ്ഗുരു എന്നെഴുതാൻ നമുക്കറിയില്ലേ”).
This counter question very clearly proves that Gurudevan was not SwAmikaL's
Shishyan. Also, Gurudevan told SuguNAnandagiri SwAmi that, ‘this kind of
superlatives were also used to identify Spiritually Enlightened Masters’; (In
Malayalam; “ShLokatthile viShEshaNapadangaL paramahamsarAya
sanyAsimArekkuRichhu sADhAraNa ezhuthARuLLathANennum aviTunnu
abhipRAyappeTukayuNTAyi” (ശ്ളോകത്തിലെ വിശേഷണപദങ്ങൾ
പരമഹംസരായ സന്ന്യാസിമാരേക്കുറിച്ചു് സാധാരണ
എഴുതാറുള്ളതാണെന്നും അവിടുന്നു അഭിപ്രായപ്പെടുകയുണ്ടായി). This is recorded in his memoirs’.
It
is odd for the author to even think SwAmikaL could be a Guru for anybody at
that time of His life, because the same author, in another part of the same
book stated that, when Gurudevan and SwAmikaL met; He was not “Chattampi
SwAmikaL”, but ‘Kunjan Pillai Chattampi’ only. He was also known by another
name; ‘SHaNmukhadAsan’ (ഷൺമുഖദാസൻ). (It is known that SwAmikaL was also a
student of SHaNmukha Sundaram Pillai (ഷൺമുഖസുന്ദരം പിള്ള)
who was ‘Registration Inspector’ and whom SwAmikaL met, when SwAmikaL was
working as a transcriber at the registration office. Further, this author says,
again in the same book, that females used to call Him "Aatu (ആട്-Goat)
Kunjan Pillai”. If he was already a “SwAmikaL”, and qualified to be a Guru or a
jeevanmuktha; will people, especially females equate Him with an animal at that
time of history, when “male chauvinism” or “male supremacy” was at its peak?
Females equating a male, let alone a Swami with an animal (Goat-ആട്) are not
even thinkable at that time of history. These evidences clearly prove that he
was not qualified to be a Guru at that time of His life. And if He was
qualified, why should He take Gurudevan to Ayyavu SwAmi for learning YogabhyAsam
(യോഗാഭ്യാസം)?
Another
argument is that, “SanyAsam” (സന്യാസം) is a very scientific
system of life and there has to be a Human Guru and in Gurudevan’s case it is
SwAmikaL. Yes, for ordinary people it is a necessity. However, there are
exceptions and Gurudevan was such an individual. Also, no human can make
another human a “SanyAsi” (സന്യാസി)” by a “mahAvAkyam” (മഹാവാക്യം)
or a “deekSha” (ദീക്ഷ). They are only technicalities. “SanyAsam” has to be earned
and lived. If not, they are only “SanyAsi on Paper” or “SanyAsi on TV”; which
we have plenty now; some even financing evangelization of the country by
paying huge amounts to the TV stations owned by evangelists, which in turn is
used to evangelize our own people.
No human gave Gurudevan “mahAvAkyam” (മഹാവാക്യം)
or “deekSha” (ദീക്ഷ). HE got his “mahAvAkyam” (മഹാവാക്യം) and “deekSha” (ദീക്ഷ) direct
from the “Adi Guru”, “The parabrHMam” (പരബ്രഹ്മം) Itself.
That is why He said: “Devas and Human Beings are my Guru” to NaTarAja Guru (നടരാജ ഗുരു). There is no Guru above and beyond “The parabrHMam” (പരബ്രഹ്മം) and that “parabrHMam” can definitely give any
“MahAvAkyam” to any deserving candidate for “SanyAsam” (സന്യാസം).
There are more such “SanyAsis” (സന്യാസികൾ) in our land,
who become “SanyAsi” (സന്യാസി) without “mahAvAkyam” and
“deekSha” from a Human Guru. “MahAvAkyam” and “deekSha” from a Human Guru are
not needed for a “Self-Divine” person like Gurudevan. It is only needed for
ordinary people.
Let us also see what are the qualities and qualifications of
a SanyAsi/Swami and/or Yogi? UpaniShads (ഉപനിഷത്തുക്കൾ) gives
very clear indication for this at several places. Some of them are; “He who
performs his bounden duty without depending on the fruits-of-actions (nishkAma
KaRmmam - നിഷ്ക്കാമകർമ്മം); he is a SanyAsi and a Yogi”. Renunciation-of-action
and Yogah-of-action, both lead to the highest bliss; but of the two,
Yogah-of-action is superior to the Renunciation-of-action. It should be
remembered that Gurudevan never renounced action; He renounced the fruits of
the action. UpaniShads also says He should be known as a perpetual SanyAsi’ who
either hates, neither desires for (anything); free from the pairs-of-opposites,
and (then) he is easily set free from bondage’. Bhagavad Geetha (ഭഗവദ്ഗീത)
also says; He who is able, while still here (in this world and in Human Form)
to withstand the impulse born out of desire and anger, before the ‘liberation
from the body’ (death), He is a Yogi; and He shall be bliss full.
Once,
when AmRuthAnanda SwAmi (അമൃതാനന്ദ സ്വാമി) asked SwAmikaL on this
subject of “Guru-Shishya” relation with Gurudevan, He answered: NANu, AshAan
AayirunnappaoL; njAn chattampiyAyirinnu.” – നാണു, ആശാൻ ആയിരുന്നപ്പോൾ;
ഞാൻ ചട്ടമ്പി ആയിരിന്നു. “When NANu (Gurudevan) was (already) AshAan,
I was (only) Chattampi”; meaning ‘He was the monitor in a school when Gurudevan
was already a teacher’. (From the periodical “Shivagiri” published in 1985
CE.)
In
a discussion, Mr NArAyaNa Menon (നാരായണ മേനോൻ) asked SwAmikaL on this
subject and His response (in Malayalam) was “nAm AruTEyum guruvalla;
ellAvaruTEyum ShishyanANu” (നാം ആരുടേയും ഗുരുവല്ല; എല്ലാവരുടേയും ശിഷ്യനാണു്,) When translated it should read: “I am nobody’s
Guru; but everybody’s Shishyan”. Some people interpret it as a sarcastic remark
to indicate that SwAmikaL was exasperated at this “Guru-Shishya discussion” and
that is why He gave such an answer and He really did not mean it. Again as in
the case of so-called ‘deteriorated relation between Gurudevan, a Yogi and KumAran
AshAan (കുമാരൻ ആശാൻ)’; here also; how can
an Adwithi, a jeevanmuktha (ജീവന്മുക്ത) like SwAmikaL get upset on a silly
matter, which was also very clearly denied by Him? It is also necessary to
refer to the qualities and qualifications of a “Yogi” discussed earlier in this
article. This is another clear proof that the “Guru-Shishya” relation was the
creation of someone, who doesn’t even know what “Yogi is; what “jeevanmuktha”
is; what our “braHMavidya” is; and what “Adwitham” is! If SwAmikaL did get
upset as they claim, he surely was unfit to be a Guru even at that stage. Then
how can He become Gurudevan’s Guru, years before? The people who still claim
this “Guru-Shishya” theory should know that, they are demeaning SwAmikaL’s
stature not enhancing it by their claims.
There
is no chance for SwAmikaL to get upset and give such a reply in a subject where
he had told the truth more than once. In answering a request by one of His
devotee by the name NArAyaNan AshAan (നാരായണൻ ആശാൻ)
to clarify the question of “Guru-Shishya” relation, SwAmikaL said; “NANu Guru
and I are classmates; I am not His ‘Guru as some people say. Not only is that,
He is more educated than me too.” (GurusmaraNa PADHAvali -
Page 47). (“NANu Guruvum njAnum sathiirDhyaraaNu. allAthe chilaR
paRayARuLLathupOle njAn NANuguruvinte guruvalla. mAthRamalla, ennEkkAL
paDHippum NANuguruvinANu”. – “നാണു ഗുരുവും ഞാനും
സതീർത്ഥ്യരാണു്. അല്ലാതെ ചിലർ
പറയാറുള്ളതുപോലെ ഞാൻ നാണു
ഗുരുവിന്റെ ഗുരുവല്ല. മാത്രമല്ല, എന്നെക്കാൾ കൂടുതൽ
പഠിപ്പും നാണു ഗുരുവിനാണു്.”)
NaTarAja
Guru (നടരാജ ഗുരു) once asked Gurudevan
‘who His Guru was’. Gurudevan stated: “dEvAs and human are our (my) Gurus”. (In
Malayalam: “devanmArum manushyarum ANu nammuTe gurukkanmAr.” - “ദേവന്മാരും മനുഷ്യരും ആണു നമ്മുടെ ഗുരുക്കന്മാർ”). (Gurukulam Magazine –
1968) Now,
read the statement of SwAmikaL to Mr Menon: “I am nobody’s Guru; but
everybody’s Shishyan” together with Gurudevan’s words to NaTarAja Guru. Both of
them practically said that they had no particular Human Guru, but they, just
like some other Great RiSHis of our “good old bhAratham”; learned from
parabrHMam (പരബ്രഹ്മം). Also, we should remember that, we are discussing about
two Adwithins (അദ്വൈതികൾ) and according to Adwitham (അദ്വൈതം), parabrHMam is in
everyone as jeevAtHman, and they both were made divine or they both achieved Jeevanmukthi
(ജീവന്മുക്തി) and become “Yogi”, by the grace of “The
Supreme”; “The parabrHMam”; without the help of a “Human Guru” in particular.
Of course, there is no Guru above “The parabrHMam”, and this is clearly shown
in the UpaniShads. It is sure that on the way to Jeevanmukthi (ജീവന്മുക്തി),
they both had help from a lot of People and God(s), which are the jeevAtHman (ജീവാത്മാക്കൾ).
Once,
Narasimha (നരസിംഹ സ്വാമി) SwAmi asked Gurudevan,
if He did learn anything from SwAmikaL. Gurudevan answered; “No, when we first
met, He was not good in SamskRutham (സംസ്കൃതം). I did clear his doubts
in that subject.” (“Illa. njangaL thammil Aadyam kANumpOL addehaththinu
SamskRutham nalla vaSham illAyirinnu. Aa viShayatthil pala samShayangaLum nAm
addehaththinu theerthukoTutthiTTuNTu”. – “ഇല്ല. ഞങ്ങൾ തമ്മിൽ
ആദ്യം കാണുമ്പോൾ അദ്ദേഹത്തിനു
സംസ്കൃതം നല്ല വശമില്ലായിരിന്നു. ആ വിഷയത്തിൽ
പല സംശയങ്ങളും നാം
അദ്ദേഹത്തിനു് തീർത്തുകൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ടു്”.) (This can be seen
in a letter Narasimha SwAmi wrote to the editor of a magazine named
“Parivarththanam” and also in Shree Narayanavairukhi - Page 162.) And
Gurudevan once told; “Chattampi Swami and I are classmates. He calls me ‘NANan’
and I call him ‘Chattampi’. Neither had I taught him anything nor did He
teach me anything. There was no need for that.” (“Chattampi SwAmiyum
nAmum sathiirDhyaraaNu. addEham namme NANan ennum nAm addEhatthe Chattampi
ennumaaNu viLikkaaRu. addEhatthe naamO, nammE addEhamO enthenkilum
paDHippicchiTTilla. athinTe AavaShyam uNTaayirunnilla”. – “ചട്ടമ്പി
സ്വാമിയും നാമും സതീർത്ഥ്യരാണു്. അദ്ദേഹം നമ്മെ ‘നാണൻ’ എന്നും
നാം അദ്ദേഹത്തെ ‘ചട്ടമ്പി’ എന്നുമാണു് വിളിക്കാറ്.
അദ്ദേഹത്തെ നാമോ, നമ്മേ അദ്ദേഹമോ
എന്തെങ്കിലും പഠിപ്പിച്ചിട്ടില്ല. അതിന്റെ ആവശ്യം
ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല.”) (Vallabhasheri
Govindan Vaidyan - Page 51 to 53). Over and above Narayana Gurudevan has
once stated: “KummampaLLi KochurAman Pillai (കുമ്മംപള്ളി കൊച്ചുരാമൻ
പിള്ള) is my Guru and I am proud of that.” (From Vallabhasheri
Govindan Vaidyan - Page 54) Even though Gurudevan was referring to His academic
teacher, People who want to be satisfied that Gurudevan had a Nair Guru can
be happy with this statement. In fact three of His teachers in early life ware
from Nair community.
In
a letter written in Tamiz (തമിഴ്) on the 25th
day of the Month of “Dhanu” (ധനു), in 1104 KE; Mr
Lokanadha Pillai, (ലോകനാഥ പിള്ള) son of Ayyavu SwAmi
has mentioned that, when they came to Ayyavu SwAmi, Chattampi SwAmikaL used to
address Gurudevan as “AshAan” and Gurudevan in turn, used to call SwAmikaL as
“Chattampi”. These addressing clearly indicates that SwAmikaL was not
Gurudevan’s Guru? If wanted, it could be interpreted the other way around.
Also, read the article Mr Lokanadha Pillai wrote in Malayalam on this subject
and published and re-published, in at least two reputed publications in
Keralam. It is available in the archives of few web sites.
Some
argue that Professor Balarama Panicker (ബാലരാമ പണിക്കർ)
did write that SwAmikaL was Gurudevan’s Guru. He did believe that once.
However, what he wrote after research and study indicates that he changed that
opinion. Here is the translation in prose of what he wrote in his book “Shree NArAyaNa
Vijayam” (ശ്രീ നാരായണ വിജയം). ‘When they first met,
BAlabhattAraka Muni (ഭട്ടാരക മുനി) (Chattampi SwAmikaL)
realized that Gurudevan was a Real Truth Seeker, a Real Spiritual
Jyothish, who was An Incarnation, who was destined to uplift the poor
and the down trodden’. ‘Even though Gurudevan was small; in ‘size and younger
in age’; thus a younger brother, He realized that Gurudevan was here to
Establish Righteousness and He respected Gurudevan for that.’ Here we
should also consider what Geetha says; on the people who are born to establish
Righteousness “For the protection of the good; for the destruction of the
wicked and for the establishment of Righteousness, I” (the parabrHMam) “take
incarnations in every age.” Gurudevan was such an incarnation.
Another
“proof”, (!!) often brought up is that NaTarAja Guru, in His book “The Word of
Guru”, wrote that SwAmikaL was the Guru of Gurudevan. Actually what he stated
on page 260 of his book is that; both, SwAmikaL and Tykkatt Ayyavu “may be
looked upon” as important “Upa-Gurus (secondary Gurus) to Guru Narayana”. “May
be looked upon as Upa-Guru”, is not the same as “Being the Guru”. This is what
we call in Malayalam “GurusthAneeyaR” (ഗുരുസ്ഥാനീയർ). Also, NaTarAja Guru
has very authentically stated, in almost every writings about Gurudevan, that,
Gurudevan was ‘someone over and above any need of a Human Guru’ and He had His
brHMajnAnam (ബ്രഹ്മജ്ഞാനം) direct from the braHMan (ബ്രഹ്മൻ) Itself. Now look at
the remarks of Gurudevan: “Chattampi Swami and I are classmates. He calls me
‘NANan’ and I call him ‘Chattampi’. Neither had I taught him anything nor
did He teach me anything. There was no need for that”. Yes, there was
no need to teach either of them by any human Guru, as far as Spirituality was
concerned. They both were very much Self-Divine; they had no need for any Human
Guru. (From Vallabhasheri Govindan Vaidyan - Page 54)
After
parting company with SwAmikaL, (shortly after leaving from Ayyavu SwAmi’s
training); Gurudevan started His “Public Life” and “Public Service” at
AruvippuRam (അരുവിപ്പുറം), and within months did the consecration of
Shivalingam (ശിവലിംഗം) at AruvippuRam (അരുവിപ്പുറം) in 1063 KE (1888 CE).
Then moving around the southern part of the country; He consecrated more
Temples. Gurudevan also started ‘His own’ MaDHam (മഠം) and ‘His own’ “Shishya
Parampara” (ശിഷ്യ പരമ്പര) to teach and extent ‘His
own’ Spiritual Theorems of braHMavidya (ബ്രഹ്മവിദ്യ) through Shree NArAyaNa
DhaRmasaGHam (ശ്രീ നാരായണധർമ്മസംഘം) &
braHMavidayAlayam (ബ്രഹ്മവിദ്യാലയം) at Shivagiri (ശിവഗിരി)
and adwithAshRamam (അദ്വൈതാശ്രമം) at Aluva (ആലുവാ).
If Gurudevan was SwAmikaL’s disciple; he will be teaching SwAmikaL’s
philosophy; He would not start His own “Shishya Parampara”, and His own
Spiritual institutions. These actions and incidents in His life do not show any
reason to assume that SwAmikaL was Gurudevan’s Guru, if wanted; we could
interpret it the other way around.
Some
quote a poem written by Sarasakavi Mooloor Padmanabha Panicker (സരസകവി
മൂലൂർ പത്മനാഭ പണിക്കർ)
when SwAmikaL attained SamAdhi, as proof for SwAmikaL being Gurudevan’s Guru.
If the whole poem is intelligently interpreted, we can see that this poem
cannot be taken as proof for SwAmikaL being Gurudevan’s Guru. In fact there is
reference in it, which may again be able to be interpreted the other way
around.
The
words of Mooloor in Malayalam, quoted as proofs are; “Shree NArAyaNagurswamiyum
GuruvAkki mAnichha” - “ശ്രീനാരായണസ്വാമിയും ഗുരുവാക്കി
മാനിച്ച). These words are interpreted by some as admittance by
Mooloor that SwAmikaL is Gurudevan’s Guru. As Mooloor was a very close
associate and disciple of Gurudevan; some people interpret it as admittance by
Gurudevan also. Let us examine the meaning of the Malayalam words Mooloor used.
“Shree NArAyaNagurswamiyum” meaning, Shree NArAyaNa GuruswAmi also; “GuruvAkki
mAnichha” (ഗുരുവാക്കി മാനിച്ച), = ‘Guru
Akki mAnichha’ (‘ഗുരു ആക്കി മാനിച്ച). Here the word “Akki”
(ആക്കി”) is very important. The meaning of “Akkuka” (ആക്കുക), as applicable here is “neeyamikkuka” – (നീയമിക്കുക)
and in English, it is ‘appointing’. Akki (ആക്കി) means,
‘appointed’. “MAnichha” (മാനിച്ച) means ‘respected’ or
‘paid respect to’. What Mooloor is indicating is that Gurudevan considered
SwAmikaL ‘equal to a Guru out of respect for Him’, not as a reality. Gurudevan
respected SwAmikaL like a Guru. It doesn’t mean SwAmikaL was His Guru.
It is absurd to even think a person appointing another
person as his own Guru!!! A “Guru” is never appointed by a “Shishyan”. It is the other way around. A “Guru” appoints
or accepts a “Shishyan”. If that happens they are “Guru” and “Shishyan”. But
when someone “respect a person as Guru” or “consider as Guru” out of respect
for him, it is only “GurustAneeyan” (ഗുരുസ്ഥാനീയൻ), and
then we say “GuruvAkki
mAnichha” (ഗുരു ആക്കി മാനിച്ച). This
is very similar as NaTarAja Guru mentioned as ‘Secondary Guru’ or ‘Upa-Guru’.
The meaning of what Mooloor expressed, in simple English should be; ‘Gurudevan
considered SwAmikaL as His Guru,’ the same way He considered and respected
SwAmikaL as His elder brother, both of which SwAmikaL were not. Considering
someone as “Guru” or “Brother” and being “Guru” or “Brother” are not the same.
Now let us review another part of the same poem, where the words of SwAmikaL,
as declared to Mooloor, are reproduced by Mooloor and see how SwAmikaL really
considered Gurudevan.
They
are in “parenthesis”; indicating them to be the exact words and they are:
(“grasthagrandharAm matuyathimAr pOleyalla,
chitthasamyamiyAya buddimAn NANu Yogi
aTaveemayamaruvippuRam njangaLonni-
chhaTanam cheythirunna kAlaththu KaNTathathRE.” –
“ഗ്രസ്തഗ്രന്ധരാം മറ്റുയതിമാർ പോലെയല്ല,
ചിത്തസംയമിയായ ബുദ്ധിമാൻ നാണു യോഗി
അടവീമയമരുവിപ്പുറം ഞങ്ങളൊന്നി-
ച്ചടനം ചെയ്തിരുന്ന കാലത്തു കണ്ടതത്രേ.”)
Meaning of the first half;
(“grasthagrandharAm matuyathimArpOleyalla,
chitthasamyamiyAya buddimAn NANu Yogi” –
“ഗ്രസ്തഗ്രന്ധരാം മറ്റുയതിമാർ പോലെയല്ല,
ചിത്തസംയമിയായ ബുദ്ധിമാൻ നാണു യോഗി”)
is: Gurudevan was not like some Yogis who are just “book worms” (ഗ്രസ്തഗ്രന്ധൻ),
but “NANu Yogi is intelligent” – (ബുദ്ധിമാൻ നാണു യോഗി); an
“Intelligent NANu Yogi” who was (“chitthasamyami” - ചിത്തസംയമി); meaning; “who
had full control on his mind (senses)”. Now let us see what Geetha says who
Yogi is? It says “The Yogi is thought to be superior to the ascetics, and even
superior to ‘Men-of-Knowledge’ (Scholars); He is also Superior to
‘Men-of-Action’.” The words of SwAmikaL, when those words are interpreted in the light of
this Geetha mantRam; it very clearly indicate that HE respected Gurudevan very
much and seen HIM as an “Esteemed Yogi” and did not consider
Gurudevan as His disciple. It should also be remembered here that Chattampi
SwAmikaL was basically a “Men-of-Knowledge” who, mainly wrote books and advised
people, whereas Gurudevan was absolute “Yogi” who proficiently
experimented, experienced and succeeded through ”Bhakthi Yogah”, “JnAna
Yogah” and “KaRma Yogah”, all of them; ‘simultaneously throughout HIS life’.
Geetha further says; “He who, through the likeness (sameness) of the Self, (which
is in everyone and everything and which is the state of Adwitham); sees the
need of equality everywhere; be it pleasure or pain; He is regarded as the Yogi
of Supreme Excellence”. And that is how SwAmikaL sow Gurudevan; as a
“Yogi of Absolute Excellence”; not as His disciple and that is what
He said to Mooloor, through those words. Here we should also remember that they
both were very much experts on Geetha and people who study the literary works
of them can easily understand it.
Further
SwAmikaL says;
(“aTaveemayamaruvippuRam
njangaLonnichhaTanam
cheythirunna kAlaththu KaNTathathRE.” –
“അടവീമയമരുവിപ്പുറം ഞങ്ങളൊന്നിച്ചടനം
ചെയ്തിരുന്ന കാലത്തു കണ്ടതത്രേ.”)
– Meaning: (I)
sow him last when we wandered around the forests of AruvipuRam”, which was
before Gurudevan started His public life at AruvipuRam. A “Guru and Shishyan”
do not “wander around”, but two friends; sure will “wander around”. This
statement also puts to rest the argument that after their departure from Ayyavu
Swami, they used to meet often and wander around the country together. But… yes,
they did meet on few occasions. Gurudevan did not have much time to go around
with SwAmikaL as He was fully occupied in HIS (nishkAma KaRmmam - നിഷ്ക്കാമകർമ്മം)
for the benefit of all the people. Here, we should also remember that,
according to the biographies of SwAmikaL, He never went even to the northern
part of Keralam or TamiznAdu, whereas Gurudevan traveled the southern parts of
our ‘good old bhAratham’. SwAmikaL limited His tours to southern parts of
Keralam and TamiznAdu.
At
this conversation, SwAmikaL was describing His relations with Gurudevan to
Mooloor. If they were “Guru and Shishya” it is more logical for SwAmikaL
to mention it here to Mooloor, than in the introduction of a book to formulate
a Pooja procedure for Nair community, because Mooloor was a very close
associate and a disciple of Gurudevan who put in to practice a lot of
Gurudevan’s ideas and theorems. And if SwAmikaL did say so, Mooloor will never
write; ‘Guru Akki mAnichha’ (‘ഗുരു ആക്കി മാനിച്ച’);
instead He will be positively writing “Gurudevan’s Guru Chattampi SwAmikaL” –
(“ശ്രീനാരായണഗുരുവിന്റെ ഗുരുവായ ചട്ടമ്പിസ്വാമികൾ” എന്നു്).
To establish
SwAmikaL as Gurudevan’s Guru, some have written that Gurudevan used to do
“SAshgTAnga PRaNAmam” (സാഷ്ടാംഗ പ്രണാമം) to SwAmikaL
whenever they met. There is not even a single “SAshgTAnga PRaNAmam” reference
for this in any of the authentic writing on or about Gurudevan. There is two
such “SAshgTAnga PRaNAmam” described in the few books I read on Chattampi
SwAmikaL and His disciples. One was at the inauguration of a school where both
Gurudevan and SwAmikaL were present. Gurudevan was at the venue first. As per
the proponents of “Guru-Shishya” theory, when SwAmikaL approached, Gurudevan
“got up and fell on SwAmikaL’s feet with tears running down His face” and did
“SAshgTAnga PRaNAmam”. It is rather sad that the people who made up this story
do not even know that, A Yogi (an enlightened Spiritual Master) will never get
emotional. As per Chattampi SwAmikaL’s own statement, Gurudevan was a “chitthasamyamiyAya
buddimAn NANu Yogi” (ചിത്തസംയമിയായ ബുദ്ധിമാൻ നാണു യോഗി); a
Yogi who was intelligent and had full control of His senses and mind. Then
how can He get emotional? And in Gurudevan’s case, He did not even cry as a new
born, like every other human child. According to Mr C. Keshavan, as reported in
his book “Jeevithasamaram” (ജീവിതസമരം); as SwAmikaL was approaching, Gurudevan told the people nearby: ‘Chattampi
is coming, bring a chair?’ Gurudevan did not even get up and there was no
“SAshgTAnga PRaNAmam”. Mr C Keshavan further writes that their interaction at
that meeting was that of two mutually respecting “Yogis” and that is proof
enough to understand that they respected each other as equals and not “Guru”
and “Shishyan”.
Another
incident of “SAshgTAnga PRaNAmam” brought up was at (thOttuvayal bungalow- തോട്ടുവയൽ ബംഗ്ളാവ്) at pRAkkuLam – (പ്രാക്കുളം) village, where they met, when
SwAmikaL was sick and was resting. This was few days before SwAmikaL’s SamAdhi.
But, the description of that meeting by an eye witness, KottinAttu NArAyaNa
Pillai, (കൊറ്റിനാട്ടു നാരായണ പിള്ള) which I read; has no “SAshgTAnga
PRaNAmam”. And for sure, there is indication that they respected each other as
equals. When met, SwAmikaL asked Gurudevan to sit on the sofa, where He was
resting just as any mutually respecting close friend should and would do. But
Gurudevan did not sit, again just like any mutually respecting friends should
do; because SwAmikaL was sick and resting on the sofa and sitting on it may
make Him very uncomfortable. But SwAmikaL insists that Gurudevan sit on it and
Gurudevan obliges. Again, just as two very mutually loving and respecting
friends would do. Then the author describes how Gurudevan decides to stay there
that day. Let me quote the author. It is: (“AnnaviTe vishRamikkaNamenna
SwamikaLuTe nichhayatthe Shree NArAyaNa GuruswAmikaL santhOshpooRvam amgeekarichhu.”)
“അന്നവിടെ
വിശ്രമിക്കണമെന്ന സ്വാമികളുടെ നിശ്ചയത്തെ ശ്രീനാരായണഗുരുസ്വാമികൾ
സന്തോഷപൂർവ്വം അംഗീകരിച്ചു.” The translation should be: “The decision of
SwAmikaL that Shree NArAyaNa GuruswAmikaL should take rest there that day was
happily approved by Shree Narayana GuruswAmikaL.” The key words are (“nichhayatthe”
– നിശ്ചയത്തെ), the decision made; and (“amgeekarichhu”-അംഗീകരിച്ചു) meaning
approved. Here SwAmikaL makes a “decision” for Gurudevan; and Gurudevan “approves”
it. Does the decision made by a Guru have to be approved by the
“Shishyan”? Not at all. By these reciprocal actions of the two, it is
very clear that they were very close friends and mutually Respecting Yogis, who
were free to make decisions for each other; not “Guru” and “Shishyan”. The
words of the author very clearly indicate the mutual respect and love existed
between them. These words also show, how that deep mutual respect transferred
to the people around and influenced them to look up to both as Spiritual Icons.
And that is how we grow up looking up; to both of them as two Spiritual Icons
of our “good old bhAratham, inspiring all. We had few people in our family and
village who had witnessed and interacted with those two Yogis who inspired them.
Through those elders, we the following generations like this author got
inspired.
Some people
offer yet another “proof” (!!!) to establish their notion of “Guru-Shishya”
theory. They say that Gurudevan gave the offering, (dakSHiNa – ദക്ഷിണ); he got while consecrating a Temple to Chattampi
SwAmikaL. However, if you look into His life, you can see that Gurudevan used
to give away most offerings He got, to someone around; very often, even some
time to the people who offered it to Him. That is how (dakSHiNa – ദക്ഷിണ) should be used; in charity; not to expand own bank
balance, as most of the so-called SwAmi’s do now.
The
protagonists of the “Guru-Shishya” theory brings up a picture of SwAmikaL
sitting in the middle and Gurudevan and TheerdhapAda ParamahamsaR sitting on
either side indicating that, that seating arrangement is a proof that the
people on the sides are “Shishya” and the one in the middle was their “Guru”.
However, the truth is; no such picture was ever taken. A photograph was taken
with all the nineteen people present there; at their meeting discussed just
above. And SwAmikaL was the logical choice to be seated in the middle as the
eldest in the group. It can also be claimed as they are claiming. However,
taking the evidence that this picture is a forgery, and also, taking all the
other evidence into consideration; we have to dismiss that claim.
There may be a
question as to how we can assume that the photograph of the ‘three only
together’ is forged? We can say that, because in the same biography, it is
written, very discretely that in the whole life time, only two photographs of
SwAmikaL was taken. One was at his ShasTipooRthi celebrations and the other was
the one explained here with 18 other people. Gurudevan was not at the ShasTipooRthi
and thus he cannot be in the first photograph. So there should be only one
photograph of Gurudevan and Chattampi SwAmikaL together and that too not just
with three people, but with a total of nineteen people. But we have two
pictures in circulation with Gurudevan in both; one with two other people and
another with 18 other people. Anyone who observes both these pictures can see
that the picture of the three is an exact crop out from that group photo of 19.
So, the forged picture has to be the one with three people, not the photograph
with 19 people in it. This is also found right in the biography of SwAmikaL
which claims that He is Gurudevan’s Guru.
A
very clear proof that they were NOT “Guru” and “Shishya” can also
be seen in the biography of TheerdhapAda ParamahamsaR (തീർത്ഥപാദഹംസർ), which, in another part
claims that SwAmikaL was Gurudevan’s Guru. In that biography, it is stated that
Neelakhanda TheerdhapAdar (നീലകണ്ഠതീർത്ഥപാദർ) was already installed or
established as the “pramuKHa Shishyan” (“പ്രമുഖ ശിഷ്യൻ”)
of Chattampi SwAmikaL, when He, (ParamahamsaR), became a disciple of SwAmikaL.
Let us see the meaning of “pramuKHa” (“പ്രമുഖ”). It means: ‘the
first’, ‘the important’, ‘the eminent’, ‘the chief’, ‘the leading’, ‘the
foremost’ and ‘the principal’. Whichever meaning we take; or we take ‘all of it
together’ in to consideration; can NeelakanDHatheerdhapAdaR; or anyone else for
that matter; ever be placed or installed as the “pramuKHa Shishyan” (“പ്രമുഖ
ശിഷ്യൻ”) of Chattampi SwAmikaL, if Gurudevan was His Shishyan?
There is never a chance for anyone else to be that “PramuKHa Shishyan” (“പ്രമുഖ
ശിഷ്യൻ”), if
Gurudevan was Chattampi SwAmikaL’s Shishyan. So it is another proof,
which could alone offset all the arguments put forward to establish their
“Guru-Shishya” relation. And this is from the biography of the person
who was listed as the second disciple of Chattampi SwAmikaL after
NeelakanDHatheerdhapAdaR in the first biography of SwAmikaL;
“Sadguru-SaRwaswam” (“സദ്ഗുരു സർവ്വസം), not from any of
Gurudevan’s biography.
Moreover,
philosophically and spiritually, the similarities between SwAmikaL and
Gurudevan are only that they both subscribe to Adwitham. Further they both had
their own ‘mode and field’ of operation. Gurudevan did His Service to the
humanity on the base of “Universal LOVE” with the aim of
achieving equality for all; from the smallest of the small, to the biggest of
the big life form; and even the lifeless. Gurudevan stood for ‘universal strengthening’
‘equality’ and ‘opportunity for all’ through better education and ‘opportunity
to acquire whatever they desire’; according to their merits. His dHaRmam (ധർമ്മം)
and kaRmmam (കർമ്മം) was for the necessitation for “equal opportunity” and
“equality” for all and for improvement of ‘quality of life’ in every respect.
To achieve a “just society”; He established and caused to establish Temples,
Teaching Institutions, Manufacturing Units, Business Institution and even Trade
Unions. Everything He wrote and did has His message of “equality for all”.
He opposed every wrong in the society, without any hate or enmity ever, for the
people who did it. He treated all with the respect they deserved to be treated
with. HE, as a SanyAsi of Highest Paradigms, comprehended
SanyAsam to be “the renunciation of work with desire” (nishkAma
KaRmmam - നിഷ്ക്കാമകർമ്മം). As a SanyAsi, HE abandoned all the fruits of
the action for Himself as a true “TyAgi”; just as the UpaniShads teaches. “HE
totally gave up not only ‘all desire-prompted activities’; but also gave up all
the ‘anxieties for the enjoyment’ of the fruits-of-those actions”; but never
the action (kaRmmam-കർമ്മം). HE was not just a “SanyAsi” but also a
“TyAgi”, thus a Yogi of Premier Superiority as Chattampi SwAmikaL
expressed explicitly, to Sarasakavi Mooloor Padmanabha Panicker.
Chattampi
SwAmikaL even though very much against the caste discrimination; was for
opportunity with limited scope and mostly limited to writings (not actual work)
as Gurudevan did. He mainly focused on one community. He was an expert in
almost every art form, from cooking to classical Music, and did research work
on linguistics and Vedah which are exemplary works. He also wrote against the
evangelization by others. SwAmikaL mostly remained a jnAna Yogi. But Gurudevan
wrote books containing the essence of every aspect of the entire braHMavidya in
Simple Malayalam, SamskRutham and Tamiz. HE opened up the entire Spiritual
Treasure of our “Good old bhAratham” and more; to all, from the common folks to
the ‘very intellectual’ and everyone in between. And with the aid of these
writings, people were able to learn our braHMavidya. This helped people in
their journey towards their ultimate goal of moKSHam (മോക്ഷം). This also helped
people to deter the efforts of evangelists and others for recruitment of people
in to their religion. His actions practically prevented, directly and
indirectly, thousands and thousands of religious recruitments by removing their
ignorance about our Spiritual Science. Also, with the help of some of His
disciples and associates, He even brought back the people who were recruited by
the religious agencies. Gurudevan acted to fulfill a very broader base of needs
of the people than SwAmikaL did.
Gurudevan’s
actions of consecration of Temples, founding of Teaching Institutions (Academic
and Spiritual), Manufacturing Units, Business Institution and even Trade Unions
for establishing a “just society”, were beyond the imagination of any one at
that time of history. For someone who was not born into a Brahmin family or a
ruling family. Execution of such actions at that time needed lots of courage.
He had that unlimited resource of courage; which our UpaniShads have described
as Abhayam (അഭയം); the complete absence of bhayam (ഭയം = fear). According to UpaniShads,
it is the first and best quality of a Divine person – the TOTAL FEARLESSNESS.
Through
His words and deeds Gurudevan has shown that, every quality and qualification
of Higher Values such as Fearlessness (Abhayam - അഭയം), Purity of Heart,
Steadfastness in Yogah of Knowledge, Charity, Control of Senses, Sacrifice,
Study of shAstras, Tapas (which some refer to as Meditation), Steadfastness,
Ahimsa or Harmlessness, Truth, Absence of Anger, Renunciation, Peacefulness,
Absence of Crookedness, Compassion, Non-covertness, Gentleness, Modesty,
Absence of Fickleness, Vigor, Forgiveness, Fortitude, Purity, Absence of Hate,
and Absence of Pride; all epitomized by the UpaniShads and which are seen ‘only
in very Highly Devine Personalities’; were imbedded in His character. Thus HE
was a “SanyAsi”, and a “Yogi of Premier Superiority”. He has dedicated His entire
life to establish righteousness & equality for all; and fought against
every injustice that came along; all, without any self-interest & Self
remuneration of any kind; (nishkAma kaRmmam – നിഷ്ക്കാമകർമ്മം) which made Him a “TyAgi”
and a “Yogi of Absolute Excellence”; thus an
embodiment of the Absolute, the parabrHMam.
The
efforts to establish Chattampi SwAmikaL as Gurudevan’s Guru started in 1914;
that too only after SwAmikaL’s ShasTipooRthi celebrations, with the publication
of the book “AachArapaDDhathi” (ആചാരപദ്ധതി). Until then there was
no reference to any such “Guru-Shishya” relations. We can assume this, because,
all the books published until and including the book published on the occasion
of ShasTipooRthi does not have him as SwAmikaL’s disciple. Also, He did not
attend the ShasTipooRthi function. But “AachArapaDDhathi” (ആചാരപദ്ധതി)
published the same year after the publication of “ShasTipooRthi Prashasthi” (ഷഷ്ഠിപൂർത്തി
പ്രശസ്ഥി) claimed the “Guru-Shishya” relation between them. Since
then, the same stories are being repeated numerous times with slightly edited
versions appearing every ‘now and then’, with added portions by different
authors, often quoting from the same source, which have no proof.
This
is a well-established way of turning a “myth” into “history”. This method was
used before, successfully “converting” “myth” in to “history” and establishing
it so strongly, that people believed it to be true history. This can be seen in
the martyrdom stories which have been used by some religious groups to
establish and recruit people in to their religion. They even create martyrs.
Most of it has been created from legends and/or life of other people punished
for something else. Then the story is edited, rewritten and edited again to
suit their needs. Here it is mostly crafted by using wrong interpretation;
sometimes slightly changing the words someone said, even adding few sentences.
Here the effort to convert the “myth” into “history” started after 25 years of
the possible incident (the first meeting of the two); whereas in the other
case, it started after more than hundred years, minimum.
A
“Guru-Shishya” relation cannot exist between two people who studied together
and moved around for just about three years, especially when the one who is
being propagated as Guru, was not a “SwAmikaL”, but only a “Chattampi” and went
through more learning process after they parted company. The other; Gurudevan,
who is being propagated as the “Shishyan”; right away started (after parting
company), “His Public Service” and “Public Life” by Consecrating Temples and
established His own Spiritual Institution, Education institutions and teaching
His own Spiritual Theorems and Philosophy. How could the former be the Guru of
the later? Never a chance there is!!!
We
have examined various evidences here. To anyone, looking with an open mind at
the facts, it should be very clear that Shree Chattampi SwAmikaL and Shree
Narayana Gurudevan were not “Guru and Shishyan”, but two great RiSHis of our
land who’s words should be cherished, revered and followed by everyone. They
should not be brought into “Guru-Shishya” controversies to full fill someone’s
“ego centric” notions. A request to all those who do it; “please stop it”;
for the better and greater interest of the people of Keralam, bhAratham and the
world. It is hoped they stop this and try to bring the followers of BOTH of
them together and try to uplift the poor as they both wanted.
Bibliography:
1. Chattampi SwAmikaL –
Jiivithavum Krithikalum.
2. Shree VidyaDHiraja
Chattampi SwAmikaL by various authors published by VidyaDHiraja Vishwa Kendram
and Nair Suhrth Sagham, Thiruvananthapuram
3. Shree TherdhapAda ParamahamsaR
SwAmikaL volume 1 and 2, biography written by Vidyananda theerdha Pada SwAmikaL
and Pundit Shree C Ramakrishnan Nair.
4. Narayana Guru, A social
Educator by Dr Jerald J Pereira.
5. Philosophy of Shree
Narayana Guru by Dr S Omana.
6. One Caste one religion
one God by V Thomas Samuel.
7. Shree Narayana Dershanam
by Dr T Bhaskaran
8. Shree Narayana Guru –
Biography by Moorkkoth Kunjappa
9. Shree Narayana Guru
Swantham Vachanangaliloote by C R Keshavan Vidyar
10. Shree Narayana Guru and
Social revolution (A complete Biography by C R Mitra
11. Shree Narayana Gurudevan
– biography by Professor M K Sanu -
12. Shree Narayana SandEsham
by Prof M K Sanu
13. Guru Kumaranaashante
Drishtiyil, Biography, Poems, Editorials and Commentaries.
14. Brahmashree Narayana Guru
by N Kumaranaashaan.
15. Shree Narayana Guru –
PrabandhangaLiloote by Prof Balarama Panicker
16. The Philosophy of a Guru
by NaTarAja Guru.
17. The word of Guru by
NaTarAja Guru.
18. The Philosophies of Shree
Shankaran and Shree Narayana by Dr B. Karunakaran
19. Gurudevacharitraththile
kANAppuRangaL by Satchidaananda Swami
20. BhagvAn Shree Narayana
Guru by Satchidaananda Swami
21. Shree Narayana
Paramahamsan biography by Pundit K K Panicker
22. Bhagavat Geetha,
translation and interpretation by Swami Chinmayananda.
23. Bhagavat Geetha,
translation and interpretation by Nataraja Guru.
24. Bhagavat Geetha,
translation and interpretation by Guru Nitya Chaithanya Yathi.
25. Mahabharatha Paryatanam
by Professor Thuravoor Viswabharan.
26. Dr Palppu biography by T
K Madhavan
27. T K Madhavan by Dr C N
Somarajan
28. Mrithunjayam kaavyajeevitham
biography of KumAran AshAan by Professor M K Sanu.
29. Sarasakavi Mooloor S
Padmanabha Panicker biography by Kumpalamchira Vasavappanikker
30. Sarasakavi Mooloorinte
SaahithyasamgarangaL by N K Damodaran
31. Sarasakavi Mooloor S
Padmanabha Panicker biography by Prof M Sathyaprakasham
32. Shree Narayana
Paramahamsadevan by Swami Dharmanandaji
33. T K Madhavnte
jiivacharithram by P K Madhavan
34. T K Madhavan By Dr C N
Somarajan Biography
35. Sahodaran Ayyappan
biography by prof M K Sanu
36. Sahodaran Ayyappan, Oru
Kalaghattathinte Shilpi by Prof M K Sanu
37. The Myth of Persecution
by Candida Moss.
38. Various issues of
Gurudevan Magazine.
39. Various issues of
Gurukulam Magazine.
40. Various issues of
Shivagiri Magazine.
