Baba
Hypocrisy of Maheshvarananda
Namaskar,
When margiis and Proutists asked, "Dada, why did you not use the full name and a respectful prefix for the Propounder of Prout philosophy in your book?
Then Dada gave his own type of reply. However, before we get to Dada’s response to the above queries, we should see Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's personal example.
http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com
Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's own example
When you open any book from the Prout in a Nutshell series, you will see the photo of Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, the Propounder of Prout philosophy. And if you look carefully at that photo you will notice Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's signature written in Bengali. In His own handwriting, it is clearly written: "Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar". This is the pristine example Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar has graciously given us.
By this way, anyone can understand that His full name is Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. And that is the way in which He wishes to be addressed. Disobeying His wishes and referring to Him just as Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, PR Sarkar, or sometimes as just Sarkar is wholly inappropriate as it contravenes His desire.
http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com
Dada’s hypocritical justification
In his book, Dada M did not adhere to the Prout Propounder’s wishes. Rather Dada merely referred to the Propounder of Prout as Sarkar, not Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. And, in his open letter, Dada gave the following justification:
"I wrote my book as an introduction to Prout for the general public...However the general public outside of India do not understand devotional sentiment to Guru, nor the concept of Taraka Brahma. The respectful title Shrii is not known outside of India, and the standard way of referring to a person or author is by the person's last name, i.e. Sarkar. I never speak this way to Margiis, but I do write this way for the public...Please feel free to circulate this answer." (Dada Maheshvarananda)
In his above statement he is preaching that because readers are overseas they do not know Sanskrit terminology, thus he is not applying the Sanskrit prefix to the Propounder's name. But Dada does the exact opposite when talking about himself. He carefully introduces himself by explaining all the the Sanskrit prefixes and descriptors associated with his own self - shown below
So Dada distinctly chose not to refer to the Propounder of Prout in a respectful manner because the people would not understand. Yet take a look at how this same Dada hypocritically introduces himself in this same book wherein he is primarily addressing a western audience.
http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com
Example of hypocrisy
Dada glorifies himself in the following manner in his book:
"Senior monks and nuns called avadhútas and avadhútikás, of which I am one. My name, “Maheshvarananda”, in Sanskrit means “one who experiences the bliss of the Supreme”. I am usually called “Dada” which means, simply, “brother”. I am an ácárya, “spiritual teacher”, or, literally, “one who teaches others by example and personal conduct”, a very high goal." (After Capitalism 2012 Edition, by Dada Maheshvarananda)
In his book, Dada precisely explains the various Sanskrit terms: "Dada", "Acarya", and "Avadhuta" etc. He is keen that those not aware should understand his stature. To that end, he introduces and defines those Sanskrit words and respectful terms as they denote his own stature. This is all done in order to inform his western readership of his own greatness - he is not merely xyz; he is "dada", "avadhuta", "acarya" - and a great personality, i.e. "one who experiences the bliss of the Supreme." While singing his glory he feels very comfortable. But he has all kinds of logic for not prefixing the Propounder's name with Shrii. Such is the grand extent of Dada's hypocrisy.
Because, in this same book he meagerly refers to the Propounder of Prout as "Sarkar", and is unwilling to use the word Shrii as that is "not known outside of India." That is Dada's justification & hypocrisy. Because for his own self he appends the terms "Dada", "avadhuta", "acarya" as if those overseas readers know those terms, or can be made familiar with those terms.
So Dada intentionally refrains from using the respectful prefix "Shrii" to refer to the Propounder of Prout because it is "not known outside of India." Yet this same Dada in this same book is hyper aware to refer to himself using the respectful appellations: Dada, acarya, avadhuta etc. Such is Dada's hypocrisy.
Dada painstakingly educates his readership about his own respectful appellations. And in one small interview in the book he refers to himself as "Dada" six times. By his explanation and use, those common people reading the book are taught to respect Dada's stature. But this same Dada carefully avoids the use of a prefix with the Propounder of Prout. The term Shrii is not explained and the Propounder of Prout is never referred to as Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. No respectful prefix is ever used when referring to the Propounder of Prout in this publication - just He is called "Sarkar."
http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com
Singing glory of his own name
But not only did Dada clearly explain his own stature - Dada, acarya, & avadhuta etc - but he minutely told the meaning of his own name: “one who experiences the bliss of the Supreme.” Naturally then it would have been appropriate to respectfully refer to the Propounder of Prout as Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and explain that Prabhat means the "coming of the glorious new dawn etc." But this basic explanation he chose not do do. Dada did it for himself but not for the Propounder of Prout.
And the very justification he gives is: "The respectful title Shrii is not known outside of India, and the standard way of referring to a person or author is by the person's last name, i.e. Sarkar."
Yet he does not apply that same principle to himself. Instead throughout the book and in various interviews his name is always prefaced by the respectful term "Dada." And with other authors he uses the prefix "Professor" etc, but not once is the Propounder of Prout ever referred to as Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.
The one who did this is Dada Maheshvarananda. He is the author of the book "After Capitalism." And he is the one who carefully introduced himself in the following hypocritical manner where he refrains from using a respectful prefix with the Propounder of Prout - just calling Him as "Sarkar" - yet for his own self Dada applies numerous respectful terms and explains them quite meticulously.
"Senior monks and nuns called avadhútas and avadhútikás, of which I am one. My name, “Maheshvarananda”, in Sanskrit means “one who experiences the bliss of the Supreme”. I am usually called “Dada” which means, simply, “brother”. I am an ácárya, “spiritual teacher”, or, literally, “one who teaches others by example and personal conduct”, a very high goal." (After Capitalism 2012 Edition, by Dada Maheshvarananda)
Yet not once did he refer to the Propounder of Prout as Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. As disciples, it is our duty to spread His glory. This every sadhaka knows and this tenet is integral for every margii and Wt. But this ideal is conspicuously absent in Dada's book.
http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com
Conclusion
Being a disciple our duty to give reverence to Guru, which tragically Maheshvarananda could not do in his book.
at His lotus feet,
Govinda
(Gary Neuman)
~ In-depth study ~
True followers vs. cowardly and opportunistic “writers”
In all spheres of life people give maximum reverence and high regard to those whom they revere. For example when the pope or Dalai Lama are introduced then words like "his high holiness", "revered one", and "divine being" are used. Their followers always do.
The devotees of Ramakrsna, Yogananda and Vivekananda always use Swamiji or Thakur and then they close with Paramahansa. These titles show great respect and reverence. Likewise the laukik name of Nima'i is not so impressive sounding that is why followers refer to their saint as Caetanya Mahaprabhu. Even when worldly leaders are introduced, then always proper due reference is given. They are known as "Mr President", or "Mrs Prime Minister", or whatever their respected title may be. Hence it is quite common to publicly revere leaders - whether they be a leader of a church, state, or mission.
By this way, the rest of the world knows that that person is a respected one. People may or may not be Catholic, but because those Catholics revere the pope up to the sky, then everyone on this earth feels that the pope is someone of great stature and import. Same is the case with the Dalai Lama, Ramakrsna, and the leaders of various countries.
If wts don’t give reverence on the public stage
In contrast, if their own followers do not give them reverence on the public stage, then the rest of the world will automatically think that that so-called leader is not so great - rather he is just a second rate individual, or worse than that. Hence, it is extremely important for one to give great reverence to those whom they revere.
Unfortunately some have fallen into the extremely negative habit of just writing 'Sarkar'. And this has a negative effect across the entire society. Then non-margii writers adopt this same ungainly approach and they just write 'Sarkar'. Whereas if such mundane writers were aware that our "top" writers and margiis always respectfully refer to the Propounder of Prout as 'Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar' then they would get a good teaching and follow our example.
It is just like how mundane or non-British reporters always refer to Queen Elizabeth using the title "Queen", and they always refer to Prince Charles using the reference of 'Prince'. Never do they just write "Elizabeth" or "Liz", or "Charles", or "Charlie", or “Chuck”. And if they did then the public would object. Because everyone has been taught and trained that "Queen Elizabeth" and 'Prince Charles' are the proper ways.
http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com
His Holiness Pope Francis
Likewise, Catholics address their leader as His Holiness Pope Francis. The Pope's worldly name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but no Catholic would ever consider calling the Pope, "Jorge". That would be a terrible display of disrespect. No Catholic could ever imagine doing that. Rather, they refer to him as His Holiness Pope Francis. And by this way they teach others to do the same. Lay people, heads of state, newspaper reporters, indeed everyone refers to the Pope in a most respectful way. All because that is the tone and address used by the Pope's chief followers, i.e. Catholics.
Although we are not trying to emulate the British monarchy nor the Catholic Church etc, but this particular point is meaningful. The idea being that if we ourselves are perfectly consistent in giving proper reference to the Propounder of Prout as 'Shrii PR Sarkar' then people of the general society will also follow suit. It will become natural for them. And that will be the proper way to introduce non-sadhakas to the Propounder of Prout - Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.
Why reverence to Propounder
When you give respect to someone then those listening pay greater attention to what that person says. For example, if you say that Mr. X is completely garbage, then people will not be inclined to listen to Mr. X. Whereas if you say that Mr. X is exceptionally qualified, a great philosopher, and / or very senior in stature, then people will be keen to pay attention to everything Mr X has said or written.
So if in your own book you do not give respect to your elder or guide, then people will think that guide’s teaching is useless and they will think lesser of your own book as well. It is a self-defeating proposition. Thus a small piece of advice for every writer: If you want your own philosophy to be read then give due reverence to the Propounder. Then people will think the Propounder has given a valuable body of teachings, and people will think highly of your book as well.
Remember, it is not easy for most people to to understand Prout, neo-humanism, and Ananda Marga philosophy. Thus if the Propounder is not given due respect then people will think His ideas are bad they will not try to understand His teachings. Whereas if you the writer give maximum reverence to the Propounder, then the common people will apply themselves and really try to understand the Propounder’s writings and ideas - and think more highly of your book too. If this is not done they will simply blame the Propounder and form a poor impression of your own writing.
http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com
Hypocrisy or not?
Now you decide: Is Dada not being hypocritical? Is this not the height of hypocrisy. He tells he cannot give a respectful appellation to Guru, but he gives himself 3 or 4 respectful descriptors.
Ananda Marga ideology states, "There is no place in a devotee’s life for hypocrisy – the devotee’s thoughts, words and actions will never be contradictory. These simple and straightforward people will say what they think and do what they say." (1)
Ananda Marga philosophy says, "An honest person should never resort to hypocrisy in any sphere of life." (2)
Ananda Marga philosophy says, "No indulgence should be given to hypocrisy." (3)
Ananda Marga Caryacarya says, "You may come to a temporary truce with a hypocrite, but do not forgive till his/her nature is reformed. Immediate forgiveness is a special weakness of mind. It results in worse harm to society." (4)
Ananda Marga ideology states, "Sincerity is reflected in actions, not in words only. One who displays sincerity in words but not in actions is a hypocrite. You should not tolerate hypocrites, not at all." (5)
Justification for not using respectful term
We should remind ourselves what Dada writes in his open letter and how he justifies calling the Propounder of Prout merely as "Sarkar" in his book(s):
"I wrote my book as an introduction to Prout for the general public...However the general public outside of India do not understand devotional sentiment to Guru, nor the concept of Taraka Brahma. The respectful title Shrii is not known outside of India, and the standard way of referring to a person or author is by the person's last name, i.e. Sarkar. I never speak this way to Margiis, but I do write this way for the public....Please feel free to circulate this answer."
This is his bogus excuse and silly justification why he is not using the respectful prefix "Shrii" when referencing the Propounder of Prout in his book.
Yet for his own self he hypocritically applies the respectful terms "Dada", "Acarya", and "Avadhuta" - as if the entire western world and Semitic religions are familiar with those appellations, while they are not familiar with Shrii.
References
1. Ananda Vacanamrtam - 7, How Should a Devotee Behave?
2. Liberation of Intellect - Neo-Humanism, Disc: 7
3. A Few Problems Solved - 3, The Importance of Society
4. Caryácarya Part 2, Society, Point #6
5. Ananda Vacanamrtam - 23, Silent Action
-
~ Maheshvarananda with his female friend ~
Maheshvarananda is leaning into his lady friend
* * *
The below sections are entirely different topics, unrelated to the above material.
They stands on their own as points of interest.
* * *
The below sections are entirely different topics, unrelated to the above material.
They stands on their own as points of interest.
* * *
== Section: Important Teaching ==
All descended from common ancestors - the apes
Ananda Marga philosophy states, "Ananda Margiis have no caste or gotra. I have said before also that the division of humanity into Káshyapagotra, Bharadvájagotra, etc., is nonsensical. This is just to mislead people. If we look back in [anthropology] we will see that the forefathers of the present-day humans were apes or ape-men. So if people are very particular about their gotras, I will say to their faces, “Boys and girls! You belong to the ape gotra.”"
"We have all descended from our common ancestors, the apes. The same is true in relation to the castes. [One might try to argue that] the forefathers of the Bráhmańas were the ape-Bráhmańas and the forefathers of the Kśatriyas were the ape-Kśatriyas; but that just isn’t so. As apes do not have any particular caste, the present-day caste differences are all hypocrisy and maliciousness. You should remove even the least vestige of these nonsensical notions. You must not give credence to such things." (1)
Reference
1. Ananda Vacanamrtam - 7, Bhaerava and Bhaeravii
== Section 3: Links ==
Recent postings
