Woo boy. This is gonna get long.
Namaste, my friends and family (Aup has adopted me as his stupid white grand daughter) of the Hindu DIR, today I am going to talk (type, lol), again, about Paramahamsa Nithyananda, populary known as Swami Ji by his disciples.
Now, I've mentioned this in the Thoughts on Nithyananda thread but I want to bring it up again.
Nithyananda claims to be the Avatar of Sadashiva. Now, for your average westerner, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Vaishnava etc, i.e people not acquainted with Shaiva (and Shakta) philosophy but who are swayed by the man's charisma this sounds believable. And because when people adopt a new faith they very rarely do a search of the entire faith umbrella, they can be lead to believe things that are not theologically accepted by the majority of Shiva sects. So if their guru claims to be Sadashiva who are they to question such a belief?
Amongst the Shaiva schools we have those who are dualistic, those who are monistic and those who run the gamut. We have schools that only perform worship of a person lingam (the Lingayats also known as Virashaivas), we have the several different flavours of Shaiva Siddhanta (running from strict dualism to semi dualism to strict non dualism), we have Kashmiri Shaivism which is non-dual and advaitic but not of Shankara's classical advaitic flavour. The northern Indians, Nepalis, Tibetans and Bhutanese worship differently to the southern Indians and the Sri Lankans but every worshipper will recognise the lingam regardless of whether their temple has an iconic murti (Nataraja, for example) in the central sanctum or a lingam because the lingam and Shiva are inseparable in the exact same way that Visnu and His shaligram are identical or Ma and the shri yantra are one. Generally the devotees will recognise these.
Like the lingam one central theological truth of Shaiva worship and belief, as espoused by Puranas, Agamas, Tantras and the Vedas is that Shiva does not take birth. As Shiva is the uncreated, unborn, self manifesting reality beyond everything, how can He take birth?
Here's where it gets tricky. Shiva is well known to manifest within the world and before people but this does not mean he takes birth. Through the play of His will, and with Shakti, He can appear within the world as He wishes. But still He does not take birth. He is not Visnu, constantly running to help us fix our mistakes. Even Shakti Ma takes birth (although as She is the eternal mother, it's quite fitting that She births Herself).
Over the years I am sure many people have claimed to be Shiva incarnate. Ok, so what? An enlightened soul, a person who has attained moksha but has not yet shrugged off the body for whatever reason, has realised that they are Shiva (or that the Lord dwells within, whatever our beliefs are) because, at the crux of the matter, everything is Shiva (or, for a Shakta, everything is Shakti Ma, or a Vaishnava would believe it is Krishna/Visnu, you get the point), including the computer I am writing this on, the keyboard that moves beneath my fingers, the altar to my left, the deity forms of Kali Ma, Saraswati Ma, Lakshmi Ma, Durga Ma, Ganapati, two different forms of lingam, Nandi and Nataraja. It's all Shiva and is inseparable from Him. The universe, everything in it, all Shiva (or in my case, ShivaShakti), inseparable.
But, and there's always a but, this does not mean they are Shiva taking personal birth.
The next thing that must be addressed is the claim he makes of being the Avatar of SadaShiva. My understanding of SadaShiva has always been akin to my understanding of Adi Shakti; they are from whence everything moves. SadaShiva is, essentially, pure consciousness, pure satchitananda; conscious, knowledge and bliss. SadaShiva is not very personal and could be seen as a distant deity but as Shiva transcends everything and yet inhabits everything, how could SadaShiva not be a little bit personal? That is why there are many forms of Shiva, all representing many different things to different people. Now, I know Gaudiya Vaishnav groups have another belief about SadaShiva - that SadaShiva is akin to Narayana but I can't quite recall right now - but that's not important here because we're not talking about Vaishnav philosophy, are we?
So how can undifferentiated satchitananda take birth? The answer, quite simply, is that it does not. If the intellect is applied to this claim than only this fact remains; 'Paramahamsa' Nithyananda is not an avatar of SadaShiva because Shiva, and especially SadaShiva, does not take birth. SadaShiva can be realised but it is not a creature of flesh and blood. It is the underlying field on which Shakti plays.
Back to the devotees. A truly charismatic person can make anyone believe they are what they say they are. They can explain away abnormalities, they can excuse what does not add up or simply distract you from it. It does not mean, just because hundreds of thousands worship him, that he is right. Why do these people not educate themselves about the religion they are entering into? Why do they not look at the agamas, the puranas or the tantras? Ok, if you only speak English things can get difficult but there is plenty of literature and plenty of people out there with knowledge who can explain these things. Even if you don't speak English, if you speak an Indian language, you are very lucky because there is even more literature, there are avenues to you that are open that are barred to Western converts.
I have more thoughts but right now they are far too scattered.
Before I go, here's an interesting fact, I'd love to here@Vinayaka ji's opinion on it: the sphatik (clear quartz crystal) lingams that Nithyananda gives out to his devotees (or more accurately, what the devotees pay $10,000 USD and 24 days in his Ashram are 'given') have the shri yantra carved into both ends. I can never figure out if I am impressed with them or insulted by them. Yoni (there are other words but it's always the one I come back to it as I honestly do not associate these words with vulva and penis) and lingam are eternally one, whether the yoni is taken as abstract, physical or even portable. Until now I had never seen a lingam with the shri yantra carved into it. Oh, and fun fact! He calls it the Shri Nithyananda Yantra. Now I know that one's insulting! His devotees are never going to learn the intricacies of Ma's yantra if they think it belongs to him!
Pranaams for now, my friends. I'll be back. This just keeps gnawing at me.
Namaste, my friends and family (Aup has adopted me as his stupid white grand daughter) of the Hindu DIR, today I am going to talk (type, lol), again, about Paramahamsa Nithyananda, populary known as Swami Ji by his disciples.
Now, I've mentioned this in the Thoughts on Nithyananda thread but I want to bring it up again.
Nithyananda claims to be the Avatar of Sadashiva. Now, for your average westerner, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Vaishnava etc, i.e people not acquainted with Shaiva (and Shakta) philosophy but who are swayed by the man's charisma this sounds believable. And because when people adopt a new faith they very rarely do a search of the entire faith umbrella, they can be lead to believe things that are not theologically accepted by the majority of Shiva sects. So if their guru claims to be Sadashiva who are they to question such a belief?
Amongst the Shaiva schools we have those who are dualistic, those who are monistic and those who run the gamut. We have schools that only perform worship of a person lingam (the Lingayats also known as Virashaivas), we have the several different flavours of Shaiva Siddhanta (running from strict dualism to semi dualism to strict non dualism), we have Kashmiri Shaivism which is non-dual and advaitic but not of Shankara's classical advaitic flavour. The northern Indians, Nepalis, Tibetans and Bhutanese worship differently to the southern Indians and the Sri Lankans but every worshipper will recognise the lingam regardless of whether their temple has an iconic murti (Nataraja, for example) in the central sanctum or a lingam because the lingam and Shiva are inseparable in the exact same way that Visnu and His shaligram are identical or Ma and the shri yantra are one. Generally the devotees will recognise these.
Like the lingam one central theological truth of Shaiva worship and belief, as espoused by Puranas, Agamas, Tantras and the Vedas is that Shiva does not take birth. As Shiva is the uncreated, unborn, self manifesting reality beyond everything, how can He take birth?
Here's where it gets tricky. Shiva is well known to manifest within the world and before people but this does not mean he takes birth. Through the play of His will, and with Shakti, He can appear within the world as He wishes. But still He does not take birth. He is not Visnu, constantly running to help us fix our mistakes. Even Shakti Ma takes birth (although as She is the eternal mother, it's quite fitting that She births Herself).
Over the years I am sure many people have claimed to be Shiva incarnate. Ok, so what? An enlightened soul, a person who has attained moksha but has not yet shrugged off the body for whatever reason, has realised that they are Shiva (or that the Lord dwells within, whatever our beliefs are) because, at the crux of the matter, everything is Shiva (or, for a Shakta, everything is Shakti Ma, or a Vaishnava would believe it is Krishna/Visnu, you get the point), including the computer I am writing this on, the keyboard that moves beneath my fingers, the altar to my left, the deity forms of Kali Ma, Saraswati Ma, Lakshmi Ma, Durga Ma, Ganapati, two different forms of lingam, Nandi and Nataraja. It's all Shiva and is inseparable from Him. The universe, everything in it, all Shiva (or in my case, ShivaShakti), inseparable.
But, and there's always a but, this does not mean they are Shiva taking personal birth.
The next thing that must be addressed is the claim he makes of being the Avatar of SadaShiva. My understanding of SadaShiva has always been akin to my understanding of Adi Shakti; they are from whence everything moves. SadaShiva is, essentially, pure consciousness, pure satchitananda; conscious, knowledge and bliss. SadaShiva is not very personal and could be seen as a distant deity but as Shiva transcends everything and yet inhabits everything, how could SadaShiva not be a little bit personal? That is why there are many forms of Shiva, all representing many different things to different people. Now, I know Gaudiya Vaishnav groups have another belief about SadaShiva - that SadaShiva is akin to Narayana but I can't quite recall right now - but that's not important here because we're not talking about Vaishnav philosophy, are we?
So how can undifferentiated satchitananda take birth? The answer, quite simply, is that it does not. If the intellect is applied to this claim than only this fact remains; 'Paramahamsa' Nithyananda is not an avatar of SadaShiva because Shiva, and especially SadaShiva, does not take birth. SadaShiva can be realised but it is not a creature of flesh and blood. It is the underlying field on which Shakti plays.
Back to the devotees. A truly charismatic person can make anyone believe they are what they say they are. They can explain away abnormalities, they can excuse what does not add up or simply distract you from it. It does not mean, just because hundreds of thousands worship him, that he is right. Why do these people not educate themselves about the religion they are entering into? Why do they not look at the agamas, the puranas or the tantras? Ok, if you only speak English things can get difficult but there is plenty of literature and plenty of people out there with knowledge who can explain these things. Even if you don't speak English, if you speak an Indian language, you are very lucky because there is even more literature, there are avenues to you that are open that are barred to Western converts.
I have more thoughts but right now they are far too scattered.
Before I go, here's an interesting fact, I'd love to here@Vinayaka ji's opinion on it: the sphatik (clear quartz crystal) lingams that Nithyananda gives out to his devotees (or more accurately, what the devotees pay $10,000 USD and 24 days in his Ashram are 'given') have the shri yantra carved into both ends. I can never figure out if I am impressed with them or insulted by them. Yoni (there are other words but it's always the one I come back to it as I honestly do not associate these words with vulva and penis) and lingam are eternally one, whether the yoni is taken as abstract, physical or even portable. Until now I had never seen a lingam with the shri yantra carved into it. Oh, and fun fact! He calls it the Shri Nithyananda Yantra. Now I know that one's insulting! His devotees are never going to learn the intricacies of Ma's yantra if they think it belongs to him!
Pranaams for now, my friends. I'll be back. This just keeps gnawing at me.
