SWAMI DAYANANDA SARASWATI'S VIEW ON RAMANA MAHARSHI

There is one Swami Dayananda Saraswati, a desciple of Chinmayananda Saraswati, who has set Muts for teaching Advita philosophy. While talking about Sankaracharya and his works on Advita and contemporary works on Advita by others like Ramana Maharshi, he does not even accept that Ramana Maharshi was a great liberated soul:


Then there's Ramana. Some people say that Ramana is the highest, the one who in the modern world has accomplishedadvaita. That's the perception because he's known to some people, but there could be unknown millions we don't know—some may even be householders, people who are at home, some of them just your ordinary housewives. In India, you know, you can't take these people for granted; some of these women are enlightened. They are! And they may be housewives, mothers of ten children. We don't know. India is a different country. There are no criteria to find out whether this person is enlightened or not. And so Ramana is said to be enlightened, but we should ask him, "Are you enlightened?" And he will say, "Why do you want to know? Who are you who wants to know? Find out who you are." He discovered this way of speaking with people that did not require him to answer any questions. One fellow comes and asks, "What is God?" and he answers, "Who are you that is asking this question?" This is a way of answering questions that he adopted as an attempt to turn the person toward himself. Therefore, his attention was not toward any particular style of living. He neither encouraged sannyas nor anything else. He was only telling people: "Understand who you are. That's what is important." 

AC: In fact, if people would say that they wanted to leave their family and take sannyas, he would discourage that. 

SD: Every sannyasi will say the same thing, because otherwise all those people would end up in the ashram! Certainly I would say the same thing in this case, because anybody who says, "I want to give up everything," has got a problem. 

AC: Why? 

SD: Because he's doubtful! If he were not doubtful he would have left already; he wouldn't have come and asked me. Because the mango fruit, when it is ripe, falls down; it doesn't ask, "Shall I fall down?" Ramana was not dumb; he knew exactly what he had to say. If I were he, do you know what I would have said? I would advise the person, "Hey, come on, you need not change anything. Be where you are; it's a change of vision." Even Shankara would say the same thing. Shankara had only four disciples. He traveled up and down this country on foot, which means he met thousands of people, yet he had only four disciples! That means he was advising everybody, "Stay where you are." 

AC: Yet at the same time, from what we have heard, both Jesus and the Buddha encouraged people to leave everything and follow them in order to pursue the spiritual life. So this is an intriguing question. 

SD: They encouraged, they encouraged—I don't know what for. Perhaps they wanted people to spend time with themselves. But the value of a contemplative life has always been there in the Vedic tradition, and a contemplative life can be lived anywhere. And you can be in the midst of all activities in the contemplative life, or you can be alone and not contemplative at all. 

AC: In one of your books, you make a distinction between a mystic and a Vedantin. When referring, for example, to Ramana Maharshi as a mystic, you seem to be distinguishing him in some way from a Vedantin, and since many people consider him to be the quintessence of Vedanta, I'm curious to know what that distinction is. 

SD: The only difference here is that a mystic has no means of communication to make you a mystic, an equally great mystic as himself. 

AC: To clear up empirical confusion—is that what you mean? 

SD: Yes. Suppose this mystic has got the knowledge of his beingalways All—that kind of a mystic's experience. So that person is a mystic, but he has no means of communication to share that experience. If he has a means of communication by which to make another person equally a mystic, then there is nothing mystical about what he knows. Therefore, I will not call him a "mystic"; I will call him a "Vedantin." 

AC: In Ramana's case, everybody said that he communicated through silence. 

SD: Again, this is an interpretation, because there are a lot of people I know who went to him and then came back saying that he didn't know anything. 

AC: But there are also many people who said that they had profound experiences in his presence. 

SD: Each one has to interpret in his own way. But we can only say someone is a Vedantin as long as they teach Vedanta!