Reasons why Kavyakanta Ganapati Muni Did Not Attain Liberation?

Author Of "Happiness And Art Of Living" Micheal James writes to me the reasons why Kavyakanta Ganapati Muni Did Not Attain Liberation recently.

----------

Arthur Osborne in Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self-Knowledge On page 106 of the 2002 edition it is written:

About 1934 Ganapati Sastri settled down in the village of Nimpura near Kharagpur with a group of followers and from then until his death some two years later devoted himself wholly to tapas (asceticism). Sri Bhagavan was asked once, after Sastri’s death, whether he could have attained Realization during this life, and he replied: “How could he? His sankalpas (inherent tendencies) were too strong.”

No one understood Kavyakanta as well as Bhagavan did, and he was very well aware of the fact that he had so many desires that he hoped to fulfil by his 'tapas'.

There are many examples in books and elsewhere of Bhagavan explaining what sort of character Kavyakanta was, and the following are just a few examples:

In Letters from Sri Ramanasramam Suri Nagamma records Bhagavan saying on 30th April, 1948 (Letter 185, p. 417 of the 2006 edition) that 'long before he began to write the Ramana Gita' Kavyakanta used to compose extempore verses and claim that they were from Ramana Gita, and Bhagavan commented about this, 'When he bluffed thus, no one dared to call his bluff, for he was a powerful personality, full of resourcefulness'.

In an article in his blog, The authenticity of Bhagavans writings and dialogues, David Godman records that Bhagavan told Swami Natanananda about Kavyakanta and how he came to write Sri Ramana Gita, 'They came to me, not to get knowledge of my teachings, but to convert me to their own. They tried to get me to agree with them, but I refused. Even though I wouldn’t say what they wanted me to say, they went ahead and published the book. This is a bit like a high-wire circus artist who falls off the wire, does a somersault on the way down to the safety net, and then pretends that falling off was all part of the act'.

In a series of articles that he wrote in the some of the 1954 issues of The Call Divine, Lakshmana Sarma ('Who', the author of Maha Yoga) writes many examples of what Bhagavan told him about Kavyakantha, particularly in the second of these articles in the August 1954 issue.

From the very beginning there were two schools of belief among the devotees of the Bhagavan. One school consisted of the famous Kavya Kantha Ganapati Sastri and his Disciples. These were adherents the Shaakta cult, which has tenets of its own, diametrically opposed to the Advaitic teaching of the Bhagavan. And they were actuated by a firm resolve to take over full control of the Bhagavan's teachings, so that they could interpret it in harmony with their own faith, or at least tone down the Advaitic trends of the teaching.

The Bhagavan Himself in due course explained the reason for this unexpected injunction. He knew - none so well as He - the besetting sin of the Kavyakantha School, namely their violent, fanatical hatred of Advaitic meta-physics, because they thought that it was inompatible with the tenets of their own Saakta cult. The fact that the Bhagavan imparted to this writer little by little narrating anecdotes exhibiting this serious drawback of the famous Ganapati Sastri.

One such anecdote related by the Bhagavan, was the following. A disciple and devotee of the Bhagavan, Swami Pranavananda, who was also a disciple of Ganapati Sastri prepared a Telugu translation of the Bhagavan's 'Who am I', and showed it to the Sastri for his approval. The latter after glancing through it, became aware of the unmistakable Advaitic trend of the Holy text. This roused his ire to the boiling pitch; he exclaimed: "I never expected that the Bhagavan would be guilty of partiality. I do not like this at all. Take this away." To give expression to the Advaitic Truth while instructing a devotee disciple was in his view 'partiality'.

Pranavananda in due course reported the whole incident to the Bhagavan. From this and other details narrated by the Bhagavan this writer came to understand the fact that the Kavyakantha group was incapable of giving a faithful interpretation of the Bhagavan's Teachings.

On the Sat Darsanam that was composed by the Kavyakantha, Kapali Sastri wrote a commentary in Sanskrit, and the two together were printed and published under the title Sat Darasana-Bhashyam. Later, English translation of the text and the commentary was prepared and that was also printed and published. The then Sarvadhikari of the Asramam demanded the surrender of the books and the copyright and this demand was complied with. Thus the Sat Darsana-Bhashyam was accepted as the authorised text book of the Asramam; presumably without the Bhagavan's approval being obtained.

All possible efforts had been made in this book to appear that the Master did not teach the Advaita standpoint. That standpoint was negated in every possible way. In the first it was made to appear that the Bhagavan did not teach the unreality of world. In the second place his teaching that the so-called individual is just an illusory being, a result of the wrong identification of the Real Self who is pure consciousness (Spirit), with the mortal gross body, was deliberately ignored, and in its place their own teaching was conveyed, that the individuality survives in the state of Deliverence as an entity distinct from God, who is the One Supreme Reality. That there is no place for this tenet in the Bhagavan's revelation is perhaps well known to the great majority of the Master's devotee-desciples.

These and other aberrations of the Kavyakantha School was later brought to the Bhagavan's notice, who explained that the Kavyakantha and his disciples were ardent adherents of the Saakta cult, implying thereby their unwillingness to allow Advaitic teaching to be conveyed as genuine teaching of the Bhagavan.

In translating one of the crucial verses of this revelation - the 13th verse - where it emphatically affirmed that the Real Self alone is the sole Reality, and that the world has no existence of its own, apart from that Self - there is an analogy given to make the teaching intelligible, namely jewels and gold; and there are adjectives unreal and real given in the text; the former qualifies jewels and the latter gold. The purpose is to show that in the Bhagavan's view the world is unreal and the Self alone real. If these adjectives be dropped, it can easily be made to appear that the world is real. And perhaps expressly for this purpose or because of KavyaKantha's ignorance of Tamil, these two adjectives are absent in the Sanskrit rendering of the text in the Sat-Darsana-Bhashyam.

Long after this book was published, the correct interpretation of the Ulladu Narpadu became available to disciples in the form of the book Maha Yoga where faithful translations of the relevant verses of this Revelation are given in their proper places. Before proceeding further it may be necessary to state that the Sat-Darsana-Bhashyam of the later has been modified by a disciple known as the Mouni, and so may not be as misleading as the first edition was.

The facts that Lakshmana Sarma wrote in these articles were known to many devotees who lived closely with Bhagavan, and I heard them confirmed by Swami Natanananda, Kunju Swami and others. From all that Bhagavan said about him, it is clear that Kavyakantha had many strong desires and ambitions that made it difficult for him to accept Bhagavan's teachings, and even more difficult for him to follow them. Therefore there is no wonder in the fact that Bhagavan said about him, 'How could he [have attained liberation]? His sankalpas were too strong'.

We cannot gain the real benefit of association with Bhagavan unless we are willing to surrender ourself entirely to him, which Kavyakantha was obviously not willing to do. What Bhagavan said in verse 152 of Guru Vachaka Kovai appears to apply to him:

Just as the dark shadow at the foot of a lamp ever remains unmoving, so delusive egos of some are not lost even though, due to their destiny [prarabdha], they live, grow old and die at the Feet of the Jnana-Guru, the unlimited Light of Knowledge; this is because of their immaturity.

Now regarding your more important question about work and renunciation, Bhagavan has made it clear that we must each do whatever work we are destined to do. For example, in the note that he wrote for his mother in December 1898, he said:

According to the prārabdha [destiny] of each person, God being in the heart of each person will make [him or her] act. That which is never to happen will not happen whatever effort [we] make [to make it happen]. That which is to happen will not stop whatever obstruction [or resistance] [we] do [to prevent it happening]. This indeed is certain. Therefore silently being [or being silent] is good.

Since we cannot do anything that we are not destined to do, and cannot avoid doing whatever we are destined to do, our outward actions do not bind us. What binds us is only the desire with which we do actions or refrain from doing actions. If we truly surrender ourself to his will, accepting with perfect equanimity whatever happens, then no action will bind us, but if we have even the slightest desire, aversion, like or dislike, we will be bound by our karmas.

Therefore we must completely surrender all our desires and ambitions (which Kavyakantha was unfortunately unwilling to do), and we can do this effectively only by surrendering the root of all desires, our ego. So long as we feel ourself to be a separate person, a body-bound mind or ego, we will constantly fall prey to desires. Therefore, to destroy all desires, we must completely surrender our mind or ego to Bhagavan, and the only way to do this is taught by him in the thirteenth paragraph of Nan Yar? (Who am I?):

Being completely absorbed in ātma-niṣṭha [self-abidance], not giving even the slightest room to the rising of any other cintana [thought] except ātma-cintana [self-contemplation or self-attentiveness], alone is giving ourself to God. …

In other words, the only truly effective means to surrender ourself completely to Bhagavan is to follow the simple non-dual path of ātma-cintana or ātma-vicāra that he has taught us. If we follow his teachings in this way, we will certainly attain liberation. Therefore can be no doubt about this.

Therefore let us each follow these simple teachings of Sri Bhagavan, and let us not worry about anyone else who happens to be unwilling to do so. Just as he has brought us to his path, he knows how to bring everyone to his path eventually, by gradually purifying their minds and freeing them from the desires that they have attached themselves to.

Though Kavyakantha did not attain liberation in this lifetime, his association with Bhagavan will not have gone in vain. Bhagavan will certainly do whatever is necessary to free him from all his deeply rooted desires and ambitions, and thereby to bring him eventually to practice the only real tapas, which is ātma-vicāra.

David Godman gives his views as below.

Yes, Bhagavan did say that Ganapati Muni did not realise the Self because his sankalpas were too strong. The incident was first recorded in the manuscript that later became Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi. However, when it was first published in the 1950s, some of Ganapati Muni's followers persuaded Ramanasramam not to print it. I think the first time the story appeared in print was when Arthur Osborne put it in his biography.

Sources:

http://sites.google.com/site/tvmnotes/kls-calldivine-1stjun1954

http://sites.google.com/site/tvmnotes/kls-calldivine-1staug1954

Note: Readers should also note that we should not bother in detail about more reasons as we should remember that bhagavan says Each person had an allotted role to play in this world.

Below articles will give more information.

http://prashantaboutindia.blogspot.com/2009/08/ramana-maharshi-says-each-person-had.html

http://prashantaboutindia.blogspot.com/2010/03/ramana-maharshi-clarifies-regarding.html