Who is a "swAmi"?

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

Have you ever asked yourselves why when you want to address someone

respectfully, very often, you prefix the honorific "swAmin" or

"svAminah:" to the person's name? Even in e-mails to this Group, if

you have noticed, members often address one another as, say, for

example, "Anbil svAmin", "Sadagopan svAmi", "Rajagopala svAmin" etc.

 

This habit of addressing someone as "swAmi So-&-So" is an age-old

one. SriVaishnavites always refer to their beloved 'achArya', Vedanta

Desikan of the 13th century, as "Swami Desikan". The followers of the

Ramakrishna Mutt always refer to their illustrious guru, Vivekananda,

as 'Swami' Vivekananda. In fact, every ordained monk of this Mutt is

always addressed as "Swami So-&-So" -- Swami Vimalananda, Swami

Gautamananda, Swami Paramatmananda and so on and so forth... Swami

Chinmayananda was another famous "svAmi" of contemporary times who

established his own Vedantic order. There are today in India

innumerable holy Orders whose members similarly, as we can see, are

all invariably revered with the common address of "svAmi".

 

"swAmi" does not however attach itself naturally to the name of all

holy men and "achAryAs". For e.g. some holy men's names are prefixed

with the word "sAdhu". Near Madras, I learnt recently, there was a

holy man called Sadhu Yogiram Suratkumar who had quite a spiritual

following. Among the Sindhis of Bombay, some years ago, a holy man

known as 'Sadhu' Vaswani was well known. This word "sAdhu" is the

prefix holy men of North India are known to generally prefer. Some

holy women in the North are also addressed as "sAdhvi".

 

"sAdhu" is derived from "sattva". He who is full of 'sattva' or

'sAttvic' qualities like serenity, compassion and piety is a 'sAdhu'

or 'sAdhvi'. Today, in and around the temple town of Ayodhya, we

might see holy men sporting fierce manes and carrying even fiercer

looking 'trishul' (tridents) and 'tridanda' (staffs) and we begin to

wonder if "sAdhu" is an apt form of address for them ... but then

that is not the subject of this piece and so let's leave it there.

 

Nobody also refers, if you have noticed, to the great sage VyAsa as

"Swami Vyasa". He is popularly known only as "vyAsa bhagavAn". His

son Shuka was no less venerable than the father but he is known to us

today not as 'Swami' Shuka but as "shuka-brahmam". Since Shuka was

known to be constantly and entirely immersed in Brahmic

consciousness, he came to be addressed as "shuka-brahmam". It is from

the ancient example of Shuka that today the honorific "brahmasri" is

sometimes attached to the names of some exalted men. For e.g. in

Madras recently we heard of the sad demise of the renowned

'sangeeta-kalapshEpakar', "brahmasri" Balakrishna Sastrigal. While

delivering his musical religious discourses to which thousands used

to flock, Sastrigal was sometimes known to forget himself totally in

God-consciousness. There was also another well-known Vedic scholar in

Madras -- "brahmasri" Manjakudi Rajagopala Sastrigal; and then, who

can ever forget too the inimitable "brahmasri" Sengalipuram

Anantharama Dikshitar -- the exponent 'par excellence' of such

scriptural classics like "nArAyaNaneeyam"?

 

Just as Sage VyAsa was addressed as "bhagavAn" and not "swAmi", so

too do we SriVaishnavites, who regard Sri RamanujAchArya as our

foremost 'guru', we do not ever refer to him as "Swami Ramanuja".

More often we refer to him as "bhagavath ramanuja"; or else, we refer

to him with some other hallowed honorific such as "uDayavar" or

"bhAshyakArar", never at all "swAmi". Neither do the Advaitins ever

refer to their great 'achArya', Adi Sankara as "Swami Shankara". He

is always known only as Shankara "bhagavath-pAdAL".

 

The words "brahmasri" and "bhagavan" or "bhagavath" are more far more

laudatory and elevating than the term "sAdhu". The reason for this is

that great souls like VyAsa, Shuka, Shankara and Ramanuja were not

only "sAdhus" in their own right but, far more importantly, they all

commanded the kind of universal awe and veneration which only

Bhagavan, God Almighty Himself can, and indeed does, from His flock.

 

Thus, when we examine all these holy honorifics such as "swAmi",

"bhagavAn", "brahmam", "sAdhu" etc. we are naturally led to ask

ourselves what does "swAmi" really connote? Is "bhagavAn" somehow

superior to "swAmi"? Does "swami" connote a higher degree of

veneration than "sAdhu"? Or, do they all mean the same thing and may

hence be freely used interchangeably? We are also led to ask

ourselves: "Who is a "swAmi"?" When should it really be used to

address a person? When we happen to address each other as "swAmin"

are we being appropriate? Or else, are we using the term in a rather

blithe, casual, indiscriminate and even meaningless way? When we call

someone "swAminah: so-&-so", do we do so merely out of the need to

seem polite or obsequious? Is it really befitting one to be called

"swAmin" and if so, why?

 

"swAmin" truly differs from the other honorifics we mentioned above.

It is rather special. It has great depth of meaning. It denotes a

certain degree of exaltation that lies somewhere between "sAdhu" and

"bhagavAn"; and yet "swAmin" is actually one of the loftiest

compliments in Sanskrit one can pay to any mortal.

 

In exact Vedantic parlance, when a person is recognized to be a

'svAmin', he (or she) is said to be "self-possessed" i.e.

specifically, he is seen (1) to be in constant enjoyment of an

extraordinary degree of freedom of spirit. This freedom is called

"swArAjya" -- and it is a kind not given to ordinary men of the

world. Furthermore he is also seen to (2) to possess and wield an

extraordinary degree of authority amongst fellowmen. It is these two

specific characteristics that define "swAmi".

 

"The truly free man or woman is 'svAmin', literally "in full

possession of self". He or she exercises spontaneous authority over

others; not the authority that debases others but that which

ennobles, not the authority that distances but that draws to

intimacy, not the authority of birth or social advantage but of the

ability to forget oneself in the welfare of others...". (Michael

N.Nagler writing in Eknath Eswaran's "The Upanishads" (Page 292)-

Penguin publication 2002).

 

Let us study the word "svAmi" a little more to understand better its

definition above.

 

The word "swAmi" has its roots in the ancient Upanishads. It echoes

straight out of 2 passages from the Taittiriya Upanishad in one

instance, and then, in another, from a beautiful passage in the

Chandogya Upanishad.

 

"swAmin" is derived from the root "sva-" in Sanskrit which means

'one's Inner Self'. Those of us with even scant knowledge of Sanskrit

might have come across the word "svayam". Some idols in our temples

such as Srirangam or Tiruvengadam are said to be "self-created" --

"svayambhu". You might also have heard of "sitA svayamvara" -- the

event of Sita's marriage in the Ramayana where she chose for herself

("svayam") her mate ("varah") from amongst a parade of suitors. All

these "sva-" words are thus derived from the root "sva-" and it means

'by oneself'. Whenever "sva-" is affixed to a word in Sanskrit it

denotes the "self" or "oneself". A person, for example, who by dint

of his own hard effort ("sva-prayatna") masters the Vedas

("adhyAya"), he is said to be engaged in "svAdhyAya".

 

Now, in the Taittiriya Upanishad, there is an oft-quoted line that

exhorts a Man of education and wisdom to embrace the study of Vedic

scripture as cardinal duty if he must advance in the journey of life.

"svAdhyA'yAn mA pramadah:"... says the Upanishad, "Do not ever fail

in the personal duty to undertake Vedic study". Now, the "sva-" in

"swAmin" is really an echo of "svAdhyAya" as it appears in the

Upanishadic sense. Hence, a person fit to be addressed as "swAmin"

should be, first and foremost, engaged constantly in "svAdhyaya" --

the rigour of Vedic study.

 

Next, in another passage ("anuvAka") in the Taittiriyam, the

Upanishad deals with a lofty spiritual concept called "svA-rAjyam" --

"ApnOti svAraajyam"... says the SikshAvalli. This 'svArAjyam' is

precisely that Freedom of Spirit referred to above that a "swAmi" is

seen to be enjoying constantly. A true "swAmi" is an utterly free

soul, who goes about wherever he wants and does whatever he pleases

in the full knowledge of God, the 'paramAtma'.

 

The best example of a true "swAmi'ssvArAjya" is seen in an event

in the life of Swami Venkatanathan (14th CE). He was once invited to

serve as poet-laureate at the royal court at Vijayanagaram under

enticement of a princely salary. He spurned it without a moment's

hesitation in the true manner of an utterly free soul ("svArAyja"),

saying that a servant of God does not stoop to singing peaens to

earthly sovereign. It was really the 'Swamin' within Venkatanathan

which also declared, "The wealth that is rightly mine to covet

resides here on the Hill of Hastigiri (meaning the Deity of the

Kanchi temple) and it surpasseth all the royal riches of

Vijayanagaram". Venkatanathan chose "svArAjyam" over 'rAjyam' and

came thus to be celebrated as 'Swami'.

 

The true 'swAmi' also wields a natural but powerful authority over

his fellowmen. It is almost magical how such SwAmis command the awe

and affection of those who come under their spell. As already quoted

above, it is the exercise of "spontaneous authority over others; not

the authority that debases others but that which ennobles, not the

authority that distances but that draws to intimacy, not the

authority of birth or social advantage but of the ability to forget

oneself in the welfare of others...".

 

Vivekananda was the perfect example of a 'Swami' who wielded the sort

of authority over fellowmen that the ideal of Upanishadic 'svArAjya'

holds up to us. He strode like a spiritual collossus amongst the

Congress of Religions in Chicago in which he participated in 1888.

Everyone across USA who came into contact with Vivekananda went into

a spell. None that had met him, for as much as a few moments even,

could come away without feeling, "Here indeed is a fearless and free

soul. Here indeed is a true Swami".

 

*******************

 

In the the Chandogya Upanishad in the last and 8th Chapter we come

across a passage of rare insight into the character of a 'svAmin':

 

"Ordinary mortals do what they are told, and get attached to

anything: their country, or piece of land. Everything they work for,

secular or religious, comes to nothing. Only those who find out Who

they are, and what they want, find freedom, here and in all the

worlds." (chandOgya VIII.1.5-6)

 

Here again, the Upanishads holds up to us the ideal of Freedom as the

chief characteristic of the true 'Swami' -- the man who has "found

out who he is and what he wants" and hence enjoys the freedom of this

world and the hereafter and enjoys authority too over both...

 

****************

 

By the lofty standard of "svArajya" -- personal freedom and authority

-- that the Upanishads set for a true "swAmi", now we must ask

ourselves, how many of us would qualify to be addressed as "swAmi"?

 

Everytime I hear these days someone address me as "svAmin" or

"sudarshan swAmi", I really squirm, for I know it is a honorific that

shall never ever rest comfortably upon my puny shoulders.

 

Regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan