Shri Atmamannda - (1883-1959) An Introduction to His Teachings !

[Guest guest]

Yes! Dear Ananda-ji ! i apologize . In fact , i know that Shri

Atmanananda ji was the only householder disciple of his guru Swami

Yoganandaji.( a grihasta) i have also read that when Sri

Atmananaji wanted to go to Calcutta to take Sanyas and take

permanent shelter under the lotus feet of His guru Yogananadaji ,

Sri Atmananda was deliberately prevented by his guruji! In fact ,

his Guru Yogananda appeared to him in a vision and advised Shri

Atmananda that the guruji ( swami yogananda) was entering into

Mahasamadhi on first June and therefore Sri Atmananda should not

come to Calcutta to become a sanyasi !

 

i apologize for this 'error' on my part in addressing Sri Atmananda

as a 'swami' - to me , anyone is a Swami who has controlled

his 'desires' - and since Shri Atmananda was worthy of veneration ,

i addressed him thus ! Yes ! Shri Atmananda held on to his job as a

prosecuting Police Officer even during his periods of intense

spiritual Saadhnaa . He was very much a family man being devoted to

his wife Parvati kutty and his three children , incidentally they

were also his disciples . He also chewed Jaffna Tobacco but was

never a slave to any habit . He loved to watch Kathakali dance

dramas and play Chess ! All these only make Shri Atmananda more

lovable showing that He was just an ordinary man living in the world

not of the world ! He and his wife remind me very much of Sri

Ramakrishna paramahamsa and wife Sharada devi !

 

Bhagwan Sri Ramana maharishi also did not like any titles ; nor did

he believe in institutionalized religion ! Such are the stuff real

swamis are made of! :-) They do not want to draw attention to

themselves or their order! Their love of Truth (Philosophy) is what

makes them so unique and their 'creed' and their contribution to

Religious thought! shri Atmananda was a Karana guru and did believe

in the Guru principle but he always maintained there should not be

more than one guru at a time!

 

But Anandaji , you are absolutely correct ! There is also another

Swami Atmananda Saraswati of Chinmaya mission and it is better not

to confuse the two ! One is a swamiji of the chinmaya mission , the

other one was very much Krishna Menon , the man!

 

i would like to end on this note :

 

WHAT CONSTITUTES A SAGE? AND HOW DOES HE CONDUCT HIMSELF?

 

" Mere realization, as is usually understood, does not make one a

Sage in the full sense of the term.

A Sage should be a yogin to a yogin, a bhakta to a bhakta, and a

householder in every detail to his own family and to the other

householders. In all his relations – with society, state etc. – he

behaves exactly as any ordinary citizen. But, in reality, he is

always a Jnyanin [knower] and is none of these. You cannot express

the Truth by word of mouth, by thought, or by feeling. But the

Truth expresses itself, in all these varied activities. "

 

Wow! IS THIS PROFOUND OR WHAT ?

 

i once more apologize for calling Sri Atmananda a 'swami' but if

anyone deseves that Ttitle , it is ordinary people like him with

their love for Truth ! ( for that is the best mission statement)

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

" <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste Shrimati Dhyanasaraswati,

>

> In your message #36213 of Jun 4, you refer to Shri Atmananda

> (Krishna Menon) as " Swami Atmananda " . A little bit of a problem

> arises here.

>

> Shri Atmananda was very much a householder, not a sannyasi. He

never

> took sannyasa, nor did he encourage his disciples to do so. His

> teaching was most decidedly individual, without setting up or

> involving any organized institution that could be called an

> " ashram " . So those who knew him did not address him by the title

> " Swami " , which tends to imply both sannyasa and an instituted

ashram

> of some kind. In fact, he was emphatically clear that he did not

> teach as an instituted swami, and I am pretty sure that he did not

> wish to be called a swami. He specifically asked to be known as

Shri

> Atmananda, without any further honorifics or titles.

>