PDA

View Full Version : Amma (Mata Amritanandamayi)



ScottMalaysia
30 April 2008, 02:56 PM
Has anyone else seen this holy woman before? She travels throughout the world blessing people by hugging them. Many have felt great peace in her presence. She doesn't preach any one particular religion (all she wants to do is to love and serve everyone. She has engaged in much humanitarian work throughout the world.

I had a chance to visit her talk in Kuala Lumpur a few weeks ago, but I didn't get a hug as there were just so many lined up to be hugged by Amma.

What do you all think of this? Her teachings can be found at www.amma.org, and she has engaged in many humanitarian activities.

One thing I'm curious about, though - she is called "Satguru Mata Amritanandamayi" yet she herself had no guru whatsoever. How can you become a satgurur if you don't first have a guru?

Some followers of Amma claim that she is an incarnation of the Goddess, which would explain how she got to be a guru without having a previous guru. And the Goddess would not claim to preach the "Hinduism", as such a name was not used by the Gods.

Arjuna
01 May 2008, 03:29 AM
I heard Amma had a Guru.
But be it true or not, one may become a Guru without having a physical Guru, though such case are indeed rare. Ultimately it is God who gives Siddhi and makes one His "channel", and not any human.

Sagefrakrobatik
28 June 2008, 11:16 PM
I saw here on CBS one time

Harjas Kaur
20 September 2008, 02:39 AM
deleted

Sudarshan
20 September 2008, 12:13 PM
Has anyone else seen this holy woman before? She travels throughout the world blessing people by hugging them. Many have felt great peace in her presence. She doesn't preach any one particular religion (all she wants to do is to love and serve everyone. She has engaged in much humanitarian work throughout the world.


Her ashram is not far away from where I live now but I have not seen her. I would like to someday but I cant at this time. I have read many books on her and I like her views which are universal. I do think she is a realized soul. There is some real originality and boldness in her views which is difficult to find in those with just scriptural knowledge.( without any samAdhi anubhava)




I had a chance to visit her talk in Kuala Lumpur a few weeks ago, but I didn't get a hug as there were just so many lined up to be hugged by Amma.

What do you all think of this? Her teachings can be found at www.amma.org, and she has engaged in many humanitarian activities.

One thing I'm curious about, though - she is called "Satguru Mata Amritanandamayi" yet she herself had no guru whatsoever. How can you become a satgurur if you don't first have a guru?


God is the real guru of all. It is not necessary for everyone to have a 'physical' guru. Also never mistaken a guru for his body. A guru can instruct you without a physical body as well and that happens in the deeper levels of meditation.



Some followers of Amma claim that she is an incarnation of the Goddess, which would explain how she got to be a guru without having a previous guru. And the Goddess would not claim to preach the "Hinduism", as such a name was not used by the Gods.

It looks quite doubtful if it an incarnation because she had to face lots of trouble from the atheists and even her own family illtreated her. She herself has said that she underwent a long sAdhana before she became enlightened. An incarnation has no need of sAdhana to become enlightened.

Harjas Kaur
21 September 2008, 12:22 AM
deleted

Sudarshan
21 September 2008, 04:04 AM
An avatAra is a person who is not born of any residual karma. Any other person who was born due to karma will have a physical body and the subtle body and will be subject to their influence.

An avatAra's body is not physical ( made of the the five elements) but made of shudda satva ( pure consciousness) and it imposes no limitations whatsover on his actions. If an avatAra wishes that the world be destroyed - it will immediately vanish. Other jIvas who have evolved to become jnAnins do not have this capability though he may still have many other great powers. Manifesting miracles dont make an avatAra.

It is possible for some ordinary jIvas to be possesed with divine consciousness and this is called an Avesha. An avesha should not be confused with the supreme being. If this avesha leaves the jIva, the jIva becomes very ordinary again. AvatAras are not like that - they are always pUrNa in every respect and they dont identity themselves with their limited bodies. Occasionally the avatAra may appear to face setbacks, but it is just a leela. He does not have any pain or sorrow which is impossible for the one who is always immersed in Brahman.

Harjas Kaur
21 September 2008, 07:26 AM
deleted

Sudarshan
21 September 2008, 09:51 AM
Namaste Kaurji,

I am not going to respond to many questions you have raised because I dont want to be running in circles with each trying to catch the other's tail. Oftentimes what happens is people want to say the samething yet they use different terms and terminologies and keep fighting over it.

Also I dont know much about your faith so if there are some differences from what I believe then there will be some disagreements. That is ok. We will find out the truth by experience. People write a lot of stuff about this nirgun/sagun thing without experiencing any of them and thus reduce everything to bookish knowledge. In short I dont really agree with your bifurcation of Brahman like that, nor agree with your view of one following the commands(hukum) of the other.

However I will answer only one point because it seems to be a divergence from the normal Hindu belief.



So I respectfully disagree with you that an avataar is not manifesting in a physical body, or so completely devoid of karma that he can't have human experience in the human body. What purpose would there be for him to be born in a body at all? Why not just have a statue come to life in a state of perfection? And the simple answer, is that the human being can reach us, because we identify with what is human. The God manifests in this world in order to reach us, His beloved creation, because we are an aspect of Himself.


Yes, a Hindu will certainly say that an avatAra like Krishna is born with absolutely no karma, just like christians would say that for Jesus. His body is certainly not made of prakR^iti too - but made of still finer element which is called prAjna and that body is not finite either though it appears so. However he does make it look physical through his mAyA and warns about the mistake people do - 9.11 And people wrongly believe that avatAra like Rama also feels pain and cries for his lost consort.

Harjas Kaur
21 September 2008, 05:40 PM
deleted

Sudarshan
22 September 2008, 03:49 AM
Well, agree or disagree, it's a part of the historical philosophical debates within sanatana Dharma. Most schools and sects have some discussion of it, and take some position of interpretation. Even within Vaishnavism the sampradyas are in basic disagreement. Sikhism, I believe comes close to the achint abedabeda of Gaudiya Vaishnavism accepting both the dual dichotomy of a Divine Beloved and beloved (Dvaita) while accepting the Reality is All-pervading Oneness (Advaita). Sikhism also has a strong pull to the philosophies of Kashmiri Shaivism, no doubt because of physical proximity and blending of acharyas during times of warfare. In any event, the philosophical discussion of Parabrahm, or Mahavishnu, or Maheshvara/MahaKal (whatever you want to call the ultimate) has been generally explained in most major scriptures (Bhagavata Puranas, Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta, Guru Granth Sahib) as both formless (nirguna) and formed (sarguna per Punjabi pronunciation). So NOT to discuss this on basis of being "bookish" kind of invalidates the historical and philosophical richness of scholarly debates which have been going on for centuries. Understanding this concept is also key to understanding the power of Mantras, which are sargun sounds vibrating out of the Primal Nada of the nirguna.


It is easily possible to explain the dichotomy of advaita-dvaita without necessarily positing two Brahmans - you might want to read VallabAcharyas philosophy or Aurobindo for instance.

If you look at your own definition of nirguna, you can find that it is self contradictory. You are kind of suggesting that nirguna is eternal and saguna is non eternal, and this saguna functions under the orders of the nirguna. The big problem with such a theory is that why do you call a being
that has the capacity to give orders to the sagun, as nirguna at all? If you simply mean that your nirguna is formless and that the sagun has a form, then a simple word arUpa Brahman is suffufient, why use nirguna which is a much more broader term? nirguna is not just formless but does not have any concievable qualities in it. Some people have taken nirguNa in the sense of guNAtIta ( which is acceptible) and others as not having 'material qualities'. These might be different ways of saying the same thing.


It is difficult to accept two Brahman's for the simple reason that this would create a simple defect that the sagun is covered in ignorance. Why? Because the essential nature of Brahman is Ananda and being devoid of guNas. The act of creation necessiates a highest being with guNa ( the ability to create is a guNa) so by definition the nirgun cannot be involved with creation at all. If sagun is doing the creation, then it must be obvious that sagun has 'forgotten' its true nature, which implies atleast a superficial ignorance on its part. How could a being that is itself in ignorance carry you to moksha? Why worship that at all? No wonder many Sikhs do not respect the sagun!

Therefore in reality there is only one Brahman only. The difference between nirgun/sagun cannot be anything more than one's inability to see their oneness. This is called the adhikAri bheda.

You said that sagun is non eternal. Then who awakens this sagun during every cycle of creation? If it is the nirgun, this violates your definition of nirgunatva. If you closely look at your approach in dilineating nirgun/sagun, it is impossible because your nirgun is only sagun in disguise, because he is involved with creation, gives orders, wakes up the sagun etc. Under such definitions there is no need for two concepts of Brahman at all. Just use sagun as your highest Brahman as he has the guNa of creation!

It is impossible for sagun to perish because if such a situation occurs there can be no more creation. If you posit a sagun it has to be eternal only. Nowhere shAstras in Hindu scrupture say that vishNu lOka is destroyed anytime. On the other hand, nirgun is neither eternal nor non eternal, as the concept of eternity and non eternity apply only with reference to time, and nirguna who is beyond time itself is neither eternal nor non eternal.

This is why Advaita vedanta does not posit nirgun in the way you do and instead opts for this line.

1. From the standpoint of the Absolute truth, there is no creation, no sagun, or no world. Only Brahman is. In the absence of time, there can be no creation event. Brahman has nothing to do with creation and he cannot give any hukum to sagun either!

2. From the relative standpoint( that is at our level), the Brahman is always eternal, is all knowing, all powerful. his cycles of creation are eternal, the world is periodically created, maintained and destroyed by the three faces of sagun.

The two tier approach has its problems but in many ways it offers an ingenious solution.

Of course, I dont fully agree with any of these theories as there are plenty of logical flaws whether it be advaita or dvaita, and there have been plenty of polemic literature that seek to refute each other and no one has been able conclude who is right. That is why shruti says

naayamaatmaa pravachanena labhyo
na medhayaa na bahunaa shrutena .
yamevaishha vR^iNute tena labhyaH
tasyaishha aatmaa vivR^iNute tanuu{\m+} svaam.h

This Atman cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas, or by intelligence, or by much hearing of sacred books. It is attained by him alone whom It chooses( or one who chooses it). To such a one Atman reveals Its own form.

Debates/polemics have very little to do with the attainment of the truth. In someways, they can create more confusion.



Anyway, my peace to you brother ji. I do know that Amritanandamayi Ma is rooted in a Shaivite tradition and her monks and nuns are ordained from the Ramakrishna Order (I believe), so understanding her would be a personal journey, but necessarily require openness to the Shaivite philosphical position. And perhaps this is the reason the Iskcon people reject her. To the Amma devotees, Amma is more than an avataar, that was how I described her. To them she is nothing less than the Divine Shakta Mother of Creation Herself. And perhaps there is a deep truth in that. Truth is, regardless of what anybody thinks. Isn't that the most wonderful thing?


Where did you get the impression that she is rooted in a Shaivite tradition? I personally know many vaishnavas who are devoted to her. She is supposed to show both Devi bhAva and kR^ishNa bhAva.

Most of the Hindus accept Krishna as an incarnation. Accepting anybody else who is non scriptural is based on one's predilections. Many of us have no problems in admitting people to be great men or even as rishis or sages. But a full incarnation is a very different affair. It is a very rare event and you will understand it when you read the Gita. Of the many thousands who strive to know me only a handful strive for perfection. And of the many thousands who attain perfection hardly anyone knows me - this is what the Lord says. Real avatAras are like needle in a haystack and not found commonly. But there are thousands of people claiming to be full incarnations and only a very small percentage of the cases will be true and the rest will be fakes. How do you determine who is a real incarnation and who is a fake? This is why most people do not seek or believe in any avatAras not indicated by their scriptres, but directly seek God. Every jIva is qualified to directly seek God, and if God sees fit he will send a guru to you. Most of the gurus are polite but their shishyas often bloat up things and create fantastic tales about them. Have you heard what happens in a software company when a customer approaches a service company for development. This is a very common scenario.

Customer: What is your company's expertise in this technology X.

Project Manager: We are experts in the field and industry leaders.
Project Lead: Our programmer's have been well trained in it, but they dont have much industry experience in X.
Module Lead: Our team has had some minimal training in X.
Programmer Analyst: What is X?

Similarly, this kind of thing happens in Ashrams too.

Guru to shishya - I had a dream of Krishna yesterday.
shishya1->shishya2 -> Our Guru saw and talked a form of Krishna yesterday.
shishya->shishya3 -> Our guru went to vaikunta with krishna yesterday.
shishya3-4 - Our guru in an incarnation of Krishna!!

So what started with guru having a dream of Krishna often gets passed on as 'guru is Krishna'. People are also too naive to believe anything. The religion of christianity itself is proof for how naive people can be - just read the posts of jaggin who claims confidently that one son of God has already 'died' for the sins of every christian!


My reason for saying is that while I do not really say that everyone is not genuine, we need to be quite wary about listening to the claims of people claiming to be full incarnations especially if it is the shishyas who are creating such tales and not the guru himself. It is more easy to believe in the claims of a guru claiming to be a devotee of God rather than one who claims he has realized everything. While I am not a fan of ISKCON but I can definitely understand their take on avatAras.

Even a real incarnation will not be accepted by everybody. Even Krishna was not accepted by all when he lived - the kauravas for eg never believed in his divinity and just thought he was a socerer. There were others who accused Krishna of stealing. So you are right. Truth is regardless of what anybody thinks. The same thing cuts either way - even if you consider a fake to be an incarnation, truth does not change.

Harjas Kaur
24 September 2008, 01:40 AM
deleted