Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha heading the way of Gandhi’s INC - 1
by Radha Rajan on 25 Mar 2010 69 Comments

Siddhis like milestones must fall by the wayside

After his trouncing defeat on the battle-field by Sage Vasistha in a war in which Viswamitra lost his 100 sons, a vastly chastened Viswamitra was forced to acknowledge that his kshatriyatej was no match for Vasistha’s brahmatej. Overawed by the powers unleashed upon him by Sage Vasistha’s brahmadand and no longer content with being a rishi or even a rajarishi, Viswamitra with the fire of anger and vengeance burning in his heart and mind, resolved to become a brahmarishi like Vasistha so that he too could possess the matchless brahmadand.


Viswamitra, it was clear, had a long, long way to go before he could get his hands on brahmadand. Rajiv Malhotra should read the Srimadvalmikiya Ramayana to know that brahmadand, the physical siddhi, could be wielded only by a brahmarishi, a person with brahmatej. The status of Brahmarishi was not about siddhis or mind over body, but dharma over mind and body, gyan and vigyan. So much for moral-neutral science or siddhi!


Every Hindu thoughtlessly propagating Rajiv Malhotra’s defence of Nityananda must read sarga 22, 27 and 55-65 from the Balakandam of Srimadvalmikiya Ramayana (Gita press, Gorakhpur edn.) to understand why Malhotra’s treatise on how the world should view Nityananda’s sex videos is both immoral and subversive.


Sarga 22 describes how Brahmarishi Viswamitra initiated Srirama and Lakshmana into the bala and atibala mantras; sarga 27 describes Brahmarishi Viswamitra transferring all weapons of war under his control and in a dormant state within his mind from then on to reside in Srirama’s mind under his control. While sarga 22 says Lakshmana too was initiated into the bala-atibala mantras, sarga 27 makes no mention of Lakshmana in the ritual where Viswamitra transfers all weapons to Srirama. The omission is significant and more on this in just a while.


Malhotra’s amazing defence of Nityananda’s conduct would merit no attention from this writer except for the fact that Malhotra makes reference to HDAS in this defence document with a casualness which deserves scrutiny. As pointed out in the earlier column on the same issue, the writer had observed that Nityananda’s peccadilloes are of little interest to the writer and merited attention only because of his relationship to GFCH and because of GFCH’s undesirable link to HDAS via Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswati who is a part of both.


At the heart of the matter is the undeniable truth that Nityananda had sex with a lady who he himself accepted was living in the ashram to ‘serve’ him. Gandhi too referred to the women in his ashram with whom he conducted the completely un-Hindu experiments in brahmacharya as women who ‘served’ him.


Important men and women in the INC and Gandhi’s close associates and colleagues outside the INC knew of his terrible experiments using women in his ashram and yet chose not to dislodge him as the unchallenged and unquestioned leader of the INC for fear of weakening the INC vis-à-vis the ascendant Jinnah and Muslim League. The Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha has the dharmic responsibility to Hindu bhaktas across sampradayas to make Nityananda accountable for his actions without fear of destabilizing or weakening Hindu society in these extremely trying times. The vulnerability of exposure is minimal compared to the destruction which will be caused by complicit or craven silence.


Malhotra has tried to build an edifice of bogus scholarship in Nityananda’s defence which, given Malhotra’s mutually profitable association of long years with the man, seems more like an effort to minimise Nityananda’s guilt for fear of having the scandal affect his growing influence in certain circles inside India, besides affecting his pretensions to be an ‘independent researcher’ with the self-arrogated authority to comment on and influence Hindu issues on Hindu bhumi.


Despite Viswamitra’s gruelling and extraordinary tapasya through intense yoga and dhyana for a thousand years after his defeat at the hands of Sage Vasistha, Bhagwan Brahma refused to accept that Viswamitra was a brahmarishi and told Viswamitra that while he was a great rajarishi, he was still not worthy enough to be bestowed with the mahaprasada of being acknowledged as brahmarishi.


For good effect, and as a demonstration of the exemplary laws of karma, Bhagwan Brahma told Viswamitra that only Sage Vasistha, the object of Viswamitra’s uncontrolled greed, anger, vengeance and ambition, could bestow this grace upon him.


Rajiv Malhotra’s exercise to mitigate the effects of Nityananda’s sex scandal goes far beyond the crux of the matter and audaciously metamorphoses into a commentary on Hindu traditions. The writer is not a scholar in any sense of the term in any discipline, but has enough sense to know that Malhotra’s arguments are wholly flawed and are also immoral because of the deliberate intent to dismiss the general understanding of dharma, particularly sanyasa dharma, held by ordinary Hindus of this bhumi.


Malhotra makes the following audacious arguments with supreme sangfroid which presumes these arguments and the chosen idiom cannot be challenged or faulted. He says, and the words and phrases highlighted in the excerpts from the document indicate the flawed idiom –


-        I want to begin by examining some principles about the relationships between siddhis (extraordinary yogic powers), morality, Tantra and sex


-        What is the relationship between siddhis and morality? If siddhis are a scientific phenomena dealing with powers that can be harnessed by all humans then one must bear in mind that science deals with truths that are morally neutral. If Einstein was declared to have lived an immoral life it would not invalidate his scientific theories.


-        Sri Sri’s pranayama techniques would also produce results for an immoral person.


-        The reason that meditation systems prescribe things like vegetarian diet, ahimsa, etc. is because an inappropriate lifestyle interferes with the mental tranquility required to advance.


-        This lifestyle change can be appreciated regardless of whether one believes in a personal God. This absence of a personal God is clear in Buddhist meditation.


-        Different Hindu systems place different levels of emphasis upon a personal God for the yoga to function.


-        This is why many secular and scientifically minded persons are also drawn towards meditation techniques.


-        In other words, something cannot be a science if it depends upon morality, because science is objective and stands independent of morality.


-        Muktananda’s capabilities in harnessing spiritual energies are separate and independent from whether or not he violated any code of morality.


-        Another point that is worth noting is that the techniques taught by Swami Nityananda are not his original ones; he has made it clear repeatedly that they are from the Shiva Sutras which have a long history in our civilization.


-        I feel that he does have the siddhi of being able to transmit these techniques very effectively to others. For instance, I have never before in my life been able to sit still and alert in meditation for the whole night, but he had a few hundred persons in a large hall achieving this.


-        The point here is similar to saying that the mathematics and golf I have learned from someone is not invalidated when the teacher is found to be immoral.



Gandhi used his Hind Swaraj, written in 1909, as launching pad for his political career in India. Hind Swaraj was Gandhi’s political ideology in black and white where Gandhi equated satya with ahimsa and both with love which he also called soul-force. The craven INC and brainless Hindus then and now have allowed the flawed and totally un-Hindu equations to remain.


It was this killer brew called Gandhian Satyagraha which led the Hindu nation towards vivisection in 1947. Politically-savvy Hindus cannot allow any distortion of idiom or imposition of alien paradigms in public discourse on aspects of Hindu dharma which impact upon politics of religion. This zero tolerance will include not only Malhotra-type exercises but also the Chennai/Malhotra-clique inspired HDAS resolutions.


Malhotra, like Gandhi is guilty of crafting flawed equations and flawed arguments for vested interests. He has reduced tantra to sex, dharma to narrow morality, sadhana to techniques and equated siddhis to science, besides declaring that science is moral-neutral and therefore siddhis are moral-neutral too.


That science is moral-neutral is a Christian assumption where narrow morality prevails in the absence of the pervasive sense of sanctity which permeates every aspect of a Hindu’s life. In Christian theology, only the Christian god is sacred. Even his creation (including human beings), is only secular and bereft of sanctity. 


If science, according to Malhotra, is only knowledge of the rules of nature or creation which is not sacred, then knowledge of science, which is the fruit of the human brain, too is bereft of all sanctity. It is therefore natural that the character of western-Christian Bacon’s science and the knowledge and use of scientific principles are both moral-neutral at best and immoral at the worst.


For Hindus, all Creation, all knowledge, both para and apara, are sacred because it is only this sense of sanctity which ensures that all knowledge is used for the greater good. A guru (he who ends darkness) therefore not only practiced dharma but also had to know dharma so that all knowledge in action, including action of the mind, was purposefully used for lokahita or the greater good. In Hindu tradition, knowledge and practice of dharma is held to be way above any narrow Christian sense of morality.


Malhotra’s flawed equations and even more flawed arguments will not only lead Hindus not rooted to traditional sampradayas and mathams astray by such motivated modern interpretations of our dharmic traditions, but also seriously threaten the sanctity of the HDAS.


A chagrined Viswamitra was forced to acknowledge that evolving from rajarishi to brahmarishi did not mean performing more siddhis or more spectacular sidhdis than before as testimony of improved dexterity in use of ‘scientific principles’; the status of brahmarishi could be attained only when the bestower of the recognition was convinced about the end-use of these capabilities. What separated the brahmarishi from the rajarishi was his unflinching commitment to dharma when he used his brahmatej or brahmadand and his absolute and infallible control over mind and body.


When Bhagwan Brahma told Viswamitra that he still had a long way to go before he could become a brahmarishi, let us remember that Viswamitra, with all the yogic powers or siddhis at his command, had created another world, suspended between the earth and the heavens, for Trishanku.


The story of Trishanku is too well known to warrant repetition, but it bears mention that Trishanku’s desire to ascend to pitruloka without shedding his mortal body was adharmic; and when Viswamitra agreed to fulfill Trishanku’s desire after Vasistha and Vasistha’s sons had refused to do so, he was using the cumulative powers of yoga harnessed over thousands of years of tapasya, only to fulfill Trishanku’s adharmic wish and only as an egoistic demonstration of his hard-earned siddhis. Needless to say, Viswamitra’s adharmic conduct destroyed his siddhis and he had to start all over again.


Viswamitra’s life should set to naught Malhotra’s bizarre declaration that Hindu siddhis are moral-neutral. They can be moral-neutral or adharmic (as the writer prefers to call it) only at the risk of wantonly dissipating all yogic powers that were harnessed as a result of the dharmic anusashana and deva/guru-anugraha which went into acquiring them. When siddhis are misused or abused they also run the attendant risk of endangering the life and well-being of not only the siddha but everything that he touches.


More than anything else, misuse of siddhis or any knowledge acquired from a Guru is guru-droha and that is why Malhotra’s aphorism that siddhis are moral-neutral is in itself immoral at the very least and downright adharmic. A Guru is a wholistic entity and cannot be fragmented into parts – his knowledge, his siddhis, his character, his conduct and so on as being stand-alone features de-linked from each other. A Guru is all this together. The writer therefore charges Malhotra’s arguments as being subversive of our guru-sishya parampara.


De-linking the practice of yoga and meditation or dhyana from their ultimate goal has led us to a point where these instruments or sadhana for yogic siddhi have been made ends in themselves. Yoga and dhyana if pursued, not with the limited objective of toning the mind and body (which is a modern fad and even a necessity) but with singularity of purpose, can unleash tremendous powers of the mind and body in a yogi.


In Hindu tradition, yoga and dhyana have been and continue to be pursued only as one of several means leading to self-knowledge or spiritual fulfillment. There are several ways towards self-realization; the path of yoga is only one among them. Yoga entails dhyana, chanting and pranayama.


If teachers of yoga are sanyasis it is unimaginable that their own learning or their teaching can be indifferent to its end-use by their students. And that is why Brahmarishi Viswamitra had to undertake more tapasya to become worthy of Vasistha’s recognition and also why he transferred the weapons of war that he controlled by his siddhi only to Srirama who was, in Viswamitra’s judgment purushottama or best among humans.


Viswamitra knew Lakshmana to be only a part of the whole. Ravana, Bhasmaasura and Hiranyakashipu instead of using their siddhi as a milestone on their spiritual journey, stopped their journey upon attainment of certain siddhis and made the attainment an end in itself.


It is not without reason that our rishis considered siddhis to be ‘dosha bij’, or imperfect seeds which are created as a result of yogic powers. This implies that the siddhis or the ‘dosha bij’ which come along the way must be tossed aside before they sprout and take root. Siddhis are like milestones which fall by the wayside when the seeker does not stop his journey to nurture them or worse, enjoy their powers.


There was nothing in the labyrinthine defence document to indicate that Malhotra believed the sex videos to have been manipulated or morphed. Rather, Malhotra seems to accept that it was indeed Nityananda caught in the act with a lady actor; only he is making a case for all of us to place the sex act in the context of a tantric exercise or experiment.


In March 1906 Gandhi announced his decision to observe absolute continence for life. Nityananda, at the time he is alleged to have had sexual relationship with a woman in his ashram, had already donned saffron robes indicating that he had entered sanyasashrama. When Gandhi announced that he had decided to abstain from sex, it was assumed that Gandhi had overcome his desire for sex or that such was his resolve that like Bhishmapitamaha he would remain unswerving in his resolve.


Similarly, when Nityananda had already donned the saffron and had manufactured a reputation for mastery over siddhis, it was expected that he would not be swayed by the five senses ruling his body, from the path of sanyasadharma.


Gandhi, till his sudden death in January 1948, was still sleeping without clothes with women in his ashram on the pretext of conducting experiments with brahmacharya. Not that alone, he called his act a yagna. Gandhi refused to stop his experiments with brahmacharya even after being exhorted to do so by Amritlal V Thakkar (Bapa) with the clever argument that if he gave up even one of the five principles by which he lived, it would be akin to giving up on all of them!


Malhotra, like Gandhi, is offering seemingly unassailable arguments in defence of the content of the Nityananda video. Arguments proffered by both Gandhi and Malhotra deserve to be decimated with precision by political Hindus because, as this writer intends to delineate in the second part of this essay, these arguments, if not challenged and neutralised effectively and at once, will impact the way our worst enemies, Islam and the Church, will henceforth deal with Hindu dharma and its custodians.


Chapter 2 of Patanjali’s Yogasutra, sutra 30 mentions the five qualities - ahimsa, satya, asteya, brahmacharya and aparigraha mandated in every teacher and seeker of yoga. Patanjali did not foresee yoga, dhyana or chanting being transformed by new-age discount sanyasis into vastly profitable, money-spinning commercial enterprises. Brahmacharya was mandatory for brahmacharis or students residing in the ashram of their Guru. The Guru of course was a sanyasi and would have given up all desires related to matter.


There are four categories of sanyasis; of these the highest, vivideesha sanyasis and vidwat sanyasis alone can claim to be paramahamsa. Nityananda claimed he was a paramahamsa sanyasi. For Malhotra to even attempt to explain away a paramahamsa sanyasis’ experiments in sex with his body is, in the writer’s judgment, the most audacious act of subversion.


Gandhi’s argument that he could not give up his experiments in brahmacharya because this would be as good as giving up on the other four principles too, does not hold water. If Gandhi had to conduct these terrible experiments with women because he was not sure he had perfected his brahmacharya, the logical conclusion from Gandhi’s argument would be that his satya, ahimsa, asteya and aparigraha were imperfect too. Gandhi betrayed the trust of the nation because his mahatmahood rested on his public announcement in 1906 of continence for life. When women entered his ashram to ‘serve’ him, their families would have sent them to serve Gandhi the mahatma.


A sanyasi who lives in the ashram with his students or other sanyasis, is a vidwat or a vividisha sanyasi; he is expected to have perfected his control over mind and body because of the tremendous influence he wields over the student’s mind and thought. If the sanyasi has not attained perfect control even after claims to being paramahamsa, then the Guru who gave such an unworthy student deeksha into sanyasa is as imperfect as his sishya has proved himself to be. And that is why lineage in both Gurus and sishyas continues to remain an important index to judge worthiness.


Hindu society has the right to know Nityananda’s lineage; it is just as important for us to know who accorded him the title of paramahamsa and at what age in his life and within how many years of entering sanyasashrama? Hindu society is not obliged to accept Malhotra’s explanation that Nityananda was conducting experiments in tantra. Even if that were true, then sanyasa dharma mandated that Nityananda should have moved out of society to live in some inaccessible region with only co-seekers for company.


Gandhi’s perverse experiments with women till his death and Nityananda’s sex videos have no dharmic explanation. People like Gandhi and Nityananda who have violated the norms prescribed by Maharshi Patanjali for seekers of brahmagyana through yoga should not aspire for leadership status in Hindu society. Hindus failed in their responsibility to hold Gandhi accountable for perverting exalted Hindu principles. We cannot fail again this time with Nityananda. We have the right to expect nothing but the best from our leaders.


(To be concluded…)

The author is Editor, www.vigilonline.com

User Comments Post a Comment
Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at  editorvijayvaani@gmail.com
Post a Comment

Back to Top