Daaji

Kamlesh D. Patel ( Daaji )

 

Each lineage of wisdom has a succession of those individuals who are tasked with passing the wisdom. These same people are also responsible for the evolution of the path. Sometimes this means taking things in a new direction and sometimes this means buckling down and securing the wisdom against changes. When I was a teen I went to a church that, in one particular hallway has portraits hanging of each of the church’s pastors, in order of succession, going back to the founding and building. In Hinduism and other eastern traditions, this traceable line of gurus might lead backwards in time to a major historical figure or perhaps even a mythological figure. To go back to the example of the church from my youth, it would be like the hall of pastors having portraits of each pastor, in successive order, going back to (and including) figures like Martin Luther and Jesus of Nazareth.

In the lineage of my path, we focus on the modern-most four gurus. We do trace back to sage Patanjali (from around 400 C.E.), but our most recent four gurus only date as far back as the century before last. Starting with the earliest of these four one encounters Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur. He was known as Lalaji. I’m not sure I know why he was called Lalaji. After him came Shri Ram Chandra of Fateghar, who was known as Babuji. I think, and I might be wrong, he was called Babuji because of the name of his professional employment (Babu means something like “Clerk” in his mother language). After Babuji, there came Shri Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari. We called him Chariji, and I think it seems obvious that this affectionate name came from the tail end of his last name. Chariji dropped his body in December of 2014 and his successor, which was announced a good while before Chariji’s passing, is Kamlesh D. Patel.

Kamlesh, almost from the very beginning of his time as our spiritual leader, discouraged us from calling him “Master” as the ones before him were often called. (To be very clear: This usage of the word master is in reference not to dominion over devotees, but rather to dominion over his own self.) Practically immediately, Kamlesh simultaneously discouraged us from calling him Master while still giving space for abhyasis whose minds needed that, to do that. For a period of time, up until quite recently, there seemed to be a middle ground reached in regard to how he was called by us. Normally, one would hear Kamleshji or Kamlesh-bhai … either understood as expressions of affection as well as respect, and still recognizing that he came from where we currently stand. The feeling of these is one of kinship or relation and although the one does end in the same -ji as the earlier gurus (Lalaji, Babuji, Chariji), Kamleshji or Kamlesh-bhai both feel more cumbersome than the names we used with the earlier gurus.

Very recently, however, it would appear as though a new choice is on the table for Kamlesh-bhai. That new appellation is Daaji. To be quite honest, I’m not sure when this came about – though I did learn tonight at meditation that it’s a name he’s used for quite a while already and which children apparently started. I receive lots of emails from a number of Sahaj Marg / Heartfulness sources and I don’t recall reading anything official about a name change – maybe I missed it somewhere in the mix.

Immediately, given what experience I have with Indian languages, I thought it sounded like an affectionate form of calling someone “grandfather.” In researching this a little, I found that in Gujurati, Hindi, and Punjabi the word for grandfather is “daadaa.” (pronounced daah-daah) Kamlesh was born in Gujurat, India – so it could make sense that “daaji” is a combination of daadaa and the suffix -ji, which we use to express deep respect. However, tonight at meditation I also learned that daaji is a term of respect and endearment for the younger brother of one’s father. In a way this feels like a nod to Chariji.

I think Daaji is a wonderful next step in how we’re calling our guruji. It flows easily within the mouth. It’s simple, like nature (See our Maxims). And it seems more in line with names used by the earlier gurus. And so we have it – Daaji. You can learn more from him by clicking here.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

Advertisement

Soon till 10

Image taken from Google Image search

The Sahaj Marg system of Raja Yoga meditation (Heartfulness) is the basis of my spiritual practice. I’ve written about the various aspects of the practice here on Sthapati Samanvayam. I won’t bother with trying to give you the digest version of what my sampradaya (tradition, religious system) / parampara (guru-shishya lineage) entails. You can search for yourself by clicking HERE and HERE and HERE.

Every path that anyone can take offers a structure specific to that path. Some paths have a lot of scripture or many texts for adherents to pull from and others have far less. Some paths have definite lists of dos and don’ts while others just offer guidelines for followers to keep in mind as they travel through life. In the Sahaj Marg / Heartfulness tradition, our gurus contribute to an ever growing body of text from which abhyasis can derive structure, guidance, and clarity. Part of this body is a collection of ten maxims. A listing of those maxims can be found by clicking HERE.

I wanted to write about our Maxims because I think they’re important. To be clear, these are not truly our equivalent of the Abrahamic Ten Commandments. There’s a big difference between our Maxims and those Commandments – namely that there’s no petty, emotional, fickle, and judgmental Old Man Overlord in the sky meeting us on top of a mountain to dish out rules and punishments as the early Jews and Christians believed (and still mostly do). I was talking with a local prefect / preceptor, whom I really admire and am very fortunate to have locally, and I mentioned to her that I planned a short series on the maxims. Her response was, “Very cool. The Maxims are at the base of everything. Mysteriously, they begin to manifest within oneself the more fully one begins to drown in Love for all things with no distinction.”

My plan is to publish a post for each Maxim and share my thoughts and understandings related to that maxim. I encourage you, dear readers, to share your own thoughts and understandings of these maxims in comments on each post. As indicated in my Samyag Akhyate (click to view it) page, you’re more than welcome to disagree with me – you don’t have to be polite or sugar coat anything but you do have to be productive. For those of you who will be reading these posts as a result of them being shared to my other social media, such as my Facebook page, I would ask that if you want to share your comments / thoughts, please share them here and not in a comment on the Facebook post. In that way, others will be able to read your insights and may well benefit from them, too. Thank you for reading!

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

F(or) Y(our) I(nculcation)

vaishnav Ganapatya or ganapatya Vaishnav?

Something has crossed my mind a time or two since my recent vacation … but I’m not sure how to express it. Please forgive me now for any instances of wordiness or talking in circles.

In pretty much all of the Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha’i) you’re either in or out. One of them, or not. Then, once the necessary distinction has been determined, there’s a definitive “what kind” which must usually be decided as part of the sealing of allegiance. Reformed Jew or not? Shiite Muslim or Sunni? Protestant Christian or Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? And even after that, further labels or distinctions are often applied. So you’re a Protestant Christian… Are you a Baptist, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, an Adventist, a Lutheran (just to list a few)? (The last few sentences are by no means meant to be exhaustive.)

The catch is that, almost always, you have be “that” or “not that.” As far as I’ve experienced, you can’t well be a Lutheran and a Baptist. Actually, I know that one’s true… I was a Baptist in my teens and recall far too well that Baptists have ironed out to the “T” why all others are likely to fall somewhere short of the pearly gates. That example aside, I’m still going to assume that one can’t be a Quaker and a Presbyterian or a Sunni and a Shiite. You can’t be Catholic and Protestant, can you? Someone correct me if I’m mistaken, but surely not.

As with many other things, Hinduism offers a staggering amount of freedom. There is definitely an expectation that you will assume responsibility for your own progress; even with a guru’s guidance, the work is your’s. Beyond that, in many many instances you’re free to adhere to the sadhana or sampradaya which most closely suits you. And… this may well involve mixing and matching. (This is not to imply that Hinduism is a willy-nilly kind of religious path. Many instances within Hinduism, a person is indeed free to mix and match according to their individual inclinations and karmas, which is hinted at in the staggering diversity shown in the selection of devas and devis from one home’s mandir to another. But they still are required to exercise true bhakti, in some manner or another, to actually have an experiential relationship with The Divine.) With the permisability of so-called mixing and matching within Hinduism, I’m wondering whether a person can can be one kind of Hindu and another kind of Hundu. This perplexes me a little.

As an aside, but related no less, on my Facebook page I indicated that I’m a “Hindu with Buddhist leanings.” What I mean by this is that Hindu is the shape of my face, and buddhist is whatever shape or style in which I chose to grow my facial hair. Yes, the facial hair is a part of the face and at times is more noticeable than at other times. But it’s still one small aspect of the composition of my face as a whole.

It works to be a Hindu with Buddhist leanings because, technically although often just barely, Hindu and Buddhist are two distinct and different things. As long as you have apples and oranges, you can say you prefer apples with orange juice or oranges with apple juice. But there’s no such fruit as oranpple (orange-apple) or an apprange (apple-orange). And so, it might be said I prefer apples with orange juice. I’m clearly one thing, with a side of another. Point taken?

What about being two kinds of the same thing, can you? “I’m a staunch Baptist, but also follow Lutheran doctrine/dogma.” Umm…probably not. But what about within Hinduism? Is it possible that a devotee can be a Shaivite and a Vaishnav? What if I’m a dedicate Ganapatya (Ganesha is Mahadeva), but join a vaishnava sampradaya? Conflict of interest? I somehow doubt it, but I’ve yet to encounter the logistical specifics. Someone help me out here!

Om Shanti