Guest guest Posted September 21, 1999 Report Share Posted September 21, 1999 Hi Warren. I am about to write a little bit differently about this topic. "Warren E. Donley" wrote: > >In my view, even two 'sannyAsin-s', begging for > >alms together, are not sannyAsin-s. A sannyAsin is one who > >has renounced everything including the company or > >association of another sannyAsin. > > Or maybe he's gone even further and also renounced the lack of human > company. Or (going still further), maybe he's renounced the dualistic notion > of "sannyAs" entirely. I know there's an awful lot of talk about renouncing the world. I believe Frank speaks from a differerent perspective & one which I support .. that of embracing what Is. I know that in order to be able to become conscious of pure awareness one does in fact transcend illusion. Yet as Frank points out .. the play continues & It is All Brahman. Does that mean that one who is enlightened is a renunciate? Or does that mean that one who is enlightened & liberated embraces the world as the Self? Is transcendence the same as renunciation? Some say no it isn't. Some say that renouncing is a 'doing'. Some say that transcendence is natural, effortless & spontaneous once you are taught how to take a correct angle & dive beyond thought. Some might say that pure Consciousness is neutral (not judgemental into an either or .. renunciate position) & is actually accepting (embracive) in order to to Be the All. Perhaps it might be said that as soon as you renounce .. you take a stance that cuts It (the all) into parts .. At the same time the play continues, so personal preferences still express. I know I hear Frank often talking about being non judgemental. I wonder if he & others might say some more about this in relation to the idea that we need to work hard & to renounce the world so as to not be bound by it. Peace, Col > Anyone who clings to a name or state like "sannyAsin" hasn't actually > renounced anything. > > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > For Temporary stoppage of your Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-nomail > > To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-normal > > To receive email digest (one per day) send a blank email to <advaitin-digest > > To to advaitin list, send a blank email to <advaitin-> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2000 Report Share Posted September 15, 2000 namaste. The goal of an advaitin is to have the Knowledge "jIvo brahmaiva na paraH" as an integral part of him/herself, with proper understanding of what is jIva and brahman. That is, advaitin is SELF-seeking. This is an arduous task looked from the worldly perspective. Either the advaitin has to withdraw from worldly activities, or if he/she participates in worldly activities, conduct them with a witness attitude. While there are some who have adopted sannyAsa Ashrama, the majority of humans are gR^ihasthAs with spouse and/or children and what people call are worldly commitments. For a genuine advaitin, whether he/she is a sannyAsin or a gr^ihastha, there is a danger (is 'danger' the right word here?) that he/she would not fit into the worldly mould. [What I mean by worldly mould here, the world expects a certain amount of individuality, ego, for what it calls success, while in advaita it is the very surrendering of the ego and individuality is a necessary requisite for SELF-Knowledge.] For a person who has taken sannyAsa, the rest of the world would see him/her as a selfish person (note the lower case s in selfish). This person would be accused of abdicating his/her worldly responsibility. For a gr^ihastha, the problem is of a different type but the result is still the same. A gr^ihastha with serious advaitic bent of mind does not find the worldly activities tasteful; this person withdraws from the worldly activities to a great extent; so much so, even the spouse and children accuse this person of not pulling what they think the fair share of the load. Thus, for a genuine advaitic sAdhaka, whether he/she be a sannyAsi or a gr^ihastha, that person can be branded as selfish. Now, my question on these thoughts: Is what I described above, a possible scenario? Any comments on these thoughts? Regards Gummuluru Murthy ----- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2000 Report Share Posted September 15, 2000 --- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote: > namaste. That is, advaitin is > SELF-seeking. > Now, my question on these thoughts: Is what I > described above, a > possible scenario? Any comments on these thoughts? > > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ---------------------- Why should the rest of the world look upon a sanyasi as a selfish person?This can depend on several possible scenarios: 1.Here is a sanyasi who is living in an "ashram" built by his many rich and affluent admirers and surrounded by young and beautiful multiracial(basically rich) bevy of deciples who visit the ashram on an annual basis as a recluse for temperory peace of mind. Has this sanyasi really renounced the worldy pleasures and pains? Is he selfish? 2.Here is a sanyasi who has been a faithful deciple of another Swamiji in the Hills and having been asked by him to propagate 'Advaita' has converted a residence in the suburbs of a City into a small pathetic "ashram" where he depends on the donataions of the few visitors who drop in and to whom he reads out from the Swamiji's books on various Upanishads. Has this sanyasi really renounced the worldly pleasures and pains? Is he selfish? 3.Here is a sanyasi who does not stay put in a particular place.He constantly does parikrama of the Narmada River and stops by the bank of the river during nights for rest.He depends on what is brought to him as offering of food by the villagers.He talks to people only if approached and only if asked questions about the Puranas,the Gita and the Upanishads. Has this sanyasi really renounced the worldly pleasures and pains? Is he selfish? Is not this sanyasi a Brahmavid? In the other case,having entered grahastashrama, is it not but fair for his spouse and children to look forward to his pulling a fair share of the load? A true grahasta will first fulfil his worldly responsibility of providing for his family before taking up genuine advaitic sadhana.Or else, he should not have opted to becoming a grahasta in the first place. Gaudapada says: 'Tatvam Adhyaatmikam Dhrishtva,tatvam dhrishtva tu bahyataHa,TatvIbhutastadaaramaha,Tatvat aprachuto bhavet.' 'Having seen the Truth deep within yourself,Having seen the Truth that lies outside yourself,Having become the Truth yourself, deriving Bliss ,never be away from the Truth.' The SELF-seeking Advaitin ,then,verily,sheds the 'seeking' and abides in the 'SELF.' Hari Om! Swaminarayan Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2000 Report Share Posted September 15, 2000 Hi! When the Sadhaka dwells in the SELF there is no selfishness, since there is no more self identification and associated differentiation from others. When the Sadhaka is striving for Self Knowledge, he has to watch out for his clever, elusive, and tricky mind making him selfish and arguing that it is ok. This should apply to grahasta or sanyasi. -- Vis Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > > namaste. > > The goal of an advaitin is to have the Knowledge "jIvo brahmaiva na > paraH" as an integral part of him/herself, with proper understanding > of what is jIva and brahman. That is, advaitin is SELF-seeking. > This is an arduous task looked from the worldly perspective. Either > the advaitin has to withdraw from worldly activities, or if he/she > participates in worldly activities, conduct them with a witness > attitude. While there are some who have adopted sannyAsa Ashrama, > the majority of humans are gR^ihasthAs with spouse and/or children > and what people call are worldly commitments. For a genuine advaitin, > whether he/she is a sannyAsin or a gr^ihastha, there is a danger > (is 'danger' the right word here?) that he/she would not fit into > the worldly mould. [What I mean by worldly mould here, the world > expects a certain amount of individuality, ego, for what it calls > success, while in advaita it is the very surrendering of the ego > and individuality is a necessary requisite for SELF-Knowledge.] > > For a person who has taken sannyAsa, the rest of the world would > see him/her as a selfish person (note the lower case s in selfish). > This person would be accused of abdicating his/her worldly > responsibility. For a gr^ihastha, the problem is of a different type > but the result is still the same. A gr^ihastha with serious advaitic > bent of mind does not find the worldly activities tasteful; this > person withdraws from the worldly activities to a great extent; > so much so, even the spouse and children accuse this person of not > pulling what they think the fair share of the load. Thus, for a genuine > advaitic sAdhaka, whether he/she be a sannyAsi or a gr^ihastha, that > person can be branded as selfish. > > Now, my question on these thoughts: Is what I described above, a > possible scenario? Any comments on these thoughts? > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ----- > > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Searchable List Archives are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > Temporary holiday stoppage of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-nomail > > To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-normal > > To receive email digest (one per day, send a blank email to <advaitin-digest > > To to advaitin list, send a blank email to <advaitin-> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2000 Report Share Posted September 16, 2000 Dear Murthygaru, namstE! My teacher Swamini Saradapriyanandaji told me "Everything is a incident, nothing is an accident". The reason for our arrival in to this bhoolOka is "prarabdha". We are destined to do certain things, which brought us here. This prarabdha (destiny) is equally applicable to a sanyAsis (renouncers) and saMsAris (householders). In Bhagawad Gita, it is said: yOga saMnyasta karmANaM jnAna saMchinna saMSayaM AtmavaMtaM na karmANi nibadhnaMti dhanaMjaya || 4-41 "He who has renounced actions by YOGA, whose doubts are rent asunder by 'Knowledge, ' who is self-possessed, actions do not bind him, O Dhananjaya." Even after experiencing the Brahman, one still undergoes the "Prarabdha". If the prarabdha is to renounce and construct a hut, then he will certainly do so. And if the prarabdha is to marry a woman and give birth to children, then he will undergo it. No complaints! Most of our epics narrate the incidents where Prarabdha binds certain persons. For example during the time of Ramavatara there are rishies who have desired intimate relationship with Lord Rama. Because of that desire the rishies born as gopies in the Krishnavatara, where they enjoy all that intimacy. It is said that it is Lord Krishna's "prarabdha" that he has to fulfill the desire of gopies, and it is rishies prarabdha to get their desire fulfilled. If we closely observe, then we realize that it is *not* Lord Krishna's desire, but it is rishies desire which brought gopies! "Desire" brings one in to this life, binds him. And intelligent annihilation of desire (i.e. burning the seeds of desires) assures that there is no re-birth. anASritaH karmaphalaM kAryaM karma karOtiyaH sa sanyAseeca yOgeeca na niragnir nacAkriyaH || 6-1 The Blessed Lord said: 1. He who performs his bounden duty without depending on the fruits-of-actions --- he is a SAMNYASIN and a YOGIN ; not he who (has renounced) is without fire and without action. In my opinion, a householder, who *ignores* his duty towards his wife and children, in the *pretension* of "brahmagnana" is an ignorant one! He is not setting the right example to the world. A wife expects enjoyment from her husband, children expect fatherly love from their father, friends expect certain kind of advise, employer expects certain kinds of duties ---- all these are duties which came to him because of his "destiny". Now he has to intelligently act in order to get rid of these bindings. He should perform all his duties with utmost sincerity, while at the same time maintaining his inner vision (Adi Shankara said this vision as "cittaM braHMani ramatE"). Same is the case with a Sanyasi, he is bound to be a sanyasi. A sanyasi has got certain rules to follow, which are prescribed through the lineage (1) ananda sAmpradaya (2) giri saMpradAya (3) puri sAmpradAya etceteras. If a sanyasi has desired a world of an householder *thinking* that there is more enjoyment and *desiring* it, then he is no more a sanyasi... Either a householder, or a renounced --- one should be very clear on the fundamentals. i.e. Prarabdha brought this role (sanyasa or samsara) to me, hence I shall perform this role so well that there should be no mistake, while performing this role I shall not again bind myself in to another birth. (yOgaH karmasu kousalaM - dexterity in action is yoga). I would strongly recommend the text "janaka sulabha saMvAda" in Mahabharata for reading in this context. Where King Janaka, a Jnani who is referred in Gita and other sacred texts as a Seer, and Yogini Sulabha (known for her renunciation) participate in a debate regarding household duties and conflicts with renunciation. "Everything is an incident, nothing is an accident" I remain yours, Madhava Gummuluru Murthy [gmurthy] Friday, September 15, 2000 4:27 PM advaitin is advaitin (perceived to be) selfish? Now, my question on these thoughts: Is what I described above, a possible scenario? Any comments on these thoughts? Regards Gummuluru Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2000 Report Share Posted September 16, 2000 Madhava K. Turumella wrote: > > My teacher Swamini Saradapriyanandaji told me "Everything is a incident, > nothing is an accident". > > The reason for our arrival in to this bhoolOka is "prarabdha". We are > destined to do certain things, which brought us here. This prarabdha > (destiny) is equally applicable to a sanyAsis (renouncers) and saMsAris > (householders). > > In Bhagawad Gita, it is said: > yOga saMnyasta karmANaM jnAna saMchinna saMSayaM > AtmavaMtaM na karmANi nibadhnaMti dhanaMjaya || 4-41 > > "He who has renounced actions by YOGA, whose doubts are rent asunder by > 'Knowledge, ' who is self-possessed, actions do not bind him, O Dhananjaya." > > Even after experiencing the Brahman, one still undergoes the "Prarabdha". > If the prarabdha is to renounce and construct a hut, then he will certainly > do so. And if the prarabdha is to marry a woman and give birth to children, > then he will undergo it. No complaints! > hariH OM! madhavaji- very important point and very much *to* the point! :-) pranaam, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 namaste. My apologies for this late response. In my original post, I was wondering whether the society (and also the spouse and children of a gr^ihastha sAdhaka) will view a genuine sAdhaka as possibly selfish. The sAdhaka is (and should be) correctly oblivious of such perceptions. In response to that post, On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, shri Swaminarayan T wrote: > > Why should the rest of the world look upon a sanyasi > as a selfish person?This can depend on several > possible scenarios: > > 1.Here is a sanyasi who is living in an "ashram" built > by his many rich and affluent admirers and surrounded > by young and beautiful multiracial(basically rich) > bevy of deciples who visit the ashram on an annual > basis as a recluse for temperory peace of mind. > > Has this sanyasi really renounced the worldy pleasures > and pains? Is he selfish? > > 2.Here is a sanyasi who has been a faithful deciple of > another Swamiji in the Hills and having been asked by > him to propagate 'Advaita' has converted a residence > in the suburbs of a City into a small pathetic > "ashram" where he depends on the donataions of the few > visitors who drop in and to whom he reads out from the > Swamiji's books on various Upanishads. > > Has this sanyasi really renounced the worldly > pleasures and pains? Is he selfish? > My response to the above is: in the two examples above, the persons may be in sannyAsi Ashram, but they are not sannyAsin-s. In my view, even two 'sannyAsin-s', begging for alms together, are not sannyAsin-s. A sannyAsin is one who has renounced everything including the company or association of another sannyAsin. > 3.Here is a sanyasi who does not stay put in a > particular place.He constantly does parikrama of the > Narmada River and stops by the bank of the river > during nights for rest.He depends on what is brought > to him as offering of food by the villagers.He talks > to people only if approached and only if asked > questions about the Puranas,the Gita and the > Upanishads. > > Has this sanyasi really renounced the worldly > pleasures and pains? Is he selfish? Is not this > sanyasi a Brahmavid? > yes, and my praNAms to him. My question is with the perception of the society about a genuine sAdhaka when he/she finds dis-interest in what the society calls are the responsibilities of the individual. I have seen instances where when one takes up sannyAsa, a normal comment made by the society is that the person has taken up sannyAsa ashram to run away from worldly problems. These comments should not deter a genuine sAdhaka from his/her goal. But lesser people, giving weight to such comments, can be deflected of their aspirations. Even bhagavatpAda shri shankara was subjected to such dissuation when He wanted to take up sannyAsa. > In the other case,having entered grahastashrama, > is it not but fair for his spouse and children to look > forward to his pulling a fair share of the load? A > true grahasta will first fulfil his worldly > responsibility of providing for his family before > taking up genuine advaitic sadhana.Or else, he should > not have opted to becoming a grahasta in the first > place. > Please see my comment to shri Madhava's response. Shri Madhava made a similar point as above. > [...] > > Hari Om! > > Swaminarayan > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 namaste. My apologies for this late response. In my original post, I was wondering whether the society (and also the spouse and children of a gr^ihastha sAdhaka) will view a genuine sAdhaka as possibly selfish. The sAdhaka is (and should be), in my view, correctly oblivious of such perceptions. On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, shri Madhava K. Turumella wrote: > > Dear Murthygaru, > > namstE! > > My teacher Swamini Saradapriyanandaji told me "Everything is a incident, > nothing is an accident". > > The reason for our arrival in to this bhoolOka is "prarabdha". We are > destined to do certain things, which brought us here. This prarabdha > (destiny) is equally applicable to a sanyAsis (renouncers) and saMsAris > (householders). > > [...] > > Even after experiencing the Brahman, one still undergoes the "Prarabdha". > If the prarabdha is to renounce and construct a hut, then he will certainly > do so. And if the prarabdha is to marry a woman and give birth to children, > then he will undergo it. No complaints! > > [...] > In my opinion, a householder, who *ignores* his duty towards his wife and > children, in the *pretension* of "brahmagnana" is an ignorant one! He is > not setting the right example to the world. A wife expects enjoyment from > her husband, children expect fatherly love from their father, friends expect > certain kind of advise, employer expects certain kinds of duties ---- all > these are duties which came to him because of his "destiny". Now he has to > intelligently act in order to get rid of these bindings. He should perform > all his duties with utmost sincerity, while at the same time maintaining his > inner vision (Adi Shankara said this vision as "cittaM braHMani ramatE"). > I agree fully with what has been said above. It is the prArabdha which made us what we are and which will make us what we will be. I accept that fully, without questions. But I have difficulty with what you call are the householder's 'duties' and the willing submission to the expectations of the society. Now, how does one define the duties of a gr^ihastha that are mentioned above? In the upanishadic times and even in shri shankara's time, the duties of any are well understood by everyone. They are snAnaM, sandhyA japo homo devatAnAmca pUjanam.h AtithyaM vaisvadevaM ca ShaTkarmANi dine dine bath (which is common to all and does not count), sandhyA, japam, homam, daivapUja, Atithyam, vaisvadevam are the six nitya karmA-s. Everyone (spouse, children, the society and the sAdhaka) in the early times understood that these are the duties. However with passage of time, and with thicker layers of avidyA engulfing everyone, there is no longer a good understanding of the essential duties of a gr^ihastha. The situation I am referring to (in my last post) comes in when different people have different ideas of what are the duties. It is not surprising nowadays for e.g. that the spouse may think a social small-talk at social get-togethers, keeping up with the Joneses, acquiring more gadgets etc are part of the householder's duties while a sAdhaka may have no interest in such endeavours. In such cases, the spouse can very well brand the sAdhaka of selfishness (I am defining selfishness here as that which takes care of his/her interest (happiness) without regard to say the spousal or societal expectations). shri shankara says in bhaja govindam " kah te kAntaH kah te putraH .." who is your wife, who is your child? and asks everyone to ponder on it. Spouse is a sahadharmacAri. i.e., one who is a co-traveller in maintaining (or doing) the dharma. In the innumerable lives that we go through, the spouse in this life is a co-traveller for this life only. It is only our good fortune, prArabdha that we are blessed with that spouse and child. But beyond that, the verse from bhaja govindam tells us to ponder what the spouse and child and the society are. Thus, I do not fully agree that the sole duty of a householder is to secure the enjoyment of spouse and children. Doing the six nitya karmA-s are the duty of the householder. Enjoyments are to be derived from that for everyone in the household. > Same is the case with a Sanyasi, he is bound to be a sanyasi. A sanyasi has > got certain rules to follow, which are prescribed through the lineage (1) > ananda sAmpradaya (2) giri saMpradAya (3) puri sAmpradAya etceteras. If > a sanyasi has desired a world of an householder *thinking* that there is > more enjoyment and *desiring* it, then he is no more a sanyasi... > I have the highest respect for the sannyAsin-s. However, sometimes I wonder: will a sannyAsi have a sAmpradAya? If he/she has a sampradAya, is he/she a sannyAsi? Isn't it a contradiction in terms? We, the gr^ihasthA-s, are bound in this bondage of saMsAra, of spouse, children and other so-called duties. The sAmpradAya sannyAsi, which you referred above, is bound in his/her own bondage of names, maThA-s etc. Even if two 'sannyAsins' beg for their alms together, I think they are not sannyAsins. A sannyAsin is one who has renounced everything, even the association of another sannyAsin. > Either a householder, or a renounced --- one should be very clear on the > fundamentals. i.e. Prarabdha brought this role (sanyasa or samsara) to me, > hence I shall perform this role so well that there should be no mistake, > while performing this role I shall not again bind myself in to another > birth. (yOgaH karmasu kousalaM - dexterity in action is yoga). > > I would strongly recommend the text "janaka sulabha saMvAda" in Mahabharata > for reading in this context. Where King Janaka, a Jnani who is referred in > Gita and other sacred texts as a Seer, and Yogini Sulabha (known for her > renunciation) participate in a debate regarding household duties and > conflicts with renunciation. > Which is more important here, to play the role or to break the shackles which we know are the shackles? I agree that they are not competing alternatives, but still: If one is *playing a role*, it means he/she is not genuinely immersed in the activity, which leads again to the point I was trying to make. Yes, it is our prArabdha that brought us this role. Is it not in our prArabdha also that we break the shackles and realize what we are? Even bhagavatpAda shri shankara broke the shackles in spite of His mother's and relatives' contra-appeal when He took sannyAsa. As always, I will be interested in your comments. Thanks very much for recommending the janaka sulabha saMvAda. I have read that quite sometime ago, and I will read it again in this context. > "Everything is an incident, nothing is an accident" > > I remain yours, > Madhava > > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 >In my view, even two 'sannyAsin-s', begging for >alms together, are not sannyAsin-s. A sannyAsin is one who >has renounced everything including the company or >association of another sannyAsin. Or maybe he's gone even further and also renounced the lack of human company. Or (going still further), maybe he's renounced the dualistic notion of "sannyAs" entirely. Anyone who clings to a name or state like "sannyAsin" hasn't actually renounced anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 Namaste I fully understand every one knows the final answer, that advaitists are not necessarily selfish personally. But there can be exceptions of pseudo-advaitists who just talk advaita but do something else. As for genuine advaitists, my answers are as follow.. Many issues have been mixed up here. Separate them out, and you will see the answers. What is a society? People come together to live to achieve productivity, safety, security and so on. Without a society you have to do every thing yourself which means, any one who can't grow rice in his backyard, has to stave and die in a week or 10 days. But if you are in a society you can reap the convenience, by doing your own thing such as carpentry, and expect other services done by others. Being in a society gives you benefits, but also brings with it, responsibilities. Sanyasi is a person who left the society - whether advaitist or not (even a dvaitist). This person has to live on his own, and should not enter the society on his own, unless invited by a king, or some people looking for his knowledge. If a sanyasi enters society for food, that nullifies his title. But being a sanyasi or rishi still does not provide for escape from certain responsibilities like paying taxes or giving advice to society, protecting the society with their mantra power. The king always has the right to ask sanyasis and rishis for tax! They had non-taxable status. This evidence is from Kalidasa's Hari Vamsam, when Dushyanta enters the ashram and falls in love with Damayanti, her friends tease him why he entered a rishi's ashram. He replies tactily that he came to collect his taxes due. Even sanyasis used to pay 1/7 of their income as tax. They do get some income if somebody donates money, or they have to pay from whatever nuts and other foods they reap from the forest. Tax has to be paid because king is responsible for their safety from animals, thieves etc. Now realizing self can not be selfish, because when you realize the Self, you achieve oneness with every one, and do not even perceive anyone else. That means a person who has truely achieved the self does not feel hungry etc. If a person is not even hungry, the question of being selfish does not arise. (Oh yeah, literally if you achieve self you are selfish! And if you did not yet achieve the self you are un-selfish. Just kidding) The example of a person who does not care children or does not show taste for family is pseudo-advaita. I think the problem gets resolved if we start using the term pseudo-advaita. Hope this helps. Bhadraiah Mallampalli advaitin , Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > namaste. > > The goal of an advaitin is to have the Knowledge "jIvo brahmaiva na > paraH" as an integral part of him/herself, with proper understanding > of what is jIva and brahman. That is, advaitin is SELF-seeking. > This is an arduous task looked from the worldly perspective. Either > the advaitin has to withdraw from worldly activities, or if he/she > participates in worldly activities, conduct them with a witness > attitude. While there are some who have adopted sannyAsa Ashrama, > the majority of humans are gR^ihasthAs with spouse and/or children > and what people call are worldly commitments. For a genuine advaitin, > whether he/she is a sannyAsin or a gr^ihastha, there is a danger > (is 'danger' the right word here?) that he/she would not fit into > the worldly mould. [What I mean by worldly mould here, the world > expects a certain amount of individuality, ego, for what it calls > success, while in advaita it is the very surrendering of the ego > and individuality is a necessary requisite for SELF-Knowledge.] > > For a person who has taken sannyAsa, the rest of the world would > see him/her as a selfish person (note the lower case s in selfish). > This person would be accused of abdicating his/her worldly > responsibility. For a gr^ihastha, the problem is of a different type > but the result is still the same. A gr^ihastha with serious advaitic > bent of mind does not find the worldly activities tasteful; this > person withdraws from the worldly activities to a great extent; > so much so, even the spouse and children accuse this person of not > pulling what they think the fair share of the load. Thus, for a genuine > advaitic sAdhaka, whether he/she be a sannyAsi or a gr^ihastha, that > person can be branded as selfish. > > Now, my question on these thoughts: Is what I described above, a > possible scenario? Any comments on these thoughts? > > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ---- - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 Typo: sanyasi's had NO no-taxable status. Scriptures say: Mendicants must live on "yAdruchhika" (random) food. Something that is not got by making effort to acquire it, such as asking, etc. Rishis even used to eat nIvAra (rice that was not cultivated but a few natural rice grains that grow on their own). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2000 Report Share Posted September 21, 2000 Hi Col, >Perhaps it might be said that as soon as you renounce .. you take a stance that cuts It (the all) into parts .. Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make (see below). The very concept of "renunciation" is inherently dualistic. >"Warren E. Donley" wrote: >> >> Or maybe he's gone even further and also renounced the lack of human >> company. Or (going still further), maybe he's renounced the dualistic notion >> of "sannyAs" entirely. >> >> Anyone who clings to a name or state like "sannyAsin" hasn't actually >> renounced anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2000 Report Share Posted September 22, 2000 "Warren E. Donley" <WEDONLEY@N...> wrote: > Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make (see below). The very > concept of "renunciation" is inherently dualistic. > Not necessarily, if you understand what true renunciation really means and entails. The refusal to attach value to renunciation leads to highly biased attitudes towards the few real sannyAsins we have today. Meanwhile, all sorts of fraudulent tricksters (both with and without a traditional following) are being acclaimed as great masters, just because they have a way with words, or they have an over-active publication and/or propaganda machinery behind them. A credulous population believes them, being taken in by the external trappings of power and prestige. This is part of the contemporary outlook, I suppose. In this trend towards a "tAntric" approach to non-duality, I wish people would keep in mind the centrality of true renunciation in Sankaran Advaita. The value of renunciation can be likened to that of cutting a diamond with another diamond. The diamond that is used to cut can be ignored only after the diamond that needs to be cut is cut. To refuse to do so, because it is somehow "inherently dualistic" only ensures that the original diamond remains uncut. Out of many millions of people, only one is a Ramana Maharishi, who did not need formal sannyAsa. For the many millions, sannyAsa is an aid towards reaching the goal. To argue that the means is itself dualistic, and that it can therefore be somehow dispensed with, is actually self-defeating. Vidyasankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2000 Report Share Posted September 22, 2000 Hi, If one carefully reads "Maharshi's Gospel" to get a clear grasp on this subject. The question of whether to renounce or not will not arise as it is decided by prarabdha. Sanyasa is in the mind. As the thought that "I am a householder" will haunt the aspirant so will the thought "I am a sanyasin". Be a householder or a sanyasin holding on to the Self which the only real thing will be the way for salvation. To enumerate this point the following illustration can be useful. It was April and the summer vacations had begun. In order to avoid the children from going in the sun a smart mom decided to do engage them indoors. She called them and said, "Dear children, will you not help your mother to properly arrange the grocessories so that I have no trouble identifying what is in which container. You father has got identical "dalda" tins. You stick the name of the item on the respective containers". The children were ready to help their mom, got colour pens, gum etc and plunged into work immediately. The next day while making coffee the mother picked the container with the label "sugar" only to find the suji inside. She asked her kids why they did that way. The kids said that the aunt would enter the container thinking it to be sugar but would only find suji. Likewise external paraphernalia will not bring about salvation. Whether a sanyasin or not happiness is here and now. If it were to be obtained at a future point in time, then it is not permanent. That which is not permanent is not worth pursuing. All one has to do is to hold on to the Self which is the only real thing. Sri. Bhagavan in Guru Ramana Vachana Mala says " Oh mind! you have already fallen into enough misery by thinking that you are the atman. Why do you want to fall into further trouble by thinking that you are the paramatman. Be what you are. Happiness is here and now". Prasanna The Ribhu Gita often refered by Bhagavan Sri Ramana says that "there is no laufty spiritual practice, no evil ego, no spiritual waters of ganges, no god including lord Sadasiva who we adore...All that exists is the Self and Self alone". On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote: > Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:14:31 -0000 > Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan > advaitin > advaitin > Re: is advaitin (perceived to be) selfish? > > > "Warren E. Donley" <WEDONLEY@N...> wrote: > > > Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make (see below). > The > very > > concept of "renunciation" is inherently dualistic. > > > > Not necessarily, if you understand what true renunciation really > means and entails. The refusal to attach value to renunciation leads > to highly biased attitudes towards the few real sannyAsins we have > today. Meanwhile, all sorts of fraudulent tricksters (both with and > without a traditional following) are being acclaimed as great > masters, just because they have a way with words, or they have an > over-active publication and/or propaganda machinery behind them. A > credulous population believes them, being taken in by the external > trappings of power and prestige. This is part of the contemporary > outlook, I suppose. In this trend towards a "tAntric" approach to > non-duality, I wish people would keep in mind the centrality of true > renunciation in Sankaran Advaita. > > The value of renunciation can be likened to that of cutting a diamond > with another diamond. The diamond that is used to cut can be ignored > only after the diamond that needs to be cut is cut. To refuse to do > so, because it is somehow "inherently dualistic" only ensures that > the original diamond remains uncut. Out of many millions of people, > only one is a Ramana Maharishi, who did not need formal sannyAsa. For > the many millions, sannyAsa is an aid towards reaching the goal. To > argue that the means is itself dualistic, and that it can therefore > be somehow dispensed with, is actually self-defeating. > > Vidyasankar > > > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > For Temporary stoppage of your Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-nomail > > To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-normal > > To receive email digest (one per day) send a blank email to <advaitin-digest > > To to advaitin list, send a blank email to <advaitin-> > > > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* V.Prasanna Shrinivas ~*~ Phone: Dept : +91-80-309 2567/2378 Research Student ~*~ Hostel : +91-80-309 2454 Dept of Management Studies ~*~ House : +91-0452-702 266 Indian Institute of Science ~*~ E-mail: shri Bangalore 560 012 ~*~ Hostel: N-84, IISc Hostel, IISc,B'lore In Case of Emergency Contact: K.S.Swaminathan Mobile No : 98440-91843 ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2000 Report Share Posted September 22, 2000 Sri RamaKrishna Paramahamsa says that knowledge is as useless as ignorance to attain the supreme goal through a good illustration. Supposing a thorn pricks our leg. We use another thorn to take it out. After that we throw both the thorns away. Likewise, knowledge dispels ignorance. But after dispelling ignorance, knowledge has no use. For the Self is beyond duality and is here and now. On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, V.Prasanna Shrinivas wrote: > Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:20:50 +0530 (IST) > V.Prasanna Shrinivas <shri > advaitin > advaitin > Re: Re: is advaitin (perceived to be) selfish? > > > > Hi, > > If one carefully reads "Maharshi's Gospel" to get a clear grasp on > this subject. The question of whether to renounce or not will not arise as > it is decided by prarabdha. Sanyasa is in the mind. As the thought that "I > am a householder" will haunt the aspirant so will the thought "I am a > sanyasin". Be a householder or a sanyasin holding on to the Self which the > only real thing will be the way for salvation. > > To enumerate this point the following illustration can be useful. > It was April and the summer vacations had begun. In order to avoid the > children from going in the sun a smart mom decided to do engage them > indoors. She called them and said, "Dear children, will you not help your > mother to properly arrange the grocessories so that I have no trouble > identifying what is in which container. You father has got identical > "dalda" tins. You stick the name of the item on the respective > containers". The children were ready to help their mom, got colour pens, > gum etc and plunged into work immediately. The next day while making > coffee the mother picked the container with the label "sugar" only to find > the suji inside. She asked her kids why they did that way. The kids said > that the aunt would enter the container thinking it to be sugar but would > only find suji. > > Likewise external paraphernalia will not bring about salvation. > Whether a sanyasin or not happiness is here and now. If it were to be > obtained at a future point in time, then it is not permanent. That which > is not permanent is not worth pursuing. All one has to do is to hold on to > the Self which is the only real thing. Sri. Bhagavan in Guru Ramana > Vachana Mala says " Oh mind! you have already fallen into enough misery by > thinking that you are the atman. Why do you want to fall into further > trouble by thinking that you are the paramatman. Be what you are. > Happiness is here and now". > > Prasanna > > > The Ribhu Gita often refered by Bhagavan Sri Ramana says that > "there is no laufty spiritual practice, no evil ego, no spiritual waters > of ganges, no god including lord Sadasiva who we adore...All that exists > is the Self and Self alone". > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote: > > > Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:14:31 -0000 > > Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan > > advaitin > > advaitin > > Re: is advaitin (perceived to be) selfish? > > > > > > "Warren E. Donley" <WEDONLEY@N...> wrote: > > > > > Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make (see below). > > The > > very > > > concept of "renunciation" is inherently dualistic. > > > > > > > Not necessarily, if you understand what true renunciation really > > means and entails. The refusal to attach value to renunciation leads > > to highly biased attitudes towards the few real sannyAsins we have > > today. Meanwhile, all sorts of fraudulent tricksters (both with and > > without a traditional following) are being acclaimed as great > > masters, just because they have a way with words, or they have an > > over-active publication and/or propaganda machinery behind them. A > > credulous population believes them, being taken in by the external > > trappings of power and prestige. This is part of the contemporary > > outlook, I suppose. In this trend towards a "tAntric" approach to > > non-duality, I wish people would keep in mind the centrality of true > > renunciation in Sankaran Advaita. > > > > The value of renunciation can be likened to that of cutting a diamond > > with another diamond. The diamond that is used to cut can be ignored > > only after the diamond that needs to be cut is cut. To refuse to do > > so, because it is somehow "inherently dualistic" only ensures that > > the original diamond remains uncut. Out of many millions of people, > > only one is a Ramana Maharishi, who did not need formal sannyAsa. For > > the many millions, sannyAsa is an aid towards reaching the goal. To > > argue that the means is itself dualistic, and that it can therefore > > be somehow dispensed with, is actually self-defeating. > > > > Vidyasankar > > > > > > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > > For Temporary stoppage of your Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-nomail > > > To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-normal > > > To receive email digest (one per day) send a blank email to <advaitin-digest > > > To to advaitin list, send a blank email to <advaitin-> > > > > > > > > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > V.Prasanna Shrinivas ~*~ Phone: Dept : +91-80-309 2567/2378 > Research Student ~*~ Hostel : +91-80-309 2454 > Dept of Management Studies ~*~ House : +91-0452-702 266 > Indian Institute of Science ~*~ E-mail: shri > Bangalore 560 012 ~*~ Hostel: N-84, IISc Hostel, IISc,B'lore > > In Case of Emergency Contact: K.S.Swaminathan > Mobile No : 98440-91843 > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > For Temporary stoppage of your Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-nomail > > To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-normal > > To receive email digest (one per day) send a blank email to <advaitin-digest > > To to advaitin list, send a blank email to <advaitin-> > > > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* V.Prasanna Shrinivas ~*~ Phone: Dept : +91-80-309 2567/2378 Research Student ~*~ Hostel : +91-80-309 2454 Dept of Management Studies ~*~ House : +91-0452-702 266 Indian Institute of Science ~*~ E-mail: shri Bangalore 560 012 ~*~ Hostel: N-84, IISc Hostel, IISc,B'lore In Case of Emergency Contact: K.S.Swaminathan Mobile No : 98440-91843 ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2000 Report Share Posted September 22, 2000 "V.Prasanna Shrinivas" <shri@m...> wrote: > it is decided by prarabdha. Sanyasa is in the mind. As the thought It is rather tempting to place everything at the door of prArabdha. Ramana Maharishi gets very often misinterpreted by people who don't know the half of it. Let even one of those who quote Ramana demonstrate that they can be totally unattached like him, instead of proclaiming themselves to be liberated, and going about setting up organizations and websites, to deliberately attract people looking for a "quick fix". What is prArabdha? It is nothing more than the sum total of action that has been done in the past, under the mistaken notion that the Self is a doer of action and an enjoyer of fruits of action. If realization is also a result of prArabdha, then it is a curious realization indeed. that "I > am a householder" will haunt the aspirant so will the thought "I am a > sanyasin". Be a householder or a sanyasin holding on to the Self I submit that it won't haunt the true sannyAsin, with the emphasis being on "true". The external paraphernalia may be a hindrance for some, in which case, they should not have become sannyAsins in the first place. You often hear nowadays, of people who leave the sannyAsa stage, to re-enter society. Hiding behind "it is all mental" is simply hogwash. On the other hand, the idea "I am a householder" will necessarily haunt every householder. Something or the other will happen to bring him or her back to that limited conception. There will always be some concern for money, or for a house, or for the health of spouse and children - the list goes on. Re: throwing away the thorn used to pluck another thorn - I, for one, am not convinced that any of us (including me) who haunt these mailing lists have been able to successfully remove the first thorn. The second thorn can be thrown away after the first thorn has been removed, not before. Notwithstanding what Ramakrishna Paramahamsa said about knowledge and ignorance, he still advised a small group of his disciples to become sannyAsins. This could only be because he recognized the value of the thing. It is all well and good to say that happiness is always here and now, but so long as the mind is not in that constant state, it had better search around for the second thorn to remove the first. All this negative attitude towards the tradition of sannyAsa is like saying, "oh, the second thorn is a thorn too, why should I use it?" The question reveals a hidden desire to continue with the first thorn. Vidyasankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2000 Report Share Posted September 22, 2000 Namaste, This verse from the Gita [V:6] is a good one to meditate on in this context: " Karma-Yoga is a means to Sanyasa: How is it that the aim of the Karma-Yoga is that[true Yoga or Sanyasa]? Listen: sa.nnyaasastu mahaabaaho duHkhamaaptumayogataH. yogayukto munirbrahma na chireNaadhigachchhati .. But renunciation, O mighty-armed [Arjuna], is hard to attain except by Yoga; a sage equipped with Yoga ere long reaches Brahman. In Shankara's Gita-Bhashya: " Renunciation here spoken of is the true [paramarthika] sa.nnyaasa; and Yoga is the the Vedic Karma-Yoga dedicated to Ishvara and entirely free from motives. A sage [muni] is so called because of his meditation [manana] on the form of the Ishvara. Brahman here means renunciation [sa.nnyaasa, which is now being spoken of] because renunciation consists in the knowledge of the Highest Self[Paramatman]; and the shruti says:"what is called nyaasa is brahman."[taitt. upan. 4-78] " A sage equipped with yoga soon reaches Brahman, the true renunciation, which consists in steady devotion to right knowledge. Wherefore, I have said that Karma-Yoga is better. " Regards, s. -- In advaitin , "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" > > > On the other hand, the idea "I am a householder" will necessarily > haunt every householder> Re: throwing away the thorn used to pluck another thorn - I, for one, > am not convinced that any of us (including me) who haunt these > mailing lists have been able to successfully remove the first thorn. > The second thorn can be thrown away after the first thorn has been > removed, not before. Notwithstanding what Ramakrishna Paramahamsa > said about knowledge and ignorance, he still advised a small group of > his disciples to become sannyAsins. This could only be because he > recognized the value of the thing. > > It is all well and good to say that happiness is always here and now, > but so long as the mind is not in that constant state, it had better > search around for the second thorn to remove the first. All this > negative attitude towards the tradition of sannyAsa is like > saying, "oh, the second thorn is a thorn too, why should I use it?" > The question reveals a hidden desire to continue with the first thorn. > > Vidyasankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2000 Report Share Posted September 22, 2000 "sunder hattangadi" <sunderh@h...> wrote: > Namaste, > > This verse from the Gita [V:6] is a good one to meditate on in > this context: > " > Karma-Yoga is a means to Sanyasa: > > How is it that the aim of the Karma-Yoga is that[true Yoga or > Sanyasa]? Listen: > > sa.nnyaasastu mahaabaaho duHkhamaaptumayogataH. > > yogayukto munirbrahma na chireNaadhigachchhati .. > > But renunciation, O mighty-armed [Arjuna], is hard to attain except > by Yoga; a sage equipped with Yoga ere long reaches Brahman. Indeed. To which I would add a reference to gItA VI. 3 and the commentary thereon - Arurukshormuneryogam karma kAraNamuchyate . yogArUDhasya tasyaiva shamaH kAraNamuchyate .. The verse is self-explanatory. Scaling the peak of Yoga (yogArUdha-tva) is necessarily preceded by withdrawal (shama) from the very same (tasyaiva) action (karma) that leads to Yoga. If such withdrawal from karma leads to a perception that the sannyAsin is "selfish," it is the loss of those who feel that way. If out of a fear of such a perception, someone argues against the supposedly "external" signs of sannyAsa, it is worse. If one is truly based on the non-dual foundation, there should be no gap between the internal and the external. Vidyasankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2000 Report Share Posted September 22, 2000 Namaste, In the previous post, there was a reference to: and the shruti says:"what is called nyaasa is brahman."[taitt. upan. 4-78] " I was not able to track it down here; but it does occur in Mahanarayana Upanishad: 78:12, where again there a cross reference to Shankara's Brahmasutra-Bhashya III:iv:20, both explaining rationale & practice of sanyasa. Regards, s. advaitin , "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <vsundaresan@h...> wrote: > "sunder hattangadi" <sunderh@h...> wrote: > > Namaste, > > > > This verse from the Gita [V:6] is a good one to meditate on > in > > this context: > > > Indeed. To which I would add a reference to gItA VI. 3 and > the commentary thereon - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.