Guest guest Posted January 7, 2003 Report Share Posted January 7, 2003 Dear All, Let me at the outset thank all of you who have responded to my question about married life. But I have a feeling that this view of mine had been misunderstood. This was primarily not against, marriage as as institution, but as a vantage point for all the troubles. Can any of you explain why is that Sanakaracharayas went into Sannyasihood without entering grihatasrama? Because they knew this rudimentary fact that reproduction is a misery. Sankaracharya often describes that samsara sagara is indeed pitiful. In narasimha stotram he goes on to describe in a anlogy comparing samasara to a tree, sadness is the fruit and its roots to something else equally depressing. In Bhaja Govindam also the same thing is expressed. It is not with an intention to argue with any of you, I am putting these points across, rather to get a clarity on this issue, since I strongly feel the futility of the entire samsara is indeed true. I definitely feel that if you look at great achievers in life, and all the saints like Ramana Maharishi, Vivekananda etc., were indeed brahmacharis. What is "advaitins" view on this. Awaiting responses from all learned people. Regards Shankar Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2003 Report Share Posted January 7, 2003 Namaste: One of the best source for understanding the vedantic point of view of 'Sanyasa' is Bhagavad Gita. I suggest that you to read the recent post - Swami Dayananda's commentary of verse 30. (15566). Swamiji narrates a story from Mahabharat and that story can provide you with the insights that you are looking for. Essentially, Gita describes sanyasa (renunciation)in the context of Karma Yoga and Gitacharya stresses the importance of the renunciation of the fruits of one's own action. Infact, Lord Krishna reminds Arjuna numerous times that 'renunciation' does not mean 'renounciation of action' but it only implies the renunciation of fruits of the action. In Hindu religion, 'sanyasa dharma' is the reference to leading life of Brahmacharya and physically renounce the married life. It should be pointed out that all Brahmacharis are not 'jivamuktas' nor we can conclude that a 'Grahasta' is not qualified to be liberated! "Does physical 'physical renunciation' is necessary for 'mental renunciation (total detachment)?" is an open question with no clear answer. It is impossible to identify the liberated person, the jivanmukta and consequently we can't prove or disprove statements regarding the requirment of 'sanyasa dharma' as a means for human liberation. All that we can say is that 'sanyasa dharma' can provide more conducive environment for 'mental renunciation' or detachment. However mental renunciation can't be guranteed by physical renunciation. Warmest regards, Ram chandran advaitin, jo tika <jo12b> wrote: > > Dear All, > > ......... > I definitely feel that if you look at great achievers in life, and all the saints like Ramana Maharishi, Vivekananda etc., were indeed brahmacharis. > > What is "advaitins" view on this. Awaiting responses from all learned people. > > Regards > > Shankar > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2003 Report Share Posted January 7, 2003 jo tika <jo12b wrote: I definitely feel that if you look at great achievers in life, and all the saints like Ramana Maharishi, Vivekananda etc., were indeed brahmacharis. What is "advaitins" view on this. Awaiting responses from all learned people. Regards Shankar ----------------------------- Dear Shankar, Our Scriptures and heritage mention the different ashramas for humans as follows: 1.Brahmacharya 2.Grahastha 3.Vanaprastha 4.Sanyasa All these ashramas have clearly laid out their individual dharmas to be followed in order to reach the 'Goal'of humans to be free from the ills of birth and death and thus be liberated and attain 'moksha'. Our Scriptures are so compassionate that they have prescribed various simple means to liberation like doing'japas' and performing ritualistic sacrifices that could yield congenial results in subsequent births. The same scriptures in Vedanta ( End of Vedas) have provided ways and means for our 'moksha' in this very birth itself.The various ashramas mentioned above are by themselves only means to achieve this end step by step. Now for your statement that great achievers were brahmacharis,you have but to look into our Upanishads where there is mention of the great learned sage Yagyavalkya who was a grahastha and who preached to his wife Maitreyi and as his desciple imparted "Brahmagyaanam" to her. Hari Om ! Swaminarayan Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2003 Report Share Posted January 7, 2003 friend, your view has not been mis-understood. if your view is not against married life then you dont have to worry about the troubles.you have to make up your mind and yourself,dont talk about shankara,vivekanand.are you in the same bracket.they did not ask any one should i get married.they decided on their own about the sanyasa .if you want do that then go ahead. it is you who is to make the decision. not others.every thing in life is painful.why only samsara sagara.what is your intentions.enquire yourself,you will find the answer.are you afraid of samsara,that is why you are raising this quiery.iam sure you cant.be brave and face the challenge.yes the great achievers were bramacharies,can you do that, dont ask any one, ask yourself,you will find the answer. cdr bvnadvaitin, jo tika <jo12b> wrote: > > Dear All, > > Let me at the outset thank all of you who have responded to my question about married life. > > But I have a feeling that this view of mine had been misunderstood. This was primarily not against, marriage as as institution, but as a vantage point for all the troubles. > > Can any of you explain why is that Sanakaracharayas went into Sannyasihood without entering grihatasrama? Because they knew this rudimentary fact that reproduction is a misery. > > Sankaracharya often describes that samsara sagara is indeed pitiful. In narasimha stotram he goes on to describe in a anlogy comparing samasara to a tree, sadness is the fruit and its roots to something else equally depressing. In Bhaja Govindam also the same thing is expressed. > > It is not with an intention to argue with any of you, I am putting these points across, rather to get a clarity on this issue, since I strongly feel the futility of the entire samsara is indeed true. > > I definitely feel that if you look at great achievers in life, and all the saints like Ramana Maharishi, Vivekananda etc., were indeed brahmacharis. > > What is "advaitins" view on this. Awaiting responses from all learned people. > > Regards > > Shankar > > > > > > > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2003 Report Share Posted January 7, 2003 Namaste Shankarji One of the 4 qualifications (sadhana chatushtaya) necessary for a Sadhaka to pursue the study of Vedanta and for it to be effective is Vairagya. Vairagya can be defined as Dispassion towards Dharma, Artha & Kama. Not that a Vairagi actually finds Dharma, Artha Kama as completely useless, but he arrives at the conclusion that they (Dharma, Artha & Kama) cannot liberate oneself or confer Mukti. This Vairagya is one of the main reasons why a Jiva sees marriage, rituals, progeny, papa, punya etc... as samsara. This vairagya can intensify anytime while living as a Brahmachari, Grhasta or Vanaprasthin. In the Jabala Upanishad, it is mentioned that one can take sannyasa (solely for the pursuit of Moksha) anytime during the first 3 ashramas when there is Vairagya. But this has to been seen as an exception, not the rule. Again the Hindu tradition recommends one to adopt the Ashrama Dharma to seek Moksha because the first 3 ashramas when lived with the attitude of a Karma Yogi will eventually bestow on the jiva all the qualifications necessary for the pursuit of Vedantic study. Jnanis like Swami Vivekananda, Ramana Maharishi, Shankara etc... are Vairagis before they became Jnanis. The countless births that they may have gone through could have made them realize the futility of all pursuits that do not confer mukti. This is what I have learnt and understood. best regards, K Kathirasan > > jo tika [sMTP:jo12b] > Tuesday, January 07, 2003 7:18 PM > advaitin > thanks for all your replies > > > Dear All, > > Let me at the outset thank all of you who have responded to my question > about married life. > > But I have a feeling that this view of mine had been misunderstood. This > was primarily not against, marriage as as institution, but as a vantage > point for all the troubles. > > Can any of you explain why is that Sanakaracharayas went into Sannyasihood > without entering grihatasrama? Because they knew this rudimentary fact > that reproduction is a misery. > > Sankaracharya often describes that samsara sagara is indeed pitiful. In > narasimha stotram he goes on to describe in a anlogy comparing samasara to > a tree, sadness is the fruit and its roots to something else equally > depressing. In Bhaja Govindam also the same thing is expressed. > > It is not with an intention to argue with any of you, I am putting these > points across, rather to get a clarity on this issue, since I strongly > feel the futility of the entire samsara is indeed true. > > I definitely feel that if you look at great achievers in life, and all the > saints like Ramana Maharishi, Vivekananda etc., were indeed brahmacharis. > > What is "advaitins" view on this. Awaiting responses from all learned > people. > > Regards > > Shankar > > > > > > > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2003 Report Share Posted January 8, 2003 Namaste. With all respect to you, Kathirasan-Ji, and your solid, enlightening contribution to this discussion, may I say that your reference to countless births in the concluding para verges on assumption and belief. If I am not stirring up a hornet's nest, because many would certainly quote scriptural authorities and even Sankara (punarapi jananam, punarapi maranam!)in support for the belief in rebirths and shraddah thereto, may I ask isn't such an assumption a little too dangerous to an advaitin in his quest? As I see it, it can lead to complacency, as the seeker will naturally feel that he hasn't had adequate number of births in order to spontaneously acquire vairagya and qualify for the final match. Such a feeling will give him an excuse to continue in his erstwhile ways thinking that he can wait for his natural turn. Don't we see people all around who vehemently conclude that the time is not still right even when all vedantic logic is arrayed against them? I have a very intelligent guy here who refutes my vedantic logic saying he would go only for simple explanations. I have to often remind him that, before Eratosthenes (sp?), the world believed that the earth was the centre of the universe and the Sun went around her. That is the simplest explanation one can have with our daily experience of sunrise and sunset. But yet, we have changed our outlook by imbibing less simple scientific logic despite the fact that we don't still feel the earth rotate! So, logic and reason are the requisites we have to take recourse to to lead people to the path of vairagya and not belief in something like rebirth we aren't quite sure of. Isn't it enough, therefore, for us to know that vairagya is the most important prerequisite and that it is a logical understanding that the last goal is supreme and the rest in our samsara are just transient and impermanent to which we cannot reasonably hope to cling to. Why then bother whether one is a grihasta or sanyasin. Anyone at any station in life should be able to appreciate this fact with logical thinking and contemplation. Sanyasa is not prevalent all over the world although similar practices are found in other religions. By thrusting our system of Ashrama dharma and belief in rebirth, whatever its superiority or merits, I am afraid, we may be becoming parochial in our understanding of the universality of the advaitic vision which seeks to liberate people from the notion of birth and death. Just a thought. I know I have enough trouble coming but can't help thinking loud. Pranams. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2003 Report Share Posted January 8, 2003 Namaste Nairji, I agree with you that for an Advaitin the belief in rebirth may not be that important. An advaitin can also understand Samsara as the need to put oneself in different situations to be happy. And this wheel of life trying to become someone else or trying to experience something else is indeed Samsara. Nevertheless do check out this interesting work done by Dr Ian Stevenson: www.childpastlives.org best regards, K Kathirasan > > Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > [sMTP:madathilnair] > Wednesday, January 08, 2003 5:26 PM > advaitin > Re: thanks for all your replies > > Namaste. > > With all respect to you, Kathirasan-Ji, and your solid, enlightening > contribution to this discussion, may I say that your reference to > countless births in the concluding para verges on assumption and > belief. If I am not stirring up a hornet's nest, because many would > certainly quote scriptural authorities and even Sankara (punarapi > jananam, punarapi maranam!)in support for the belief in rebirths and > shraddah thereto, may I ask isn't such an assumption a little too > dangerous to an advaitin in his quest? As I see it, it can lead to > complacency, as the seeker will naturally feel that he hasn't had > adequate number of births in order to spontaneously acquire vairagya > and qualify for the final match. Such a feeling will give him an > excuse to continue in his erstwhile ways thinking that he can wait > for his natural turn. > > Don't we see people all around who vehemently conclude that the time > is not still right even when all vedantic logic is arrayed against > them? I have a very intelligent guy here who refutes my vedantic > logic saying he would go only for simple explanations. I have to > often remind him that, before Eratosthenes (sp?), the world believed > that the earth was the centre of the universe and the Sun went around > her. That is the simplest explanation one can have with our daily > experience of sunrise and sunset. But yet, we have changed our > outlook by imbibing less simple scientific logic despite the fact > that we don't still feel the earth rotate! So, logic and reason are > the requisites we have to take recourse to to lead people to the path > of vairagya and not belief in something like rebirth we aren't quite > sure of. > > Isn't it enough, therefore, for us to know that vairagya is the most > important prerequisite and that it is a logical understanding that > the last goal is supreme and the rest in our samsara are just > transient and impermanent to which we cannot reasonably hope to cling > to. Why then bother whether one is a grihasta or sanyasin. Anyone at > any station in life should be able to appreciate this fact with > logical thinking and contemplation. Sanyasa is not prevalent all over > the world although similar practices are found in other religions. By > thrusting our system of Ashrama dharma and belief in rebirth, > whatever its superiority or merits, I am afraid, we may be becoming > parochial in our understanding of the universality of the advaitic > vision which seeks to liberate people from the notion of birth and > death. > > Just a thought. I know I have enough trouble coming but can't help > thinking loud. > > Pranams. > > Madathil Nair > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Namaste. Shree Swaminarayan explained this wonderfully, which I pasted here. In addition, there is a something in Ramayana regarding the goals/purpose of Marriage which will be very educative. These verses are present in the context of the marriage between Rama and Sita. I could not locate it on Internet so far. I learnt about its existence thru a passing remark on the Indian TV. If anyone can locate it, would be grateful if the link is posted. Regards, Raghava advaitin, Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan> wrote: > > > jo tika <jo12b> wrote: > > I definitely feel that if you look at great achievers in life, and all the saints like Ramana Maharishi, Vivekananda etc., were indeed brahmacharis. > > What is "advaitins" view on this. Awaiting responses from all learned people. > > Regards > > Shankar > > ----------------------------- > > Dear Shankar, > > Our Scriptures and heritage mention the different ashramas for humans as follows: > > 1.Brahmacharya > > 2.Grahastha > > 3.Vanaprastha > > 4.Sanyasa > > All these ashramas have clearly laid out their individual dharmas to be followed in order to reach the 'Goal'of humans to be free from the ills of birth and death and thus be liberated and attain 'moksha'. > > Our Scriptures are so compassionate that they have prescribed various simple means to liberation like doing'japas' and performing ritualistic sacrifices that could yield congenial results in subsequent births. > > The same scriptures in Vedanta ( End of Vedas) have provided ways and means for our 'moksha' in this very birth itself.The various ashramas mentioned above are by themselves only means to achieve this end step by step. > > Now for your statement that great achievers were brahmacharis,you have but to look into our Upanishads where there is mention of the great learned sage Yagyavalkya who was a grahastha and who preached to his wife Maitreyi and as his desciple imparted "Brahmagyaanam" to her. > > Hari Om ! > > Swaminarayan 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.