Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

FORMAL SANNYASA IS IT PREREQUISIT TO JIVAN MUKTI??

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

DEAR ADVAITINS,

IS Sannyasa absolutely essential for jivan mukta state as vidrayana

suggests???.....and does any Advaitin member knows of any jivan

mukta ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

advaitin, "SHUDDHA ATMA"

<swatantrabrahman> wrote:

>

> DEAR ADVAITINS,

> IS Sannyasa absolutely essential for jivan mukta state as vidrayana

> suggests???.....and does any Advaitin member knows of any jivan

> mukta ???

 

Namaste

 

For the first question, the answer is 'no'.

For the second question, the answer is 'Ramana Maharshi'.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

DEAR Prof,

BY my second question "do you know of any Jivam mukta?"I meant living

in present times whom you have heard from reliable sources or

witnesses yourself.Are you in touch with any one in present time???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

On 7/26/05, SHUDDHA ATMA <swatantrabrahman wrote:

> DEAR ADVAITINS,

> IS Sannyasa absolutely essential for jivan mukta state as vidrayana

> suggests???.....

 

Prof VK has already replied this question in negative and there are

instances of non-sannyAsin jivanmuktas such as vidura, janaka etc. in

itihAsa. Therefore I am finding it difficult to disagree, however as

far as advaita as taught by bhagvAn shankar bhagvatpAda is concerned,

pravritti and nivritti are two entirely different paths. It is

expected that all adhikAri persons will gradually move from pravritti

to nivritti mArga. While dharma, artha and kAma are the purushArtha's

available for a householder, the last one viz. moksha is available

*only* to a sannyAsin-- again as per the authority most respected on

this list.

 

praNAm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Namaste all

A question may need addressing at the level it is in and at levels

higher and lower, as bhagwan Sri Krishna dextrously demonstrates in BG.

 

Taking this question at its level- the answer can still be yes- how

else would you account for the state of, to move away from ithihasic

examples, Mira, Ramakrishna parahamsa, a number of householder saints

out of the 63 nayanmars ( siruthondar comes to mind- he had a son

too), Thiruvalluvar etc.

 

Let me also contemplate the example of some of the staunch

householoder devotees of saints- a couple of top of mind examples -

Sri Mahendranath Gupta- a devotee of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa,

Arthur osborne- a devotee of Bhagwan Ramana Maharshi. To my

'non-technically-vedantic' mind their level of devotion would itself

appear to be a state of jeevan mukti.

 

At a higher level - householder and sanyasi are also mental concepts!

By 'becoming' a sanyasi, one would only be exchanging the thought 'I

am a householder' for the thought 'I am a sanyasi'.Jivanmukti is a

state that transcends even these mental concepts- this is a reasoning

i have come across in some of Ramana Maharshi's teachings.

 

Many namaskarams to all

Sridhar

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> On 7/26/05, SHUDDHA ATMA <swatantrabrahman> wrote:

>

> > DEAR ADVAITINS,

> > IS Sannyasa absolutely essential for jivan mukta state as vidrayana

> > suggests???.....

>

> Prof VK has already replied this question in negative and there are

> instances of non-sannyAsin jivanmuktas such as vidura, janaka etc. in

> itihAsa. Therefore I am finding it difficult to disagree, however as

> far as advaita as taught by bhagvAn shankar bhagvatpAda is concerned,

> pravritti and nivritti are two entirely different paths. It is

> expected that all adhikAri persons will gradually move from pravritti

> to nivritti mArga. While dharma, artha and kAma are the purushArtha's

> available for a householder, the last one viz. moksha is available

> *only* to a sannyAsin-- again as per the authority most respected on

> this list.

>

> praNAm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Namaste,

In view of this discussion about a Jivanmukta and its relationship

to Sannyasa, I reproduce below an extract from a post of mine made

on June 9, 2000, under the thread 'Was Ramakrishna a jivanmukta?':

 

The concept of jIvan-mukta is not a mathematical

or physical concept to allow itself of a

rigorous definition or description. The

description given by a Seer like Sankara of a

jIvan-mukta should not therefore be torn to

pieces with logic, like the clauses of a

written constitution. Thereby we would only be

doing intellectual gymnastics -- referred

to as the DuHRn-karaNe syndrome in

Bhaja-govindam. However we have Ramakrishna's

own explanation, which, though not

technically referring to the jIvan- mukta

concept, hopefully will clear the cloud of doubt

now darkening the sky of the 'advaitin'

world on the concept. I quote below from the

chapter on Keshab Chandra Sen and the Brahmo

Samaj in the book: The Life of Sri

Ramakrishna, compiled by Advaita Ashrama,

Calcutta.

He (The Master) ridiculed the attempt of the

human mind to fathom the nature of God, by

comparing it to an ant that desired to carry a

whole sugar-hill in its mouth. It is God's

Grace, he said, that leads to realisation.

There was something in the manner of his

speech that convinced Keshab that Shri

Ramakrishna must have actually seen God.

Stupefied and puzzled, Keshab Chandra, the

high priest of the Brahmo cult, felt like a

child before this man of realisation and

listened to him with the utmost reverence. He

opened the doors of his heart, and every word

uttered by the Master found a permanent niche

there. At the end of the discourse the Master

said to Keshab, "Your tail has dropped".

Finding that the audience did not understand

him, he explained: (and this explanation is

what we need now):

"You must have seen tadpoles. So long as they

have tails, they must live in water; but when

they drop off they can live on land as well

as in water. Similarly, so long as a man has his

tail of nescience, he can live only in the

pool of the world. But as soon as he loses his

nescience, he can live in God or in the world

just as he pleases. Your mind, Keshab, is in

such a state now. You can live in the world,

and enjoy divine bliss as well."

Such is the state of a jIvan-mukta like

Ramakrishna. He can live in his own world of

eternal bliss and he can also descend to the

level of the mundane world in which we live

and tell us to wake up from our

worldly-dreams. This is the greatness of a sage

like Sankara or a Ramakrishna. To our good

fortune, they condescended to come down to

our level and tell us what it is to live in the

spiritual world of bliss. Just because such a

great person lives, talks and walks like us,

we should not mistake him to have the human

frailties that are common to an ordinary

human leader of men. We may as well recall the

words of the Lord Himself, in this connection:

avyaktaM vyaktim-ApannaM manyante mAm-

abuddhayaH /

paraM bhAvam-ajAnanto mamA-vyayam-anuttamaM //

(VII - 24)

meaning,

The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as

having come to manifestation, not knowing My

higher, immutable and peerless nature.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Dear Prof,

Can you please comment on this article:

http://www.atmajyoti.org/mo_sannyasa_dharma.asp

Thanks,

ajit

 

 

On 7/28/05, V. Krishnamurthy <profvk wrote:

>

> Namaste,

> In view of this discussion about a Jivanmukta and its relationship

> to Sannyasa, I reproduce below an extract from a post of mine made

> on June 9, 2000, under the thread 'Was Ramakrishna a jivanmukta?':

 

. . .

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Namaste,

IMVHO

The only prerequisit (if one call it so) for Jeevan Mukti is disappearance of

self-ignorance.

Jeegan Mukti is free from all conditioning, and any prerequist involves

conditioning.

Sanyasa as I understand is one of the styles of living (one of the four

Ashramas).

One can be a Sanyasi for studying of the Shastras and also one can be a Sanyasi

after studying the Shastras. Jeevan Mukti has nothing to do with any Ashrama.

Please feel free to correct me.

Warm Regards

Mani

 

 

 

 

 

Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

VedaVyasa was a married man too. Shuka Muni was the son of Vyasa.

Sri Lahiri Mahasaya is also a married man.

I think Sanyasa is a statement of mind. I consider anybody who has his/her

"Hands in the Society & Head in the Forest" *also* a Sanyasi.

Mahesh.

 

 

On 7/29/05, R.S.MANI <r_s_mani wrote:

>

> Namaste,

> IMVHO

> The only prerequisit (if one call it so) for Jeevan Mukti is disappearance

> of self-ignorance.

> Jeegan Mukti is free from all conditioning, and any prerequist involves

> conditioning.

> Sanyasa as I understand is one of the styles of living (one of the four

> Ashramas).

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

> Jeevan Mukti has nothing to do with any Ashrama.

 

 

 

I don't think we can go this far. See Shankara's introduction to the Aitreya

upanishad:

 

 

 

A man of realization's renunciation consists in the mere absence of

activity; and it is not a positive something to be accomplished like

sacrifice etc. . .

 

 

 

Objection: . . . If the supreme knowledge of Brahman dawns in domestic life,

the inactive man may continue in that state, and there need be no moving

away from it.

 

 

 

Answer: No, since domestic life is induced by desire, for it has be clearly

declared . . . And so the inactive man of realization cannot continue in the

domestic life itself. . . . the constant habit of resorting to any

particular house of one's own is prompted by desire.

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of R.S.MANI

Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:45 PM

advaitin

Re: Re: FORMAL SANNYASA IS IT PREREQUISIT TO JIVAN

MUKTI??

 

 

 

Namaste,

IMVHO

The only prerequisit (if one call it so) for Jeevan Mukti is disappearance

of self-ignorance.

Jeegan Mukti is free from all conditioning, and any prerequist involves

conditioning.

Sanyasa as I understand is one of the styles of living (one of the four

Ashramas).

One can be a Sanyasi for studying of the Shastras and also one can be a

Sanyasi after studying the Shastras. Jeevan Mukti has nothing to do with any

Ashrama.

Please feel free to correct me.

Warm Regards

Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Namaste

 

I am not replying to any particular post but I am writing my thoughts

generally as a reaction to the trend of discussions on this topic. I

am typing this offhand (because I am in a hurry to leave on travel for

the weekend) and so I may slip into some indefensible faults. I ask

your pardon in advance.

 

The article by Swami Sivananda on the necessity for Sannyasa must be

read. I am yet to read it. But I can see the trend of the article.

PranAms to Swamiji and all the other teachers who, legitimately, along

with our Shastras, raise Sannyasa to the skies.

 

But let us come to brasstacks. Arjuna asks the question about karma

and jnana to be compared by Krishna. Krishna's answer comes once in

the 3rd chapter, once in the 5th chapter and once in the 18th chapter.

 

We, members of the advaitin, are now having this discussion . My

question is: Are we having an academic discussion? Or are we wanting

to know what is best for us? Arjuna was not having an academic

discussion. He was interested in knowing what was his immediate

responsibility, given the circumstances and his life which was on open

book to all and certainly to Krishna.

 

If we are discussing whether Sannyasa is a necessity, as an academic

discussion, then, all the Swamijis right down from Adi Shankara have

said that Sannyasa is necessary. Where does that leave us? Academic

discussions can give us a Ph.D. but not to moksha.

 

If we are discussing whether Sannyasa is a necessity, in the way in

which Arjuna was asking for a guidance on what he should immediately

do, then, let me ask: In what way are we better than Arjuna

spiritually? Then the answer is as given by Krishna as already

mentioned above. We have to do only Karma (with as much detachment as

we can) and Bhakti (with self-interest minimised as much as we can).

That will lead us to jnAna, if not in this life, after several lives

of such effort. There is no other way, for the majority of us.

 

If there are a few who have transcended the above ordinary level, (I

would think such a person is one in a million) for them Ramakrishna

has given the answer. Somebody went to him and asked: What is the best

time to take up Sannyasa? And Ramakrishna (Great as he was!)

answered: "Here and now. If you keep thinking when to take up

Sannyasa, you are not fit for it!".

 

Pardon me for some bluntness.

 

PraNAms to all the Acharyas and to all advaitins.

profvk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Then the answer is as given by Krishna as already

> mentioned above. We have to do only Karma (with as much detachment

as

> we can) and Bhakti (with self-interest minimised as much as we

can).

> That will lead us to jnAna, if not in this life, after several lives

> of such effort. There is no other way, for the majority of us.

 

 

Namaste.

 

I read my own post. I feel the above paragraph needs a little

elaboration.

 

Then, why are we studying about jnAna and advaita? Because, without

(at least) a knowledge about the ultimate goal that is jnAna, we

cannot do our karma and bhakti right. That is why! In fact that is why

Krishna devotes so much time to elaborating what jnAna is, what it

means to be a sthita-prajna (Ch.2), what it means to be a gunAtIta

(Ch.14) and so on. Without knowing all that, one cannot understand the

necessity to move towards the goal of final surrender (=jnAna) (18 -

66).

 

Incidentally I have to reply to Vaidyanathan-ji who has asked in a

personal mail about the 'six definitive conditions of surrender' that

I mentioned in my reply to the Hindu article on surrender that he

posted. I shall do so in a separate mail.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> > If we are discussing whether Sannyasa is a necessity, in the way

in

> > which Arjuna was asking for a guidance on what he should

immediately

> > do, then, let me ask: In what way are we better than Arjuna

> > spiritually?

>

> Exactly so. What was sufficient for arjuna may not be so for us. That

> is why our achAryas have repeatedly told us to follow the path of

> nivritti for those seriously interested in moksha.

>

 

Namaste.

 

Sanjay-ji, Thanks a lot for putting your views clearly. In fact I

think you and I are playing on the same side! For, I also agree with

you that our Acharyas have insisted that we should take up nivritti

marga. Yes. What is this nivritti marga? Probably you and I mean two

different things by nivritti. According to my understanding, nivritti

is what is indicated by the following Gita shlokas:

 

2-48, 55, 56, 57

3-9, 19, 25, 28, 30

4-15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 41

5-3, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24

6-4, 30, 31, 32

8-7,

9-27, 28, 34

12-8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

13-27, 28, 29, 30, 31 (Note that my 13th ch. begins with: idam

sharIram kaunteya. Some books have an extra shloka before this)

14-22, 23, 24, 25, 26

18-5,6, 9, 17, 23, 26, 49. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 62, 66.

 

Note also that pravriiti and nivritti occur in 16-7 and 18-30. See

Shankara Bhashya there. And when he uses the word 'sannyasa' go back

to 18-2,3,4,5.

 

I guess you are probably meaning by 'nivritti' a physical sannyasa.

I mean by 'nivritti' mental sannyasa. Otherwise, all the shlokas I

have quoted above would lose their meanings. And please correct me if

I have quoted the wrong shlokas.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

I am in an unenviable position to defend myself against professor's

formidable knowledge of scriptures, but I will give it a shot:-)

 

On 7/29/05, V. Krishnamurthy <profvk wrote:

> I guess you are probably meaning by 'nivritti' a physical sannyasa.

> I mean by 'nivritti' mental sannyasa. Otherwise, all the shlokas I

> have quoted above would lose their meanings.

 

My limited understanding of shankara says that all the shlokAs you

have quoted above, have been adequately commented by bhagvatpAda

without any loss of meaning; and yet nowhere has he taken nivritti as

only a mental sannyAsa. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

Since you are much more knowledgeable about shAstras than me, I will

take your word for it-- Is there any advaitin achArya who has made a

distinction between mental sannyAsa and physical sannyAsa? A single

advaitin in a tradition spanning more than a thousand years who says

that mental sannyAsa is enough?

 

praNAm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Namste Sanjay and Prof VK-Ji:

 

We had discussed something similar on this list some time ago and

may be useful in understanding the term sanyaasa.

 

advaitin/message/20526

 

advaitin/message/20543

 

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

> <sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

 

>

> I guess you are probably meaning by 'nivritti' a physical

sannyasa.

> I mean by 'nivritti' mental sannyasa. >

 

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...