Guest guest Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 DEAR ADVAITINS, IS Sannyasa absolutely essential for jivan mukta state as vidrayana suggests???.....and does any Advaitin member knows of any jivan mukta ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 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??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 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?': . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2005 Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 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). > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2005 Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2005 Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2005 Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2005 Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2005 Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2005 Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 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 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.