FORMAL SANNYASA IS IT PREREQUISIT TO JIVAN MUKTI??

[Guest guest]

Namaskar,

 

Householder Saints ?

 

One can earn money, more and more money by deploying more energy and time in job

or business, one can legally marry to one woman and could have as many as female

friends as he desires, one can spend more and more time with his children and

family members and look after them dutifully and caressingly, one can do all

those things in this world whatever he likes and would give pleasure to his mind

and still there is no problem attaining Jeevan Mukti and becoming Atmajnani !

 

Only one condition ! Do all the above things after you think you are fit to

lift the "Goverdhan Mountain" Then no formal or informal Sanyas is necessary

for Mukti. All the great names of the householder saints you have mentioned, had

lifted the "Goverdhan Mountain" though not explicitly written in their

biographies, for the fear of misunderstanding and Samshay by the nescients,

innocents, and modern scientific minds.

 

You referred Pujniya Raman Maharashi. At what level of sadhana the sanyas and

household becomes same, is beyond understanding by simple logic. It is a

saying, "The yogees understand what yogees say" It is always better on the part

of the honest sadhakas to try to achieve higher and higher level, instead of

finding in shastras and saint's writings the information that supports and

defends our present deviation from sadhana, and that supports our vims or our

free thoughts and logic also our present behaviour. We should do, what is

appropriate at our level. We automatically understand shastras and the elders

teachings at appropriate level, so it is in vain for us to spend time in

guesswork.

 

Anil.

 

 

 

asridhar19 <asridhar19 wrote:

 

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

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

praNAm prof. and kindly excuse my impudence at the outset.

> 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?

 

That leaves us to the path of gradual withdrawal from pravritti to

eventual walking on the path of nivritti.

 

We are discussing shankara's philosophy on this list and most of us

take it not just as a philosophy but as a moksha- shAstra--- a

practical how-to-do manual for attaining jivanmukti. Have any of our

achAryas ever indicated that sannyAsa is a negotiable prerequisite?

Should we take it that shankara and other advaitin achAryas were not

aware of the examples of janaka, vidura and arjun etc.? Still they

have prescribed snnyAsa as a prerequisite of moksha, have they not?

Whom are we deluding here? As shringeri achArya has calrified that

untill such condition is fulfilled, the study of vedanta is at best a

means of gaining some punya-- nothing more, nothing less.

> Academic

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

 

And shying away from precribed practices can give us moksha?

 

It is theory devoid of practices that leads to academic discussions,

not the other way round. However otherwise I may like it to be so, let

me not delude myself that my discussion is anything more than academic

unless I have the courage to follow the precribed path.

> 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.

 

Once again kindly excuse my impertinence.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitins,

Humble Pranams.

The Lord Himself has clearly said -

 

sannyaasaah karmayogoshcha nishreyasakaraavubhau

tayostu karmasanyaasaat karmayogo vishishyate ||5-2||

 

Renunciation of actions and performing of actions with equanimity, both

paths are meritorious; but between the two the path of action is superior.

 

The path of action is obviously meant for householders and not sanyaasins.

The Lord himself was a householder, so was his prime disciple Arjuna, so are

all the deities exalted by Bhagawatpaada Shri Shankaraachaarya, so were

the Rishis of the Upanishad. If leading a householder's life was good enough

for them why not for us?

There is a galaxy of Maharashtrian saints who were householders and had

reached the highest spiritual state.

The case of Tukaram is especially noteworthy.

Tukaram had an elder brother named Savji who was also spiritually inclined.

Tukaram's father Bolhoba owned a small grocery shop. Upon reaching oldage

the father wanted to retire. Savji being the elder son, Bolhoba asked him to

take over the shop and look after the family as its head. Savji flatly

refused. He said that he would have nothing to do with material affairs and

set off for a pilgrimage, never to return.

Tukaram came forward to obey his father and took over the family business.

Probably he was not very successful at it. There is a phrase in Marathi

called 'Tukarami Vyapar' meaning 'Unprofitable Business'. But he never gave

it up. There is no mention anywhere that Tukaram closed down his shop. He

battled famine, extreme poverty, death of his first wife, torture at the

hands of a hypocritical society but never spoke of renouncing the world.

He reached the highest spiritual state and is regarded as the pinnacle of

Varkari Sect (a Vaishnavite sect in Maharashtra). What became of Savji is

not entioned anywhere.

 

Shri Atmananda (Krishna Menon) the great Jeevan Mukta from Kerala was a

householder and was engaged in a most materialistic job- that of a Police

Officer.

On a personal note-

When younger I did eagerly frequent the premises of a most reputed monastic

order. I used to observe the lifestyle of monks therein and was greatly

fascinated. Oh, they were galloping towards realisation while I was steeped

in material pursuits--. On closer scrutiny, however, the fascination did

not persist. I found the monks managing the affairs of the Ashram just as I

was managing affairs at my hospital- some of them running the library, some

looking after Pooja, others making arrangement for a discourse and so on.

A conversation would often proceed like this-

A senior monk admonishing a junior monk : Aroop Chaitanya! Where are the

flower pots?

Junior Monk (Peevishly)- Yes, I am keeping them, Maharaj.

Senior Monk (Angrily)- They have to be kept before the function, and not

after!

 

This reminded me of Junior Medical Residents being scolded by Senior Medical

Residents. Well, I thought, they are almost like householders in saffron

clothes!

 

Dhannyo Grihasthaashramah!

 

Ravi Shivde

[Guest guest]

Namaste all Advaitins.

 

It took me a little time to catch up with the heated debate on this

topic.

 

SrImad Bhagawad GItA clearly says that there are only two paths –

karmayoga and sanyAsa. The choice is left for the aspirant to decide

considering the situation he/she is in. It is silly to weigh down

one's mind with the bothersome thought which of the two is better or

faster. The givens of the where you are matter.

 

SanyAsa is burning the boats (Courtesy: Sw. Dayanandaji). It is an

irreversible decision. Taking sanyAsa for a short period, then

deciding that that is not one should do and returning to college to

take a Ph.D. is not sanyAsa.

 

There is an element of sanyAsa in karmayoga too. Here also, the

boats have been burnt. You cannot be a karmayogi for a short while.

It is a life-long commitment of surrender to Knowledge. From this

point of view, uparama , as explained by Durgaji, applies to both the

paths. I am sure she has drawn inspiration from Sw. Dayanandaji.

One is ceaselessly wedded to Knowledge in both paths. In other

words, Knowledge permeates and guides all one's moments and movements.

 

The mainstay of both paths is contemplation. Nivritti, like uparama,

literally means cessation. It is futile to debate whether the

implication of these terms is mental or physical while trekkers on

both paths are engaged in both physical and mental activities. It is

their attitude, their irrevocable weddedness to Knowledge, that

really matters, which reflects both in the mental and physical.

 

Both sanyAsis and karmayogis are expected to have a pre-requisite

academic knowledge of advaita. Without such knowledge, they are

pointless wanderers. As pointed out here, they are just donning the

ochre robe and singing bhajans without really knowing why they are

doing so. We see a lot of them around us. In what sense are they

sanyAsis? It can be argued that they have faith or the vision of a

promised heaven or liberation. But, what is the point if that faith

or vision is not *logically* supported by the scriptures. The basic

advaitic vision should, therefore, be very clear without doubts.

Then the ship of contemplation and sadhana take over in a very

meaningful manner, irrespective of which of the two paths one has

taken. The boats to erstwhile existence in ignorance have then been

burnt even while the vrittis continue, of course, permeated by

Knowledge. Life then becomes a living of Knowledge. Both sanyAsa

and karmayoga hold this promise.

 

Now to the question: Has anybody seen a jIvanmukta? The answer is

very very short. Madathil Nair sees him every time he stands in

front of a mirror. But, Alas! He knows that not! Because he needs

the mirror of ignorance to see himself when he himself is the mirror

where he *fully* shines! Poor fellow! He is yet to burn the boats.

Wallowing in ignorance, he sees only a 5' 7" body frowning back at

him. When he sees the portrait of Bh. Ramana Maharshi or Sri

Ramakrishna, he sees only their physical figures benevolently smiling

at him. He is nowhere near realizing that he is `looking' at

himself, because he is too preoccupied with the business of `seeing'!

 

To `see' a jIvanmukta, the `seer' should himself be a jIvanmukta.

There cannot be two jIvanmuktas. So, when you know that you have

really `seen' one, know that you have `seen' yourself. There is no

more any urge to see then.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

On 7/30/05, Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> SrImad Bhagawad GItA clearly says that there are only two paths –

> karmayoga and sanyAsa. The choice is left for the aspirant to decide

> considering the situation he/she is in. It is silly to weigh down

> one's mind with the bothersome thought which of the two is better or

> faster.

 

As long as the dilemma between the two persists, karma-yoga is

definitely better.

 

Someone came to Bhagvan Raman asking advice whether to take sannyAsa.

Bhagvan told him to mind his house and family and job. After he left,

bhagvan told his attendent in Tamil-- "It hurts from inside" (i.e.

giving contradictory advice). The attendent said, "But you have left

the house, haven't you?" At this Bhagvan replied, "But did I go to all

and sundry asking advice whether to leave the house?"

 

The point being that one should not take sannyAsa till there is a

doubt-- nonetheless it remains a contradictory advice.

 

And Sri Ravi Shivde wrote:

> I found the monks managing the affairs of the Ashram just as I

> was managing affairs at my hospital- some of them running the

> library, some

> looking after Pooja, others making arrangement for a discourse and > so on.

 

There are many people who have taken sannyAsa without being prepared,

but what does it prove? A contractor cheats while building a house and

the house collapses. Does it mean civil engineering is at fault ?

 

No doubt there have been exceptions of householder jivanmuktas in

history, however assuming that I am going to be the next exception is

revelling in self delusion. It is exactly to counter this

self-deception that our achAryas have categorically mandated sannyAsa

for ALL who are seriously interested in moksha.

 

Coming to the question of mental sannyAsa, is there any likelihood

that someone who does not have the courage to take physical sannyAsa,

will have the fortitude to take mental sannyAsa -- which requires much

higher level of maturity?

 

And my earlier doubt in this regard is still unanswered. Is there any

advaitin achArya who has made a distinction between "mental sannyAsa"

and "physical sannyAsa"? A single advaitin in the entire tradition who

says that "mental sannyAsa" is enough and "physical sannyAsa" is not

required for a mumukshu?

 

Let anyone on this list reply "yes" and I will stand over-ruled -- nay

chastised.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sanjayji.

 

Do you imply that one can take to karmayoga with doubts? What type

of a karmayogi will he be? To my mind, both karmayoga and sanyAsa

are irrevocable, whole-hearted, well-thought out, firm decisions,

supported by vedantic logic. Otherwise, we will have only make-shift

sanyAsis and karmayogis. They are not worth our consideration here.

One doesn't take to karmayoga for the sake of performing familial

duties, which are only incidental to one's situation and already

placed on the Feet of the Lord. The Lord takes care of them, the

karmayogi being only His instrument - that is the understanding.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

>

> As long as the dilemma between the two persists, karma-yoga is

> definitely better.

>

.........

> The point being that one should not take sannyAsa till there is a

> doubt-- nonetheless it remains a contradictory advice.

>

[Guest guest]

SrImad Bhagawad GItA clearly says that there are only two paths –

> karmayoga and sanyAsa. The choice is left for the aspirant to decide

 

pranams.

 

what about Bhakthi yoga? is it not one of the ways to realise the God.

Bhagavad Gita says in detail about this also.

 

sinta like Thiyagaraja and Bhakta ramadas have brought Lord Rama to

their house by pure Bhakti.

 

In kerala Sri Narayana Bhattathri praises in his Narayaneeyam Bhakti

yoga. even sri aadi shankara who was the archtect of Advaita phylosophy

in his later years sang hyms to develop bhakthi in the hearts of men.

even poondhanam was one of this kind.i think bhakthi marga is the most

easiest of all the three yogas that is karma yoga, sanyasa yoga and

bhakthi yoga.

 

cdr b vaidyanathan

[Guest guest]

It is my understanding, as I think Nairji just pointed out, that we are

'all' already self-realised. It is just that we do not realise this. The

problem is ignorance and all that is required to remove this ignorance is

self-knowledge. Once the self-knowledge arrives, the enlightenment is

instantaneous, just as with the torch switched on in a darkened room.

 

All that having been said, the purpose of all practice (saMnyAsa or any

other technique) is to prepare the mind so that it is able to accept this

self-knowledge. Any practice that serves this purpose is equally valid and I

see no reason to suppose that saMnyAsa is a sine qua non.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vaidyanathanji.

 

I just replied your personal mail to me on this topic. I am quoting

the relevant part here.

 

"I don't disagree with you. But, most certainly, in all these sages,

Knowledge occurred at some time. Otherwise, Bhattathiri couldn't

have penned the Narayaneeyam, in which vedanta abounds. True bhakti

is not different from jnAna - the two being sides of the same coin.

They go hand in hand inseparably."

 

Poonthanam sang aloud: "I can't describe the angst I underwent when

I saw You, the One Without A Second, as two". Isn't that jnAna?

 

Besides, there is no karmayoga or sanyasa without bhakti. You can,

therefore, call both bhakti yoga! It is a matter of terminology to

the discerning eye.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "B VAIDYANATHAN"

<vaidyanathiyer> wrote:

>

> what about Bhakthi yoga? is it not one of the ways to realise the

God.

> Bhagavad Gita says in detail about this also.

>

> sinta like Thiyagaraja and Bhakta ramadas have brought Lord Rama to

> their house by pure Bhakti.

>

> In kerala Sri Narayana Bhattathri praises in his Narayaneeyam

Bhakti

> yoga. even sri aadi shankara who was the archtect of Advaita

phylosophy

> in his later years sang hyms to develop bhakthi in the hearts of

men.

> even poondhanam was one of this kind.i think bhakthi marga is the

most

> easiest of all the three yogas that is karma yoga, sanyasa yoga and

> bhakthi yoga.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nair-ji,

 

On 7/30/05, Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> To my mind, both karmayoga and sanyAsa

> are irrevocable, whole-hearted, well-thought out, firm decisions,

> supported by vedantic logic.

 

Whole hearted-- Yes. Well thought out -- Yes. Firm decisions supported

by vedantic logic -- Yes.

Irrevokable -- Only sannyAsa.

> Otherwise, we will have only make-shift

> sanyAsis and karmayogis.

 

But all the sannyAsins were, earlier karma-yogis, weren't they?

sannyAsa doesn't lead to karma-yoga, but karma-yoga can (and

hopefully, should) lead to sannyAsa.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

On 7/30/05, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> All that having been said, the purpose of all practice (saMnyAsa or any

> other technique) is to prepare the mind so that it is able to accept this

> self-knowledge. Any practice that serves this purpose is equally valid and

> I

> see no reason to suppose that saMnyAsa is a sine qua non.

 

Of course there have been householder jivanmuktas to prove sannyAsa

not a sine qua non. But then there also have been saints who have

realized without a teacher. Or a raman who did not have to study

vedanta to realize the truth. In theory, even a teacher and pramAna

are not sine qua non.

 

But is a path laid out for exceptions? Or is it even needed for exceptions?

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

namastE.

 

I want to make just one point. By physically taking sanyAsa, nothing

changes. If I am jealous of another having a bigger / better house, even

if I go to himAlayas as a sanyAsi, I will be jealous of another sanyAsi

having a bigger / better cave.

 

Sri. Shivde has been very generous by his understated anology of

sanyAsis chiding younger sanyAsis. There are many sanyAsis who have

fought legal battles in court regarding property. There are several

examples of maThAdipatis being much more interested in material world

than a normal householder. The sAdhus who come down from the himAlayas

for kumbhmEla, fight pitched battles (violent) regarding who (which

aKhaDa) can bathe first.

 

My point is definitely NOT to paint all sanyAsis with a black brush. It

is just that physical donning of saffron doesn't matter. One can leave

behind all other possessions but not one's mind. The physical taking of

sanyAsa, will just change the circumstances / sorroundings of a person.

 

I bow to those who have had the courage to reject / give up everything

they had and dedicate themselves to the most glorious goal by taking

sanyAsa.

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

Dera friends:

 

Here are some of my thoughts on this:

 

Everything is all about understanding, realizing and then

practicing. If any one of the protions of this "tripuTi" are

missing then the suffering continues.

 

It is said:

 

bijaanyagnupadagdhaani na rohanti yathaa punaH |

J~nanadagdhaistathaa kleshairnaatmaa sa.mpadyate punaH || ma. bhaa.

vana. 199.106, 107; shanty. 211.17 ||

 

Meaning - Just like the roasted seed does not germinate, thus

roasting suffering (klesha) (dependent karma) with J~naana prevents

their reoccurrence.

 

J~naatvaa devamuccyate sarva paashaiH || shve. 5.13; 6.13 ||

 

xiiyant caasya karmaaNI tasmin dR^iShTe paraaavare || muNDaka. 2.2.8

||

 

Meaning - One having become knowledgable of parabrhama the karmaxaya

is automatic.

 

Therefore, it is advised to roast the karma vicaara in the fire of

knowledge. (bharjitaani tu biijaani santyakaaryakaraaNi).

 

As far as moxa is concerned we need to understand what and why our

sages tried to pass on their understand through veda and upaniShada

for the future generations.

 

It is said -

 

moxasya na hi vaso.asti na graamantarameva |

aJ~naana hR^idayagranthinaasho moxa iti smR^ita || shIvagiitaa 13.12

||

 

Meaning - Moxa is no a separate place (like traveling from Mumbai to

Delhi or New York). moxa is liberation and elimination

(dissolution) of the glands that secrete ignorance.

 

It is unfortunate that we forget to practice the advaitic principles

in our daily life. The separate gR^ihastaashrama and sanyaasa has

been practices but IMHO we can benefit if we practice the principles

of snyaasa by remaining in gR^ihastaashrama.

 

Let me share with you a sentence form one of my upcoming books

on "Significance of puruShasuukta" and "Why Gansha First?".

 

Spiritual world is not a separate world but we have to live

spiritually in this world. How wonderful it will be if we all

become scientists and do our science religiously.

 

IMHO - Taking sanyaasa for the chasing the illusionary moxa is our

ignorance.

 

Hari OM

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sanjayji.

 

My comments are in .

>

> Whole hearted-- Yes. Well thought out -- Yes. Firm decisions

supported

> by vedantic logic -- Yes.

> Irrevokable -- Only sannyAsa.

 

[What sort of a karmayogi is that!? If he is so irresolute, he can

be called an experimenter at best.]

>

> But all the sannyAsins were, earlier karma-yogis, weren't they?

> sannyAsa doesn't lead to karma-yoga, but karma-yoga can (and

> hopefully, should) lead to sannyAsa.

 

[i don't know if all sanyasis were earlier karmayogis. I need help

here. Karmayoga need not end in sanyAsa. Knowledge about oneself

is not privy to sanyAsa in order to demand that all karmayogis

should enter the sanyAsa phase before they realize what they really

are.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sanjayji.

 

I thought I would add the following to my previous post on this

topic.

 

It was Pablo Neruda, the Chilean poet who sang:

 

Stone upon stone

..........

and where is the man?

 

I am trying hard to recollect. Hence the ......

 

Obviously, Neruda, the friend and admirer of Che Guevera (sp?), the

Bolivian guerilla, was lamenting his ancient past ravaged by the

imperialists from beyond the seas. Guevera perished in the jungles

of Bolivia with his dream unrealized. Yet, his name stands still

for resoluteness and inspires downtrodden millions worldwide.

 

And, here a vedantin, Madathil Nair sings:

 

Robes upon robes

All ochre red,

Where is the realized soul!?

 

Can you answer that?

 

I have had the opportunity to encounter idiotic singularities in

ochre robes who ridicule advaita saying that all one needs for

liberation is the lahari of bhakti. Where am I to buy this thing

called bhakti unless it sprouts itself in me through the logic of

vedanta that all are afterall me and that I am in love with all

because they are all me? That knowledge leads to an irrevocable

resoluteness. It is very much needed in a karmayogi. Forget the

sanyAsi. If not, he is just a vagrant experimenter, as I pointed out

before.

 

Thus, here am I lamenting:

 

Robes upon robes

All ochre red,

Where is the resolute one!?

 

I might bounce into one next time I stroll the busy streets of New

York. Yet, I might not recognize him. They are everywhere. We

don't see them, for they don't don ochre robes! Robes are a

formality. A karmayogi is not any different from a sanyasi except

for his situational details.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathi Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> A karmayogi is not any different from a sanyasi except

> for his situational details.

>

 

Namaste,

 

Well-said! Gita : 3:30, 5:13, 12:6, 18:57 will back you up!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> It was Pablo Neruda, the Chilean poet who sang:

>

> Stone upon stone

> .........

> and where is the man?

>

> I am trying hard to recollect. Hence the ......

>

 

Namaste,

 

It is from Neruda's epic poem, 'The Heights of Machu Picchu'

 

"True being was threshed like kernels of corn in the

inexhaustible/granary of lost deeds, of memorable efforts . . . ."

 

"In you, like two parallel lines,/the cradle of lightning and

humanity/rocking together in a thorny wind."

 

" . . . [Y]ou imploded as in a single autumn/into a single death."

 

"Today the empty air no longer weeps . . . ."

 

"The dead kingdom lives on."

 

"Stone upon stone, and man, where was he?"

 

"Give me back the slaves you buried!"

 

"Come up, brother, and be born with me."

 

" . . . [A]nd let my tears flow, hours, days, years,/through

sightless ages, starry Autumn."

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

praNAm Nair-ji

 

On 7/30/05, Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> [What sort of a karmayogi is that!? If he is so irresolute, he can

> be called an experimenter at best.]

 

In that case it would be safe to conclude that the whole tribe of

vedantins so far has consisted of experimenters only. Sri Swami

Dayananda-ji whom you mentioned in an earlier post also considered

himself a karma-yogi in his purvAshram. You may refer his biography

by Coimbatore ashrama published at the time of his shashthi-purti.

Barring a few shankars here and a few ramans there, no one comes to

sannyAsa without earlier going through the path of karma-yoga.

 

> [i don't know if all sanyasis were earlier karmayogis. I need help

> here. Karmayoga need not end in sanyAsa. Knowledge about oneself

> is not privy to sanyAsa in order to demand that all karmayogis

> should enter the sanyAsa phase before they realize what they really

> are.]

 

Apparently these doubts are not new. They were prevalent in the times

of author of panchadashi also:

 

janakAdeH kathaM rAjyamiti cheddRiDhabodhataH |

tahA tavApi chettarkaM paTha yadvA kRishhiM kuru ||

 

(Doubt) How then the ancient knowers like Janaka ruled kingdoms

(remaining in samsAra) ?

(Reply) Because of there superior qualifications. If you also have

such (qualifications), then you can either study logic or go for

farming.

 

Seems that only for an *exceptionally qualified* sadhaka, sannyAsa is optional.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

>

> [What sort of a karmayogi is that!? If he is so irresolute, he can

> be called an experimenter at best.]

> >

> > But all the sannyAsins were, earlier karma-yogis, weren't they?

> > sannyAsa doesn't lead to karma-yoga, but karma-yoga can (and

> > hopefully, should) lead to sannyAsa.

>

> [i don't know if all sanyasis were earlier karmayogis. I need help

> here. Karmayoga need not end in sanyAsa. Knowledge about oneself

> is not privy to sanyAsa in order to demand that all karmayogis

> should enter the sanyAsa phase before they realize what they really

> are.]

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

namaste nairji,

 

karmayoga is better than sanyasa

the difference is given by Lord Krishna in his Gita.

doing ones duty is most important once you are born in the world as

human being.why did Krishna advice Arjuna to do his duty as a

kshtriya? he also told him to leave the results to him as he has come

for destruction of adharma and arjuna is only a tool in his hand.

karmayogis need not enter into sanyasa.bhakti yoga comes next to

karma yoga. sanyasa leads to desrting ones duty and doing thapas in a

secluded place, but karma yoga leads to the superior knowledge.

 

to illustrate this in Mahabharata there is a story said by veda vyasa.

Hearing this Markandeya told him a sacred story.

 

There was once a Brahmana named Kausika who observed his vow of

brahmacharya with great steadfastness and devotion. One day, he sat

under a tree reciting the Vedas. A crane, perched on the top of the

tree, defied his head with its droppings. He looked up at it, and his

angry look killed the bird and it fell down dead. The Brahmana was

pained when he saw the dead bird lying on the ground.

 

How frightful it would be if wishes fulfilled themselves, if each

hasty or angry wish took effect at once! How much there would be to

regret or repent afterwards! It is lucky for us that wishes depend on

outward circumstances for accomplishment, since that save us from

much sin and sorrow.

 

Kausika sorrowed that the evil thought that passed in his mind in a

moment of anger had killed an innocent bird. Some time later, he went

as usual to beg alms.

 

He stood before the door of a house to receive his dole. The

housewife was cleansing utensils at that time. Kausika waited in the

hope that she would attend to him after her work was over. In the

meantime the master of the house returned, tired and hungry, and the

wife had to attend to his wants, wash and dry his feet and serve him

with food. In this preoccupation she seemed to have forgotten the

mendicant waiting outside. After her husband had been cared for and

fed, she came out with alms to the mendicant. She said: "I am sorry

to have kept you waiting long. Pardon me".

 

Kausika, burning with anger, said: "Lady, you have made me wait for

such a long time. This indifference is not fair."

 

The woman told the Brahmana: "Best of Brahmanas, kindly do forgive

me. I was serving my husband and hence the delay. The Brahmana

remarked: "It is right and proper to attend on the husband, but the

Brahmana also should not be disregarded. You seem an arrogant woman."

 

She said: "Be not angry with me and remember that I kept you waiting

only because I was dutifully serving my husband. I am no crane to be

killed by a violent thought and your rage can do no harm to the woman

who devotes herself to the service of her husband."

 

The brahmana was taken aback. He wondered how the woman knew of the

crane incident.

 

She continued: "O great one, you do not know the secret of duty, and

you are also not aware that anger is the greatest enemy that dwells

in man. Forgive the delay in attending to you. Go to Mithila and be

instructed in the secret of good life by Dharmavyadha living in that

city."

 

The Brahmana was amazed. He said: "I deserve your just admonition and

it will do me good. May all good attend you."

 

Kausika reached Mithila and looked for Dharmavyadha"s residence,

which he thought would be some lonely hermitage far from the noise

and bustle of common life. He walked along magnificent roads between

houses and gardens in that great city and finally reached a butcher's

shop, in which was this man Dharmavyadha.

 

The Brahmana was shocked beyond measure and stood at a distance in

disgust. The butcher suddenly rose from his seat, came to the

Brahmana and inquired: "Revered sir, are you well? Did that chaste

Brahmana lady send you to me?"

 

The Brahmana was stupefied.

 

"Revered sir, I know why you have come. Let us go home," said the

butcher and he took the Brahmana to his house where he saw a happy

family and was greatly struck by the devotion with which the butcher

served his parents. Kausika took his lessons from that butcher on

Dharma, man's calling and duty. Afterwards, the Brahmana returned to

his house and began to tend his parents, a duty which he had

neglected before.

 

The moral of this striking story of Dharmavyadha so skillfully woven

by Vedavyasa into the Mahabharata, is the same as the teaching of the

Gita, that man reaches perfection by the honest pursuit of whatever

calling falls to his lot in life, and that this is really worship of

God who created and pervades all. The occupation may be one he is

born to in a society or it may have been forced on him by

circumstances or he may have taken it up by choice but what really

matters is the spirit of sincerity and faithfulness with which he

does his life's work.

Vedavyasa emphasises this great truth by making a scholarly Brahmana,

who did not know it, learn it from a butcher, who lived it in his

humble and despised life.

 

pranams

Vaidyanathan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vaidyanathanji.

 

Thanks for the story of Kausika. I appreciate it.

 

However, I am compelled to take exception to your view quoted below

and obseve that the story is not relevant to the points under

discussion, which are:

 

(a) It is advaitically counterproductive to sift bhakti away from

knowledge and name it a sole marga. (I have replied your personal

mail in this regard. Pertinent parts of my message are also quoted

below in the hope of enlivening this satsangh of ours.)

(b) The context of the aspirant, his thirst for knowledge about

himself, advaitic conviction, faith and determination - these are the

parameters for his choice of which of the two ways he should go. I

would also add pUrvasamskAras to this list.

© It is unfortunate to define sanyAsa as "deserting one's duty and

doing tapas in a secluded place". It is a life surrendered to

contemplation on Truth spontaneously resulting from the parameters

mentioned in (b) above and backed by a clear understanding of one's

duty vis a vis Knowledge.

(d) There is only Knowledge at the end. Nothing superior or

inferior.

(e) One path may seem easier than the other. This varies from

person to person depending on many imponderables.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin, "B VAIDYANATHAN"

<vaidyanathiyer> wrote:

> bhakti yoga comes next to karma yoga. sanyasa leads to desrting

ones duty and doing thapas in a secluded place, but karma yoga leads

to the superior knowledge.

______________________

 

Extract from my personal mail to Shri Vaidyanathanji:

 

 

I have no disagreement with most of what you say. In

fact, I am sharing your frequency in full.

 

However, I will just quote a particular part of your

post and pose a question:

 

QUOTE

 

i do accept both jiana and bhakti are one and the

> same. but when we see in bhakti yoga the jiana comes

> after total surrender to the supreme god after

> believing his omnipresence. also no bookish

> knowledge

> is needed to do bhakti. like in the case of self

> realisation an individual must cultivate his mind to

> think of god or his own self but for one who is

> steeped in bhakti jiana comes automatically.

 

UNQUOTE

 

My question:

 

Here is a materialistic, atheistic, rationalist. How

can I instill in him bhakti or at least a belief in

God unless I take recourse to some sort of logic?

 

In the cases you have quoted, I agree there was

spontaneous bhakti. There is no logical explanation

for that. We can only attribute it to pUrvasamskArAs

where probably some logical deduction had taken

place leaving them firmly on the path of devotion. A

contemporary instance is Mata Amritanandamayi Devi. I

notice that She is a jnAni too as all Her words

resonate with vedanta. I should imagine Her devotion

in this life is a natural corollary to some

pUrvasamskAra. In a similar manner, I should assume that an adamant

atheist is an atheist only due to his pUrvasamskArAs.

 

To my mind, it is therefore advaitically

counterproductive to sift bhakti away from knowledge.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

Thanks for opening the floodgates of Neruda's poetry. I couldn't

evoke my graying memory cells to recapture Neruda in full. I had

read him over three decades ago in my Mumbai loneliness.

 

After that Browning quote of mine about three years ago, I had

suspected you were averse to poetry. You are proving me wrong again

and again. A little more, before I overdo?

 

Blessed be our List

On the dry land track to Truth

With poesy down our hearts

Like wells so deep

At summer's peak

Oozing endless springs

>From the bottom of their depths!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

>

> It is from Neruda's epic poem, 'The Heights of Machu Picchu'

>

> ".......

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sanjayji.

 

As usual my comments are in .

_______________________

> In that case it would be safe to conclude that the whole tribe of

> vedantins so far has consisted of experimenters only.

 

[Yes, if they were/are all irresolute. Should we fight shy of

calling a spade a spade?]

________________________________

>Sri Swami

> Dayananda-ji whom you mentioned in an earlier post also considered

> himself a karma-yogi in his purvAshram. You may refer his biography

> by Coimbatore ashrama published at the time of his shashthi-purti.

 

[i haven't read the biography. Swamiji's case should be viewed and

weighed against the context he was in just prior to initiation.

Perhaps, the situation justified his eventual decision. A solitary

case cannot be made a universal rule to conclude that karmayoga

necessarily precedes sanyAsa.]

______________________________

> Barring a few shankars here and a few ramans there, no one comes to

> sannyAsa without earlier going through the path of karma-yoga.

 

[i have no statistics. Yet, I would doubt the veracity of such a

conclusion. If one is in an Ashram or Mutt, the situation may appear

the way you suggest because one has to necessarily perform certain

Ashram/Mutt duties for some time before being initiated. Sanjayji,

you are unjustly denying me self-realization during this life time as

I have not even the remotest chance of getting a sanyAsa dIkshA.

Mind you, there are several million advaitins like me. We will unite

and rise up against you!]

 

>>

> Seems that only for an *exceptionally qualified* sadhaka, sannyAsa

is optional.

 

[Do you rule out the possibility of there being several

*exceptionally qualified* non-sanyAsi sAdhakAs? What does it matter

even if there are only one or two? Aren't they enough to disprove

the general rule you are suggesting? Besides, how many that take to

sanyAsa are really 'successful'? Doesn't the requirement of

*exceptional qualifications* apply to them too? Irrespective of

whether the aspirants are inside or outside ochre robes, the

qualifications demanded of them are the same. They are simply

working in two different environments their eyes set on the same

goal.]

_____

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nair-ji and other advaitins. I feel embarrassed to beat

this dead horse again and again. It seems either my understanding is

at fault or I am unable to put my views across.

 

On 7/31/05, Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> [Yes, if they were/are all irresolute. Should we fight shy of

> calling a spade a spade?]

 

You may prefer to put whatever label you feel like however it doesn't

negate the fact that sannyAsa is taken only after going through the

life of karma-yoga. The very structure of ashramas ensures that

sannyAsa comes after gruhastha.

> [i have no statistics. Yet, I would doubt the veracity of such a

> conclusion. If one is in an Ashram or Mutt, the situation may appear

> the way you suggest because one has to necessarily perform certain

> Ashram/Mutt duties for some time before being initiated.

 

It is not hard to find such statistics. In a tradition of more than a

thousand years, householder jivanmuktas can be counted on fingures.

And many times, they are not inside this tradition. Now I am not

arguing that there cannot be jivanmuktas in other traditions, however,

we are discussing here the path of jivanmukti as laid out in advaita

tradition. At the risk of sounding impudent, let me point out that

your view is not shared by any advaitin achArya.

> Sanjayji,

> you are unjustly denying me self-realization during this life time as

> I have not even the remotest chance of getting a sanyAsa dIkshA.

> Mind you, there are several million advaitins like me. We will unite

> and rise up against you!]

 

I am also one of those several millions :-) But as you earlier said in

your post, should we shy of calling a spade a spade?

> [Do you rule out the possibility of there being several

> *exceptionally qualified* non-sanyAsi sAdhakAs? What does it matter

> even if there are only one or two?

 

I do not rule out that possibility for you but for me I see little chance :-)

> Aren't they enough to disprove

> the general rule you are suggesting? Besides, how many that take to

> sanyAsa are really 'successful'?

 

General rules are only generally true. For exceptional sadhakas

exception is already made by shAstras. "How many that take sannyAsa

are really successful?" is beside the point. How many who start

learning biology end up being a doctor? Does that mean learning

biology is not a pre-requisite for being a doctor? More important

question in this context is : How many of those not taking sannyAsa

are successful?

 

Advaita Vedanta is not just a philosophy but a moksha shAstra. And

this shAstra painstakingly describes for us the path leading to that

goal. Now we are free to follow or not to follow that path but is it

proper for us to push our own theories as "advaita vedanta"? Advaita

tradition, advaita shAstras and commands of advaitin sages are for all

to see. However otherwise I may like it to be, theory of "mental

sannyAsa" does not have its basis either in tradition or shAstras or

the sayings of advaitin sages. It is our own invention.

 

Nair-ji, don't you find it strange that all the good logic that we

have mustered up to support the "menta sannyAsa" theory never occurred

to one single advaitin in a tradition of over a thousand years?

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Yaduji, and all

 

Sri Yaduji said:

 

<<<Taking sanyaasa for the chasing the illusionary moxa is our ignorance.>>>>

 

<<<Who was the vidhaatha (The one who dispenses the destiny of our Nation) here?

If we interpret this from the davita point of view that that God is some one

else who is going to provide the salvation for me and thus I surrender to HIM.

However, if we interpret this through the eyes of an advaita then the meaning

also changes. The dispenser of the destiny is no one else but you. You take

the responsibility for your own salvation,

 

rather than depending on others to solve your problems.>>>

 

You are absolutely right. Why blame God or anybody else for what I am today or

what I will be tomorrow. God has already done his part; He has equipped me with

all that I need and above all with Viveka and it is for me to use it.

 

<<<In my view, practicing the advaitic principles even is vyavahaaric situations

may provide us a road map for the collective salvations of our country rather

than worrying about the individual salvation of the individual saadhakaa?>>>

 

 

 

IMHO the purpose of Advaita is for us to practice it in our Vyvahara as in any

case we have to have Vyvahara and when we approach Vyvahara with Advaita Budhi,

it makes all the difference.

 

After all, WHETHER GOING FOR SANYASA, OR BECOMING (?) A JEEVAN MUKTA, BEING A

DEVOTEE, BEING A YOGI, etc. etc. ALL HAVE THE ONLY ONE AND SINGLE PURPOSE “I

WANT TO BE HAPPY” OR REMAIN IN HAPPINESS. So, in short one wants to become other

than what he thinks he is and so that he becomes happy or he is free from

unhappiness, as he cannot accept himself now. This pursuit will continue till

one knows that happiness is not to be sought outside and it is his own Swaroopa,

which he is unable to recognize and appreciate only because of the ignorance

about his own self. Once he knows that whatever he does, or whatever he goes

for, will be out of happiness, which he is already.

 

Warm regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> On 7/30/05, Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

>

> > [What sort of a karmayogi is that!? If he is so irresolute, he

can

> > be called an experimenter at best.]

>

> In that case it would be safe to conclude that the whole tribe of

> vedantins so far has consisted of experimenters only. Sri Swami

> Dayananda-ji whom you mentioned in an earlier post also considered

> himself a karma-yogi in his purvAshram. You may refer his biography

> by Coimbatore ashrama published at the time of his shashthi-purti.

> Barring a few shankars here and a few ramans there, no one comes to

> sannyAsa without earlier going through the path of karma-yoga.

> > [i don't know if all sanyasis were earlier karmayogis. I need

help

> > here. Karmayoga need not end in sanyAsa. Knowledge about

oneself

> > is not privy to sanyAsa in order to demand that all karmayogis

> > should enter the sanyAsa phase before they realize what they

really

> > are.]

namaste to all

 

i would like to give the difference between a karma yougi and

sankiyayogi that is sanyasi, which should make it clear.

 

who is a karma yogi?

 

1. he does not differenciate between self and paramatma.

he does not have any attachment and submits all fruits of karma

to HIM. he does his duty with out fruits or expectations.

2. he thinks that he is the kartha.

3. he submits all results of karma to God.

4. he differenciates between Himself and Paramatma.

5. He believes that all objects are due to the prakriti and its

evolution.

6. he believes in karma and the results of it.

 

who is a snakya yogi?

 

1. He is immersed in Sat chit ananda, and does not think he is the

kartha.

2. He does not think he is a kartha.

4. He does not have any karma in this birth.

5. He thinks he is the Brahman and there can be any thing else.

6. other than brahman he does not believe that there is karma or its

effect. he thinks he does not have anything todo with them.

 

which is better let us decide and follow it depending upon our mental

make up.

 

pranams

 

B vaidyanathan