FORMAL SANNYASA IS IT PREREQUISIT TO JIVAN MUKTI??

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all

 

IMHO,

 

Sanyasa "takes place" and taking Sanyasa is quite different from the former one.

 

Warm regards

 

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sanjayji.

 

This is getting rather verbose. The dead horse has a bad stare.

 

Let me get down to only the points where you suspect yourself to be

rather impudent. They, in fact, are the pertinent ones to this

discussion. My comments are in below your text:

__________________

 

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

> your view is not shared by any advaitin achArya.

 

[One Krishna of SrImad Bhagwad GItA is more than enough for the whole

world. He didn't ask Arjuna to fight the battle and then go and join

a monastic order to do sanyAsa in search of salvation. He only

prescribed total surrender (sarvadharmAn parityAjya). That is not

sanyAsa to my humble understanding. If Krishna was an advaitin

Acharya is another question. At least, the author VyAsa was. Or, do

you consider only AcharyAs post-Sankara? Even, then, I can point at

the teacher I respect most. He is none other than Swami

Dayanandaji. Well, besides, it all depends on one's understanding of

jIvanmukti. When the sages roared 'it is here and now', they weren't

obviously exhorting the whole of humanity to go ochre. I suspect

there is an obvious gap in our understanding here. I don't want to

delve deep into it.]

 

________________________

 

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?

 

 

[i didn't push forward any new theory of advaita vedanta. I was just

sharing my understanding (of karmayoga and sanyAsa) as you are doing

with yours. Neither did I propound any "mental sanyAsa". Where did

you get it from? Are you referring to a remark made by Prof.

Krishnamurthyji? I believe the context in which he mentioned the

word 'mental' is significant. I don't think he meant it as a new

theory. Well, he is scholarly enough to defend himself eminently.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vydyanathanji.

 

My comments are in .

 

_____________

> 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.

 

[Yes. He knows that the Lord is the giver of results.]

 

he does his duty with out fruits or expectations

 

[He has legitimate dhArmic desires.]

> 2. he thinks that he is the kartha.

 

[No. He acts without agency in actions.]

> 3. he submits all results of karma to God.

 

[Already commented on under (1) above.]

> 4. he differenciates between Himself and Paramatma.

 

[You are contradicting yourself! Please see (1) above.]

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

> evolution.

 

[He knows!]

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

 

[Can't figure out what you mean.]

 

> who is a snakya yogi?

>

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

> kartha.

 

[i am sure you are talking about a realized soul and not about one

still on the path. The latter part of the sentence applies to

Karmayogi too. Both sanyAsi on the path and karmayogi contemplate on

the Truth. Knowledge pervades their every moment and movement.]

> 2. He does not think he is a kartha.

 

[Yes. He has eschewed agency in actions. This applies to karmayogi

also.]

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

 

[i don't understand what you mean. He is not hibernating, is he?]

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

 

[i am sure you meant 'can't be'. Well, sarvam khalvidam brahma

applies to both karmayogi and sanyAsi.]

> 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.

 

[Neither does the karmayogi think otherwise. Sarvam khalvidam brahma

includes karma and its effects. There is only brahman to both

sanyAsi and karmayogi - the one without a second.]

____________________

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

mental

> make up.

 

[both are equally good. Once you acquire the required knowledge, be

what you are spontaneously depending on your context in life. As

Maniji very pertinently observed: "SanyAsa takes place".]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I hope all of us know abuot "Apat Sanyasa". It is given just before one breathes

his last, as just a ritual. There is no consideration whether the incumbent has

any knowleddge, let alone self knowledge etc. It is just a ritual.

 

I will put, if I may be permitted, "Jeevan Mukti" is a pre-requisite to

"Sanyasa" and not the other way around. Then only Sanyaas has the real meaning,

though I wonder whether a Jeevan Mukta needs to be a sanyasi.

 

Warm regards,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: Namaste Vydyanathanji.

 

My comments are in .

 

_____________

> 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.

 

[Yes. He knows that the Lord is the giver of results.]

 

he does his duty with out fruits or expectations

 

[He has legitimate dhArmic desires.]

> 2. he thinks that he is the kartha.

 

[No. He acts without agency in actions.]

> 3. he submits all results of karma to God.

 

[Already commented on under (1) above.]

> 4. he differenciates between Himself and Paramatma.

 

[You are contradicting yourself! Please see (1) above.]

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

> evolution.

 

[He knows!]

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

 

[Can't figure out what you mean.]

 

> who is a snakya yogi?

>

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

> kartha.

 

[i am sure you are talking about a realized soul and not about one

still on the path. The latter part of the sentence applies to

Karmayogi too. Both sanyAsi on the path and karmayogi contemplate on

the Truth. Knowledge pervades their every moment and movement.]

> 2. He does not think he is a kartha.

 

[Yes. He has eschewed agency in actions. This applies to karmayogi

also.]

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

 

[i don't understand what you mean. He is not hibernating, is he?]

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

 

[i am sure you meant 'can't be'. Well, sarvam khalvidam brahma

applies to both karmayogi and sanyAsi.]

> 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.

 

[Neither does the karmayogi think otherwise. Sarvam khalvidam brahma

includes karma and its effects. There is only brahman to both

sanyAsi and karmayogi - the one without a second.]

____________________

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

mental

> make up.

 

[both are equally good. Once you acquire the required knowledge, be

what you are spontaneously depending on your context in life. As

Maniji very pertinently observed: "SanyAsa takes place".]

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note:

I have repeat this note once more for good reasons. You have well articulated

where you stand with respect to "Sanyasa," in so many posts. Those like you with

deep conviction on what you perceive will unlikely take time understand other

viewpoints that appear opposite to beliefs. As one of the moderator of this

list, I admire your strong faith in what you believe. But at the same time,

please understand, others like me, Nairji, Sunderji and other

moderators of this list also have strong convictions to what we believe. The

fact that all your posts have been released without any reservation establish

the openness of this list and its policies. Please do understand that we do have

the 'right' to disagree with what you say for the RIGHT reasons! The debates

that you attempt to pursue do not have any visible end in the forseeable future!

Given this fact, let us stop debating on such issues where 'faith' only matters.

We respect your disagreement and we don't want the members to fall into the

pitfalls of endless debates with words without substance.

==============================

 

 

On 8/1/05, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> This is getting rather verbose.

 

I agree and we are not getting anywhere. So this is my last post on

this subject.

> [One Krishna of SrImad Bhagwad GItA is more than enough for the whole

> world. He didn't ask Arjuna to fight the battle and then go and join

> a monastic order to do sanyAsa in search of salvation.

 

Look at the context of Gita. Arjuna wanted to take sannyAsa for all

the wrong reasons. But did Krishna discourage Arjuna from renouncing

the world at the end of mahAbhArat? The point is that there is a time

in life when you are expected to be in the world, and there is a time

in life when you are expected to renounce the world.

> Even, then, I can point at

> the teacher I respect most. He is none other than Swami

> Dayanandaji.

 

Incidentally, he also happens to be my teacher's teacher. If you get

some more time to spend with him, just scratch a little deeper.

> Well, besides, it all depends on one's understanding of

> jIvanmukti. When the sages roared 'it is here and now', they weren't

> obviously exhorting the whole of humanity to go ochre.

 

After a stage in life, yes.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

On 8/1/05, R.S.MANI <r_s_mani wrote:

>

>

> I will put, if I may be permitted, "Jeevan Mukti" is a pre-requisite to

> "Sanyasa" and not the other way around. Then only Sanyaas has the real

> meaning, though I wonder whether a Jeevan Mukta needs to be a sanyasi.

 

This is a well known point of view. i.e. "If Brahman is not known,

eligibility for knowledge is not possible; and if it is known, eligibility

is not necessary." However, for an aspirant, we are taught that neither of

the two are the case. It is a case of Brahman being both known (in a general

sense) *and *not known at the same time. The move towards

'physical-sannyasa' (vividhisha sannyasa) is designed to solidify the

knowledge through shravana, manana and nididhyasana.

ajit

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

>

> I hope all of us know abuot "Apat Sanyasa". It is given just

before one breathes his last, as just a ritual. There is no

consideration whether the incumbent has any knowleddge, let alone

self knowledge etc. It is just a ritual.

>

> I will put, if I may be permitted, "Jeevan Mukti" is a pre-

requisite to "Sanyasa" and not the other way around. Then only

Sanyaas has the real meaning, though I wonder whether a Jeevan Mukta

needs to be a sanyasi.

 

Namaste,

 

It is interesting that Shankaracharya's sanyasa was in this

category!

 

These quotations from Sw. Vidyaranya's Jivan-Mukti-Viveka

should put to rest any misgivings on this issue :

 

Jivan-Mukti-Viveka, Sw. Vidyaranya (14th cent.); 1st edition, 1996,

1st reprint 2001; transl. Sw. Mokshadananda; Advaita Ashrama,

Kolkata -

 

p. 8 -

 

"Students, householders and hermits who for some reason could not

take to Sannyasa, even performance of their peculiar duties of the

respective ashramas, is not incompatible with the mental

renunciation for attaining knowledge.

There is no dearth of references to such enlightened ones in the

Vedas, Smritis, Puranas, and Itihasas, as also in the present day

society. ....."

 

 

p. 62 - quoting from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Varttika 1:4:1584 -

 

"The Varttikakara (Sureshvaracharya) has shown... ' There are even

sannyasins with vitiated mind due to misfortune who are found to be

careless, interested in worldly affairs, backbiting and

quarrelsome'. "

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

to reach Jivan Mukti, maybe one need to loose the illusion of not

having been a Jivan Mukti (before).

 

....before and after.....

.....prerequisit of something what will happen...

 

maybe this are constructions of the mind only......confused by

similarities of our own Being.....in the society.....

in groups....in attitudes.....in a world

 

everybody is since ever free to.....be free.....whenever the mind

remain calm.....and the heart is in harmony with oneSelf

 

the prerequisit to have a good and deep sleep....is to be realy

tired......

 

many possibilities to get tired....

endless choice....to get deep sleep

 

.....but one should not forget that it's impossible to stop the

time......whenever one is dreaming of being a BMI....and enjoying the

perception of a world

 

...."Sannyasa" and "Karma-Yoga" help to "Practice" this

 

few words

enjoying the discussion on the subject...

thanks for corrections

 

Much Regards for Sannyasa people

 

love and peace

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Jivan-Mukti-Viveka,a critical-annotated edition by Robert

Goodding, is available in the Files Section. The quoations are on

pp.

 

p. 73-74

 

p. 107

 

The Treatise on Liberation-in-Life

Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of

The Jivanmuktiviveka of Vidyaranya

 

Robert Alan Goodding, Ph.D.

University of Texas at Austin, 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

>

> These quotations from Sw. Vidyaranya's Jivan-Mukti-Viveka

> should put to rest any misgivings on this issue :

>

> Jivan-Mukti-Viveka, Sw. Vidyaranya (14th cent.); 1st edition,

1996,

> 1st reprint 2001; transl. Sw. Mokshadananda; Advaita Ashrama,

> Kolkata -

>

> p. 8 -

>

>>

>

> p. 62 - quoting from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Varttika 1:4:1584 -

>

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note:

You have well articulated where you stand with respect to "Sanyasa," in so many

posts. Those like you with deep conviction on what you perceive will unlikely

take time understand other viewpoints that appear opposite to beliefs. As one of

the moderator of this list, I admire your strong faith in what you believe. But

at the same time, please understand, others like me, Nairji, Sunderji and other

moderators of this list also have strong convictions to what we believe. The

fact that all your posts have been released without any reservation establish

the openness of this list and its policies. Please do understand that we do have

the 'right' to disagree with what you say for the RIGHT reasons! The debates

that you attempt to pursue do not have any visible end in the forseeable future!

Given this fact, let us stop debating on such issues where 'faith' only matters.

We respect your disagreement and we don't want the members to fall into the

pitfalls of endless debates with words without substance.

==============================

 

 

 

 

I had decided not to earn more bad karmas by continuing my irritating

posts on this subject, however :-)

 

On 8/1/05, Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

> These quotations from Sw. Vidyaranya's Jivan-Mukti-Viveka

> should put to rest any misgivings on this issue :

> "Students, householders and hermits who for some reason could not

> take to Sannyasa, even performance of their peculiar duties of the

> respective ashramas, is not incompatible with the mental

> renunciation for attaining knowledge.

> There is no dearth of references to such enlightened ones in the

> Vedas, Smritis, Puranas, and Itihasas, as also in the present day

> society. ....."

 

Quoting Swami Vidyaranya is very apt on this subject, since his

"jivanmuktiviveka" deals with this subject in its entirety. Readers

please note Swami Vidyaranya does not mean brahma-jnAna same as

jivanmukti. As per Sw. Vidyaranya, even a brahma-jnAni is not a

jivanmukta unless he is a sannyAsin! Further in the text, he gives the

example of yAjnyavalkya to show that even a brahma-jnAni needs to take

sannyAsa to remain steadfast in the knowledge! "Attaining knowledge"

should be read in this context in Sw. Vidyaranya's works.

 

Sunderji, thrash me if I am wrong.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

The passages below are from "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi."

 

Kind regards,

 

Peter

 

 

Talk 39.

 

Conversing with R. Seshagiri Rao, a visitor, Maharshi remarked that a

Self-Realised sage (Atma jnani) alone can be a good Karma yogi. “After the

sense of doership has gone let us see what happens. Sri Sankara advised

inaction. But did he not write commentaries and take part in disputation? Do not

trouble about doing action or otherwise. Know Thyself. Then let us see whose

action it is. Whose is it? Let action complete itself. So long as there is the

doer he must reap the fruits of his action. If he does not think himself the

doer there is no action for him. He is an ascetic who has renounced worldly life

(sanyasin).â€

 

------------------

Talk 54

D.: How does a grihasta (householder) fare in the scheme of moksha (liberation)?

 

M.: Why do you think you are a grihasta? If you go out as a sanyasi, a similar

thought (that you are a sanyasi) will haunt you. Whether you continue in the

household, or renounce it and go to the forest, your mind haunts you. The ego is

the source of thoughts. It creates the body and the world and makes you think

you are a grihasta. If you renounce the world, it will only substitute the

thought sanyasi for grihasta and the environments of the forest for those of the

household. But the mental obstacles are always there. They even increase in new

surroundings. There is no help in the change of environment. The obstacle is the

mind. It must be got over whether at home or in the forest. If you can do it in

the forest, why not in the home? Therefore why change the environment? Your

efforts can be made even now, in whatever environment you may be.

 

-------------------

 

Talk 283

 

D.: Can a sanyasi remain in the midst of samsara?

 

M.: So long as one thinks that he is a sanyasi, he is not one, so long as one

does not think of samsara, he is not a samsari; on the other hand he is a

sanyasi.

 

-----------------

 

Talk 427

 

D.: Is it necessary to take to sanyasa for Self-Realisation?

 

M.: Sanyasa is to renounce one’s individuality. This is not the same as

tonsure and ochre robes. A man may be a grihi; yet, if he does not think he is a

grihi, he is a sanyasi. On the contrary a man may wear ochre robes and wander

about: yet if he thinks he is a sanyasi he is not that. To think of sanyasa

defeats its own purpose.

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Nair-ji :

 

i was just reading this post in the 'archives' and was happy to see

you quoting the Nobel Laurette Pablo Neruda who has written many

beautiful poems.

 

In that same post, you sing

 

And, here a vedantin, Madathil Nair sings:

 

Robes upon robes

All ochre red,

Where is the realized soul!?

 

 

 

i always wondered about formal 'sanyasa' and the outward symbols of '

matted ' hair' , ochre robes, 'kamandalam' , and 'danda ' which are

associated with sanyasis or renunciates ...

 

may i share a poem by sufi-bhakta Kabir ?

 

If by going about naked

 

One could obtain unity

 

With the Supreme Lord,

 

All the beasts of the wild wood

 

Would be among the saved.

 

What does it matter

 

Whether a man goes naked

 

Or wraps himself in skins,

 

So long as the spirit of God

 

Is not realized within Him?

 

If merely by shaving one's head

 

One could become perfect,

 

When the sheep are shorn

 

Why should they not be saved?

 

If one could obtain salvation

 

Merely by remaining continent

 

Eunuchs should automatically

 

Reach the supreme state!

 

Saith Kabir: Listen, my brothers.

 

None has obtained salvation but through God's Holy Name!

 

Nair-ji ! Sri Ramana Maharishi explains 'Asceticism' in his own

inimitable way in the following manner ....

 

"Is asceticism (sanyasa) one of the essential requisites for a person

to become established in the Self (atma nista)?

The effort that is made to get rid of attachment to one's body is

really towards abiding in the Self. Maturity of thought and enquiry

alone removes attachment to the body, not the stations of life

(asramas), such as student (brahmachari), etc. For the attachment is

in the mind while the stations pertain to the body. How can bodily

stations remove the attachment in the mind? As maturity of thought

and enquiry pertain to the mind these alone can, by enquiry on the

part of the same mind, remove the attachments which have crept into

it through thoughtlessness. But, as the discipline of asceticism

(sanyasasrama) is the means for attaining dispassion (vairagya), and

as dispassion is the means for enquiry, joining an order of ascetics

may be regarded, in a way, as a means of enquiry through dispassion.

Instead of wasting one's life by entering the order of ascetics

before one is fit for it, it is better to live the householder's

life. In order to fix the mind in the Self which is its true nature

it is necessary to separate it from the family of fancies (samkalpas)

and doubts (vikalpas), that is to renounce the family (samsara) in

the mind. This is the real asceticism."

 

 

Sri Ramanarpanamastu !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sanjayji.

>

> > And, here a vedantin, Madathil Nair sings:

>

> Robes upon robes

> All ochre red,

> Where is the realized soul!?

>

> Can you answer that?

>

>> PraNAms.

>

> Madathi Nair

>