Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Amnesty for sannyasis

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Dear Mahanidhi Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I am very sorry that I have appeared to be arguing with you. That was not at

all my intention. (Email is quite difficult in this way, as there is no body

language to add nuances of meaning to the words.) I was not at all objecting

to your proposal, only I was pointing out that it was not necessary since

the kinds of things you wanted to accomplish are already there. I should

have made this more clear, which I regret not doing.

 

> My proposal was based on the premise that there is such thing

> as *shame and dishonor* in ISCKON sannyasis' giving up their

> asrama, as in practice in these couple of decades. Thus the

> suggestion for amnesty, to let things get reexamined and sorted

> out, in the light of the new circumstances, before actual fall-downs

> would occur, was placed.

> You, however, have presented the position according to which

> there isn't actually real shame and dishonor in sannyasis'

> giving up their asram, that it is some misconception based

> on some karmakandiya smriti principles that we don't follow.

> So, I objected it, and I *stuck* to my premise that there

> _is_ a shame in sannyais' giving up their asrama (as an ongoing

> practice in ISCKON). So how am I now inconsistent?? Please explain.

 

1. If someone is actually qualified as a sannyasi, but somehow sees that due

to changed external circumstances he can better deliver the conditioned

souls as a grhastha or vanaprastha or something else, then there is no shame

or dishonor for him to change ashrams. The example is Nityananda Prabhu, who

took sannyas and later got married. Shyamananda Prabhu also.

 

2. If someone in sannyas ashram is feeling himself not so qualified to be in

such a prominent position and is concerned that to continue to accept so

much honor may be harmful to his bhakti creeper, but he is firmly dedicated

to carrying on the mission of the spiritual master and feels he can increase

his service by accepting another social position, then there is no shame or

dishonor inherent in such a change. If he first puts on white, then begins

the process of getting married and ultimately engages in sex life then this

is not a blot on the sannyas ashram, which was already left before

association with woman came.

 

3. If someone dressed in saffron develops an attachment to associate

intimately with a particular woman, or develops an attachment to wealth or

prestige, then this is shameful.

 

4. If someone accepts saffron cloth in order to achieve personal prestige,

then this is shameful.

 

5. If someone gives up saffron cloth in order to reduce one's service to

guru and Krishna then this is shameful.

 

Do you agree with this analysis. If you do, and if you compare 2 and 3, you

will notice that in a particular circumstance it is shameful to remain a

sannyasi but not shameful to give it up.

 

> Actually, I think you missed to give an additional qualificatory

> explanation of your position that Srila Prabhupada has already

> declared an general "amnesty" to ISCKON sannyasis, and that it

> is not a dishonor for a sannyasi to break his oaths and give up the

> ashrama. Yours simply "informing" us how it's there somewhere in the

> purports of the 8th Canto, sorry, but that isn't exactly explaining

> us much, does it?

 

I'm sorry I was not more specific about the reference. I was referring to

the purport to the Gajendra Moksa story SB 8.2.30. Please read the whole

purport. Srila Prabhupada is quite specific here. (In one sentence he says,

"If sannyas is not suitable, one may enter the grhastha ashram and fight

maya with great strength.")

 

> So basically, I questioned/challenged your position, and you

> replied with attempting me look as inconsistent in my "amnesty"

> proposal. Even if I was, still, it is not any valid argument that

> would support the mentioned position of yours. That "amnesty"

> proposal of mine will never fly anyway, but it's of importance

> how do we understand these very issues that we are taking an

> active role in promoting them into practice.

 

I am sorry for not understanding your purpose properly.

 

> > > BTW, do we agree at all that there is such thing as a fall-down

> > > of a sannyasi? (Just to be sure)

> >

> > A devotee falls down if he leaves the service of Krishna and the

> > spiritual master. This is the only kind of fall down that we really care

> > about. But I did state clearly that a sannyasi leaving the sannyas

> > asrama often causes harm to the preaching mission.

>

> What is the fall-down of a devotee, is not in dispute.

> You are reading "sannyasi" as "devotee". On that way, it is

> the end of any varnasrama talk. Just substitute "devotee"

> for any varna and asrama, and see where you will end up in

> your practical application of VAD system.

>

> OK, maybe you do not really care if sannyasis are falling down

> from their asrama. Fine. It's your private choice what to really

> care about, and what not to. But please do not think this to be

> understood and accepted as some proper universal ISCKON understanding.

 

I stated earlier that in general there was a great harm to the preaching if

a sannyasi gives up saffron cloth. It must be discouraged. But we also must

be concerned with saving the spiritual lives of those who have happened to

take sannyas prematurely. If there is too much shame involved, even if the

devotee is determined to continue to fight maya, then we may lose his

valuable services.

 

> > But braking the vows given to Guru and Krsna...???

> > > That _is_ a shame and a dishonor.

> >

> > What exactly are the vows taken by a sannyasi at the time of sannyas

> > initiation? In order to answer your question we would need to have solid

> > information about this, which I don't have right now. Perhaps someone

> > can help with this.

>

> Well, if you don't know what exactly the vows of a sannyasi we are

> having on mind here, then I would suggest that you better not be so

> convinced how giving up these same vows is not a shame nor a dishonor.

> First define them, and then give your opinion on it. Not the way

> around.

 

I thought it was you that first brought up the subject of breaking vows,

being so convinced about how giving up sannyas was breaking vows made before

guru and Krishna? In any case, we both agree it would be good to know

specifically what our vaisnava sannyasis say as their vows. It would be good

if someone could find out for us.

 

> But let me give a shot. Here, we talk about the vow of **complete

> celibacy**, in particular. To be observed for the rest of the life.

> Now, somebody gives this promise to his Guru-Maharaja and to God. And

> then he marries, gets kids and a family and a household... Please

> explain how this is not dishonorable for a sannyasi. Is it then

> honorable, perhaps?

 

I prefer to discuss when the actual content of the vows is available.

 

> You also said, "later for preaching sannyas can also be given up".

> Now, could you please tell us how many ex-sannyasis in ISCKON do

> you know that have given up sannyas "for preaching" purposes?

> Can you please explain to us *why* it would be needed for an ISCKON

> sannyasi to give up his sannyas "for preaching"? What situation

> would be that? Who was the latest sannyasi in ISCKON who was asked

> to break his given oaths to Guru&Gauranga, "for preaching purposes"?

> Any?

 

Perhaps what I wrote above in my numbered points will answer these concerns?

Please let me know if I should say more here.

 

> > We have failed miserably to actually institute the kind of system

> > desired by Srila Prabhupada. Let's fault the application, not the basic

> > system.

>

> What exactly "kind of system" do you talk about?

 

Sannyasis in ISKCON.

 

> If, by some chance, that is varnasramadharma system, then how

> shall we possibly institute it while in the same time rejecting

> the sticking to its basic principles as some karmakandiya smrti

> that we are above obligation/need to follow.

 

We should follow varnasrama dharma according to vaisnava smritis. We are not

above those rules.

 

> If we really do not

> care that sannyasis do not follow their sva-dharma (by giving it

> up all together). Yet, in the same time, here we ask and expect

> from sannyasis to follow their sva-dharma and get off the GBC.

 

Sannyasis should follow their sva-dharma WHILE DRESSED AS SANNYASIS. If they

give it up then they may have another sva-dharma.

 

Again, I am sorry to have appeared overly confrontational in my previous

text. It was not my intention.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

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...