Amnesty for sannyasis

[Guest guest]

Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP wrote:

 

>

> 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.

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

 

I can see several "if" clauses there. Among these, the first one is

basically hypothetical (a "Nityananda" case). The 5 is hypothetical,

too (who gives up sannyas in _order to reduce service_?). The 3 and

4 are not relevant (they aren't about giving up sannyas, but about

taking and/or remaining in it). So, yes, there is one left, No. 2.

And that one is filled with proposals and conditions that you though

would suit best. For example:

 

" 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. "

 

But. But he is NOT firmly dedicated to mission... But he does

NOT feel he can increase his service... But he has simply fallen

in love with this brahmacarini and he can't else but give up his

sannyas and get married to her.. But he got this sex urge and

material desires and he simply got to fulfill them in the another

asram... But But But.. See, I could generate as many "buts" and

"ifs" as I like. But that's not exactly even some analyses. Sorry.

Can't agree with 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.")

 

Thank you. I will read it at the first opportunity. Just that at

the moment my SB set happened not to be with me. Could you possibly

post few most specific quotes? The above one, for example, does

not necessarily make an impression of Prabhupada specifically speaking

about someone _already_ situated in sanyas asram. It could simply mean

that sannyas is not meant for everyone, that there are different asramas

for different types of personalities. That one may take in consideration

a sannyas, but not take it if found not suitable.

 

Your presentation of this statement would imply that Srila Prabhupada

means "a sannyasi" when he says "one". I would, with due respect,

suggest that you need further to qualify this. Even if I go and read

the mentioned purport for myself, regardless of what I might or might

not understand there, still, your public statements remain unsupported

sufficiently.

 

I am sorry if appearing too impolite or rude, but I really would

like to see some actually quality answers from your side that

would undoubtedly support the idea that in the renounced order

of life there is given a provision to sannyasis to give up the

asram and marry, without considering it to be a disgrace for

a sannysi.

 

 

>

> 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.

 

I also stated earlier, that I do not really advocate a suicide as

the atonement for a sannyasi who gives up his asram for the sake

of associating with a woman. But that's an another issue. Besides,

I would think that to give an another chance would indicate rather

some disgraceful or disappointing kind of situation preceding to it.

 

How do you discourage giving up a sanyas if you preach that it

is a proper thing? That it is sanctioned by Srila Prabhupada?

That there is no shame nor dishonor in it? If you look into

dictionary, the first explanation of the word "shame" is

"the painful filling of having done something improper". The

absence of shame means the absence of feeling that something

improper has been done.

 

How is it that there is "a great harm to the preaching if a

sannyasi gives up saffron cloth", if it is a proper and bona

fide thing approved by Srila Prabhupada?

 

 

>

> 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.

 

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

 

Yes, it was me who first brought up the subject of breaking vows,

but I had no problem with being unsure what exactly vows I was

talking about. I don't have that problem still.

 

I don't really think it is required to know what specifically

they say at the time of taking a sannyas. Maybe there isn't

needed anything to say anyway. The performed acts sometimes

say more than spoken words. In India, nobody is asking for

"contet". They *see* it walking there on the street, in saffron

and with danda... At least, you are living in India, you

ought to know.

 

 

>

> We should follow varnasrama dharma according to vaisnava smritis. We are

> not above those rules.

 

I have to admit that I have never heard about such system as

"varnasrama dharma according to vaisnava smrtis".

 

Through these recent discussion, it appears to me that you have

a vision of two different varnasrama dharma systems, one for

"us" and one for "them". The one for "us" appears to me to be

a kind of a "transcendental" version of system meant for "them".

But what exactly the criteria is, that's quite a piece of a

puzzle.

 

>From reading Srila Prabhupada's books, I have the understanding

that Srila Prabhupada speaks about *one* system that is to be

followed by the *human kind*. The designation "devotee" is the

matter of the heart, and not some social labeling. Wether you

are a brahmana or a ksatriya or a sudra or a grhasta or a sannyasi

or whatever, the prescribed occupations and the principles

of that varna or asrama are expected to be executed/followed

equally by all and one. That you consider yourself a Vaisnava,

that is your private matter. The very *purpose* of varnasrama

dharma system is to include everybody in it (not only Vaisnavas).

But the social system is the same, one. If you think that you,

as a Vaisnava, are above it, then you still got to follow it.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krsna, did so also,

the greatest Vaisnavas of all, the Five Pandavas, did so also.

Nobody here, and I really mean *nobody*, is more transcendental

than these personalities. Yet, I see here a demand for a kind

of an exclusive type of varnasrama dharma than the one for

"karmis".

 

But I bet, you will not be able to come to a common agreement

even with the Vaisnavas of the same Sampradaya about even sannyas

asrama. Just go to any Gaudiya Math sannyasi and tell him how

a sannyasi may marry and there isn't a shame or dishonor in

it, because, see, we don't follow varnasrma dharma based on

karmakandiya smriti principles but vaisnava principles...

 

 

 

Sorry for so many words. Hope everybody is still surviving.

 

 

 

 

 

- mnd