This is actually a follow-on to my earlier poem. Since two days, something guided me to a study on this topic; I've spent a considerable amount of time reading debates on whether sannyaasa is a pre-requisite for jeevanmukti.
Let me start by saying that I've no doubt whatsoever to raise such a question at this stage. I'm well convinced of this in the affirmative. There have been heated debates that I read of that dragged in quotes from the Gita, jeevanmukti viveka, various upanishads, etc. Swami Sivananda's article was torn to pieces, Krishna's words were interpreted to suit their statements and then, the moderators put a forcible stop to a viewpoint similar to mine!
What surprises me is that the so-called advaitins have kept tradition aside in this discussion! I can understand the neo-advaita and other example masters' references, but when you're talking advaita, you can't afford to mix up the new age non-duality, pure non-duality, neo-advaita, direct path, buddhism, zen, et al, where Shankara is the sole authority; of course supported by earlier acharya-s such as Gaudapaada and following bhashyakaara-s works. Be it so, the ego seems to play a major role in their convincing themselves that they're well off doing what they're doing, while at the same time equating their path to sannyaasa! They've brought up things such as mental sannyaasa too. Mental sannyaasa may well be what a karma yogi does, but please do not equate that to the status of a no-bounds sannyaasi. Also saying that not all sannyaasis are jeevanmuktas is uncalled for, since no one claimed so. Its just a first step to learning vedaanta the traditional way. Else all study of vedaanta is just to accumulate a little purity and perhaps gaining some virtues, as Sw. Dayananda clearly states.
There's not much use in picking some things from each discipline/following and not practising one of these in all seriousness. I always believed in jack of all, but master of (atleast) one kind of a thing. I just mention this here to say that one needs to pick up one path in its entirety even after doing lots of peeking in other paths, and that happens to be sannyaasa in sanaathana dharma tradition. There's one thing that I really liked in the entire discussion that I followed: when asked on the subject by a visitor, Ramana said "you're well off doing something that you're doing now", but later he told his devotee that it hurts to recommend something contrary to truth! Ramana clarified on some questioning that when he himself left home, he didn't go about asking people on what to do! Meaning, if the question still lingers on whether sannyaasa is a pre-requisite for jeevanmukti, one is not ready for it yet.
om tat sat
shankarapadaarpaNamastu
7 comments:
You seem zapped dude.....in a fantasy. Adi Shankara and other Sannyasis by taking up sannyasa, owned up a bigger responsibility that of mankind. Any sannyasi who is true lives to the fact that he owns up to mankind.
Jivanmukthi or liberation as Sri Ramakrishna puts it, is not a reserved compartment of some train. Anyone who trains, has faith in the master and surrenders 100% to the mother,(in the form of the guru), recieves it.
to continue, its like this..
if you are not ready to take on the higher responsibilities, the question would still linger on in your mind, and then you are not ready for it
Hey! Hemang, good to see you back on my blog :)
Every person's reality seems a fantasy for others. I'm not sure where you got this idea from my post about responsibilities! Anyway, since this topic is open now, my two cents follow:
You're sadly mistaken when you say that a sannyaasi takes up responsibilities. In fact, its quite the contrary, he gives up all responsibilities. Else its hypocritical to give up family responsibilites as if to help mankind *physically*. A sannyaasi may be helping mankind *invisibly* though. Sivananda talks a lot on this. The only thing common to how you see it and how I see it is that a sannyaasi gives up a smaller family and takes up a bigger one: ekam sat; it has nothing to do with helping mankind, else why take sannyaasa, social service would suffice. And as long as one keeps on feeling he's helping mankind, he's stuck in ego circles! Sannyaasa is giving up, not taking up, akin to giving up and liberating, not taking up liberation.
Ramakrishna followed everything at once in later life, so one can't *traditionally* follow him *as is*. Its like saying that I'd put flowers at my feet before offering to the Goddess in a *traditional* pooja. Only Ramakrishna could do it, since he was beyond those rules.
Interesting blog you got!
I've debated much on this issue too. There no longer is any clash in my mind. Both sanyasa & house-holder stages relate to the body/mind only, nothing to do with the absolute truth (brahman). This being the case, whatever is in line with the karmic tendency is easier to choose - just flow with the water!
After a while, nothing matters - simply because you dis-associate with what was 'you'! As it is rightly said - you don't find the truth, the truth finds you!!!
Thanks for your comment. Right you're, but from the paramaarthic view, not the vyavhaaric. Because from the former, the BMI (body, mind & intellect) are of no value. That is, anything goes is something that only a self-realized can say, that you too qualify by: "after a while". Till then, sanyaasa by BMI means a lot and is the *only* first vedaantic step as recommended by advaitin achaarya-s. Anything else brings *only* purificatory value and cannot liberate. Jnaana and karma can't go hand-in-hand as Adi Shankara says.
What is Sanyasa? Whether one needs to be a Sanyasi to begin with to become Jeevanmukta can be known only after your definition of Sanyasa. Why worry about giving a name to your path? Let us see what you become after you become something. First things first.
Motto: Service and not help.
Post a Comment