Householder (and related topics)

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>1. All our R^shis are grihasthas and they are all realized souls.
>Although this is not a numbers game, for every sannyasi (here, I
>mean a person who has taken external sannyasa) who is a jnani,
>there is at least one grihastha who is a jnani. Thus, being a jnani
>is not reserved for people who have taken the vows of sannyasa.

No one claimed so, except perhaps Jaldhar. Even shrI sha.nkara has said
that it's not impossible (it's only more difficult).

>2. Further, I ask Shri Giri and other proponents of that particular
>line of thought to show me an *upanishhadic* statement which
>categorically says so (that sannyasa ashrama is a pre-requisite
>for being a jnani).

Rather simple. na karmaNAna prajayA dhanena tyagenaike
amR^itattvamAnashhuH, says the mahAnArAyaNa upanishhat. Being a
householder entails karma and making wealth to support the family. A son
is necessary to do tarpaNam. Since these are unnecessary for GYAna,
which leads to moxa, shrI sha.nkara points out only an ignorant person
will get into a householder's life. He points out it's as foolish as
being on one side of the bank of a river and taking a boat to reach the
same side of the bank :-). Makes sound sense.

If you are _really_ interested I can quote verses from the nArada
parivrAjaka upanishhhat, which shrI vidyAraNya has used (Giri mentioned
this). I don't have this upanishhat memorized and will have to get my
book from home. There are also very many other upanishhat-s which talk
about this rather explicitly. However, I fear this is going to be
another case of the "fate vs free-will". However many scriptural
references are given people are not willing to change their mind.

Ramakrishnan.