Householder (and other related topics)

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> No one has doubted the necessity of renunciation in attaining jnana. The
> question under discussion is sannyasa **ashrama** (i.e. taking the vows of
> sannyasa and announcing to the world that X has renounced everything) and
> whether it is more conducive to attaining jnana.
>

There has been some speculation on whether sannyas was originally part of
Vedic religion or not.  Needless to say it is quite inconclusive.  One
argument is that most of the rshis were householders and some think this
was an innovation introduced during Buddhist times.  However against this
is the fact that not all the Rshis were householders and sannyasa as a
distinctive way of life _is_ mentioned in the earliest texts.

Even if all the Rshis had a 100 sons each and were millionaires it
wouldn't make a difference anyway.  A Rshi is not the author of Veda but
just it's see-er (the literal meaning of Rshi.)  We name certain portions
after certain Rshis in the same way as we name certain physical laws after
Newton, or Maxwell etc.  These laws don't depend on the existance of a
person called Newton, they are just called that because he was the first
to discover them.  Same with the Veda and Rshis.  So no matter what they
may have done the Shruti they brought forth urges sannyasa.

> no more easy for a sannyasi in an ochre robe but with an impure and
> unready mind to get avidya removed than for a grihastha (again with an
> impure and unready mind).
>

Oh I agree 100%  It's no guarantee of results.  But a sannyasi at least
has _some_ chance.  A householder who will always be unready and impure
has no chance.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar at braincells.com]   And the men .-_|\ who hold
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                          /     \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ -)~~~~~~~~  Perth->*.--._/  o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy   /\/\/\ _ _ ___ _  _ Amboy       v      McQ!