Raghavendra N Kalyan
kalyan7429 at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Nov 24 14:25:34 CST 2004
In the discussions on the recent events related to the arrest of the Sankaracharya of Kanchi, there were statements made to the effect that the Sankaracharya was an upholder of dharma. Jaldhar for instance says that he was a paragorn of asthika values. He was called one of the leaders of sanatana dharma, which of course implies that he is an upholder of dharma. Similarly, the kanchi-sathya website (given by one of the members) also mentions a quote from Kausalya to Sri Rama asking him to uphold dharma which inturn protects him, with the hidden implication that since the AchArya followed dharma, it would protect him in turn. (I hope I didn't misinterpret this).
Now, my question is not in anyway related to the arrest of the AchArya. It is related to dharma. The acharya was a sannyasi and was regarded as the upholder of dharma. But are we not in agreement that a householder follows dharma while a sannyasi renounces it? Renunciation not in the sense that the sannyasi follows adharma, but in the sense that he has renounced the world and dharma is also a part of tthe world. More generally, should a sannyasi renounce dharma or should he uphold it? Or does a sannyasi have his own dharma? (which appears a bit odd considering that he is a "sannyasi").
Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list