[Advaita-l] Knowledge, renunciation and varNASrama rules - Is sanyasa ashrama sweekaram a must

[Varadaraja Sharma]

Radhe Krishna

Shriman Praveen, Radhe Krishna

I go back to my doubt :

By sanysa ashrama, what is insisted is ritually initiated sanyasa ashrama sweekaram or the fact of being in a state of sanyasa by a person bestowed with sadana sampath.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In your first post you said :

He left home as a school kid to go to never return home again.
--When he went to Arunachaleshwara, he threw his yajnopavita, tonsured his head, shed his clothes except for his loin cloth (and there was a rain to bathe him)
--He served his hunger with bhikshA food thereafter.

Is this not saMnyAsa even in the traditional sense?

In the next post you said :

I don't even know what mental saMnyAsa is. Some may say that physical saMnyAsa does not mean vairAgya,

Now you say :

though Bhagavan didn't take to saMnyAsa dIkshA,

That said, as we have a point of argument now whether saMnyAsa is a must or not for j~nAna

I do not know how much of this is applicable for Advaita Vedanta tradition; most of it has been discussed on this list itself some years back and is in the archives. As I understand, there are different ways to categorize a saMnyAsi based on sources referred to. I'd stick to what our tradition subscribes to.

However, such a person may not even care for recognition.
Without those strict rules, I don't know if anyone would have recognised him as a saMnyAsi


------------------------------------------------------------------


Shriman, in the outset I told that I am a novice.  From a conservative background, tradition means much more to me too. I too stick to tradition.  The bare fact is I am trying to understand tradition from what I know which for sure I do not know is correct or not correct.

Before putting out the inconsistencies I perceived (shriman I say clearly perceived – I do not want to be emphatic) going through what you said, let me explain how and why I raised the issue at the first place

In the very first post of Shriman Vidyasankar, the discussion went on like :

Shriman Venkatesh Murthy :

Adi Sankara says sanyasa asrama is must for brahmasamstha. Other asramas people commit sin if they do not perform duties . But these duties will not allow them to be Brahmasamstha. They cannot be Brahmasamstha. Only Sanyasi can be Brahmasamstha. 

Shriman Vidyasankar :

That is correct. Ideally, only the saMnyAsin can be truly brahma-nishTha

Now I go in the reverse direction.

I presumed ( from what I heard from sishtaal) that Bhagawan Ramana and Jada Bharatha are brahmanishtas. 

If that is so, ideally they should be sanyasi 

Scripturally, there are four orders of sanyasi viz., kuticaka, bahudaka, hamsa and paramahamsa. Yes, kuticaka sanyasi remains at home and wears yagnopavita. Smartha sanyasis do not wear yagnopavita, I agree.  Honestly, I do not know whether there is any altogether rejection or ban of kuticaka sanyasa in advaita tradition.

>From the various posts I read, I understood, Kashaya, danda, kamandala dharanam is sanyasa lakshana.  Virajahomam, Atmashradham, mahavakyopadesham ityadi kriyas form part of initiation to sanyasa.

Now the two mahapurushas whom I knowingly or unknowingly presume as brahmanishtas, to be true to tradition should also be sanyasi. From the charitram of ramana maharishi and from vyasa suka vak i.e Shrimad Bhagavatha, without any sanka certain facts are very clear. That both of them had upanayana samskara.  Thereafter, that both of them did not have ritually initiated sanyasa.  At this context I want to comprehend as to whether my understanding that being in a state of sanyasa by a person bestowed with sadana sampath can be construed as that of being in sanyasa ashrama.

Shriman, to your question, “I don’t know what mental sanyasa is” what ever you have said prior to that IMHO is the answer.  i.e inspite of knowing that bhagawan ramana was not ritually initiated into sanyasa, yourself having asked, “Is this not saMnyAsa even in the traditional sense?”

Having said, “is this not saMnyAsa even in the traditional sense?”, I do not understand why you need to make an observation as to, “though Bhagavan didn't take to saMnyAsa dIkshA”.  Shriman,I, in a way consider the first and second expression of your goodself as putting my doubts in different words.


Regarding your observation, we have a point of argument now whether saMnyAsa is a must or not for j~nAna. Here I want to be emphatic about two things.
1.	That my query is not as to whether saMnyAsa is a must or not for j~nAna rather it is “By sanysa ashrama, what is insisted is ritually initiated sanyasa ashrama sweekaram or the fact of being in a state of sanyasa by a person bestowed with sadana sampath”.
2.	Argument takes between two knowledgeable people. I am not one.   I am thankful to the pains you have taken to address my doubts with your knowledge, although honestly, I should say I am not able to understand the concepts in the same way I cleared my doubts as to all the human beings irrespective of varna / gender are entitled for brahmagnyana in this birth itself.  You may say that I am argumentative.  That’s because I am ignorant and unclear of the concepts but have an urge to have clarity in the concept.

Shriman, please have a look at your observations in the last post : 

However, such a person may not even care for recognition.
Without those strict rules, I don't know if anyone would have recognised him as a saMnyAsi

Just above these observations, was that of mine, “My understanding goes that even if ramana maharishi had not tonsured his head and not discarded his yagnopavita, why  should not “WE CONSIDER” his state as that of sanyasa as in the case of jada bharatha.” I hope my usage of the word, “recognition of sanyasa” might have prompted you to say above. Shriman, the sthithi of bhagawan ramana and jada bharatha is one of anirvachaneeyam. My observation is strictly about our perception and not one of recognising them.  My apologies for improper and unarticulative phrasology from my end.

In my sanka, I considered two mahapurushas viz., bhagawan ramana and Jada Bharatha. And I observed that you altogether ignored jada bharatha.  I do not know if jada bharatha upakhyana is outside the perimeter of Advaita tradition.  If that is so, my apologies.

Again, Shriman, I am very much thankful for the pains you have taken to clear my doubts with your knowledge.  

And intentionally or unintentionally, the discussion also included other issues but I think I should desist from same.  The more the focus is diverted, I agree, the far resolution would be.

Regarding your observation, Circumstantially, institutional tie up works against the saMnyAsi's following strict rules, Shriman, I altogether agree with you, but it would be better to address this as a separate issue.

Akhilananda sandayee manognya mukhapankajam
Jagadgurum jagadpujyam vidyatirtham ahamshraye

RAdhe Krishna