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

[Sriram Krishnamurthy]

Dear Varadaraja Sharma,
Sri Ramana Maharshi was a Ati Ashrami not a Sanyasi.

Thanks and Regards,
Sriram

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Varadaraja Sharma <
rishyasrunga at rediffmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>