Karma and Sanyaasa

[Srinivas Sista]

<<  If I am wrong prove it to me that for self-realization
 bhoutika sanyaasa is essential. >>

The dichotomy of "maanasika sanyaasa" and "bhoutika sanyaasa" is very
artificial and concocted. This dichotomy certainly leads to delusion and
wide spread social disharmony.

A family by definition is a separative structure. It has inherent in it
discriminative policies. It gets priority over the rest of the world. I feed
my wife and children and STORE for future, even though millions of people and
children are starving. I accumulate property in order to ensure security for
family knowing fully well that accumulation at one point is deprivation
somewhere else.

How many of the mentally renounced remain unaffected if a
stranger walks into his/her house, eats the food there and sleeps in the
couch? Worse, if he/she wants to sleep with his/her spouse? Wants to take
away the car for his use. "I want to keep them for the sake of my family and
not for me" argument doesn't hold water. How many of the charity organizations
that run for the sake of starving children receive well thought appropriate
contributions?(as against token contributions to silence the conscience)
How come my children have food ensured for the next 20 years while millions
of the others don't have even a morsel to eat now? Shall I invoke Karma,
prArabDa? Similarly for setting up educational institutions for poor children.
We don't mind spending $20,000 to $30,000 per year to put our children
through "GOOD" schools. Isn't that exclusive and partial treatment? Where
is "Sama Drishti" in this? One cannot be mentally renounced and still gobble
up resources channeling them exclusively to a select group!

Similar examples can be given about the exclusive treatment of ones parents as
against other old people in the world. How about retirement plans, savings
accounts, stock investments? (I am not going into the fact that we kill animals
and insects that wander into our food storage innocently in search of food,
or into our houses for shelter from extremes of weather). If one has renounced,
one doesn't have any attachment. If one doesn't have attachment, there is no
question of accumulation and exclusive treatment. In short, is one prepared to
wake up tomorrow morning and be perfectly allright if the family, property, job,
name everything is gone leaving him/her a nobody?

And if you are speaking of SELF-REALIZATION for which renunciation is only a
very small preliminary step, Sir, I cannot say anything further.

(general comments)
There seems to be a growing notion that "self-enquiry"(god knows how each
person defines it to himself) is all that is necessary and it can be done
wherever and whenever one pleases. If one isn't free completely of the
material and mental accumulations, the so called "self-enquiry" only leads
to disastrous conclusions.

regards,
Srinivas Sista.

>From  Sat Aug  1 13:50:46 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.135046.0400.>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:50:46 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: retirement from the forum
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

f. maiello wrote:

> Sorry for the misleading word usage.  Orthodoxy is incapable of
> embracing unorthodoxy (at least *much* more so than vice-versa, IMO).

You'll have to explain what you mean by orthodox and unorthodox as
acceptable for advaitins. These terms are very vague and a better term
would be "dharma". This clearly brings out that "dharma" depends on the
person, whereas the orthodox and unorthodox suggest universal dogmas.
Universal dogmas as prescribed behavior for every one is not acceptable
to advaitins.

Eg, the daily sandhyA prayer is obligatory and must be done by people
who have had their thread ceremony. This is emphasized by all the
sha.nkarAchAryas. However, Mahasannidhanam in one of his talks has
explained further. One of his disciples who was a bachelor, but had not
taken up sannyAsa, was an adept in yoga (not the twisting exercises) and
used to go into nirvikalpa samAdhi frequently. Note that except an
actual sannyAsI all others HAVE to do the sandhyA prayers as per
smR^iti. Referring to him however, MahasannidhAnam said that it was all
right for him to skip his prayers if he were in nirvikalpa samAdhi
because he was very close to what the sandhyA prayers are supposed to
achieve. Thus it is "orthodox" behavior for him to skip his prayers if
he were in samAdhi, but would be "unorthodox" behavior for, say myself,
to skip my prayers. It would also be unacceptable behavior for him were
he not in samAdhi.

Again one is not supposed to receive food in his hands and eat from it.
Rather a plate should be used. That is "orthodox" behavior for normal
people. However for a sannyAsI it is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Also, embracing "unothodox" behavior is not something always necessary
or something to be proud of. A doctor following "orthodox" behavior
would prescribe aspirin or tylenol for headache. An "unorthodox" doctor
could suggest arsenic instead. In this case "unorthodox" behavior is
only foolishness. Revering "unorthodox" behavior as an end in itself is
the mentality of 14 year olds and the jobless hippies of the 60s who had
nothing constructive to do.

Finally you'll have to give us an example of "unorthodox" behavior which
would not be acceptable for who you term "orthodox" advaitins, and show
us why it would lead us to realization any faster than our "orthodox"
behavior. Scores of our GYAnis like Ramana Maharshi, Mahasannidhanam and
Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra seemed to do pretty well with their "orthodox"
behavior.

Your example of conservatives vs liberals is exteremely flawed for two
reasons. First, it doesn't seem to have any relevance in advaita as to
why "unorthodox" behavior is useful or even necessary. Second it ignores
scores of ultra conservatives, e.g., Barry Goldwater (he recently passed
away) who opposed desegregation on the grounds it was intruding into the
power of the states, but also was pro-choice, anti religion in politics,
etc. It also ignores the many racist democrats from the South.

Rama.

>From  Sat Aug  1 14:01:58 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.140158.0400.>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 14:01:58 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: Karma and Sanyaasa
Comments: To: Advaita-L <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Srinivas Sista wrote:

> <<  If I am wrong prove it to me that for self-realization
>  bhoutika sanyaasa is essential. >>
>
> The dichotomy of "maanasika sanyaasa" and "bhoutika sanyaasa" is very
> artificial and concocted. This dichotomy certainly leads to delusion and
> wide spread social disharmony.

[ excellent points snipped to save bandwidth ]

> There seems to be a growing notion that "self-enquiry"(god knows how each
> person defines it to himself) is all that is necessary and it can be done
> wherever and whenever one pleases. If one isn't free completely of the
> material and mental accumulations, the so called "self-enquiry" only leads
> to disastrous conclusions.

Thanks to Sista for making the very pertinent observations. It deserves
a very careful reading. I wish I had the ability to express myself as
concisely and precisely as this!

Rama.