PDA

View Full Version : Role of balance between “spiritual” and “material” life.



nirotu
22 April 2008, 04:30 PM
While saints and sages, after spiritual enlightenment, tend to preach the world living a balanced life. But if you take a deeper notice of their lives, they seem to sacrifice one for the other, material for spiritual, (Buddha, Shankara, Jesus Christ, Ramana Maharishi, and Amma etc.). You never see them humming with full fledged family along with them.

Therefore, what is the role of balance between spiritual and material life and is it possible to make a choice when there is still human “karma”?

Jump in if you have something interesting to contribute!

Blessings,

Arjuna
22 April 2008, 04:47 PM
One point is that those who were single had more time to promote themselves :D Second point is that common people like everything big and abnormal, they don't have capacity to understand subtle things.

However many Siddhas and masters are there who live family life and play their role in society. One of the classical Hindu examples is Janaka, the saint king. Krishna was living very worldly life. Many Rishis were married, including Agastya. Most of Hindu and Buddhist tantric masters were/are either married or had/have shaktis.

Balance of spiritual and material is the essential point of Yoga. Gita teaches not to refrain from action. The only legible path to get rid of material side of life is vedic sannyasa, but originally it was meant for old people only who have completed their social life in every aspect. Another, unorthodox way is extreme aghora, which is a path for very few.

atanu
22 April 2008, 07:52 PM
While saints and sages, after spiritual enlightenment, tend to preach the world living a balanced life. But if you take a deeper notice of their lives, they seem to sacrifice one for the other, material for spiritual, (Buddha, Shankara, Jesus Christ, Ramana Maharishi, and Amma etc.). You never see them humming with full fledged family along with them.

Therefore, what is the role of balance between spiritual and material life and is it possible to make a choice when there is still human “karma”?

Jump in if you have something interesting to contribute!

Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu,

It is/was destiny of these great sages to teach and remain single. But a Self Realised may not teach at all and may have a a family. I think I agree that "--- they seem to sacrifice one for the other". That is what Gurus also say: Guru's ways are interpreted from our perspective. Actually it is said that wrong knowledge like "I have sacrificed" or "I am a sannayasi and others are inferior" etc. cannot arise in a true sage.

I have seen a few renunciates in places like Manali etc. who are thugs, drug addicts and molest women (not general of course). Similar are cases with priests who molest children. The ego attachments are fully there despite the robe and beard. They are very likely to remind others "I have sacrificed". Common people like me are forced to give up and such then make claims of sacrifice. Whereas Christ or Shankara surely played their role without investing ego thoughts.


Om

Znanna
22 April 2008, 08:02 PM
"Neglect None"

is the edict I was taught :)


Namaste,
ZN

sm78
23 April 2008, 06:06 AM
Having or not having a family is hardly a yard stick for material vs spiritual in this age. The more serious problem I face of balancing the material aspect with my own personal goals is : how to handle the large volumes of corporate bs thrown at you at each day in work ~ yet not stink at the end of the day.

yajvan
23 April 2008, 11:32 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

From A Jyotish orientation, there is applicability here relevant to this conversation. Let me see if I can explain.

Moved to the Jyotish folder... perhaps the post I offered is a better fit there.

nirotu
23 April 2008, 03:02 PM
Namaste Nirotu,

It is/was destiny of these great sages to teach and remain single. But a Self Realised may not teach at all and may have a a family. I think I agree that "--- they seem to sacrifice one for the other". That is what Gurus also say: Guru's ways are interpreted from our perspective. Actually it is said that wrong knowledge like "I have sacrificed" or "I am a sannayasi and others are inferior" etc. cannot arise in a true sage. Om
Thank you, Atanu:

Your points well taken.

What is not clear to me is why many Sages had to renounce their secular upbringing when Vedas clearly proclaim four stages of man that must be fulfilled in order to reach “moksha”. It was considered the best way by the Vedas.

The Vedas clearly define four stages of evolution in a man’s life called “ashrama”. They are brahmacarya (be a student), grihasta (be a householder), vanaprastha (be a forest dweller) and sannyasa, a final stage of renunciation and necessarily in that order! Vedas also define very clearly that overall transition from one stage to the next facilitates the realization of the jivathma with parama atma.

Thus, from all indications these four ashramas prepare a man to achieve that goal – goal of knowing true “self”. This should be the purpose in man’s life, yet, why Sages bypassed these steps and directly went into the last step of renunciation is not clear to me. What is even more puzzling is when you or I, as a secular man, discuss the possibility of our desire for renunciation, with any of the Sages, the answer is unequivocal “no”. Why is that? Why is there a dichotomy between what Sages say and what Sages do?


Do you think Sages were able to accelerate the process of “self-realization” by-passing these necessary steps as indicated in Vedas? In doing so, do you think they prove Vedas wrong?


It is/was destiny of these great sages to teach and remain single.If it was so, do you think Buddha by-passed the destiny? Did he not sacrifice one for the other? How do you explain that Saints like Buddha, Meera and other who had worldly life going all of a sudden change the gear?


"Neglect None"

is the edict I was taughtWhile it may appear as ”sound advice”, problem does arise when an individual sacrifices one for the other, especially when a person is well rooted in one.

A potent example is that of Gautama Buddha. Why then Buddha who was a prince leading a prosperous married life had to abdicate his throne, denounce his family and choose altogether spiritual path? Buddha seems to have neglected what was gifted to him by God! Then again, we would never have had Buddha if he had not done that!

Quandary still exists in my mind!

Blessings,

Znanna
23 April 2008, 08:44 PM
Namaste, nirotu,

Indeed, the practice of "neglect none" is much easier said than done :)

It's a good edict, though, I think.


ZN

saidevo
24 April 2008, 01:09 AM
Namaste Nirotu.



Thus, from all indications these four ashramas prepare a man to achieve that goal – goal of knowing true “self”. This should be the purpose in man’s life, yet, why Sages bypassed these steps and directly went into the last step of renunciation is not clear to me. What is even more puzzling is when you or I, as a secular man, discuss the possibility of our desire for renunciation, with any of the Sages, the answer is unequivocal “no”. Why is that? Why is there a dichotomy between what Sages say and what Sages do?


Do you think Sages were able to accelerate the process of “self-realization” by-passing these necessary steps as indicated in Vedas? In doing so, do you think they prove Vedas wrong?


It seems you have missed one point: many of our Rishis of the Vedic times were householders! They observed stringent brahmacharya except as required by their gRuhasta dharma, they were vAnaprastas living in forests and they were sannyAsins to the core! Thus they maintained all the four ashrams, though snnyAsa dharma was their svadharma.

nirotu
24 April 2008, 02:34 PM
Namaste Nirotu.
It seems you have missed one point: many of our Rishis of the Vedic times were householders! They observed stringent brahmacharya except as required by their gRuhasta dharma, they were vAnaprastas living in forests and they were sannyAsins to the core! Thus they maintained all the four ashrams, though snnyAsa dharma was their svadharma.
Dear Saidevo:

Thank you for your response.

I don’t think I have missed any point. I do not deny that there were many Rishis who were house holders. But, I am referring to those, equally many, who did not follow the edicts of Vedas. What I am referring to in my note is to those who are most obvious in the present day and age, who are revered in last few centuries. I am referring to those whose preaching does not correspond to their practical life lived.

Take for example, Ramana Maharishi who is revered by many. Many wanted to follow the same path he followed and came to him for guidance. Their response to all was same and that is not to change the course of life. Continue and strive with what is at hand! Don’t you see “duality” in their preaching?

On the other extreme is Buddha who abandoned everything he had in order to gain spirituality. Do you know what Budhha’s karma was? Do you think he ignored what was given to him?

To summarize, many sages of today, including Ramana, Sai-Baba and Amma, and in this context Jesus as well, have done the same thing. If you look closely the personal lives of many sages, they never followed the dictates of Vedas (that of Grihastha ashrama). Yet, their message and their preaching suggest the contrary. More importantly, why is that when Sages give up world it is said that they give up temptation but when a mortal man wants to give up the world, it is considered against Dharma and Karma.

Why is there duality? How does one resolve this duality? Do I look at their life or their message?

Blessings,

saidevo
24 April 2008, 09:12 PM
Namaste Nirotu.



Take for example, Ramana Maharishi who is revered by many. Many wanted to follow the same path he followed and came to him for guidance. Their response to all was same and that is not to change the course of life. Continue and strive with what is at hand! Don't you see "duality" in their preaching?


There is no 'duality' in Ramana's teaching because he never felt or even considered himself as a 'sannyAsi'! Consider this teaching of his:



"How does a grihasta fare in the scheme of Moksha?"

Bhagavan: "Why do you think yourself to be a grihasta? If you go out as a sannyasi, the thought that you are a sannyasi will haunt you. You will be only substituting one thought by another. The mental obstacles are always there. They even increase in new surroundings. There is no help in the change of environment. The mind is the obstacle. Therefore why change the environment?"

"Solitude is in the mind. One may be in the thick of the world and maintain serenity of mind: such a one is in solitude. Another may be in a forest, but still unable to control his mind. He cannot be said to be in solitude. A man attached to desire cannot get solitude wherever he may be. A detached man is always in solitude."

(From the book Reflections on Talks with Ramana Maharshi by S.S.Cohen


What is the prime responsibility of a householder? Is it not to take care of his parents in their old age and their children until they become independent of him? As to the first responsibility, Ramana never abandoned his mother in her old age! The second did not arise in Ramana's case because he was a bachelor. Moreover, Ramana was in thick of worldly life in his ashram and yet never swerved from his Sahaja Samadhi that was his first and second Self. Ramana was always surrounded by his devotees, who were his 'children' and thus Ramana kept up his householder life until his death!

There is another angle here: Human life is not just this present session of birth-living-death: it is cyclic. Ramana would surely have been a householder in his earlier births. The same should have been the case of Buddha.

For that matter, a Jivan Mukta, though he remains as a bachelor and sannyasi cannot teach his devotees to renounce the life of a householder for the simple reason that they have many more births until they can lead such a life as him.

Perhaps this is why the teaching in the Bible that one should aggressively separate oneself from the family and come to Jesus, is wrong. If Sri Krishna said it in Gita, that was because he was God. (Many Christians don't consider Jesus as God or Son of God, simply as a teacher).

The point is that a Guru cannot teach his devotees to renounce family life right now in this birth. None of the teachers you have mentioned--Ramana, Buddha, Sai Baba and Amma--were sannyasis who totally secluded themselves from the world. They always remain(ed) with the world, which is/was their family, and in this way there were householders.

satay
25 April 2008, 04:20 AM
Namaskar,
I must say that the OP is very interesting.

I have also observed that sages don't walk along with their 'families' and perhaps saidevo is right that in their case their family is the world and not just localized to their blood lines.

Dare I say that to be spiritual one need not renounce his or her family. We can be spiritual and attain the truth by remaining grishta. or not?

It seems to me that the sages don't renounce their families they just expand their definition of family to include everyone.

But the message to grishta to 'keep doing his duty and to keep taking care of family' is consistent because sages realize that not everyone can renounce their family or expand the definition of the family to include everyone in the world, because not everyone is at the stage of doing so.

I should think that most sages realize that there is another life after this one. And ultimately, each one of us would at a later stage renouce his or her blood line in one particular birth. One only has to look at nature to conclude that everything is cyclic in nature and that principle of cyclic nature applies to us to. Why wouldn't it?

yajvan
25 April 2008, 02:18 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste, nirotu,

Indeed, the practice of "neglect none" is much easier said than done :)
It's a good edict, though, I think.
ZN

Namaste Z,
A way to neglect none is to be all... that infers established in Brahman. Then there is none to neglect, as everything is an extention of you.

pranams,

nirotu
25 April 2008, 04:30 PM
Namaste Nirotu.

What is the prime responsibility of a householder? Is it not to take care of his parents in their old age and their children until they become independent of him? As to the first responsibility, Ramana never abandoned his mother in her old age! The second did not arise in Ramana's case because he was a bachelor. Moreover, Ramana was in thick of worldly life in his ashram and yet never swerved from his Sahaja Samadhi that was his first and second Self. Ramana was always surrounded by his devotees, who were his 'children' and thus Ramana kept up his householder life until his death!

Dear Saidevo:

For the purpose of this discussion, let us not get too abstract and not play with words. The householder, I am referring to, is in the typical sense as described in Vedas.

Grihastha means "householder". This stage begins with marriage (see Vivaha). The duties of a man in this phase of life include raising children, caring for the family, performing the five daily sacrifices (Panchamahayagya) and being a responsible member of society. He remains a Grihastha until his son's son is born, his hair has turned gray, or when he is about 50 years of age. Thereafter he enters the Vanaprastha ashram.
http://www.narasimhan.com/SK/Culture/heritage/bel_ashram.htm (http://www.narasimhan.com/SK/Culture/heritage/bel_ashram.htm)

Here is another one from a different site:

Grahasthya (1)The person leading the Grahasthya mode of life should, after studying the Vedas, accomplish all the religious acts laid down for him. He should beget children and enjoy pleasures and comforts.
My view of a householder is the one who marries and raises family and takes the financial responsibility of supporting the children.

Just to remain practical, if Ramana truly had householder responsibility (like me with 3 children) could he have gone off to meditate in a cave for seven years? Besides, to be surrounded by devotees and meditating the whole day can hardly be called a typical secular householder. If you consider his world/devotees his children then he is the child of his own sat-sangh where they look after his needs, where as, a house holder like me have to work to feed my children.

There is another angle here: Human life is not just this present session of birth-living-death: it is cyclic. Ramana would surely have been a householder in his earlier births. The same should have been the case of Buddha.
For that matter, a Jivan Mukta, though he remains as a bachelor and sannyasi cannot teach his devotees to renounce the life of a householder for the simple reason that they have many more births until they can lead such a life as him.Again, for the purpose of this discussion let us leave theory of past Karma out of it. Let us just discuss what we see and experience in this life.

Perhaps this is why the teaching in the Bible that one should aggressively separate oneself from the family and come to Jesus, is wrong. If Sri Krishna said it in Gita, that was because he was God. (Many Christians don't consider Jesus as God or Son of God, simply as a teacher). Hmmmmmm?

The point is that a Guru cannot teach his devotees to renounce family life right now in this birth. None of the teachers you have mentioned--Ramana, Buddha, Sai Baba and Amma--were sannyasis who totally secluded themselves from the world. They always remain(ed) with the world, which is/was their family, and in this way there were householders.
Ramakrishna Paramahansa’s wife Sharada ma begged him (early days of their marriage) for a child. His response to her was; why do you need a child when you have world full of devotees as children. Yet when a mortal devotee approaches for guidance in his path to renounce, Ramakrishna never endorsed it. That is the duality I am referring to in this discussion.

I have many friends who find it hard to meet their daily financial needs yet are longing to renounce all. Is that right for them to do it especially when the needs of others depend on him/her?

Please, don’t get me wrong, I have total respect for all sages but for the discussion at hand I find it hard to accept any parallel between their message and the life they live! I find, none of them seem to overtly lead the life they preached!

Blessings,

Znanna
25 April 2008, 08:22 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Z,
A way to neglect none is to be all... that infers established in Brahman. Then there is none to neglect, as everything is an extention of you.

pranams,


Agreed, and, yeah, still easier said than done :)


ZN

Znanna
25 April 2008, 08:27 PM
Namaste, nirotu,

When I have doubts or question a path of action, I find answer in earnest prayer/meditation. To me, that is the ultimate scale of judgement.



ZN

yajvan
25 April 2008, 10:59 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Agreed, and, yeah, still easier said than done :) ZN

Of this there is no doubt, but think how far ahead you are on this...

Let me perhaps offer a perspective -- pure ignorance. What can that be?

Ignorance is not knowing even of the existence of Reality, of Brahman. In some , there is the lack of feeling that they do not know. So this thickness of ignorance is they do not know, that they do not know.

Does this make them 'bad' people? Nope. It only suggests that samara ( birth and rebirth) will be around for a while before something, His Grace perhaps, a whack in the side of the head, just one word, a thought, a teacher, some insights comes and a person says, 'hey wait a minute, there something more to this, there's got to be'

Now look at yourself and how far ahead you are, you're past the hard part. This is His/Her Grace, this is the blessing.



To know the world you forget the SELF, to know the SELF you forget the world... Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj


pranams

Jigar
25 April 2008, 11:40 PM
On the other extreme is Buddha who abandoned everything he had in order to gain spirituality. Do you know what Budhha’s karma was? Do you think he ignored what was given to him?

Why is there duality? How does one resolve this duality? Do I look at their life or their message?

Blessings,

Say that Buddha.... instead of abandoning everything to gain spirituality, he actually like an ancient asian warrior restored the buddhist monestary from a polythestic region that was secluded being a temple of vengence. Thus he...I think, was not ignored by his karma. Looking around, undoo chautu, I look to see who comes first from the spiritual nature.

Mani
25 April 2008, 11:45 PM
Greetings and many thank yous to all for sharing their wisdom. I am just a beginner here, please forgive my clumsy language, but hope I have something beneficial to contribute -

First, I am curious as to what life was like for the ancient rishis and sages who also lived as householders. Such “duality” would be much more easily achieved if one was wealthy and could afford servants to tend to their families needs. Perhaps having a large extended family that included loving grandparents and caring aunts and uncles who could tend to children was also helpful. In the present day, certainly in the United States, very few can afford servants and very few live close to their extended families. In fact, where I live the cost of living is so high, both parents usually work and some have two jobs just to make ends meet. No guru or sage would condone leaving spouse and children for spiritual pursuits, especially without a life-long secure home and finances for them, including no debt. A choice and commitment was made to have a family, certainly leaving them would generate unfinished business and negativity that would still need to be resolved at some point down the road.

In addition, I have been avidly studying the incredible wealth of wisdom available at the website of Kauai’s Hindu Monastery, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/ (http://www.himalayanacademy.com/) Although the monks devoutly follow the path of a renunciate, they still have ordinary duties to fulfill everyday. (Again, I am curious - is this what life for a monk would be like at most monasteries or temples?) In addition to maintaining the temple, the grounds, and tending to the devotees and visitors, they actively participate in the external community's affairs, they cook, they clean, they farm, they raise animals, they even sew their own clothing, and they operate an amazing publishing business, and that’s not the entire list. It’s hard to imagine how they could possibly have any time left for personal spiritual development. For the monks to be successful, they must work in harmony and cooperation. And they undoubtedly find and cultivate the sacred in serving others and in ordinary duties. It seems to me, if they can manage to balance these tremendous responsibilities, surely a householder can manage to balance householder duties with spiritual pursuits, too. The key is the family must willingly and joyously be included in the pursuit of spiritual transformation; the household and family duties must be completed harmoniously and with cooperation from all. If spouse or children have resistance to this pursuit, these differences must be resolved first. One may not be able to achieve such a level of renunciation as a monk while an average householder in the present day, however, with the support of family, many steps can be taken to live a more spiritual life and perhaps to even prepare oneself for renunciation later on in life.

Many good wishes to all - Mani

devotee
26 April 2008, 03:55 AM
Dear all,

While saints and sages, after spiritual enlightenment, tend to preach the world living a balanced life. But if you take a deeper notice of their lives, they seem to sacrifice one for the other, material for spiritual, (Buddha, Shankara, Jesus Christ, Ramana Maharishi, and Amma etc.). You never see them humming with full fledged family along with them.

Therefore, what is the role of balance between spiritual and material life and is it possible to make a choice when there is still human “karma”?

Jump in if you have something interesting to contribute!


Thank you Nirotu for this beautiful thread. Very valuable thoughts have come up here. I will add a bit from my side :

a) Accept your role whatever has come to you & perform your role honestly. This is what Lord Krishna says. The Dharma i.e. duty is different for every person as per his Nature. You cannot decide & become a monk if your nature is not like that & you can't remain a householder if your nature is that of a monk. Any force exerted against your nature will be in vain & lead to adharma. Arjuna's refusal to fight against & kill his own teacher & relatives in the Kurukshetra's war was a path of Adharma & Lord Krishna warns Arjuna not to go in that direction. That was the call of duty & Arjuna's role demanded fighting with all vigour & skill ... true to his role of a warrior.

b)Lord Krishna again says that the "tyagas)"/ sacrifices are of three types, "Saatvik, Raajsik & Taamsik". If anyone renounces the world for fear of Body's pains involved in doing worldly duties then this "tyaga"/sacrifice goes in vain & is called Raajsik Tyaga. So, if your duty demands taking care of your family & you leave for the Himalyas leaving them behind to fend for themselves ... you are on the path of adharma & the sacrifice be in vain & will also accrue sin.

c) The teachers who renounced their families were given those roles. However, they were not holier than a householder who does his work honestly & feeds his family. After all, what is "family" if not Brahman ? "Vaasudevah sarvam idam". The "key" to success is in "Non-attachment" whether with robes or without !

d) I feel the "Vyaadh Gita" of Mahabharata, throws a very good light on this issue !

OM

nirotu
29 April 2008, 04:53 PM
Dear all,
Thank you Nirotu for this beautiful thread. Very valuable thoughts have come up here. I will add a bit from my side :

a) Accept your role whatever has come to you & perform your role honestly. This is what Lord Krishna says. The Dharma i.e. duty is different for every person as per his Nature. You cannot decide & become a monk if your nature is not like that & you can't remain a householder if your nature is that of a monk. Any force exerted against your nature will be in vain & lead to adharma. Arjuna's refusal to fight against & kill his own teacher & relatives in the Kurukshetra's war was a path of Adharma & Lord Krishna warns Arjuna not to go in that direction. That was the call of duty & Arjuna's role demanded fighting with all vigour & skill ... true to his role of a warrior.

b)Lord Krishna again says that the "tyagas)"/ sacrifices are of three types, "Saatvik, Raajsik & Taamsik". If anyone renounces the world for fear of Body's pains involved in doing worldly duties then this "tyaga"/sacrifice goes in vain & is called Raajsik Tyaga. So, if your duty demands taking care of your family & you leave for the Himalyas leaving them behind to fend for themselves ... you are on the path of adharma & the sacrifice be in vain & will also accrue sin.

c) The teachers who renounced their families were given those roles. However, they were not holier than a householder who does his work honestly & feeds his family. After all, what is "family" if not Brahman ? "Vaasudevah sarvam idam". The "key" to success is in "Non-attachment" whether with robes or without !

d) I feel the "Vyaadh Gita" of Mahabharata, throws a very good light on this issue !

OM

Dear Devotee:

Thank you for your beautiful note. I do not have any disagreement with what you are saying here. However, With all due respect, I feel that the context of my point is not understood correctly. I feel that this topic is shifted to different direction.

The question here is not about which path is superior! We all understand that each has its own responsibilities to be discharged as a part of “Dharma”. We both agree on this. However, the debate is in the duality in the nature of Sages. It is quite apparent that most sages known today have given up everything for the same choice and that is to be in the last of Ashramas. It seems some have, right from beginning, not attempted any other path. It must be quite appealing because it is presumed to be the most closest to God. Since they have not tasted the life’s journey along those other paths described in the Vedas, do you think if I ever go to a sage and express my desire to be like him, would he ever ask me to renounce everything? Instead, we would be asked to discharge responsibilities in carrying out duties of our own path. That is the duality I am discussing here. Therefore, the context of my discussion is centered on why Sages seem to discourage us from changing paths while they themselves have abandoned all along.


It is said that when Buddha or Sage Sankara or Jesus Christ gave up other paths (paths of being Grihasta), they have overcome the temptation, whereas, mortals like us want to give up one to follow the other, we are criticized as running away from responsibility.

On this very important point that has lot of bearing on one’s life, I believe we all tend to show bit of duality in our own nature. Do you think if Sages had exercised other paths according to the tenets of Vedas, they would be where they are today?


Look forward to your comments!

Blessings,

MahaHrada
29 April 2008, 06:11 PM
do you think if I ever go to a sage and express my desire to be like him, would he ever ask me to renounce everything? Instead, we would be asked to discharge responsibilities in carrying out duties of our own path. That is the duality I am discussing here. Therefore, the context of my discussion is centered on why Sages seem to discourage us from changing paths while they themselves have abandoned all along.


Namaste Nirotu,
Let me ask you a question:

Do you think Buddha, Shankara or Ramana Maharish, or any other sage would go and first ask some other person for advice whether they should renounce everything or whether maybe better not and should stay at home watching some filmi on TV?

If you can imagine such an unlikely event can you further imagine that when Buddha asked some sage and would have got a negative reply, he would have obeyed?

Imagine Lord Buddha saying of course great sage, í will stay with my wife and son from now on and become a king if that is your opinion about how i should live, bow down and then be going home and forgetting all about it to never think of it again?

Can you seriously imagine that it is possiible to discourage a sage from becoming a sage?

If not of course only ordinary people can be discouraged at all and therefore should be discouraged from living the life of a saint, since we have enough people on this planet that only outwardly pretend to be sages, don´t we?

MahaHrada

saidevo
29 April 2008, 10:19 PM
Namaste Nirotu.

1. Sannyasis are born into the grihasthAshrama. They are maintained by the grihasthAs, even those who have large and popular ashrams. As I said earlier, a sannyasi does make provisions for their dependent parents, either taking them under their direct care or by other suitable means of support.

2. Of all the four ashrams of life, the grihasthAshrama is the loftiest because the main dharma of this ashram is to provide an opportunity for the souls waiting on their wings for rebirth; their population is said to be much larger than the living human population. This is the reason Goddess Parvati herself manifests as Kamakshi and lures humans into the grihasthashrama. A sannyasi realizes this necessity and therefore advocates the ashram of the householder for normal human beings.

3. A sannyasi's dharma includes initiating action in subtler planes to guide humanity and liaise with the spiritual forces that govern the universe. This is perhaps better done by remaining in his own ashram of life.

4. Today there are many Hindu householder sages, Bangaru AdigaLar being one of them. This is what he once said for being a grihastha sannyAsi:

"Buddha renounced his family and spread spiritualism. People blamed him for it. Now I practise spiritualism as a grahsta. People blame me for it too. Either way of life, people find fault. That is the way of the world".

atanu
30 April 2008, 06:52 AM
Thank you, Atanu:

Your points well taken.
What is not clear to me is why many Sages had to renounce their secular upbringing when Vedas clearly proclaim four stages of man that must be fulfilled in order to reach “moksha”. It was considered the best way by the Vedas.
-

Namaste Nirotu,

Saidevoji has already indicated that it is a dynamic process and stages may spread over incarnations.

Ramana never encouraged anyone to leave one's station. He said one would not have any doubt and would not seek opinions when the time was ripe. Though he discouraged doubting Thomasses he rarely or never turned away sannaysis. Ramana himself did not seek any opinion when leaving home.

Similarly, a true renouncer will not feel and proclaim "I have renounced". What is there to be renounced for such a Jnani? In other words, Ramana discouraged mental planning. If one has experienced for certainty that one is spirit and not the body then it does not matter what station one occupies. Since for such a true knower there is nothing gained or nothing lost. Ramana had many times cited the examples of Suka and Krishna as contrast.

A timid householder is much better bet than a sadhu with gloated domineering Ego.

Om

nirotu
01 May 2008, 04:21 PM
Do you think Buddha, Shankara or Ramana Maharish, or any other sage would go and first ask some other person for advice whether they should renounce everything or whether maybe better not and should stay at home watching some filmi on TV?

Can you seriously imagine that it is possiible to discourage a sage from becoming a sage?

Dear MahaHrada:

I am afraid you did not understand my point! Whether or not a Sage asks advice of others is not the point of discussion but, if a normal man who walks off and abandons everything for the sake of “nirvana”, can he be considered rising above temptation (abandoning family life) or a coward who abandoned his moral and human responsibilities to his family?

Many sages have shown quite a dichotomy in their private life and in their teachings. That sort of duality is quite apparent in many sages.
All sages seem to preach a balanced life which they never lived. Why is that duality? This is what I am referring to. Let us stick to this context. Otherwise, we are all in agreement.



Blessings,

nirotu
01 May 2008, 04:25 PM
Dear Saidevo and Atanu:

First of all thank you both for your participation.

I am afraid we are deviating from the question in scrutiny. This discussion is not about comparing various Ashramas described in Vedas, this is not about proclaiming superiority of one to the other and this is certainly not about seeker asking opinion from sages but it is more about why on one hand the message and context of all sages refer to a balanced view of life – a moderation in everything – but on the other hand, the private life of sages shows entirely different! While their personal life shows extremism, their message for most part shows moderation, often emphasizing about life of balance, responsibility to family, duty etc,. This duality is being questioned.


Saidevoji has already indicated that it is a dynamic process and stages may spread over incarnations.

Let us not talk about what is not known or revealed to us. Let us restrict my question to present life. Using this logic, it is not clear why Buddha in the present life abandoned his family. Certainly, it was not in his past incarnation.

Blessings,

Arjuna
01 May 2008, 05:30 PM
It is said that when Buddha or Sage Sankara or Jesus Christ gave up other paths (paths of being Grihasta), they have overcome the temptation, whereas, mortals like us want to give up one to follow the other, we are criticized as running away from responsibility.

When Buddha was asked after he got enlightenment "Was it necessary to leave your family in order to get it?" he clearly said NO.

Nobody says that if one gives up the world and becomes a sannyasi he/she cannot get Realisation. However the question is which path is more natural and effective. I would say there are MORE saints who live in the world than those who stay in caves ;). However those who are in caves got more advertised :D. That was the case with sannyasis in India – who originally had no specific "spiritual authority" they have now. In fact initially sannyasi could be a Guru for sannyasi and grihasthi – for grihasthi. Now it is prestigious to be a "lAl-bAbA" :D. And verily it is easier to live a vegetable life in some ashram than to face the world boldly as Krishna taught in Gita.

Arjuna
01 May 2008, 05:41 PM
All sages seem to preach a balanced life which they never lived. Why is that duality?

They might have realised that their renunciation was unnecessary. So they try to stop others from committing same mistakes. But human ego is strong. People want to become "truly spiritual", renouncing relative to acquire the Truth, God – as if the Truth can be got in such a business manner!
Those who don't make a big deal of renunciation and simply live in harmony with the world, stay unnoticed. It isn't impressing for the ego :D

MahaHrada
01 May 2008, 06:08 PM
Dear MahaHrada:

I am afraid you did not understand my point! Whether or not a Sage asks advice of others is not the point of discussion but, if a normal man who walks off and abandons everything for the sake of “nirvana”, can he be considered rising above temptation (abandoning family life) or a coward who abandoned his moral and human responsibilities to his family?

Many sages have shown quite a dichotomy in their private life and in their teachings. That sort of duality is quite apparent in many sages.
All sages seem to preach a balanced life which they never lived. Why is that duality? This is what I am referring to. Let us stick to this context. Otherwise, we are all in agreement.


Namaste Nirotu,

I am sorry if i could not express my ideas more clearly if you read atanus posting, right after mine and understand his point, it is the same what i wanted to say.

Please understand that preaching or teaching is only meant for people who look for advice, if those who will go for the path of renunciation as a rule never ask for advice preaching is not necessary, on the contrary , it is an idiocy, consequently because sages are not idiots they do not preach or advice, about sannyas.

Answer to your other question if a normal man would be a coward if he becme a renunciate.

No he wouldn´t be a coward, but since being, like you said, a normal man he would most probably end up very unhappy, since it is not a path for many people but few, And most importantly these few would have no doubts and never ask themselves questions like these.

So the answer to exactly that Question of yours is containend in my posting i belive maybe read again.

Living the live of renunciation is not a teaching that can be preached, it is a life that is lived.

Those that are meant to live it, will do that regardles of opposition or preachings.

It is nothing that can be preached because it does not, and is not meant to change anything for better.

Sages teach that which will help others why should they recommend things like renunciation that will cause suffering if followed without the required qualification?

Renunciation is a path that should not be advertised, if someone is easily persuaded togive up the idea of renunciation he is definetly not meant for that path, consequently preaching a balanced life, besides being very helpful for the average person, will also serve as a test of sincerity of purpose of the aspiring sadhu or sannyasin.

But as i wrote before i think it is exceedingly unlikely that someone meant for that path will plan it, consciously want it, or ask for advice.

Sages know that simple fact also. So the answer is also very simple, since sages know that true sannyasins or sadhus will never ask but that their renunciation will happen naturally, by an inner urge, they don´t need to persuade others.


Mahahradanath

saidevo
01 May 2008, 09:24 PM
Namaste Nirotu.



Let us not talk about what is not known or revealed to us. Let us restrict my question to present life. Using this logic, it is not clear why Buddha in the present life abandoned his family. Certainly, it was not in his past incarnation.


That the truth about rebirth (and karma) is "not known or revealed to us" is a Christian concept, which Hindus do not approve. In fact belief in karma and reincarnation is one of the 'qualifications' of being a Hindu. I want to remind you that this is a Hindu Forum and therefore indicating that satisfactory answers to questions such as the one you have posed can be obtained only within the context of rebirth and karma is not invalid in this forum. If we omit rebirth and karma and discuss things only within the context of this one life, it would amount to Christianising the thread, which is not desirable.

Buddhists believe that Buddha had several previous births and that his previous lives are portrayed in the Jataka Tales. Perhaps they contain the answer as to why he abandoned his family in his last birth.

In any case, MahaHrada has effectively put it: realization is not taught or just sought; it happens.

atanu
02 May 2008, 03:45 AM
Namaste Nirotu,


Dear Saidevo and Atanu:
First of all thank you both for your participation.

I am afraid we are deviating from the question in scrutiny.


I am afraid that none of us feel that way. To answer a hypothetical question, the basic Hindu understanding must be brought in.



This discussion is not about comparing various Ashramas described in Vedas, this is not about proclaiming superiority of one to the other and this is certainly not about seeker asking opinion from sages but it is more about why on one hand the message and context of all sages refer to a balanced view of life – a moderation in everything – but on the other hand, the private life of sages shows entirely different! While their personal life shows extremism, their message for most part shows moderation, often emphasizing about life of balance, responsibility to family, duty etc,. This duality is being questioned.


Balance or extremism, that is the interpretation of you or me. I think there is no such duality for the true sage, who can see what is appropriate for a seeker and accordingly guide, if necessary. A Guru is thus essential but a Hindu Guru does not use methods of intervention, on account of firm knowledge that the negative karmas are not cancelled by positive karmas. The body and the mind undergo experience of fruits but the Self (Atman) remains unaffected. A body and its owner (the mind) have to live through the completion of the task for which they came to exist. A Guru points to the Self.

Unenlightened common man seeks pleasure in objects and immortality through progeny. This role has to be played. A sage, OTOH, is Ramana -- happy with the Self and is immortal. A sage does not need a family and progeny to perpetuate. There is nothing but the Self for the sage and the Universe with its multitude of beings is but a single family.

However, a Guru need not appear as a renunciate. As already noted, Suka and Shri Krishna led opposite lives.

I hope that you would be able to appreciate that the terms extreme and moderate are true in your reference only.

Om

satay
02 May 2008, 10:59 AM
Namaste all,

I am of the opinion that we have not yet adequately addressed the OP which in my view is a very interesting question.

Perhaps to give focus to this discussion, we should pick one sage e.g. either Ramana, Buddha, Amma or even Jesus as an example and investigate the question in the context of life of that one sage?

satay
02 May 2008, 11:12 AM
Namaskar,




Let us not talk about what is not known or revealed to us. Let us restrict my question to present life. Using this logic, it is not clear why Buddha in the present life abandoned his family. Certainly, it was not in his past incarnation.

Blessings,

I have often wondered about this regarding Buddha shakyamuni. What made his suddenly leave his wife and son in the dark of night...Why did he suddenly drop his responsibilities and duties towards them?

What if "I" do the same...

In the Hindu context, especially, in the context of Gita, leaving your current dharmic duty is not something anyone should do...

MahaHrada
02 May 2008, 12:15 PM
Namaskar,



I have often wondered about this regarding Buddha shakyamuni. What made his suddenly leave his wife and son in the dark of night...Why did he suddenly drop his responsibilities and duties towards them?

What if "I" do the same...

In the Hindu context, especially, in the context of Gita, leaving your current dharmic duty is not something anyone should do...

Namaste Satay
According to buddhist stories Buddha was deliberately married and enclosed in the palace and prevented form leaving, because his father already knew that he was destined to become a recluse (by counsels of astrologers and other signs) when buddha was born, and tried to prevent this from happening by several cunning means, including early marriage and incarceration in the palace.
So in a way he was imprisoned that was not a usual life and a usual marriage, besides later his wife followed his example and also became a nun.
On the other hand one should take into account that buddha was opposed to several vedic injunctions he completly rejected mimamsa and followed the doctrine of anatma, which is also not sanctioned by the Gita or shruti and smriti and so that was a breach of duty, way worse than leaving his wife and son, who where in the care of his father and never in need of his protection.

Mahahrada

nirotu
02 May 2008, 04:02 PM
Dear Saidevo/Atanu/ MahaHrada/Arjuna:

Friends, once again you have missed my point of emphasis, which is correctly recognized by Satay.

I was looking to keep this discussion on a very practical level without having to invoke religions and beliefs. The moment you approach from your concept of Karma/Reincarnation, no more discussion remains!!

I was looking for a feedback on a very practical level as to when you look at their (sages) writings you see one thing but when you peek into their lives you see a completely different thing. I was trying to grasp the nature of this duality from a very practical point as to how it relates to a normal man who has family. Such esoteric answers will only mask the point I am making. Unfortunately, we seem to come back to square one each time.

Let me summarize in simple terms: If I were to walk off from my family responsibilities and suddenly become enlightened, should my act be considered as overcoming “temptations of life” or shying away from my “moral responsibilities of life”? Would you consider either one as Dharmic?

Have a blessed weekend!

Blessings,

MahaHrada
02 May 2008, 05:22 PM
Dear Saidevo/Atanu/ MahaHrada/Arjuna:

I was looking for a feedback on a very practical level as to when you look at their (sages) writings you see one thing but when you peek into their lives you see a completely different thing. I was trying to grasp the nature of this duality from a very practical point as to how it relates to a normal man who has family. Such esoteric answers will only mask the point I am making. Unfortunately, we seem to come back to square one each time.

Let me summarize in simple terms: If I were to walk off from my family responsibilities and suddenly become enlightened, should my act be considered as overcoming “temptations of life” or shying away from my “moral responsibilities of life”? Would you consider either one as Dharmic?

Have a blessed weekend!

Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu,

I am afraid i really do not understand what your question is all about, especially since there are huge differences in what is taught by different teachers, for example Buddha never discouraged renunciation.

His whole teaching is based on monastic life, and on persuading others to leave all and become a monk and nun, he did that to the extent that entertaining huge monastic institutions became a hard burden for the society.

One of the reasons for the decline of buddhism in india was the lack of material suppport and loss of sponsorship because there where way too many monks and nuns that where doing nothing, but that needed material support and didn´t contribute to communal life at all.
I do not see a duality anywhere in the first place since I am not aware of anyone with double standards.

Ramana Maharishi never actively discouraged people from Sannyas as far as i know.
Ramakrishna was married.
Shirdi Sai recommended sannyas for people without attachment, and accepted it only when duties are done.
Who is it that actively discourages everybody from taking sannyas and was/is himself a sadhu or sannyasin?
Who left his family but discouraged other from doing the same?
Like Satay suggested we can talk about a single person and ask ourselves why he said what he said and did what he did- since i do not know these sages who applied rules like you mention which they did not follow themselves this is the only way.
Except for Buddha who does not accept veda, and recommended monastic life for everybody, it is unknown to me that sanyas is supposed to be advertised or recommended, this is not part of sanatana dharma.
Buddhism and Christianity actively promote renunciate life for young peoplea as a virtue. In sanatana dharma it is supposed to remain a rare exception.

Mahahrada

Znanna
02 May 2008, 08:54 PM
Namaste,

I think that at some point I took a leap of faith, and since then have been guided by the most improbable. But, that's just me, YMMV.

Just living in the moment, and experiencing what's happening now is as much of a challenge as I can commit to :)


ZN

satay
02 May 2008, 11:45 PM
namaskar MahaHrada,

And (belated) welcome to HDF!


Namaste Satay
According to buddhist stories Buddha was deliberately married and enclosed in the palace and prevented form leaving, because his father already knew that he was destined to become a recluse (by counsels of astrologers and other signs) when buddha was born, and tried to prevent this from happening by several cunning means, including early marriage and incarceration in the palace.
So in a way he was imprisoned that was not a usual life and a usual marriage, besides later his wife followed his example and also became a nun.


Yes, I am somewhat familiar with this story. I can understand that one can be 'forced' into a marriage. Yet, I don't understand how one can forced to have a child.

The story makes gautama buddha look like a docile child himself who was forced into doing things (even producing a child) against his will.



On the other hand one should take into account that buddha was opposed to several vedic injunctions he completly rejected mimamsa and followed the doctrine of anatma, which is also not sanctioned by the Gita or shruti and smriti and so that was a breach of duty, way worse than leaving his wife and son, who where in the care of his father and never in need of his protection.

Mahahrada

Yes.

However, this doesn't address the question posted in original post of this thread.

satay
02 May 2008, 11:56 PM
Namaskar nirotu,



Let me summarize in simple terms: If I were to walk off from my family responsibilities and suddenly become enlightened, should my act be considered as overcoming “temptations of life” or shying away from my “moral responsibilities of life”? Would you consider either one as Dharmic?

Have a blessed weekend!

Blessings,


Let me ask this question to you and no need to respond here in public...

Why don't you (or I) 'walk off from our families'? What's stoping us?

I believe that sages had a clear cut answer to this fundamental question without any reservations and doubts.

atanu
03 May 2008, 01:58 AM
Namaskar nirotu,

Why don't you (or I) 'walk off from our families'? What's stoping us?

I believe that sages had a clear cut answer to this fundamental question without any reservations and doubts.

Namaskar Satay,

I feel that clear cut answers were given. There is story which Ramakrishna used to relate.

A henpecked husband often tried scaring his wife that he would leave everything and become a sannyasi but he never did that. Wife knew and was ever more domineering. Whereas, a neighbour just walked away from his family with only a gamcha (thin towel) without any prior warning or any threat or any malice.

When the calling comes, the rational reasoning loses all value. One does not seek opinion. And a man following such calling has not sinned. The family is supported by God and the renunciate is supported by God (actually Self is supportless and requires none). A thought "I am supporting a family", is at best a benevolent thought but is an ignorant thought.

And judging a renunciate as irresponsible or responsible by non-enlightened onlooker is in the realm of thought of the onlooker that is not applicable to the Sannyasi. One who has truly surrendered is beyond Dharma. OTOH, a man intellectualy deciding to leave everything to become a renunciate is pain in the a-- .

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

So in other words, in more practical terms (as Shri Nirotu requires), the answer to Satay's question: "Why don't you (or I) 'walk off from our families'? What's stoping us?", would be approximately as below.

We cannot walk off our families because we are sane. When God decides to make anyone of us insane all hassles would disappear. It would not even cause problem if the worldly people called us insane.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
03 May 2008, 02:10 AM
namaskar MahaHrada,
--Yet, I don't understand how one can forced to have a child.

The story makes gautama buddha look like a docile child himself who was forced into doing things (even producing a child) against his will.


You exhibit sparkling clarity. Yet, I think children are truly made against will, with reasoning benumbed and on fire and more often in the darkness.

But can't say that this was the case with Gautama.

Om

atanu
03 May 2008, 03:11 AM
Dear Saidevo/Atanu/ MahaHrada/Arjuna:
-
Let me summarize in simple terms: If I were to walk off from my family responsibilities and suddenly become enlightened, should my act be considered as overcoming “temptations of life” or shying away from my “moral responsibilities of life”? Would you consider either one as Dharmic?

Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu,

What do you actually mean? Can you please read your question and break it into a few parts? Is the 'and' in the sentence 'If I were to walk off from my family responsibilities and suddenly become enlightened', like 'AND' of software language? Both the conditions need to be true?


Om

MahaHrada
03 May 2008, 06:38 AM
namaskar MahaHrada,

And (belated) welcome to HDF!



Yes, I am somewhat familiar with this story. I can understand that one can be 'forced' into a marriage. Yet, I don't understand how one can forced to have a child.

The story makes gautama buddha look like a docile child himself who was forced into doing things (even producing a child) against his will.



Yes.

However, this doesn't address the question posted in original post of this thread.


Namaste Satay,

thanks for your welcome.

Yes i think that seems to have been the case, gautama must have been married when he was a a docile tender child, and born in the wrong place, a brahmin in heart, but surrounded by tough warriors and on top of that the son of the king, This King of course had karmis employed versed in mantra shastra, as all kings have, that i guess have used their knowledge on the young gautama to divert him from his objective and lure him into the path envisioned by his father by their prayogas.

Each sage has his own mundane history and karma (understood as actions) Siddhartha is no exception , and his reaction was imbalanced according to his experience. Later we can see that how his unbalanced approach and concentration on monastic life and anatma and sunyavada, in part brought about by his unique life history, has been the cause of misery and eventually also brought decline to his reformation.

One can clearly see that the general approach within bharat dharma in the astika philosophy, towards discouraging sannyas in early age, compared to its promotion in Buddhism and Christainity, is a wise one and discouragement is not because of double standards.

To know whether it adresses the question of Nirotu i have first of all to understand what has not been answered already which i don´t, even if i try hard.

Mahahrada

sm78
04 May 2008, 04:27 AM
Namaste Nirotu,

I am sorry if i could not express my ideas more clearly if you read atanus posting, right after mine and understand his point, it is the same what i wanted to say.

Please understand that preaching or teaching is only meant for people who look for advice, if those who will go for the path of renunciation as a rule never ask for advice preaching is not necessary, on the contrary , it is an idiocy, consequently because sages are not idiots they do not preach or advice, about sannyas.

Answer to your other question if a normal man would be a coward if he becme a renunciate.

No he wouldn´t be a coward, but since being, like you said, a normal man he would most probably end up very unhappy, since it is not a path for many people but few, And most importantly these few would have no doubts and never ask themselves questions like these.

So the answer to exactly that Question of yours is containend in my posting i belive maybe read again.

Living the live of renunciation is not a teaching that can be preached, it is a life that is lived.

Those that are meant to live it, will do that regardles of opposition or preachings.

It is nothing that can be preached because it does not, and is not meant to change anything for better.

Sages teach that which will help others why should they recommend things like renunciation that will cause suffering if followed without the required qualification?

Renunciation is a path that should not be advertised, if someone is easily persuaded togive up the idea of renunciation he is definetly not meant for that path, consequently preaching a balanced life, besides being very helpful for the average person, will also serve as a test of sincerity of purpose of the aspiring sadhu or sannyasin.

But as i wrote before i think it is exceedingly unlikely that someone meant for that path will plan it, consciously want it, or ask for advice.

Sages know that simple fact also. So the answer is also very simple, since sages know that true sannyasins or sadhus will never ask but that their renunciation will happen naturally, by an inner urge, they don´t need to persuade others.


Mahahradanath

Thanks mahahrada for the above post with a balanced reply.

Though much has been already said, I'll add my 2cents :-

1. Renunciation is a state of mind or mental development.
2. This state of mind is indispensible for any astika whose primary motivation of life is moksha. There can be no special consideration in this regard for a grihi or a fakir.

So we better not question the unquestionable place for renunciation in the framework of sanatana dharma.

Since tyaga is not the external display of orange robes or living in big bachelor gangs, the question of sannyasa ashrama is I feel quite independent. Dharma prescribes it after duty of the previous ashrams are over, unless in special circumstances, when it can be taken forgoing grihastarama. Additionally I don't think such a sannyasa is worklessness but working for a bigger cause. Turiyashrama should not be critisized at any rate nor advertized. It is indeed the highest ashrama and hence only for a few at a given time point.

Gita and the upanisads ask us to work relentlessly and live for 100 years. Yet be unattached in work. How is this un-attachement possible without renunciation and with a heavy bias towards the ashram we live in ??

atanu
04 May 2008, 02:39 PM
Do you think Sages were able to accelerate the process of “self-realization” by-passing these necessary steps as indicated in Vedas? In doing so, do you think they prove Vedas wrong?

---
Quandary still exists in my mind!

Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu,

Consider the following from Gita after you have enjoyed your weekend:

Traigunyavishayaa vedaa nistraigunyo bhavaarjuna;
Nirdwandwo nityasatwastho niryogakshema aatmavaan.

2.45. The Vedas deal with the three attributes (of Nature); be thou above these three attributes, O Arjuna! Free yourself from the pairs of opposites and ever remain in the quality of Sattwa (goodness), freed from the thought of acquisition and preservation, and be established in the Self.

Yaavaanartha udapaane sarvatah samplutodake;
Taavaan sarveshu vedeshu braahmanasya vijaanatah.

2.46. To the Brahmana who has known the Self, all the Vedas are of as much use as is a reservoir of water in a place where there is a flood.

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

The Self is pure knowledge -- the real Veda. The written and spoken words are secondary. A sage knows the Self itself as the timeless Veda.

Is not your question framed with the idea that a Jnani (sage) is an individual and not Veda (pure knowledge)? Take as example Jesus saying "Me and my father in heaven are same".

How do you compare choices and apparent actions of pure unlimited knowledge (jnana) that a sage is with choices/actions of an particularized individualised consciousness?

I have used the word apparent in the above sentence since a sage is Atman which is actionless.

Om

nirotu
06 May 2008, 04:04 PM
Why don't you (or I) 'walk off from our families'? What's stoping us?

Dear Satay:

Thank you. The answer to this question can be found in Atanu’s response.

We cannot walk off our families because we are sane. When God decides to make anyone of us insane all hassles would disappear. It would not even cause problem if the worldly people called us insane.However, the OP relates to a quite different aspect. If I were to abandon my family for the sake of my own enlightenment, how would you or others react to my action? Do you still consider me someone who has responded to a higher calling or merely neglecting what is already given to me by God?

Atanu has a valid point that if God calls then He will look after all your worldly affairs left behind! But, you and I are well rooted in our secular lives and probably find it difficult to accept someone leaving a family regardless of what the quest is. In the case of Sages, such a question does not arise since they never allowed atman to be so muddled with the world. The mind is set nearly free from the beginning. They believed that if mind is enlightened, the truth will be spontaneously perceived. True revelation is a possibility through such a nurtured mind when the baggage or burden that secular lives bring is minimized just like a possibility of blossom of a beautiful flower when there are no imposing or obstructing thorns.

Great many Saints and Sages lived such an ascetic life relinquishing all material pleasures of secular life. It could very well have been as a result of a higher “calling” as suggested beautifully by Atanu.
When the calling comes, the rational reasoning loses all value. One does not seek opinion. And a man following such calling has not sinned. The family is supported by God and the renunciate is supported by God (actually Self is supportless and requires none). A thought "I am supporting a family", is at best a benevolent thought but is an ignorant thought.
That required a rigorous discipline and restraint of mind. Yet, great many Sages through their writings seem to always project an image of balance – a moderation in everything including in secular life. It appears that the “empathy” in their writings is as if they have “been there and done that”. Many here may not agree with me but I find it rather odd (for myself) to see that duality. It is merely my general observation and not intended to look down on any one individual and therefore I see no need to discuss this any further.


What do you actually mean? Can you please read your question and break it into a few parts? Is the 'and' in the sentence 'If I were to walk off from my family responsibilities and suddenly become enlightened', like 'AND' of software language? Both the conditions need to be true?There are many reasons why a person leaves his family. Many are for dumb reasons and many are legitimate reasons. The reason for qualifying my statement with “and enlightenment” is to indicate the path taken by Sages like Buddha. Without adding that, one could have all the legitimate reasons to blame the person for neglecting the family!



Blessings,

Znanna
06 May 2008, 08:56 PM
Namaste,

If one is balanced, it would seem to me that "spiritual" and "material" bear no meaning in a differential mode.


ZN/just saying


To paraphrase ... everything is a prayer, a participation in the wonder of ONE

atanu
07 May 2008, 04:07 AM
Namaste,

If one is balanced, it would seem to me that "spiritual" and "material" bear no meaning in a differential mode.


ZN/just saying


To paraphrase ... everything is a prayer, a participation in the wonder of ONE

Namaste ZN,

Simple and sweet.

Let me add a few points that may have bearing on this subject and may be beneficial in general. Gurus do not encourage renunciation to unripe devotees to protect them from misery.

Balance is like free flow of oil. Everyone wants happiness and peace without exception. Most seek it in money, power, or fame. Till there is a notion of "I am a doer", this seeking will not end and whether one renunciates or whether one is in Grihastha one will be in misery.

A very simple way to get over the notion of doership is to remember Death and also to remember why a dead body cannot say "I want to live". To paraphrase, this amounts to remembering always that this body-mind has no instrument of its own which is intelligent or which is life.

Till this simple knowledge dawns, a forced renunciation is likely to add to ego (false knowledge of what is "I") and untold misery. OTOH, when this simple knowledge is established how does it matter whether one is sannyasi or a grihasthi? Then yahva (this) is that and not the body-mind.


Yaavaanartha udapaane sarvatah samplutodake;
Taavaan sarveshu vedeshu braahmanasya vijaanatah.

2.46. To the Brahmana who has known the Self, all the Vedas are of as much use as is a reservoir of water in a place where there is a flood.

To paraphrase: If one is balanced, "spiritual" and "material" bear no meaning in a differential mode.

Vak devi surely works through you.
Regards

satay
07 May 2008, 09:03 AM
Namaste nirotu,


Dear Satay:

Thank you. The answer to this question can be found in Atanu’s response. However, the OP relates to a quite different aspect.


Yes.



If I were to abandon my family for the sake of my own enlightenment, how would you or others react to my action? Do you still consider me someone who has responded to a higher calling or merely neglecting what is already given to me by God?
Blessings,

I would ask 'how would you (or I) react to the consdierations of others after ?'

The point is this, if it still 'bothers' us of what others say or how others judge us then I don't think that the time was right and the renoucing of family was not the 'calling of God' or 'ripening of karma' as my buddhist friend would say.

I thought the second part of your OP was, why once sages renounce their family they continue with the message to the regular folk of 'keep with your duties to the family'. This I think is because the sages realize that when the timing is right and the karma has ripen there would be nothing stopping the individual and it will happen automatically so to speak.

So in simple terms, if one is still 'wondering' or 'thinking' about renouncing and 'of what others will say', then one is not ready yet.

So for example, in Gautama's case, though as a common folk, I judge in my mind the actions of Gautama and wonder about him leaving his young wife and infant child, and think that I would have never done that to my wife and child, to the buddha himself this judging of mine would have had no effect because for him the timing was right, calling was there and the karma had ripen. Or at least this is how I justify his actions in my mind.

devotee
07 May 2008, 07:26 PM
if one is still 'wondering' or 'thinking' about renouncing and 'of what others will say', then one is not ready yet.
===> & hence the advice to stay in Grihasthaashram !

Exactly ! This one sentence sums up all !! :)