Role of balance between �spiritual� and �material� life.

[nirotu]

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]

One point is that those who were single had more time to promote themselves 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]

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]

"Neglect None"

is the edict I was taught


Namaste,
ZN

[sm78]

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]

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]

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 taught

While 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]

Namaste, nirotu,

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

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


ZN

[saidevo]

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]

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,