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.Originally Posted by satay
But can't say that this was the case with Gautama.
Om
Member
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
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Member
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
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
icchAshaktitamAkUmarI
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
Last edited by MahaHrada; 03 May 2008 at 06:56 AM.
here and now
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 ??
Last edited by sm78; 04 May 2008 at 05:21 AM.
What is Here, is Elsewhere. What is not Here, is Nowhere.
Member
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
Last edited by atanu; 04 May 2008 at 02:49 PM.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Member
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. 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.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.
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,
svabhAvamadhurA
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
yaireva patanaM dravyaiH siddhistaireva choditA .
shrI kauladarshane chApi bhairaveNa mahAtmanA .
It is revealed in the sacred doctrine of Kula and by the great Bhairava, that the perfection is achieved by that very means by which fall occurs.
Member
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
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
In your seva...
Namaste nirotu,
Yes.
I would ask 'how would you (or I) react to the consdierations of others after ?'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,
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.
satay
Self Seeker
===> & hence the advice to stay in Grihasthaashram !
Exactly ! This one sentence sums up all !!
"Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks