|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 9, 2019 20:16:52 GMT -5
There are differing viewpoints about the relationship of monkhood & renunciation (sannyasa) -- which traditionally entailed having no fixed home, a vow of poverty, begging for food, etc. -- to self-realization in the advaita vedanta tradition as disseminated by its foremost compiler, the Hindu sage Adi Sankara.
The orthodox consensus says that he deemed monkhood a requirement for liberation, a necessity for purity of mind.
A minority point of view says that he never so deemed it, and specifically allowed for the attainment of liberation (moksha) of non-sannyasis in certain texts.
There is a third possibility that it is not absolutely required but that it is very heavily favored.
There is the separate but related question of whether "post" enlightenment (as a jnani) one could still operate in the normal world rather than being a monk.
Sankara wrote many texts that said various things on these matters. I am not enough of a scholar to be able to put together anything like an overview.
However, one text I looked at recently struck me on both the question of sannyasa for the seeker and of sannyasa for the liberated knower.
In his introduction to the Aitareya Upanishad, Sankara seems to hold that life as a householder is incompatible with liberation. Such a life requires, apparently, the kind of desire than an enlightened one would not have -- so monkhood would naturally result; meanwhile, a seeker would not be able to carry out the mental disciplines required for liberation without monkhood.
In the below excerpt, Sankara gives the "objection" to his position himself and then rebuts it in his "answer":
"Objection: Therefore, if the supreme knowledge of Brahman dawns in domestic life, the inactive [footnote: one who does not engage anymore in scriptural rituals] man may continue in that state, and there need be no moving away from it.
Answer: No, since domestic life is induced by desire... Renunciation is defined as the... absence of well-established relationship with sons etc., arising from desire, and not as the mere moving away from that domestic life. And so the inactive man of realization cannot continue in that domestic life...
Objection: [Just like a beggar], desirous merely of maintaining his body, is seen to subject himself to regulations about begging, there can be continuance in the domestic life even for that householder who has become freed from... desires...
Answer: Not so... the constant habit of resorting to any particular house of one's own is prompted by desire. When there is no clinging to any particular house of one's own, there follows begging alone, as a matter of course... ....
Answer: From the fact that a fresh injunction of renunciation, despite its emergence as a matter of course (as in the case of a man of illumination), is met with [footnote: It's "met with" in another scripture -- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III v. I. -- 'Knowing this very Self, the Brahmanas renounce...and lead a mendicant life."], it becomes evident that it is obligatory for the man of illumination. And monasticism is obligatory even for the unillumined soul that hankers after emancipation. ... Besides, such means for the realization of the Self as physical and mental control etc. are incompatible with other stages of life."
It goes on, but I think this is enough to illustrate the point.
I personally don't believe that a requirement of external, physical monkhood makes sense from the larger advaita point of view, and am inclined to give Sankara's other pronouncements on this more weight, but this particular text at least does seem pretty black and white.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 9, 2019 22:26:15 GMT -5
I want my MTV!
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 9, 2019 22:40:14 GMT -5
I think the Buddha called that the 19th fetter...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 10, 2019 8:27:16 GMT -5
I thought the guy's name was Shankara, but no matter. He lived in a different age when monkhood, patriarchy, and all kinds of ideas about denial of the body and renunciation were much more common. From today's perspective most of that stuff strikes me as utter nonsense. During the last two decades we have dozens of well-known stories about famous lamas, ZM's, and other gurus who preached celibacy yet had affairs with their students, so the talk and walk of denial don't match up very well. Thirty years ago I complained about the silly vows dharma teachers were supposed to take in the Quan Um Zen School tradition--vows such as not handling money, not using makeup or deodorant, not going to movies, not dancing, etc. etc. I see life as an adventure, and advise people to live it fully. If folks want to do the renunciate thing, that's okay, but it's not anymore special or holy than living an ordinary life as a happy householder.
From my POV the most important thing in life is to attain freedom from the mind (non-abidance), to see through the illusion of selfhood, and to attain what Ramana called sahaja samadhi (living psychologically unified with "what is" as "what is"). An added benefit would be the apprehension of Brahman (to foster humility, gratitude, compassion, reverence, and a desire to be of service). Anyone who attains these things won't need to go to church to be in church.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 10, 2019 8:46:51 GMT -5
I thought the guy's name was Shankara, but no matter. It's transliteration of Sanskrit, so different people spell it differently. Sankara, Shankara, Śańkara are all found. From Ramana's POV, you've mentioned one thing four times
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 10, 2019 8:51:28 GMT -5
I thought the guy's name was Shankara, but no matter. It's transliteration of Sanskrit, so different people spell it differently. Sankara, Shankara, Śańkara are all found. From Ramana's POV, you've mentioned one thing four times That may be so, but I'm Bob, not Ramana.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 10, 2019 9:41:26 GMT -5
It's transliteration of Sanskrit, so different people spell it differently. Sankara, Shankara, Śańkara are all found. From Ramana's POV, you've mentioned one thing four times That may be so, but I'm Bob, not Ramana. Don't have to be so dualistic about it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 12:48:28 GMT -5
It's transliteration of Sanskrit, so different people spell it differently. Sankara, Shankara, Śańkara are all found. From Ramana's POV, you've mentioned one thing four times That may be so, but I'm Bob, not Ramana. We is/are Self. Fickle words. Ramana did say all vasanas must be "removed" for sahaja, but he mentions in more than one setting that lay persons can do this.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2019 13:44:02 GMT -5
I think the Buddha called that the 19th fetter... While my exposure to scripture is relatively light, I've read the suggestion that some (if not most) of it, and most of the interpretation of it, has been done by folks who are actually strangers to self-realization. Renunciation is, like any other spiritual advice, a two-sided coin. On one hand, it might shift the focus from the material, to what a literal entrancement with the material can mask. This wouldn't be SR, of course, but, potentially, a less intense degree of the trance. The modern-day version of the week-long retreat is a fine example of this kind of potential. And also, the limitations. Because, on the other hand, taking renunciation to the extreme won't ever force grace - the Buddha's story actually covers that, btw - and the rather poignant error in play here is that one can get closer to the truth by emulating those who've already found it. Christianity has some similar, really obvious scriptural fallacies, and the topic of an interest in "being more Christlike" adds yet another facet to the discussion: the monks are trying to borrow from the devotionalists. And really, I can see how mixing devotion in the right measure at the right time might just work, and while Christianity is ultimately benighted, the advice here might just work out fine for some Christians, because, the way I see it, none of us are Jesus, but all of us are the Christ.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 10, 2019 14:56:31 GMT -5
There are differing viewpoints about the relationship of monkhood & renunciation (sannyasa) -- which traditionally entailed having no fixed home, a vow of poverty, begging for food, etc. -- to self-realization in the advaita vedanta tradition as disseminated by its foremost compiler, the Hindu sage Adi Sankara. The orthodox consensus says that he deemed monkhood a requirement for liberation, a necessity for purity of mind. A minority point of view says that he never so deemed it, and specifically allowed for the attainment of liberation (moksha) of non-sannyasis in certain texts. There is a third possibility that it is not absolutely required but that it is very heavily favored. There is the separate but related question of whether "post" enlightenment (as a jnani) one could still operate in the normal world rather than being a monk. Sankara wrote many texts that said various things on these matters. I am not enough of a scholar to be able to put together anything like an overview. However, one text I looked at recently struck me on both the question of sannyasa for the seeker and of sannyasa for the liberated knower. In his introduction to the Aitareya Upanishad, Sankara seems to hold that life as a householder is incompatible with liberation. Such a life requires, apparently, the kind of desire than an enlightened one would not have -- so monkhood would naturally result; meanwhile, a seeker would not be able to carry out the mental disciplines required for liberation without monkhood. In the below excerpt, Sankara gives the "objection" to his position himself and then rebuts it in his "answer": "Objection: Therefore, if the supreme knowledge of Brahman dawns in domestic life, the inactive [footnote: one who does not engage anymore in scriptural rituals] man may continue in that state, and there need be no moving away from it. Answer: No, since domestic life is induced by desire... Renunciation is defined as the... absence of well-established relationship with sons etc., arising from desire, and not as the mere moving away from that domestic life. And so the inactive man of realization cannot continue in that domestic life... Objection: [Just like a beggar], desirous merely of maintaining his body, is seen to subject himself to regulations about begging, there can be continuance in the domestic life even for that householder who has become freed from... desires... Answer: Not so... the constant habit of resorting to any particular house of one's own is prompted by desire. When there is no clinging to any particular house of one's own, there follows begging alone, as a matter of course....... Answer: From the fact that a fresh injunction of renunciation, despite its emergence as a matter of course (as in the case of a man of illumination), is met with [footnote: It's "met with" in another scripture -- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III v. I. -- 'Knowing this very Self, the Brahmanas renounce...and lead a mendicant life."], it becomes evident that it is obligatory for the man of illumination. And monasticism is obligatory even for the unillumined soul that hankers after emancipation. ... Besides, such means for the realization of the Self as physical and mental control etc. are incompatible with other stages of life." It goes on, but I think this is enough to illustrate the point. I personally don't believe that a requirement of external, physical monkhood makes sense from the larger advaita point of view, and am inclined to give Sankara's other pronouncements on this more weight, but this particular text at least does seem pretty black and white. Sankara seems to be saying that the "realized" or "illuminated" cease to have ordinary desires...for the mendicant life. It seems the only desire at this point is to feed the body enough to keep it alive. So it is not absolutely a ~two-way street~, one is not the cause of the other, that is, renunciation does not *cause* liberation/illumination. Example (I think laughter is also pointing to this), Buddha did not leave his wife and son and "job" as Prince, he did not give these up as a kind of trade for Enlightenment, he ceased having any desire to-be-father, husband, Prince, period. His whole life became the search for liberation. (He put all of his eggs in One basket).
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 10, 2019 15:10:34 GMT -5
I think the Buddha called that the 19th fetter... While my exposure to scripture is relatively light, I've read the suggestion that some (if not most) of it, and most of the interpretation of it, has been done by folks who are actually strangers to self-realization. Renunciation is, like any other spiritual advice, a two-sided coin. On one hand, it might shift the focus from the material, to what a literal entrancement with the material can mask. This wouldn't be SR, of course, but, potentially, a less intense degree of the trance. The modern-day version of the week-long retreat is a fine example of this kind of potential. And also, the limitations. Because, on the other hand, taking renunciation to the extreme won't ever force grace - the Buddha's story actually covers that, btw - and the rather poignant error in play here is that one can get closer to the truth by emulating those who've already found it. Well, I think the argument is summed up in a line which I quoted above: "Besides, such means for the realization of the Self as physical and mental control etc. are incompatible with other stages of life." The traditional advaita vedanta scheme (and the original Buddhist scheme AFAIK) is that identity-based desire is the root of the problem. It's what's causing the unstable mind that is therefore unable to see itself clearly. So the first order of business, according to these traditions, is to control the constant inflammation of desires that occurs when you pursue them. Thus the monastic vows: celibacy, poverty, etc. This dismisses large sections of life concerns and their attendant desires, and also puts you in a community of similar others to reinforce that, and with a guru to further reinforce it. It's not getting rid of all problematic desires, of course, but it's containment. This then is what is said to enable your mind to become calm enough when unruffled by the majority of desires, to concentrate and see itself. So by this token renunciation is never enough, but it is a necessary pre-requisite. Again, I don't agree with this line of reasoning. I'm just thinking it through.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 10, 2019 15:19:32 GMT -5
Sankara seems to be saying that the "realized" or "illuminated" cease to have ordinary desires...for the mendicant life. It seems the only desire at this point is to feed the body enough to keep it alive. So it is not absolutely a ~two-way street~, one is not the cause of the other, that is, renunciation does not *cause* liberation/illumination. So as I said in the post just above to laughter, renunciation might be necessary but not sufficient for the seeker, per these lines I quoted above: "And monasticism is obligatory even for the unillumined soul that hankers after emancipation. ... Besides, such means for the realization of the Self as physical and mental control etc. are incompatible with other stages of life." Well this is mixing several things up. The passage you pointed to about the loss of desire for anything but begging was for realized ones, not searchers. The Buddha was obviously not the Buddha when he left. He hadn't yet gotten rid of all desire. If all he wanted was liberation, the question is why did he think renunciation was the way to get it? Why not just stay in the palace and meditate there? The answer is that he thought that he had to go and learn from the forest ascetics for liberation... only later did he realize they didn't have the answer either.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 10, 2019 15:39:28 GMT -5
Sankara seems to be saying that the "realized" or "illuminated" cease to have ordinary desires...for the mendicant life. It seems the only desire at this point is to feed the body enough to keep it alive. So it is not absolutely a ~two-way street~, one is not the cause of the other, that is, renunciation does not *cause* liberation/illumination. So as I said in the post just above to laughter, renunciation might be necessary but not sufficient for the seeker, per these lines I quoted above: "And monasticism is obligatory even for the unillumined soul that hankers after emancipation. ... Besides, such means for the realization of the Self as physical and mental control etc. are incompatible with other stages of life." Well this is mixing several things up. The passage you pointed to about the loss of desire for anything but begging was for realized ones, not searchers. The Buddha was obviously not the Buddha when he left. He hadn't yet gotten rid of all desire. If all he wanted was liberation, the question is why did he think renunciation was the way to get it? Why not just stay in the palace and meditate there? The answer is that he thought that he had to go and learn from the forest ascetics for liberation... only later did he realize they didn't have the answer either. No, the point is it's not renunciation if you no longer have desire for something (Buddha's story. At some point there was no struggle between staying and leaving, he just left. {If you're down to one chip, it's easy to go All In}).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2019 16:02:23 GMT -5
While my exposure to scripture is relatively light, I've read the suggestion that some (if not most) of it, and most of the interpretation of it, has been done by folks who are actually strangers to self-realization. Renunciation is, like any other spiritual advice, a two-sided coin. On one hand, it might shift the focus from the material, to what a literal entrancement with the material can mask. This wouldn't be SR, of course, but, potentially, a less intense degree of the trance. The modern-day version of the week-long retreat is a fine example of this kind of potential. And also, the limitations. Because, on the other hand, taking renunciation to the extreme won't ever force grace - the Buddha's story actually covers that, btw - and the rather poignant error in play here is that one can get closer to the truth by emulating those who've already found it. Well, I think the argument is summed up in a line which I quoted above: "Besides, such means for the realization of the Self as physical and mental control etc. are incompatible with other stages of life." The traditional advaita vedanta scheme (and the original Buddhist scheme AFAIK) is that identity-based desire is the root of the problem. It's what's causing the unstable mind that is therefore unable to see itself clearly. So the first order of business, according to these traditions, is to control the constant inflammation of desires that occurs when you pursue them. Thus the monastic vows: celibacy, poverty, etc. This dismisses large sections of life concerns and their attendant desires, and also puts you in a community of similar others to reinforce that, and with a guru to further reinforce it. It's not getting rid of all problematic desires, of course, but it's containment. This then is what is said to enable your mind to become calm enough when unruffled by the majority of desires, to concentrate and see itself. So by this token renunciation is never enough, but it is a necessary pre-requisite. Again, I don't agree with this line of reasoning. I'm just thinking it through. It's true that truth-seeking can discord with even everyday life, not to mention one spent chasing desires. But it doesn't have to, and Hakuin -- who lived the monastic life -- made a point to exalt the challenge to the householder as a grand opportunity, one that can't be found in the monastery, and, in turning this inside-out, he rejected complaints about the distractions of life as a poor excuse. But this point you highlight about allowing the mind to settle is, of course, a sound one, and one I've noticed from more than one traditional advaita source. (late edit that was on my mind as I was writing but forgot to address): I'd say those traditional schemes are in error to hold that the identity based desires are the root of the problem. Rather, they're a symptom.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2019 16:06:06 GMT -5
There are differing viewpoints about the relationship of monkhood & renunciation (sannyasa) -- which traditionally entailed having no fixed home, a vow of poverty, begging for food, etc. -- to self-realization in the advaita vedanta tradition as disseminated by its foremost compiler, the Hindu sage Adi Sankara. The orthodox consensus says that he deemed monkhood a requirement for liberation, a necessity for purity of mind. A minority point of view says that he never so deemed it, and specifically allowed for the attainment of liberation (moksha) of non-sannyasis in certain texts. There is a third possibility that it is not absolutely required but that it is very heavily favored. There is the separate but related question of whether "post" enlightenment (as a jnani) one could still operate in the normal world rather than being a monk. Sankara wrote many texts that said various things on these matters. I am not enough of a scholar to be able to put together anything like an overview. However, one text I looked at recently struck me on both the question of sannyasa for the seeker and of sannyasa for the liberated knower. In his introduction to the Aitareya Upanishad, Sankara seems to hold that life as a householder is incompatible with liberation. Such a life requires, apparently, the kind of desire than an enlightened one would not have -- so monkhood would naturally result; meanwhile, a seeker would not be able to carry out the mental disciplines required for liberation without monkhood. In the below excerpt, Sankara gives the "objection" to his position himself and then rebuts it in his "answer": "Objection: Therefore, if the supreme knowledge of Brahman dawns in domestic life, the inactive [footnote: one who does not engage anymore in scriptural rituals] man may continue in that state, and there need be no moving away from it. Answer: No, since domestic life is induced by desire... Renunciation is defined as the... absence of well-established relationship with sons etc., arising from desire, and not as the mere moving away from that domestic life. And so the inactive man of realization cannot continue in that domestic life... Objection: [Just like a beggar], desirous merely of maintaining his body, is seen to subject himself to regulations about begging, there can be continuance in the domestic life even for that householder who has become freed from... desires... Answer: Not so... the constant habit of resorting to any particular house of one's own is prompted by desire. When there is no clinging to any particular house of one's own, there follows begging alone, as a matter of course....... Answer: From the fact that a fresh injunction of renunciation, despite its emergence as a matter of course (as in the case of a man of illumination), is met with [footnote: It's "met with" in another scripture -- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III v. I. -- 'Knowing this very Self, the Brahmanas renounce...and lead a mendicant life."], it becomes evident that it is obligatory for the man of illumination. And monasticism is obligatory even for the unillumined soul that hankers after emancipation. ... Besides, such means for the realization of the Self as physical and mental control etc. are incompatible with other stages of life." It goes on, but I think this is enough to illustrate the point. I personally don't believe that a requirement of external, physical monkhood makes sense from the larger advaita point of view, and am inclined to give Sankara's other pronouncements on this more weight, but this particular text at least does seem pretty black and white. Sankara seems to be saying that the "realized" or "illuminated" cease to have ordinary desires...for the mendicant life. It seems the only desire at this point is to feed the body enough to keep it alive. So it is not absolutely a ~two-way street~, one is not the cause of the other, that is, renunciation does not *cause* liberation/illumination. Example (I think laughter is also pointing to this), Buddha did not leave his wife and son and "job" as Prince, he did not give these up as a kind of trade for Enlightenment, he ceased having any desire to-be-father, husband, Prince, period. His whole life became the search for liberation. (He put all of his eggs in One basket). I wasn't referring to his decision to hit the road, but rather, to the story where the girl finds him half-dead on a riverbank and gives him something to eat and drink. My understanding was that he'd essentially tried starving himself to the truth, and came to understand that this extreme was a dead-end, even before his big kensho/satori combo under the tree, which, if I'm not mistaken, came later.
|
|