[Advaita-l] Sannyasa and Ramana (was Re: Sankara on sannyAsa for Steadiness in GYAna)
dvnsarma at gmail.com
Fri Oct 23 19:02:09 CDT 2009
If that makes you feel that Bhagavan took sannyasa asrama
I have no objection.
I was under the impression that we are discussing ritualistic
sannyasa as a prerequisite to jnana. It was this ritualistic
sannyasa that the official of Sringeri mutt requested Sri Bhagavan
to submit to. The custodians of Hindu dharma obviously did not
recognise Sri bhagavan as sannyasi.
I would like to point out to you that Kanchi Periyaval
sent srimukhams to the brahmins who recited veda
in the temple erected on the samadhi of Bhagavan's mother
because according to the sastra women cannot take sannyasa
and burrying them and installing linga on the samadhi is
heretical.The brahmins later ignored the srimukhams.
We do not understand the spirit of
"na varnA na varNAsramAchAradharmaH.."
in Sankara's Dasasloki.
I think that no useful purpose is served by continuing this discussion.
On 10/23/09, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 10/22/09, D.V.N. Sarma <dvnsarma at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/22/09, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com>
>> > --- On Wed, 10/21/09, D.V.N. Sarma <dvnsarma at gmail.com>
>> >> Has anybody any information about
>> >> vedic rishis like Vasishta,
>> >> Vamadeva, Bhrigu, Viswamitra
>> >> etc., taking sannyasa?
>> > Apastamba Dharma Sutra 2.6.13 reads:
>> > http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe02/sbe0248.htm
>> > 8. Transgression of the law and violence are found
>> amongst the ancient
>> > (sages).
>> > 9. They committed no sin on account of the greatness
>> of their lustre.
>> > 10. A man of later times who seeing their (deeds)
>> follows them, falls.
>> Therefore as per this Bhagavan Ramana
>> and sri Ramakrishna
>> are fallen.
> Extracts from Sri Ramana Leela, widely recognized as the most important
> biography of Ramana Maharshi (first published in 1936 while Bhagavan Ramana
> was still living):
> 1) Description of the Sannyasa of Ramana:
> "The yagnopaveetam (sacred thread) is indicative of a
> Brahmin birth and culture – this indicated that
> Venkataraman was a Brahmin, son of Sundaram Iyer.
> Henceforth he was the son of the Universal Father,
> Arunachaleswara. He was beyond all caste distinctions.
> The sacred thread could also cause a sense of superiority.
> Hence, he got rid of it.
> After his tonsure he did not want the luxury of a
> bath, but would the guru Arunachaleswara allow any
> violation of convention? Venkataraman took to sannyasa
> in the midst of water. As he was returning to the temple,
> there was a heavy downpour drenching him. The heavens
> themselves provided the bath."
> 2) Ramana Maharshi refers to his lifestyle as a Sannyasi:
> "Naturally the thieves
> were disappointed and showed it; one of them raised a
> stick and threatening Bhagavan, said “Where have you
> kept all your money?” “We are poor sannyasis, we survive
> on what others give us. We never had any money at all,”
> said Bhagavan. However much the thieves pressed, that
> was the only reply they could get. The thieves left
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list