The concept of sannyasa (monk-hood) is prevalent in almost all religions, but there is some uniformity in its practice in other religions. But as with most concepts in Hinduism, there are so many different definitions of sannyasa that it becomes hopelessly confusing! In some Hindu schools of asceticism, a male sannyasi is not allowed to even look at the picture of a woman (and vice-versa) and in some other schools, even ritual sex is considered to be part of the liberation process. There is of course a whole spectrum of beliefs in between these two extremes. In common parlance, the word sannyasi is used to refer to a person who has left his/her family, abandoned all worldly duties and is living alone in search of the ultimate truth. This would have been simple to understand if not for the new breed of sannyasis at modern day spiritual organisations who are involved in so many managerial duties that would put a CEO to shame. There are also so many scriptures and philosophies in Hinduism that its almost impossible to form a coherent understanding if we start referring to all that has been written and said in this context. But thankfully, Krishna did a wonderful job of giving us one reference which every single Hindu considers to be the highest authority in all matters of life, death and beyond. So, lets try to understand that the Krishna says about sannyasa in the Gita.
In verse 5.3 of Gita, Krishna says, "He is known as a permanent Sannyasin who does not hate, does not desire, is without dualities (opposites)." This is easy to understand but strangely, this makes no mention of giving up worldly duties! Then in verses 18.2 and 18.3, he again says, "Many scholars say that renunciation of all activities is sannyasa". And then he goes on to say that renunciation of activities is not possible and one should mainly focus on renunciation of the fruits of actions (tyagi). There seems to be a very interesting play of words here. In 5.3, he is giving his personal opinion regarding sannyasa (and does not mention renunciation of activities) whereas in 18.2-3, he mentions renunciation of activities but says its the opinion of many scholars (and not necessarily his). So, this does give some clarity! It seems that the general opinion of scholars during Krishna's time was that renunciation of activities was sannyasa, but Krishna would consider even a tyagi to be a permanent sannyasi. Thats a very interesting point!
Although the Gita was delivered to Arjuna for the specific purpose of giving him strength to fight the Mahabharata war, Krishna also uses this opportunity to give a very concise commentary on the entire Hindu philosophy. Although Arjuna is a warrior and is about to get into vigorous action, Krishna also takes time to explain the path of Jnana and Bhakti. However, in no verse of the Gita has Krishna spoken highly about renunciation of action. He always gives importance to performing all our actions with perfect detachment. He even goes on to say that renunciation of action is not possible. So, does it mean that sannyasa is just a hypothetical concept?
What saves the concept of sannyasa is verse 5.3. In effect, what Krishna seems to be saying is that don't think of renouncing activities since its not possible to do so. He encourages renunciation of the fruits of actions and says that such a person is also to be considered a sannyasi. In fact, this is the principle on which all the modern spiritual organisations are formed. The amount of work that Vivekananda did, hardly any worldly man can think of doing. Strictly speaking, Vivekananda was a tyagi, but can still be called a sannyasi since he had no attachment to the fruits of his actions.
One question that still remains to be answered is the connection between marriage/family-life and sannyasa. In verse 5.3 or anywhere else in the Gita, Krishna makes no mention of bachelorhood or leaving your family. According to him, a tyagi is also to be considered as a sannyasi and he is strongly recommending tyaga to Arjuna who is a married man. So, an emphasis on bachelorhood and giving up of family life for spiritual growth seems to be quite contrary to what Krishna said. Those who wish to remain unmarried are certainly free to do so, but keeping them on a higher pedestal is quite misleading and disturbs the social fabric.
One question that still remains to be answered is the connection between marriage/family-life and sannyasa. In verse 5.3 or anywhere else in the Gita, Krishna makes no mention of bachelorhood or leaving your family. According to him, a tyagi is also to be considered as a sannyasi and he is strongly recommending tyaga to Arjuna who is a married man. So, an emphasis on bachelorhood and giving up of family life for spiritual growth seems to be quite contrary to what Krishna said. Those who wish to remain unmarried are certainly free to do so, but keeping them on a higher pedestal is quite misleading and disturbs the social fabric.
If we believe in the above, why then did Ramakrishna and Vivekananda emphasise so much on bachelor-hood? The only reason that comes to mind is the situation of India during those times. Mughals and Britishers had been ruling us for so many years and the condition of our countrymen was quite pitiable. To free India from the clutches of foreign rule, it was indispensable to form an organisation whose members could work full-time towards encouraging Indians to stand on their feet by reminding them of their past glory. RK Mission consciously stayed away from all political affairs, but its role in the freedom movement can never be over-estimated.
In this age, I think its important to go back to Krishna's ideas and focus more on internal detachment without bothering too much about external conditions. Highly evolved human beings can be found in all spheres of life. We need to learn to appreciate life in all its forms and not be glued to just one ideal that may appear attractive. As Sister Nivedita once said, "If the many and the One be indeed the same reality, then it is not all modes of worship alone, but equally all modes of work, all modes of struggle, all modes of creation, which are paths of realization. No distinction, henceforth, between sacred and secular. To labour is to pray. To conquer is to renounce. Life is itself religion. To have and to hold is as stern a trust as to quit and to avoid."
In this age, I think its important to go back to Krishna's ideas and focus more on internal detachment without bothering too much about external conditions. Highly evolved human beings can be found in all spheres of life. We need to learn to appreciate life in all its forms and not be glued to just one ideal that may appear attractive. As Sister Nivedita once said, "If the many and the One be indeed the same reality, then it is not all modes of worship alone, but equally all modes of work, all modes of struggle, all modes of creation, which are paths of realization. No distinction, henceforth, between sacred and secular. To labour is to pray. To conquer is to renounce. Life is itself religion. To have and to hold is as stern a trust as to quit and to avoid."
Comments from Asishji received over email (part 1) :
ReplyDeleteKushalji, while I am in agreement with your conclusion and most of the premises, your observation: “an emphasis on bachelorhood and giving up of family life for spiritual growth seems to be quite contrary to what Krishna said”, appears to be an over-simplification of Sri Krishna’s enunciation to Arjuna in Gita, for the following reasons.
First, what Sri Krishna prescribed to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra was selfless action (niskam karma). In order to render his action selfless, Arjuna was to acquire wisdom, devotion and pursue yoga, that were necessary for the purpose of becoming a true karma yogi. Sri Aurobindo has very correctly described this yoga as integral yoga. Thus Krishna’s advice to Arjuna to become a karma yogi was apt in the circumstances of a battlefield.
Second, the word ‘sannyasa’ was known to the contemporaries and understood by Arjuna as renunciation of the world of karma or action for spiritual pursuit. Obviously on the eve of a great battle at Kurukshetra, it was not a worthy option for Arjuna to withdraw from action mode and to retire in a secluded place for spiritual pursuit. Therefore, Krishna had urged Arjuna to become a karma yogi and not a sannyasi. Assuming that it was not Arjuna but Suk Deva (son of Vedavyasa) seeking Krishna’s guidance, Krishna might have advised him to become a sannyasi, in the sense he interpreted the term (a recluse cum karma yogi).
Third, the Vedic people did not look upon celibacy by the best of men favourably as they were on expansion mode. It is said that Brahma created 4 sons out of his desire (manas putra) with intent to expand human race through their progeny. However, all of them, viz. Sanaka, Sananda, Sanatana and Sanat Kumar chose to become sannyasi contrary to the direction of Brahma and consequently Brahma was constrained to create further offspring. As per prevailing practice, a sannyasi after renouncing the world would remain absorbed in his sadhana / meditation and would not return to the world even after self-realization or God-realization. Sages on the other hand were pursuing the same goal of self or God-realization through yoga and were available to the society as teachers or preachers. Some of their were also engaged in karma or action. Krishna re-defined sannyasi as renunciant of not karma or action but of the result thereof. However, he did not change the fundamental pre-condition of celibacy or renunciation of family life to become a sannyasi.
In the above backdrop, let us look at various verses of Gita that dwell upon sannyasa in the sense of renunciation and sannyasi in the sense of renunciant.
In verse 4.41 (Gita), Krishna for the first time mentions sannyasa. The word used is ‘Yoga-sannyasta-karmanam’ to convey that “actions do not bind one who has taken to sannyasa of karma (renounced actions) through yoga”. Arjuna misunderstands the expression “who has taken to sannyasa of karma (renounced actions)” and, therefore, asks Krishna: “You praise sannyasa of karma (renunciation of actions), and again Karma Yoga. Tell me which of the two is better.” (5.1). In verses 5.2 & 5.3 Krishna proclaims that both sannyasa of karma and karma yoga lead to liberation but between the two, karma yoga is superior. He who does not hate, nor crave, should be known as ‘Nitya-sannyasi’ (man of constant renunciation). It will thus be seen and appreciated that the distinction made by Krishna in response to Arjuna’s poser is not between sannyasi per se and karma jyogi, but between a sannyasi of karma (one who has renounced karma) and a karma yogi. A champion of karma yoga as he is, he tells Arjuna that karma yoga is superior to karma sannyasa (neither Buddha nor Vivekananda can be accused of taking karma sannyasa).
In verse 5.6 Krishna pronounces: “sannyasa is hard to attain without karma yoga. The meditative man resorting to karma yoga attains Brahman without delay”. [Vivekananda was a sannyasi cum karma yogi in keeping with Gita ideal].
Comments from Asishji received over email (part 2):
ReplyDeleteIn verse 6.1 Krishna exhorts to Arjuna: “He who performs his duty unconcerned with the result of action is a sannyasi and a yogi.” [no contradiction between the two].
In verse 6.2 Krishna proclaims that “which they call sannyasa, know that to be yoga, for nobody who has not resorted to sannyasa of expectation (renounced expectation) can be a yogi.” Here also the term sannyasa has been used in the sense of renunciation, contextually in the sense of renunciation of expectation and has been interpreted as synonymous with yoga.
In verse 9.28 Krishna dwells upon the concept of sannyasayoga: “Sannyasa-yoga-yukta-atma vimuktah mam-upaisyasi” meaning “if your mind is imbued with sannyasa yoga and become free, you will attain me.” As to how one’s mind can be established in said sannyasa yoga has been explained in verse 9.27, viz. by offering all actions to Krishna, which inter alia include eating, sacrifice, giving or austerities undertaken. Here Krishna takes the concept of sannyasa to a new level, which encompasses not just the result of action, but the action per se, thus rendering one’s action as offering to God.
Finally we come to the last chapter of Gita, viz. chapter 18. In 18.1 Arjuna asks Krishna to explain the truth about sannyasa and tyaga. In 18.2 Krishna explains that renunciation of action tainted with desire is called sannyasa, while abandonment of the results of all works is called tyaga. In 18.12 Krishna says conclusively that those who do not resort to sannyasa suffers threefold result of actions – the undesirable, the desirable and the mixed. But those who resort to sannyasa do not suffer such results of action (as their karma is selfless & detached).
It will be evident from the above discussion that by sannyasa Krishna does not mean renunciation of karma, but renunciation of the result of karma, thereby suggesting that a sannyasi has necessarily to be karma yogi. He has also emphasized that by sannyasa yoga or deeming actions as offerings, one can attain God. Celibacy was clearly not of any concern to Krishna in the circumstances of Arjuna on the battlefield. Hence, he did not mention that. In any case, he went into substance of sannyasa and not its ritualistic form.
I hope, the above analysis has supplemented your thought on sannyasa.
Asishji, thanks a lot for your detailed comments! It has brought in a lot more clarity regarding the issue.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree with most of what you have said, I disagree with this statement : "Celibacy was clearly not of any concern to Krishna in the circumstances of Arjuna on the battlefield. Hence, he did not mention that."
I don't think Krishna's objective of that dialogue on the battlefield was only to say whats relevant to Arjuna. If that was so, Gita would never have been of such a general appeal. Vivekananda also has said, "Than the Gita no better commentary on the Vedas has been written or can be written." So, for me, Gita is the essence of the entire Hindu philosophy and anything that the Gita has not stressed upon is only a personal preference.
Dear Kushal,
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant was that Krishna took Arjuna through the entire gamut of philosophy & spirituality while addressing the core issue raised by Arjuna, whether it was justified for Arjuna to withdraw from the battle with his nearest & dearest ones for kingdom's sake. The core issue led to supplementary issues and doubts which also he answered. Celibacy was not an issue raised by Arjuna. Nor was it relevant to the philosophical and spiritual discourses of Krishna while explaining the essence of various yogas. From the above perspective, celibacy was not at all relevant. It had nothing to do with either philosophy or spirituality. Even Vivekananda while lecturing on various aspects of Vedanta and Hindu religion had never extolled celibacy. Does it mean he did not approve it? Similarly, omission of celibacy in Krishna's elucidation does not mean that he either approved or disapproved it. It only suggests celibacy was not relevant to the philosophical content of Gita.
Regards.
Asish K. Raha
Dear Asishji,
ReplyDeleteVivekananda once wrote in a letter: "Now, persons of this class if they want to be great, they must fight to finish — clear out the deck for battle. No encumbrance — no marriage, no children, no undue attachment to anything except the one idea, and live and die for that. I am a person of this sort. I have taken up the one idea of "Vedanta" and I have "cleared the deck for action". You and Isabelle are made of this metal; but let me tell you, though it is hard, you are spoiling your lives in vain. Either take up one idea, clear the deck, and to it dedicate the life; or be contented and practical; lower the ideal, marry, and have a happy life."
It is also clear from many other instances that Vivekananda and RK Mission clearly keep 'sannyasis' on a much higher pedestal. As I wrote earlier, I think it was very important to do so during the freedom struggle, but its not a good idea to keep flogging a dead horse.
Thanks,
Kushal.
Here is another example:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_5/Notes_from_Lectures_and_Discourses/The_Sannyasin_and_The_Householder
Kushalji, You will certainly agree that linking celibacy to freedom struggle is to limit a universal ideal to Indian condition, which in any case did not apply to foreigners like Isabelle. In a materialistic world it is no mean achievement to give up family tie and all attachments with the singular ideal of serving the humanity. A person who has taken sannyasa by sacrificing family & property, not for self liberation but for service to others, undoubtedly deserves to be on a higher pedestal, not for his celibacy, but for his service & sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteAsishji, the motto of Vivekananda and RK Mission is to pursue self-liberation through service of mankind. I am yet to come across a human being who has the singular ideal of serving humanity without bothering about self-liberation. Actually, this idea sounds quite self-contradictory since only a self-liberated one can be truly self-less. And if one is self-liberated, it is probably meaningless to label him/her as sannyasi or grihastha. So, all our discussion is only with regard to people who have not yet reached the goal (i.e. if such a thing exists). There are also many householders who have made tremendous contributions to society. To say that their contribution cannot be higher than that of a sannyasi (in its literal sense) is hard to accept. Also, there are many ways of contributing to society. Building hospitals and schools is only one of the many options.
ReplyDelete