• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

BrhadAranyaka Upanishad - sloka 4.4.22 - Realizing Atman - Part 1

#1
Background

Asrama is a dharma, the law of the Universe. Whether one wishes or not they get subjected to this dharma. To be happy, it is better we understand this dharma and align our living to this dharma.

There are four Asramas. Brahmacarya, gRhasta, vanaprastha and saMnyAsa. These are natural development stages in our life.

We grow from being born into adults. This is brahmacarya. In this stage one should maximize learning, because our brains are suited to learn the maximum during this stage.

Then as we grow into adulthood, we enjoy the dharma of the householder. Biologically, urges in us, make us to go for our mate, produce/protect kids, grow them up etc. This is gRhasta. Our body, brain and mind are best suited to do these functions in this stage.

Then we retire from active personal life but will be able to contribute to the best of abilities. This is vanaprastha. Here our body cannot hold the pressures of gRhasta, but to the best of the abilities we can contribute. Our brain can do a lot of unlearning and re-learning in this stage. Our wisdom is more useful than our body in this stage of life. We stay put in a place and contribute.

Finally even our brain faculties start giving up. We enter into saMnyAsa. saMnyAsa means giving up or stage of abandoning. Whether we want or not, our body and mind will abandon. We grow more detached from individuals. Unlike in vanaprastha there is no specific contribution from us to society. But yet different people can learn from our experiences. The best in this stage is to keep physically moving around to keep us physically healthy and totally detached from the world to keep us mentally healthy.

These stages are how our lives evolve. If we align our mind and expectations to these stages of life, we live happily.

There is this question on entering saMnyAsa directly from brahmacarya. Theology is divided on it. As I wrote Asrama is a dharma. It is the law. Human beings have the option to live life anyway they want. They can claim to go to saMnyAsa from anywhere. But unless they are 'vi-rajet' (lack of energy/incapability), their biological urges will remain.

But to my reading or scriptures, violating Asrama dharma is not mentioned in the scriptures. But different sages and seers have interpreted the slokas to mean that violation is allowed.


Here is a translation of Brhadharanyaka Upanishad Sloka 4.4.22 and 4.4.23. Here Yajnavalkya is saying all these to Janaka.

Brhadharanyaka Upanishad - Sloka 4.4.22


Sloka 4.4.22.1

sa vā eṣa mahānaja ātmā yo'yaṃ vijñānamayaḥ prāṇeṣu ya eṣo'ntarhṛdaya ākāśastasmiñchete, sarvasya vaśī sarvasyeśānaḥ sarvasyādhipatiḥ;
Translation

With this great birthless Atma (mahAn aja Atma), which is in the logically analysing (vijnAnamaya) living (breathing/biological) beings (prAnesu), which is in (tasmin chete) the inner heart of the (antar hrdaya) empty space/vacuum (AkAZas), the one that resides in everything (sarvasya vasi), the one that rules everything (sarvasya iSAna), the lord of everything (sarvasya adipatih).

Meaning


The great birthless Atma is in the logically analysing, breathing/biological beings as well in the inner heart of the empty space/vacuum and thus is the one that resides in everything, rules everything, lord of everything.

Sloka 4.4.22.2


sa na sādhunā karmaṇā bhūyān, no evāsādhunā kanīyān; eṣa sarveśvaraḥ; eṣa bhūtādhipatiḥ, eṣa bhūtapālaḥ, eṣa seturvidharaṇa eṣāṃ lokānāmasaṃbhedāya;
Translation

Not with (sa na) sAdhu (pious)like (sadhuna) actions (karmana) it grows (bhUyAn), not with (na eva) impure deeds (asAdhuna) it reduces (kaniyan). This (esa) ruler of all (sarva iswarah), this lord of all matter and beings (esa bhuta adipatih), this protector (esa bhuta pAla), this bank-bearer of the different worlds.

Meaning


This Atma is not affected by pious activities, Not affected by what we consider as impure activities. This Atma is the ruler, protector, lord of all matter and beings. Like a bank that holds the river, it holds the different worlds in this Universe.

Sloka 4.4.22.3


tam etaṃ veda anuvacanena brāhmaṇā vividiṣanti yajñena dānena tapasā'nāśakena; etameva viditvā munirbhavati |

Translation


Unto that Atma (tam) these (etam) by the knowledge of the verses (veda anu vacanena), the brAhmans desire to learn (brAhmana vividisanti), by yajna (yajnena), by dAna (dAnena), by destructive tapas (tapasA nAsakena), those understanding become the muni (etam eva viditva munir bhavati).

Meaning


Brahmans desire to learn that Atma by knowledge of the verses, by Yajna, by dAna, by destructive tapas etc. Those who understand that Atma are called the 'Muni'.

Sloka 4.4.22.4


etam eva pravrājino lokam icchantaḥ pravrajanti | etaddha sma vai tat pūrve vidvāṃsaḥ prajāṃ na kāmayante, kiṃ prajayā kariṣyāmo yeṣāṃ no'yamātmāyaṃ loka iti; te ha sma putraiṣaṇāyāśca vittaiṣaṇāyāśca lokaiṣaṇāyāśca vyutthāyātha bhikśācaryaṃ caranti; yā hyeva putraiṣaṇā sā vittaiṣaṇā, yā vittaiṣaṇā sā lokaiṣaṇā, ubhe hyete eṣaṇe eva bhavataḥ |

Translation


Those in (etam eva) the world (lokam) of pravrAjina (wanderers), desiring it (icchantah), they wander (pravrajanti). This it is said (etadd ha sma), that purva vidvamsah, did not desire children (prajAm na kAmayante), what children will do (kim prajAya karisyama) to us here (nah ayam), in the world (loka) of this Atma (Atma ayam). Saying this (te ha sma), the desire for putra (pura isanaya), desire for wealth (vitta isanaya) and the desire for the world (loka isanaya ca) abandon (vyutthAya), then (atha), get into (caranti) bhiksacaryam. Which indeed (yA hy eva) the desire for children (putraisana) , that/she (sA) is desire for wealth (vittaisana), which indeed (yA hy eva) the desire for wealth (vittasaina) that/she (sA) is desire for the worlds (lokaisana). Both of these (ubhe hy ete) ardent desires (esane) are your desires (eva bhavatah)

Meaning


Those in the world of pravrAjina (wanderers), desiring that Atma, they wander/search. It is said that the pUrva vidvamsa, did not desire children. What will children do to us here in the world of this Atma..? Saying this they abandoned the desire for children, wealth and the worlds and got into bhiksacarya. What indeed is the desire for children is the desire for wealth. What indeed is desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds. It means the desire for children, wealth and worlds are all same. Both of these, the desire for Atma and other desires, are all your desires.

pUrva means earlier or opposite. vidvamsah are knowledgeable/learned people. The pUrva vidvamsah could mean the earlier knowledgeable people or opposite of knowledgeable people (not really learned people).

Such people (earlier or opposite of learned) did not desire children. What is to be done by children to us here in this world of Atma..? Saying this they abandoned the desires for putra, wealth and world, got into bhiksacarya.

But the desire for children, wealth and the worlds are one the same. Both the desire for Atma and our other desires are all just your desires.

Sloka 4.4.22.5


sa eṣa neti netyātmā, agṛhyo nahi gṛhyate, aśīryo nahi śīryate, asaṅgo nahi sajyate, asito na vyathate, na riṣyati; etam u ha evaite (eva etat) na tarata iti—ataḥ pāpamakaravamiti, ataḥ kalyāṇamakaravamiti; ubhe u haivaiṣa (ha eva esa) ete tarati, nainaṃ (na enAm) kṛtākṛte tapataḥ
Translation

This with "not this not this Atma" (sa esa na iti na it Atma), Non-capturable/seizable (agrhya), never captured/seized (nahi grhyate), imperceptible/without head (azirya) , never perceived (nahi ziryate), un-attached (asangha), never attachable (nahi sajyate), dark/unbound (asIta) never agitated/perturbed/afflicted/pained/distressed (na vyathate), never crossed (na tarati), not burnt by actions or inactions (na enAm krta akrta tapatah).

Meaning


Atma is 'not this, not this', not capturable, never captured, imperceptible, never perceived, unattached, never attachable, non-interactive (hence dark or unbound) and never interacted with anything, never crossed by anyone, not burnt by our actions or inactions.

The Atma that the pravrAjina desire to realize, for which they wander, is not capturable, not perceivable, not attachable, not interactive, not affected by our actions or inactions.

So actions in this Universe that we perform to realize that Atman, like bhikSa-carya are only our desire and no more than that, for Atma is beyond all of us.

Summary of Sloka 4.4.22


The great birthless Atma is in the logically analysing, breathing/biological beings as well in the inner heart of the empty space/vacuum and thus is the one that resides in everything, rules everything, lord of everything.

This Atma is not affected by pious activities, Not affected by what we consider as impure activities. This Atma is the ruler, protector, lord of all matter and beings. Like a bank that holds the river, it holds the different worlds in this Universe.

Brahmans desire to learn that Atma by knowledge of the verses, by Yajna, by dAna, by destructive tapas etc. Those who understand that Atma are called the 'Muni'.

Those in the world of pravrAjina (wanderers), desiring that Atma, they wander/search. It is said that the pUrva vidvamsa, did not desire children. What will children do to us here in the world of this Atma..? Saying this they abandoned the desire for children, wealth and the worlds and got into bhiksacarya. What indeed is the desire for children is the desire for wealth. What indeed is desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds. It means the desire for children, wealth and worlds are all same.

Both of these, the desire for Atma and other desires, are all your desires, says Yajnavalkya to Janaka.

pUrva means earlier or opposite. vidvamsah are knowledgeable/learned people. The pUrva vidvamsah could mean the earlier knowledgeable people or opposite of knowledgeable people (not fully learned people).

Such people (earlier or opposite of learned) did not desire children. What is to be done by children to us here in this world of Atma..? Saying this they abandoned the desires for putra, wealth and world, got into bhiksacarya.

But the desire for children, wealth and the worlds are one the same. Both the desire for Atma and our other desires are all just your desires (says Yajnavalkya to Janaka).

Atma is 'not this, not this', not capturable, never captured, imperceptible, never perceived, unattached, never attachable, non-interactive (hence dark or unbound) and never interacted with anything, never crossed by anyone, not burnt by our actions or inactions.

The Atma that the pravrAjina/brAhmana desire to realize, for which they wander/perform Yajna/dAna/destructive tapas or learn verses, is not capturable, not perceivable, not attachable, not interactive, not affected by our actions or inactions.

So actions in this Universe that we perform to realize that Atman, like bhikSa-carya/yajna/dAna/destructive tapas/learn verses are only our desires and no more than that, for Atma is beyond all of these

Then how do we realize that Atman..?

-Continued to Sloka 4.4.23


-TBT
 
Last edited:

KRN

Active member
#2
There is this question on entering saMnyAsa directly from brahmacarya. Theology is divided on it.
-TBT
To say that theology is divided on this issue, you need to present divided perspectives/translations of theological works, be they ancient and modern. If all acharyas (irrespective of their other divisions, like Vaishnava/Saiva or Advaita/Dvaita etc) interpret something consistently in one way, and you alone choose to interpret it in another way, that cannot mean a broad theological division, of course unless you create your own independent Sanskrit dictionary and make your translations of theological works, and start a sect of your own :)

As I wrote Asrama is a dharma. It is the law.


Asrama is a dharma. But the message of the Upanishads is Atma jnanam which is beyond dharma-adharma.

Human beings have the option to live life anyway they want. They can claim to go to saMnyAsa from anywhere.
For salvation, to go to Sannyasa is the rule for all humans. But if someone wants to first enjoy this world, then Asrama dharma is prescribed for them, so they will be disgusted by it and will move to Sannyasa at the end.

I had clearly explained this in the below message, about a week ago.

https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=38700&p=409603#post409603

But unless they are 'vi-rajet' (lack of energy/incapability), their biological urges will remain.
I don't know why you again presume this wrong translation of the word virajet, while in the earlier discussion, you ended up by doubting this.

But to my reading or scriptures, violating Asrama dharma is not mentioned in the scriptures. But different sages and seers have interpreted the slokas to mean that violation is allowed.
There is no 'violation', since a bare reading of the Jabala upanishad will clearly show that Sannyasa is the goal, the rule. This is how all sages and seers have interpreted the texts. You cannot show a single sage/seer who has interpreted the slokas to mean a 'violation'. Hence there is no theological division in this regard.

But as I mentioned earlier, you have all the right to (mis)interpret the scriptures in your whichever way, and start a sect of your own too ;)

 
Last edited:
#3
If you find anything wrong in the translation that I did in Part 1 and 2 where Yajnavalkya tells Janaka that he has achieved that jnAna and the reasons for it, you can highlight.

Otherwise I think the Br Up 4.4.22 and 23 explains what you need sufficiently and well.

I always wrote, going to saMnyAsa (as part of Asrama dharma) is a rule, but going to saMnyAsa from other Asramas than Vanaprastha is an exception and that's exactly what the Jabala Upanishad says. It defines the rule first and says in case of virajet go to saMnyAsa. I see that as an exception.

As far as dictionaries are concerned, this is how viraja and viraga are defined.

Vi-raja is free from dirt, clean etc. rajas is indeed passion, figuratively as the dictionary says. Passion is nothing but energy. Vi-rajas is indeed lack of passion, lack of energy. If one loses all the passion/energy, then that person can go to saMnyAsa.

Vi-raga is free from color/likes, aversion etc, VairAgyam is ascetism as it is aversion (to worldly objects and desires).

viraja (3. %{vi+raja} for %{rajas}) mf(%{A})n. free from dust , clean , pure (also fig. `" free from passion "') S3Br. MBh. &c. ; free from the menstrual excretion L. ; m. N. of a Marut-vat Hariv. ; of a son of Tvasht2r2i BhP. ; of a son of Pu1rn2iman ib. ; of a pupil of Ja1tu1karn2ya ib. ; of the world of Buddha Padma-prabha SaddhP. ; (pl.) of a class of gods under Manu Sa1varn2i BhP. ; (%{A}) f. Panicum Dactylon (= %{dUrA}) MBh. (= %{kapitthAnI} L.) ; of the wife of Nahusha (spiritual daughter of a class of Pitr2is called Su-svadhas or Sva.svadhas) Hariv. ; of a mistress of Kr2ishn2a (who was changed into a river) Pan5car. ; of a Ra1kshasi1 Cat. ; n. N. of a place of pilgrimage MBh. ; %{-prabha} m. N. of a Buddha Buddh. ; %{-loka} m. N. of a partic. world , VB. ; %{-jA7kSa} m. N. of a mountain (to the north of Meru) Ma1rkP. ; %{-jAkSetra} n. N. of a sacred district Cat. ; %{-je7zvarI} f. N. of Ra1dha1 Pan5car

virAga2 m. (for 1. see p. 952 , col. 1) change or loss of colour Naish. ; excitement , irritation Pa1n2. 6-4 , 91 ; aversion , dislike or indifference to (loc. abl. , or comp.) Ka1v. Ra1jat. BhP. ; indifference to external things or worldly objects Sa1m2khyak. ; the faulty suppression of a sound in pronunciation , RPra1t [982,2] ; a partic. high number Buddh. ; %{-vat} mfn. indifferent (%{sarvatra} , `" to everything "') Cat. ; %{-viSabhRt} mfn. cherishing the poison of dislike or aversion MW.

vairAgyan. change or loss of colour , growing pale Sus3r. Ka1m. ; disgust , aversion , distaste for or loathing of (loc. abl. , or comp.) Bhag. Ragh. &c. ; freedom from all worldly desires , indifference to worldly objects and to life , asceticism Up. MBh. &c

The problem I see trying to connect Vi-raja with VairAgyam which is derived from Vi-raga.

Another problem I see is, the person going to kAsi yAtra is not having lack of passion. He is not leaving passion. So that's not what it is.

Another problem I see is the Atma jnAnam is not going to saMnyAsa at all. Br. Up. 4.4.22 and 4.4.23 explains what it is.

-TBT




 
Last edited:

KRN

Active member
#4
If you find anything wrong in the translation that I did in Part 1 and 2 where Yajnavalkya tells Janaka that he has achieved that jnAna and the reasons for it, you can highlight.

Otherwise I think the Br Up 4.4.22 and 23 explains what you need sufficiently and well.
I just replied to what you have given as background information. Since you mentioned about a theological divide, I asked why, because to my knowledge all leaders are in alignment in this regard.

Br Up 3.5.1 and 4.4.22 explains Sannyasa as a voluntary giving up, not a forced one, not something one does on old age, due to a lack of energy. There is no reference to asrama dharma in the passage. Nor to old age. A person lacking energy due to old age, might still entertain eshanas/desires. As long as life lasts, he will find the means to satisfy the desires and will not simply abandon the sources of these desires. An ordinary old person might be devoid of knowledge of Atman. That is why the passage explicitly says of Sannyasam 'tam atmanam viditva' - (knowing that Atman).

I always wrote, going to saMnyAsa (as part of Asrama dharma) is a rule, but going to saMnyAsa from other Asramas than Vanaprastha is an exception and that's exactly what the Jabala Upanishad says. It defines the rule first and says in case of virajet go to saMnyAsa. I see that as an exception.
If the rule was that Sannyasa must be taken only at the end of Asramas, Brih Up which repeatedly deals with Sannyasa, would have mentioned it somewhere. Whereas the whole treatment of Brih Up is to slowly explain that all worldly karma lead one to transient results of the 3 eshanas kind and only eshana tyagam will lead to Atmajnanam.

Moreover, in Jabala upanishad, if the concluding part is an exception, then that would have been mentioned explicitly.

You have said that Sannyasa is adopted when "brain faculties start giving up", when the body and mind will abandon. If that is the case, where is the logic in such an old person giving up his home and adopt bhikshacharyam?

As far as dictionaries are concerned, this is how viraja and viraga are defined.

Vi-raja is free from dirt, clean etc. rajas is indeed passion, figuratively as the dictionary says. Passion is nothing but energy. Vi-rajas is indeed lack of passion, lack of energy. If one loses all the passion/energy, then that person can go to saMnyAsa.


Passion is diversion of excess energy into channels like kama, krodha etc. Then how can lack of passion be lack of all energy? That is faulty logic. Virajas is a state of equilibrium where a person diverts his energy away from all external desires, and turns it inward, to perceive the Atman as per the Katha Up sloka 2.1.1-4.


viraja (3. %{vi+raja} for %{rajas}) mf(%{A})n. free from dust , clean , pure (also fig. `" free from passion "') S3Br. MBh. &c. ; free from the menstrual excretion L. ; m. N. of a Marut-vat Hariv. ; of a son of Tvasht2r2i BhP. ; of a son of Pu1rn2iman ib. ; of a pupil of Ja1tu1karn2ya ib. ; of the world of Buddha Padma-prabha SaddhP. ; (pl.) of a class of gods under Manu Sa1varn2i BhP. ; (%{A}) f. Panicum Dactylon (= %{dUrA}) MBh. (= %{kapitthAnI} L.) ; of the wife of Nahusha (spiritual daughter of a class of Pitr2is called Su-svadhas or Sva.svadhas) Hariv. ; of a mistress of Kr2ishn2a (who was changed into a river) Pan5car. ; of a Ra1kshasi1 Cat. ; n. N. of a place of pilgrimage MBh. ; %{-prabha} m. N. of a Buddha Buddh. ; %{-loka} m. N. of a partic. world , VB. ; %{-jA7kSa} m. N. of a mountain (to the north of Meru) Ma1rkP. ; %{-jAkSetra} n. N. of a sacred district Cat. ; %{-je7zvarI} f. N. of Ra1dha1 Pan5car

virAga2 m. (for 1. see p. 952 , col. 1) change or loss of colour Naish. ; excitement , irritation Pa1n2. 6-4 , 91 ; aversion , dislike or indifference to (loc. abl. , or comp.) Ka1v. Ra1jat. BhP. ; indifference to external things or worldly objects Sa1m2khyak. ; the faulty suppression of a sound in pronunciation , RPra1t [982,2] ; a partic. high number Buddh. ; %{-vat} mfn. indifferent (%{sarvatra} , `" to everything "') Cat. ; %{-viSabhRt} mfn. cherishing the poison of dislike or aversion MW.

vairAgyan. change or loss of colour , growing pale Sus3r. Ka1m. ; disgust , aversion , distaste for or loathing of (loc. abl. , or comp.) Bhag. Ragh. &c. ; freedom from all worldly desires , indifference to worldly objects and to life , asceticism Up. MBh. &c

The problem I see trying to connect Vi-raja with VairAgyam which is derived from Vi-raga.
You are side stepping the issue. I never said you should connect vi-raja with Vairagyam. I said they are not dissimilar words. In all my earlier messages I connected vi-raja with eshana-tyagam which indicates detachment. If you don't want to connect vi-raja with Vairagyam, then don't. The issue here is with your translation of vi-rajas as 'lack of energy' which is a wholly different and incorrect meaning altogether.

You have translated eshana-vyuththanam above as 'abandoning the desire for children, wealth, world'

Do you see a problem in connecting the word Vi-raja with the eshana-vyuththanam above?

And the word Vairagyam, as you have translated above means, among other things, freedom, indifference to worldly desires. There is no mention in your translation, anywhere that Vairagyam must a characteristic of old age or an otherwise lack of energy. Indifference to something can be due to many reasons.

Another problem I see is, the person going to kAsi yAtra is not having lack of passion. He is not leaving passion. So that's not what it is.
The expectation with marriage is, he should be capable of giving birth to children. Unless he is a Rishi like Veda Vyasa, a certain amount of passion is required in marriage. So if he goes on kasi yatra, he can be considered as expressing his aversion for the marital state, along with it's additional matters like passion for having children and relationships. This is in good sync with Brih Up 3.5.1 and 4.4.22 which expresses a parivrajaka as having aversion to children and other worldly pleasures.

Another problem I see is the Atma jnAnam is not going to saMnyAsa at all. Br. Up. 4.4.22 and 4.4.23 explains what it is.
I have answered reg Brih Up.

There are many other places in scriptures where Sannyasa is defined. Krishna defines Sannyasa in Gita 5.3. How do you align that definition with your concept of Sannyasi as an old person with fading faculties, lacking all energy?
 
Last edited:

KRN

Active member
#5
TBT ji,

I appreciate your courteous response. I had earlier privately decided to not indulge in such debates anymore, as it is a big timewaster, and also detrimental to my spiritual goals. Somehow I forgot it yesterday. I am hereby stopping my participation all such debates in this forum. Writing here, just to reinforce my decision :)

Best wishes
KRN
 

a-TB

Active member
#6
I have not studied these topics before this and do not have Sanskrit knowledge to comment in detail. But I have enough sense to smell BS, confusion and arguing on trivial points when I come across such threads and posts.

The thread as presented and unfolded is hardly uplifting. It really comes across as repeating something without truly understanding the significance.


The reason for my sharing this is because of what Mr KRN said about the debate taking him away from his spiritual goals. I think I would better appreciate reading discussions that speaks to the wisdom of the teachings.

This is just my opinion on the posts and is not intended to attack any person
 

renuka

Well-known member
#7
If you find anything wrong in the translation that I did in Part 1 and 2 where Yajnavalkya tells Janaka that he has achieved that jnAna and the reasons for it, you can highlight.

Otherwise I think the Br Up 4.4.22 and 23 explains what you need sufficiently and well.

I always wrote, going to saMnyAsa (as part of Asrama dharma) is a rule, but going to saMnyAsa from other Asramas than Vanaprastha is an exception and that's exactly what the Jabala Upanishad says. It defines the rule first and says in case of virajet go to saMnyAsa. I see that as an exception.

As far as dictionaries are concerned, this is how viraja and viraga are defined.

Vi-raja is free from dirt, clean etc. rajas is indeed passion, figuratively as the dictionary says. Passion is nothing but energy. Vi-rajas is indeed lack of passion, lack of energy. If one loses all the passion/energy, then that person can go to saMnyAsa.

Vi-raga is free from color/likes, aversion etc, VairAgyam is ascetism as it is aversion (to worldly objects and desires).

viraja (3. %{vi+raja} for %{rajas}) mf(%{A})n. free from dust , clean , pure (also fig. `" free from passion "') S3Br. MBh. &c. ; free from the menstrual excretion L. ; m. N. of a Marut-vat Hariv. ; of a son of Tvasht2r2i BhP. ; of a son of Pu1rn2iman ib. ; of a pupil of Ja1tu1karn2ya ib. ; of the world of Buddha Padma-prabha SaddhP. ; (pl.) of a class of gods under Manu Sa1varn2i BhP. ; (%{A}) f. Panicum Dactylon (= %{dUrA}) MBh. (= %{kapitthAnI} L.) ; of the wife of Nahusha (spiritual daughter of a class of Pitr2is called Su-svadhas or Sva.svadhas) Hariv. ; of a mistress of Kr2ishn2a (who was changed into a river) Pan5car. ; of a Ra1kshasi1 Cat. ; n. N. of a place of pilgrimage MBh. ; %{-prabha} m. N. of a Buddha Buddh. ; %{-loka} m. N. of a partic. world , VB. ; %{-jA7kSa} m. N. of a mountain (to the north of Meru) Ma1rkP. ; %{-jAkSetra} n. N. of a sacred district Cat. ; %{-je7zvarI} f. N. of Ra1dha1 Pan5car

virAga2 m. (for 1. see p. 952 , col. 1) change or loss of colour Naish. ; excitement , irritation Pa1n2. 6-4 , 91 ; aversion , dislike or indifference to (loc. abl. , or comp.) Ka1v. Ra1jat. BhP. ; indifference to external things or worldly objects Sa1m2khyak. ; the faulty suppression of a sound in pronunciation , RPra1t [982,2] ; a partic. high number Buddh. ; %{-vat} mfn. indifferent (%{sarvatra} , `" to everything "') Cat. ; %{-viSabhRt} mfn. cherishing the poison of dislike or aversion MW.

vairAgyan. change or loss of colour , growing pale Sus3r. Ka1m. ; disgust , aversion , distaste for or loathing of (loc. abl. , or comp.) Bhag. Ragh. &c. ; freedom from all worldly desires , indifference to worldly objects and to life , asceticism Up. MBh. &c

The problem I see trying to connect Vi-raja with VairAgyam which is derived from Vi-raga.

Another problem I see is, the person going to kAsi yAtra is not having lack of passion. He is not leaving passion. So that's not what it is.

Another problem I see is the Atma jnAnam is not going to saMnyAsa at all. Br. Up. 4.4.22 and 4.4.23 explains what it is.

-TBT




You said a person going for Kasi Yatra is not having lack of passion..he is not leaving passion.
May be the whole disconnect here is a lack of testosterone.

Let me explain further..when a person lacks Testosterone...he doesnt really have lack of passion..he is not giving up passion but he shows a lack of expression due to the low levels of Testosterone.

Anyway at a Laukika level instead of going to the root endocrinal cause of the lack of Testosterone..we can fix the system like this...

Viraja..Vairagya..VIAGRA...VyAghra( Tiger)...thats one heck of a Yatra!
 
Last edited:

KRN

Active member
#8
Just to clarify my post a little - my withdrawing is not only from this debate but from all such debates in which I had participated in this forum in the past. It is not in any way related to TBT ji or to the areas of my agreement/disagreement with him or with anyone else. It is entirely out of a (personal) realisation that indulging in such online debates may not be suitable or benefitful to the spiritual aspirant.
 
Last edited:

renuka

Well-known member
#9
Just to clarify my post a little - my withdrawing is not only from this debate but from all such debates in which I had participated in this forum in the past. It is not in any way related to TBT ji or to the areas of my agreement/disagreement with him or with anyone else. It is entirely out of a (personal) realisation that indulging in such online debates may not be suitable or benefitful to the spiritual aspirant.
No problems..
Actually finally there is not even a spiritual pursuit...its just a perception due to a personal need.
 
#10
TBT ji,

I appreciate your courteous response. I had earlier privately decided to not indulge in such debates anymore, as it is a big timewaster, and also detrimental to my spiritual goals. Somehow I forgot it yesterday. I am hereby stopping my participation all such debates in this forum. Writing here, just to reinforce my decision :)

Best wishes
KRN
Sir

Your thoughts are just instances of the Atman in you expressing itself, like mine. The beauty of it is, some of what you see, I do not and some of what I see, you do not. Everyone of us see what THAT wants to see.

(In my view) Atma jnAna is all about enjoying these multiple perspectives. As multiple colors make white, multiple perspectives lead us towards that realization, but we can never reach it, as our capabilities and perspectives are limited, but improving. This is neither any philosophy, nor I am a guru who has/want the ability to influence other beings.

Rather i am yet another being in this Universe of zillions of beings along with you and enjoying whatever is here.

Surely enjoy your spiritual pursuit and if you have any specific inputs on the translation or interpretation, pl. do share anytime.

-TBT

-TBT
 
#12
Found Senior Member thebigthinkg's exposition interesting, and also enjoyed the dialogue with Senior Member KRN; noted with regret the latter's exit from the dialogue. Sri a-TB's timely input was quite relevant and I agree with him.

Countless scholars have tried to interpret the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad (and other upaniishads) with varying degrees of success and levels of communication skills. Examples are the translations by Rai Bahadur Sris Chandra Vasu and Pandit Ramaksya Bhattacharya (Vidyabhusan) with Sri Madvachaarya's commentary published in 1916 by The Panini Office, Bhuvanswari Asrama, Allahabad, and modern translation and commentary by Svami Mridananda published in 1986 by Sri Ramakrishna Mutt, Trichur.

In his expository introduction on 4 August 2018 evening Senior Member thebigthinkg, after proclaiming categorically "Asrama is a dharma, the law of the Universe," announces (inter alia):-

"We grow from being born to adults. This is brahmacharya."

Is there some flawed thinking here? My understanding seems to be that only after attaining the appropriate Vedic age and undergoing the samskaaram of upanayanam, and showing his worth, ability and apritude for Vedic upadesham and studies does a male person born of Brahmin, Kshathriya or Vaishya lineage become a brahmachaarya.

"As we grow into adulthood, we enjoy the dharma of the householder, Grahastha. Our body, brain and mind are best suited to do these functions (mating, producing kids) in this stage." Again, why elevate the mating instinct and consequences of succumbing to this instinct into a lofty ordained dharma? Boys mature while still brahmachaaris, as we all know, and they have founded families in the past (legitimate or otherwise). Why dispense with the prescribed samskaarams of Vivaaham, Garbhha-daanam, Jaatha-karmam, Naama-karanam, and so on? (Incidentally, is dharma merely something to be "enjoyed"?)

"We retire from active life. This is vanaprastha.
Here our body cannot hold the pressures of grahasta." The flawed assumption here seems to be that, as there is an abrupt transition from suckling sisu-dom to brahmachaaryam, and from that to grahastha-aashramam, there is a comparable sudden leap into vanaprastham from grahastha-aashramam. Life experiences show that the rundown of the faculties (and of the senses) occur gradually and almost imperceptibly over the years. There is no set "retirement age". Brahmin (and other Dvija) males work hard and productively well past their shashti-abda-poorthy and sathaabhishegam samskaarams.

"Our brain can do a lot of unlearning and re-learning in this stage." Another fallacy? The truth is: unlearning and re-learning occurs throughout life, even during sisu-dom (weaning and toilet-training), brahmachaaryam, and grahastha-aashramam. One needs not go to the forest to do that. One can stay at home with one's loved and loving families.

"Finally even our brain faculties start giving up. We enter into sanyaasa." To say all sanyaasis are brain-dead nonentities is an undeserved and gratuitous insult to our learned and revered mutt-aathipathis, to our young, healthy and active ascetics and volunteers who have renounced a life of luxury and leisure to pursue a life of service to mankind (and womankind and to animals and all lives).

"Passion is nothing but energy. Vi-rajas is indeed lack of passion, lack of energy. The person going to kaasi yaatra is not having lack of passion. He is not leaving passion. So that's not what it is.." Misconception on top of misconception.

Passion is an intense feeling, sometimes uncontrollble, that might lead unadvisedly and unthinkingly to action with adverse consequences. Energy, on the other hand is ability and potential to achieve visible and palpable work. If we reverse the equation, is energy nothing but passion? To the thinker, cannot passion be something negative (indeed destructive), whereas energy can be something positive (and creative)?

I have done Kaashi-yaathra (and Prayaaga-yaathra and Rameshvaram-yaathra) more than once. The question of passion or of energy has never once come up. Snaanam at punya-theerthams is a natural activity of all devotees. In fact we need not go on any yaathra unless we want to do so and have the means, physical fitness, and so on.. We can invoke the presence of not only Ganga, Yamuna and Sarasvathi, but also of Godavari, Narmada, Sindhu, and Kaveri into a kumbham whenever and wherever we wish. We do so during kalasha-puja, during punyaaha-vaachanam, during udakashaanthi. To demean the Kashi-yaathra devotee is (with due respect) an act of arrogance in my view.

Namaskaaram.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer
 
#13
Found Senior Member thebigthinkg's exposition interesting, and also enjoyed the dialogue with Senior Member KRN; noted with regret the latter's exit from the dialogue. Sri a-TB's timely input was quite relevant and I agree with him.


Namaskaaram.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

Welcome back sir

It is nice to see your postings again in this Forum... keep sharing your thoughts in your own interesting style which I love to read.

Regards

(V.BALASUBRAMANI)
 
#14
Found Senior Member thebigthinkg's exposition interesting, and also enjoyed the dialogue with Senior Member KRN; noted with regret the latter's exit from the dialogue. Sri a-TB's timely input was quite relevant and I agree with him.

Countless scholars have tried to interpret the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad (and other upaniishads) with varying degrees of success and levels of communication skills. Examples are the translations by Rai Bahadur Sris Chandra Vasu and Pandit Ramaksya Bhattacharya (Vidyabhusan) with Sri Madvachaarya's commentary published in 1916 by The Panini Office, Bhuvanswari Asrama, Allahabad, and modern translation and commentary by Svami Mridananda published in 1986 by Sri Ramakrishna Mutt, Trichur.

In his expository introduction on 4 August 2018 evening Senior Member thebigthinkg, after proclaiming categorically "Asrama is a dharma, the law of the Universe," announces (inter alia):-

"We grow from being born to adults. This is brahmacharya."

Is there some flawed thinking here? My understanding seems to be that only after attaining the appropriate Vedic age and undergoing the samskaaram of upanayanam, and showing his worth, ability and apritude for Vedic upadesham and studies does a male person born of Brahmin, Kshathriya or Vaishya lineage become a brahmachaarya.

"As we grow into adulthood, we enjoy the dharma of the householder, Grahastha. Our body, brain and mind are best suited to do these functions (mating, producing kids) in this stage." Again, why elevate the mating instinct and consequences of succumbing to this instinct into a lofty ordained dharma? Boys mature while still brahmachaaris, as we all know, and they have founded families in the past (legitimate or otherwise). Why dispense with the prescribed samskaarams of Vivaaham, Garbhha-daanam, Jaatha-karmam, Naama-karanam, and so on? (Incidentally, is dharma merely something to be "enjoyed"?)

"We retire from active life. This is vanaprastha.
Here our body cannot hold the pressures of grahasta." The flawed assumption here seems to be that, as there is an abrupt transition from suckling sisu-dom to brahmachaaryam, and from that to grahastha-aashramam, there is a comparable sudden leap into vanaprastham from grahastha-aashramam. Life experiences show that the rundown of the faculties (and of the senses) occur gradually and almost imperceptibly over the years. There is no set "retirement age". Brahmin (and other Dvija) males work hard and productively well past their shashti-abda-poorthy and sathaabhishegam samskaarams.

"Our brain can do a lot of unlearning and re-learning in this stage." Another fallacy? The truth is: unlearning and re-learning occurs throughout life, even during sisu-dom (weaning and toilet-training), brahmachaaryam, and grahastha-aashramam. One needs not go to the forest to do that. One can stay at home with one's loved and loving families.

"Finally even our brain faculties start giving up. We enter into sanyaasa." To say all sanyaasis are brain-dead nonentities is an undeserved and gratuitous insult to our learned and revered mutt-aathipathis, to our young, healthy and active ascetics and volunteers who have renounced a life of luxury and leisure to pursue a life of service to mankind (and womankind and to animals and all lives).

"Passion is nothing but energy. Vi-rajas is indeed lack of passion, lack of energy. The person going to kaasi yaatra is not having lack of passion. He is not leaving passion. So that's not what it is.." Misconception on top of misconception.

Passion is an intense feeling, sometimes uncontrollble, that might lead unadvisedly and unthinkingly to action with adverse consequences. Energy, on the other hand is ability and potential to achieve visible and palpable work. If we reverse the equation, is energy nothing but passion? To the thinker, cannot passion be something negative (indeed destructive), whereas energy can be something positive (and creative)?

I have done Kaashi-yaathra (and Prayaaga-yaathra and Rameshvaram-yaathra) more than once. The question of passion or of energy has never once come up. Snaanam at punya-theerthams is a natural activity of all devotees. In fact we need not go on any yaathra unless we want to do so and have the means, physical fitness, and so on.. We can invoke the presence of not only Ganga, Yamuna and Sarasvathi, but also of Godavari, Narmada, Sindhu, and Kaveri into a kumbham whenever and wherever we wish. We do so during kalasha-puja, during punyaaha-vaachanam, during udakashaanthi. To demean the Kashi-yaathra devotee is (with due respect) an act of arrogance in my view.

Namaskaaram.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer
Sir, thanks for your views and reviews.

I had written about Asrama dharma as a background and at very top level, highlighted how it could map to human development.

I will present a more detailed study of how our brain development is suited to Asrama dharma in a separate OP wherein I will detail how nuerons wiring/re-wiring (learning/unlearning) varies with age and how it suits the defined Asramas. Most of what you have written about Asrama dharma and saMnyAsa can effectively be discussed in that OP.

For this OP, the crux of Br. Up. 4.4.22 and 4.4.23 is this

The Atma that pravrAjina/brAhmana desire to realize, for which they wander, perform Yajna, dAna, destructive tapas etc is not capturable, perceivable, not attachable, non-interactive, not affected by our actions or inactions.

So actions in this Universe that we perform to realize that Atman like bhikSacarya, yajna, dAna, tapas are only our desires.

A brAhman (who realized brahman) glory neither grows nor decreases with the actions performed by the brAhman. Why..? Because the brAhman has the knowledge not to entangle his deeds/actions wtih pApa.

How does one do that..? By being at peace, patient, equipoised, sees only those with Atman which means sees Atman in everything. pApa is burnt out in the action that such a brAhman performs. Such a brAhman is without rajas. Such a brAhman is without physical therapies (which means his mind is separate from the body).

Janaka who has such qualities is already a realized soul.

I presented this here for a simple reason. There was a thought presented during discussions here, that saMnyAsa (which is giving up everything) is the way to Atma JnAna and that Br Up 4.4.22 and 4.4.23 talks about that.

I presented this to show what Br Up 4.4.22 and 4.4.23 really talks about.

(PS: I did not understand what you meant by 'demeaning kAsi yAtra', 'arrogance' etc.. I wrote about kAsi Yatra formality in marriages, which I translated as being done to go for higher studies and not saMnyAsa, which is from a different thread totally, which I and KRN were discussing. Not sure what is demeaning in it..)

-TBT
 
Last edited:
#15
Sri a-TB has written, fully justified in my opinion:-

The thread as presented and unfolded is hardly uplifting. It really comes across as repeating something without truly understanding the significance.

The reason for my sharing this is because of what Mr KRN said about the debate taking him away from his spiritual goals. I think I would better appreciate reading discussions that speaks to the wisdom of the teachings.


Sri thebigthinkg has not seen it fit to respond to a-TB. But that is his choice, cowardly as it may seem to others like me.

In an evasive response to my own analytical comments, he merely hides behind banal generalities. We do not need his verbal obfuscations and references to "brain development".

As for what he calls "the crux of Br. Up. 4.4.22", I did not care to read his translation as it seemed inferior to many which I have already read elsewhere. I merely mentioned two of many erudite translations and commentaries I possess.

It is surprising that he claims he did not understand what I meant by 'demeaning kAsi yAtra', 'arrogance' etc., that he wrote about kAsi Yatra formality in marriages, which he translated as being done to go for higher studies and not saMnyAsa, which is from a different thread totally. He is not sure what is demeaning in it.

Fine. Sri thebigthinkg started off his original presentation by boldly proclaiming:

"There are four Asramas. Brahmacarya, gRhasta, vanaprastha and saMnyAsa. These are natural development stages in our life."

He was not talking about
Kaasi Yaatra formality in marriages, which he (erroneously) translated as being done to go for higher studies. No, sir. He clearly meant the aashramam of sanyaasa, the last of the four mentioned in the Vedas. Prevaricating now does not help burnlish his integrity in discussion or debate.

Let me refresh his memory a little. He actually wrote:-

Another problem I see is, the person going to kAsi yAtra is not having lack of passion. He is not leaving passion. So that's not what it is.

This clearly and indubitably meant all persons performing the Kaashi Yaatra, including pious adult grhasthga devotees like myself. He condemns passion -- utter devotion to God and the sacred Ganga, jata-ornament of Lord Rudra-Shiva at Kaashi -- in such pilgrims. This is demeaning, and shows arrogance on his part. He now seeks to evade the weight and purport of his own words by talking about marriage rituals.

Sorry, I have lost whatever respect I originally had for him.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

 

renuka

Well-known member
#16
Sri a-TB has written, fully justified in my opinion:-

The thread as presented and unfolded is hardly uplifting. It really comes across as repeating something without truly understanding the significance.

The reason for my sharing this is because of what Mr KRN said about the debate taking him away from his spiritual goals. I think I would better appreciate reading discussions that speaks to the wisdom of the teachings.


Sri thebigthinkg has not seen it fit to respond to a-TB. But that is his choice, cowardly as it may seem to others like me.

In an evasive response to my own analytical comments, he merely hides behind banal generalities. We do not need his verbal obfuscations and references to "brain development".

As for what he calls "the crux of Br. Up. 4.4.22", I did not care to read his translation as it seemed inferior to many which I have already read elsewhere. I merely mentioned two of many erudite translations and commentaries I possess.

It is surprising that he claims he did not understand what I meant by 'demeaning kAsi yAtra', 'arrogance' etc., that he wrote about kAsi Yatra formality in marriages, which he translated as being done to go for higher studies and not saMnyAsa, which is from a different thread totally. He is not sure what is demeaning in it.

Fine. Sri thebigthinkg started off his original presentation by boldly proclaiming:

"There are four Asramas. Brahmacarya, gRhasta, vanaprastha and saMnyAsa. These are natural development stages in our life."

He was not talking about
Kaasi Yaatra formality in marriages, which he (erroneously) translated as being done to go for higher studies. No, sir. He clearly meant the aashramam of sanyaasa, the last of the four mentioned in the Vedas. Prevaricating now does not help burnlish his integrity in discussion or debate.

Let me refresh his memory a little. He actually wrote:-

Another problem I see is, the person going to kAsi yAtra is not having lack of passion. He is not leaving passion. So that's not what it is.

This clearly and indubitably meant all persons performing the Kaashi Yaatra, including pious adult grhasthga devotees like myself. He condemns passion -- utter devotion to God and the sacred Ganga, jata-ornament of Lord Rudra-Shiva at Kaashi -- in such pilgrims. This is demeaning, and shows arrogance on his part. He now seeks to evade the weight and purport of his own words by talking about marriage rituals.

Sorry, I have lost whatever respect I originally had for him.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

Wow...you are certainly rude! Lol

Many of us have disagreed with what Bigthink writes..many a times I have fully disagreed but there is a way to point out what we disagree with...I do find many a times Bigthink twisting some facts to fit into science but I wont want to call that arrogance...i cant find words to describe your fury.
 
Last edited:
#17
Sri a-TB has written, fully justified in my opinion:-

The thread as presented and unfolded is hardly uplifting. It really comes across as repeating something without truly understanding the significance.

The reason for my sharing this is because of what Mr KRN said about the debate taking him away from his spiritual goals. I think I would better appreciate reading discussions that speaks to the wisdom of the teachings.


Sri thebigthinkg has not seen it fit to respond to a-TB. But that is his choice, cowardly as it may seem to others like me.

In an evasive response to my own analytical comments, he merely hides behind banal generalities. We do not need his verbal obfuscations and references to "brain development".

As for what he calls "the crux of Br. Up. 4.4.22", I did not care to read his translation as it seemed inferior to many which I have already read elsewhere. I merely mentioned two of many erudite translations and commentaries I possess.

It is surprising that he claims he did not understand what I meant by 'demeaning kAsi yAtra', 'arrogance' etc., that he wrote about kAsi Yatra formality in marriages, which he translated as being done to go for higher studies and not saMnyAsa, which is from a different thread totally. He is not sure what is demeaning in it.

Fine. Sri thebigthinkg started off his original presentation by boldly proclaiming:

"There are four Asramas. Brahmacarya, gRhasta, vanaprastha and saMnyAsa. These are natural development stages in our life."

He was not talking about
Kaasi Yaatra formality in marriages, which he (erroneously) translated as being done to go for higher studies. No, sir. He clearly meant the aashramam of sanyaasa, the last of the four mentioned in the Vedas. Prevaricating now does not help burnlish his integrity in discussion or debate.

Let me refresh his memory a little. He actually wrote:-

Another problem I see is, the person going to kAsi yAtra is not having lack of passion. He is not leaving passion. So that's not what it is.

This clearly and indubitably meant all persons performing the Kaashi Yaatra, including pious adult grhasthga devotees like myself. He condemns passion -- utter devotion to God and the sacred Ganga, jata-ornament of Lord Rudra-Shiva at Kaashi -- in such pilgrims. This is demeaning, and shows arrogance on his part. He now seeks to evade the weight and purport of his own words by talking about marriage rituals.

Sorry, I have lost whatever respect I originally had for him.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

Sir

Let me try to understand your views and see if I can respond to it.

1. Why I did not answer a-TB's posts..?

a-TB has every right to hold that view of my post. I have nothing to offer in return except when he identifies either errors in my translations or counters a specific view as KRN did. From his side, the OP does not seem to fit to be worthy. I understand it and agree with him.

2. Hiding behind brain development as a reason for asramas. It is just a verbal obfuscation.

I said I will write another OP where we can discuss that issue. I wrote the 'Background' in the context of another thread on kAsi yatra in marriages where Br Up 4.4.22 and 4.4.23 were invoked as justifying saMnyAsa from any Asrama. I wrote that as background and highlighted how Br Up differs.

For Asramas I will definitely post another OP. Till that time, yes it is verbal obfuscation and hiding behind banalities etc etc. I understand that.

3. Which kAsi Yatra I meant, why I said I don't understand the 'arrogance' part

I and KRN were discussing about KAsi yAtra in marriages in another OP, where the point about going to saMnyAsa asrama directly was
discussed. So the kAsi Yatra we discussed was the formality in marriages only. And the saMnyAsa Asrama that we talked about was what was mentioned in Vedic asramas only. The connection between them came because I mentioned in Asrama dharma going to saMnyAsa directly from brahmacarya is NOT mentioned and hence it is not possible that kAsi Yatra talks about going to saMnyAsa. I still hold that view.

4. The question of passion

I and KRN were discussing the word 'Vi-rajate' mentioned in Jabala Upanishad which says one who is Viraja can to go saMnyAsa directly from grahastha. I said vi-raja means lack of energy/passion etc. KRN metioned it is similar to Vairagya (which is what I understood) and I refuted it.

5. Losing respect

Sir, respect for another matter or being comes because that matter or being also has the same Atman that we have. It is independent of views, words, nature of the person etc.

But probably you might have meant respect for my thoughts in the sense of caring to listen to it. That I understand. Everyone develops their own filters based on the gunas. So no issues.

I warmly welcome any thoughts of yours that can add substance to this discussion.

-TBT
 

a-TB

Active member
#18
Found Senior Member thebigthinkg's exposition interesting, and also enjoyed the dialogue with Senior Member KRN; noted with regret the latter's exit from the dialogue. Sri a-TB's timely input was quite relevant and I agree with him.

Countless scholars have tried to interpret the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad (and other upaniishads) with varying degrees of success and levels of communication skills. Examples are the translations by Rai Bahadur Sris Chandra Vasu and Pandit Ramaksya Bhattacharya (Vidyabhusan) with Sri Madvachaarya's commentary published in 1916 by The Panini Office, Bhuvanswari Asrama, Allahabad, and modern translation and commentary by Svami Mridananda published in 1986 by Sri Ramakrishna Mutt, Trichur.

In his expository introduction on 4 August 2018 evening Senior Member thebigthinkg, after proclaiming categorically "Asrama is a dharma, the law of the Universe," announces (inter alia):-

"We grow from being born to adults. This is brahmacharya."

Is there some flawed thinking here? My understanding seems to be that only after attaining the appropriate Vedic age and undergoing the samskaaram of upanayanam, and showing his worth, ability and apritude for Vedic upadesham and studies does a male person born of Brahmin, Kshathriya or Vaishya lineage become a brahmachaarya.

"As we grow into adulthood, we enjoy the dharma of the householder, Grahastha. Our body, brain and mind are best suited to do these functions (mating, producing kids) in this stage." Again, why elevate the mating instinct and consequences of succumbing to this instinct into a lofty ordained dharma? Boys mature while still brahmachaaris, as we all know, and they have founded families in the past (legitimate or otherwise). Why dispense with the prescribed samskaarams of Vivaaham, Garbhha-daanam, Jaatha-karmam, Naama-karanam, and so on? (Incidentally, is dharma merely something to be "enjoyed"?)

"We retire from active life. This is vanaprastha.
Here our body cannot hold the pressures of grahasta." The flawed assumption here seems to be that, as there is an abrupt transition from suckling sisu-dom to brahmachaaryam, and from that to grahastha-aashramam, there is a comparable sudden leap into vanaprastham from grahastha-aashramam. Life experiences show that the rundown of the faculties (and of the senses) occur gradually and almost imperceptibly over the years. There is no set "retirement age". Brahmin (and other Dvija) males work hard and productively well past their shashti-abda-poorthy and sathaabhishegam samskaarams.

"Our brain can do a lot of unlearning and re-learning in this stage." Another fallacy? The truth is: unlearning and re-learning occurs throughout life, even during sisu-dom (weaning and toilet-training), brahmachaaryam, and grahastha-aashramam. One needs not go to the forest to do that. One can stay at home with one's loved and loving families.

"Finally even our brain faculties start giving up. We enter into sanyaasa." To say all sanyaasis are brain-dead nonentities is an undeserved and gratuitous insult to our learned and revered mutt-aathipathis, to our young, healthy and active ascetics and volunteers who have renounced a life of luxury and leisure to pursue a life of service to mankind (and womankind and to animals and all lives).

"Passion is nothing but energy. Vi-rajas is indeed lack of passion, lack of energy. The person going to kaasi yaatra is not having lack of passion. He is not leaving passion. So that's not what it is.." Misconception on top of misconception.

Passion is an intense feeling, sometimes uncontrollble, that might lead unadvisedly and unthinkingly to action with adverse consequences. Energy, on the other hand is ability and potential to achieve visible and palpable work. If we reverse the equation, is energy nothing but passion? To the thinker, cannot passion be something negative (indeed destructive), whereas energy can be something positive (and creative)?

I have done Kaashi-yaathra (and Prayaaga-yaathra and Rameshvaram-yaathra) more than once. The question of passion or of energy has never once come up. Snaanam at punya-theerthams is a natural activity of all devotees. In fact we need not go on any yaathra unless we want to do so and have the means, physical fitness, and so on.. We can invoke the presence of not only Ganga, Yamuna and Sarasvathi, but also of Godavari, Narmada, Sindhu, and Kaveri into a kumbham whenever and wherever we wish. We do so during kalasha-puja, during punyaaha-vaachanam, during udakashaanthi. To demean the Kashi-yaathra devotee is (with due respect) an act of arrogance in my view.

Namaskaaram.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer
Dear Mr Iyer:

It is wonderful to see you back in the forum. Welcome. I like reading your posts. I had not visited the forum pages for a few days and it was a ploeasant surprise to read your post today. I will go through your other posts.

I think you have given voice to some of the objections I had (and could not verbalize as well as you have done)

Again welcome!

Regards
 

a-TB

Active member
#19
Wow...you are certainly rude! Lol

Many of us have disagreed with what Bigthink writes..many a times I have fully disagreed but there is a way to point out what we disagree with...I do find many a times Bigthink twisting some facts to fit into science but I wont want to call that arrogance...i cant find words to describe your fury.
I think differently.

Mr Iyer had rebuttals to Mr TBT's points and so that cannot be termed as rude.

In fact Mr TBT has taken the response in the same spirit.

The last line "Sorry, I have lost whatever respect I originally had for him." is really meant to say about not Mr TBT as a person but his explanations, After all none of us know each other as people. We only know each other by our posts here
 

renuka

Well-known member
#20
I think differently.

Mr Iyer had rebuttals to Mr TBT's points and so that cannot be termed as rude.

In fact Mr TBT has taken the response in the same spirit.

The last line "Sorry, I have lost whatever respect I originally had for him." is really meant to say about not Mr TBT as a person but his explanations, After all none of us know each other as people. We only know each other by our posts here

Yes..we think differently.
Time does not lie..past..present and future...you will understand eventually why I wrote that.
 
Last edited:
Top