Going for the forest - When the counter hits 50

Bhaktivedanta would often cite the phrase, paJcAzordhvaM vanaM vrajet. However, I can't seem to find this anywhere in the acharyas' works. Even Mahamuni Google knows of no sources beyond him.

The question, then, is twofold:

1) Does anyone know where the idea comes from?
2) Is it in any way relevant for Gaudiya Vaishnava sadhakas, whose wives and husbands are living a sound devotional life?

I am pretty sure that I have seen these words (or something quite similar) in a dharma text, or perhaps in a sannyAsopaniSad. Unfortunately, I do not have a reference.

Manu Samhita, chapter 6:
2. When a householder sees his (skin) wrinkled, and (his hair) white, and. the sons of his sons, then he may resort to the forest.
3. Abandoning all food raised by cultivation, and all his belongings, he may depart into the forest, either committing his wife to his sons, or accompanied by her.
4. Taking with him the sacred fire and the implements required for domestic (sacrifices), he may go forth from the village into the forest and reside there, duly controlling his senses.

That first one, verse 2, is a relief for me. I will be 50 in just over 10 months , but my hair is still black as the night!
There are quite a few woods around here and if I learned my geography well Finland is full of woods too. However, it is too cold for us to camp out there, especially in the winter. Afraid it wont work out then.... Well that is a relief!

We do have good forests here. Chilly in the winter? Hey, they manage at the Himalaya, what's the problem?

That's a "may" there in Manu 6.2, not "should". Besides, the opening verse qualifies this for the dvijas:

"A twice-born accomplished brahmin, who has thus lived according to the law in the order of householders, may, taking a firm resolution and keeping his organs in subjection, dwell in the forest, duly (observing the rules given below)."

Returning to the question, is there a "should" for members of all varnas or people outside varnas? If not within the context of varnashrama, then is it so due to Vaishnava-dharma? And if so within the context of varnashrama, is it still relevant due to Vaishnava-dharma?

I think there is a natural inclination to wind down after 50, but due to pressure from advertising and peers people feel they should suppress this inclination. Older people who run around trying desperately to enjoy in the same way as a 20 year old seem to be coming from a rather pathetic and heartbreakingly sad inner world.

Although it may not be possible to "go to the forest" on a practical level, I think it is beneficial to try to "downshift" as one gets older. Options such as changing from full time to part time work, doing more chanting, reading & bhajan, disengaging from complicated social relationships, and reducing consumption of unnecessary goods and services all strike me as good ideas.

It would be great if there were retreats or similar places older devotees could visit to help them downshift their material life and develop their inner life as they get older, a sort of school to teach them how to face the approach of old age and death in the right way...Of course Vrindavan is the best of these, but local retreats might also be helpful to people with mobility problems.

Kamala, I agree on all of that. Withdrawal from the world is a natural part of aging. However, what I'm wondering in particular is whether it's necessary to separate from one's spouse for that purpose; that's what the aforequoted phrase is generally used to illustrate, if I am not mistaken.

Seems to be not a golden rule to abandon the wife, as in MS 6.3 :

tadAraNyaM samAzrayet--the optative samAzrayet can be interpreted as a prescription, "Then he should enter the forest."

I don't know what the scriptural rule means, but I think there is a practical way to "separate" from one's spouse - on an internal level.

When you're in an intense grhasta stage of life especially with kids, trying to build a career etc, I think you are sort of "joined at the hip" to one's spouse. But I believe it is possible for each person to develop more autonomously and individually as they leave that stage and start to enter into the vanaprastha stage of life.

So my 2 cents worth is that I think you can "separate" without going to the forest, if you each develop a deep inner life. Then it is more like best friends living together rather than the sometimes overwhelming interdependence of conventional married life.

Also on a practical level, families are today not so extended, so I think that actually leaving one's spouse could be very damaging and cruel, in the absence of a large number of children and other relatives to support them emotionally and financially.

I took a quick look thru Olivelle's Samnyasa Upanisads, Dharmasutras, and The Asrama System and couldn't find any mention of this. In general, the age for vanaprastha seemed to be one or more of the folllowing:

70 ("old age" according to Susruta Samhita and other texts)
sons have produced sons (i.e. you're a grandparent)
inability to perform sacrifices any more

He mentioned that Manu divides the life span into blocks of 25 years, thus making 50 the time for vanaprastha, but he notes that the "quarters" were probably not meant to be literal. The Naradaparivrajaka Upanisad also allots 25 years to the grhastha asrama...and it states that bald men are not eligible for renunciation.

I also came across this little gem:



(The Asrama System, p227)

when the householder duties are duly fulfilled (grown, independent children), both husband and wife can (and should) finally spend more time on spiritual pursuits - be it at home, in the forest, holy place, asrama or temple. that seems to be the essence of all such injunctions and makes perfect sense to me.

According to some authors of Ayurveda old age begins with 42...

A question that arises in the context of living in the forest for Gaudiyas is the often told aspect of Rupa and Sanatana having lived under trees, and that being some kind of austerity to emulate (or not). I wonder whether they did that some time of the year, or all year round for some time, in their last years perhaps, and how they managed to write and collect scriptures at the same time, and do bhajan. To live in the forest in India is not any easier than it would be in, say Southern Europe nowadays. Indian forests are full of thorns, every other plant has thorns there. Forests at least in Europe south of Scandinavia (I have no idea about forests there, whether they are still pristine, but probably not either considering all the furniture exports coming from there... Ikea...) have nothing wild and untouched about them, they are all cultivated by man, so we can't even imagine what it would mean to live in an original forest (Urwald), preying animals aside.

(…Humm. A lawyer’s strategy? )

It could be that Bhaktivedanta Swami too didn’t know what the scriptural rule meant (if he knew of such rule at all). But it is obvious that his opinion was firm as far as the relevance of couples eventually separating for the purpose of making spiritual progress.

Perhaps Bhaktivedanta Swami’s opinion can be seen within the context of his ministering in a world where relationships are spiritually dysfunctional from the onset. Concepts such as that individuals can live as husband and wife for some significant number of years and, on nearing their golden years, “separate” from each other “internally”, seems to, indeed, strengthen his case for a need of separation on external aspects as well.

"Manu Samhita, chapter 6:
3. Abandoning all food raised by cultivation, and all his belongings, he may depart into the forest, either committing his wife to his sons, or accompanied by her."


Since sannyasa is not recommended in this age, and - if used at all - it is reserved strictly for the brahmanas. Vanaprastha usually was undertaken with a wife, if she so desired. So, ultimately such decisions were left to the practicioners - both then and now. ACBS was not inventing anything new in his approach to that issue.

Many of his western followers unfortunately practiced "monkey vairagya" - rejecting one wife (and sometimes kids too) for a few years of renunced life (often with the hidden desire for fame, profit and recognition), only to take another wife later. Well, what do you expect from ex-hippies, druggies, juvenile delinquents and deviants that flocked to him in those years?

Humm - I think the implication is a little unfair, but I accept that my words were perhaps grammatically ambiguous. To clarify, the context was that previous posts in this thread had analysed the sanskrit in Manu 6.2, and whether the proper meaning was "may" or "should". Because I don't know sanskrit, I did not want to speculate on that question, so I began "I don't know what the scriptural rule means...". However, I did want to say that I do have an opinion gained from my own experience about the topic generally. Perhaps I should have put these two points in two separate sentences.

(You have previously made some posts about the difficulties of communicating online, so presumably will accept that such misunderstandings are possible).

Regarding the substance of my post, of course others may not share my opinion, that's fine by me. It's not like I'm saying it is a universal truth that everyone must follow! And by the way, I'd like to make it clear that the fact that Bhaktivedanta Swami held an opinion does not influence my own opinion on the matter one way of the other. I do not think this website is an inappropriate place to hold that view. Hence I am not at all convinced there is any value of making such an "argument from authority" here.

Regarding your comments about the "spiritual disfunctionality" of those who can live as husband and wife for some significant number of years and, on nearing their golden years, “separate” from each other “internally”, I would not presume to comment on the disfunctionality, spiritual or otherwise, of people who I don't know. I myself have not been married very long, so my particular circumstances perhaps are not representative. (In any event if you want to comment more on this, perhaps you would PM me if you have something more personal to say by way of critique).

In the end we all have to face death by ourselves. Developing my primary relationship with divinity is, for me, the ultimate goal, no matter how happy my marriage is...

Anand, to be frank, I found your post to have a snide tone. If I'm wrong about that I apologise. But I'm calling it as I see it, partly influenced by observing the tone of your previous posts.

I leave it to your decision as to whether you want to try to start a shouting match with me - or alternatively if you want to participate here positively. You can disagree with people without being snide.

Indeed, your interpretation of my tone is incorrect, but there is no need to apologize.

Bhaktivedanta Swami obviously did not know the personal circumstances of everyone he offered his opinion to. His recommendation was based on a principle he believed applies to this world in general. Whether his opinion (or anyone’s opinion, for that matter) has any value, here or otherwise, may be a decision yet to be made. But his position may coincide with the realization some will come to after experiencing marriage and other relationships in this world.

My interpretation of Bhaktivedanta Swami’s recommendation, regardless of the number 50 being held as definite, is that, in general, we do indeed face life by ourselves, even when in the company of so called loved ones. Ignorance of the self is overcome by taking the company of realized souls. If association of sadhus is primary throughout life, there is no facing death “by ourselves”.

This seems to be cited in Dig-darshini on Hari-bhakti-vilasa 12.92-93 (translation cited in "Dearest to Vishnu"). However, I can't seem to locate it in the GGM edition. Can someone with a copy look it up and post in the Sanskrit?

I have a weird verse numbering in my HBV so if you give me the mula Sanskrit of the sloka(s) I can look it up.

After 96 starts atha vizeSato naktAdikam. After 81 started the current section, athAzakto pratinidhiH.

I guess that "someone" would be me.


Dandavats,
Lancer

Its there allright but not in quite the same words. See bold text....
(Sorry, just cant get used to this HK spelling.... )

trimshad varshadhikanam iti shastir evottamam vayah ityuktya tavad uttama vayasas trimshad varshair adhikanam navati varsha vayasam ityarthah. yad va vanam pancashato vrajed iti vacanato grhasthasya grhe pancad varshani sthitir vihita. tato'pi trimshad varshanyadhikani yesham iti asiti varsha vayasam ityartha. tacca asitir nahi puryate ityadina uktam eva. pathantare'pi purvavad evarthah.

You beat me by 7 minutes Lancer!

And don't you think for a moment that I would have bothered to type all that in if I knew you were doing it.

Dandavats,
Lancer

Same over here!

Oh well now we have both HK and phonetic spelling. This tika seems fascinating to me. It seems that Sanatan Gosvami speaks of adding 30 years to each standard age. Anyone knows enough Sanskrit to have a go at it? Elpis?

This is how Bhrigu translates it:


As a note to the context, this actually appears in the middle of a discussion describing the fasting convention for Dvadashi, the day after Ekadashi.

I want to go now, but don't know how.

Wait man, you got 7 years more to go.............

At the terminal point, after the last passengers are out, turn the wheels eastwards on that double-decker...

Was just about to withdraw that statement as silly, but surely when the urge to abandon the world rises is age to be considered, unless very young? But what forest can one go to? It's too cold here in winter and you need passport/visa to go to more temperate climes.

Maybe kidding myself as in kakhan bhoge, kakhan tyAge, chalanAy mana nAce,
but more than ever I find the world and society quite abandonable. But I'm reminded of Sri Visvanatha's tasteful descriptions of the eventide;
Seeing a lamp, the darkness in the house fled into the forest, and the fragrance of the forest flowers entered the house like householders that flee into the forest, renouncing their household life when they are too much oppressed by wicked people, only to return home when their renunciation collapses.
KBA 18 first half of 4