Sannyas in kali-yuga - What kind of sannyasa is forbidden?

Jay Sri Radhe!

what kind of sannyas is forbidden in kali-yuga, all kinds of or just mayavad-sannyas?

thank you

Tarunji

There is no definitive statement in the scriptures in this regard. The often-cited verse of Brahma Vaivarta merely states "sannyasa" without specifying it. If you look at the history of the various Vaishnava traditions, quite a few acaryas would have violated the scriptural statements if we took it to mean all forms of sannyasa.

There is a verse attributed to Padma Purana, Svarga Khanda, stating:

jJAna-sannyAsinaH kecid-veda-sannyAsino 'pare
karma-sannyAsi-nas-tvanye trividhAH parikItitAH

"There are three kinds of sannyasa: karma-sannyasa, jnana-sannyasa, and veda-sannyasa."

Some opine that only karma-sannyasa is forbidden for this age. Karma-sannyasa probably refers to sannyasa in the context of the normal life cycle of someone observing varnasrama-dharma. The idea is that the one in whom higher realization has not awakened should not renounce the world.

Actually in none of the Goswamis books any sannyasa is prescribed. There are ' vairagis' described in Caitanya Caritamrita, and the demands on them by Mahaprabhu were very very high. See C.c. Antya lila chapter 2, the story of Choto Haridas. This is a lesson for those who easily wish to take or give the uniform of a sannyasi/babaji in our sampradaya or anywhere in the age of Kali.

This is an interesting topic.

A discussion of sannyAsa in the age of kali by Swami B.V. Giri, a disciple of Swami B.G. Narasingha, is found at this URL:

http://www.gosai.com/krishna-talk/sannyasa...-kali-yuga.html

In the article we find the following statement:

"In fact, throughout the vast body of Vedic literature, only one verse can be found wherein the sannyasa order is apparently forbidden in the age of kali. In all the other
sastras that were written for the people of this present age a man is repeatedly urged to take up sannyasa."

The one verse that the swami has in mind is the BrahmavaivartapurANa verse referred to above.

That this is the only statement in the Hindu sriptures that outlaw sannyAsa is, however, incorrect. The prohibition of sannyAsa in the kaliyuga is one of the 55 or so kalivarjya-s, prohibitions in the kaliyuga. Nigama, LaugAkSi, VyAsa and Devala all place a ban on sannyasa in this age. The scope and force of this prohibition has however, naturally enough, been understood in different ways.

Above is cited a verse from the PadmapurANa describing three types of sannyasa, namely karmasannyAsa, jJAnasannyAsa and vedasannyAsa. Swami B.R. Sridhara, cited in the above-mentioned article, although not citing the verse, mentions that karmasannyAsa (in the sense of giving up everything) is what is meant in the prohibition as this is quite impossible in this age.

I have not, however, been able to find this division into karma-, jJAna- and vedasannyAsa attested elsewhere. It is not mention by VAsudevAzrama and YAdavaprakAza in their manuals on renunciation, nor is it found in any of the sannyAsopaniSad-s, the upaniSad-s dealing with renunciation. Some time ago, I worked on editing a short Yatidharma text authored by JayakRSNa BrahmatIrtha (the text has not been published and I was working with the only manuscript of the text that I could find) and it is not mentioned there either. I would thus be curious if someone has more information on this division.

Swami B.R. Sridhara also speaks of narottamasannyAsa, another type that I have no further information on. Any references would be appreciated. His mention of vidvatsannyAsa I do know of. It is part of a division of sannyAsa into vidvat- and vividiSasannyAsa. VidvatsannyAsa is considered open to kSatriya-s and vaizya-s.

The most common division, however, is that into kuTIcaka, bahUdaka, haMsa and paramahaMsa (sometimes described as a progression). This is the system that VAsudevAzrama and YAdavaprakAza describes and it is also found in all the sannyAsopaniSad-s. Some of the upaniSad-s, however, add two more types: turIyAtIta and avadhUta. These are higher than the first four, the avadhUta being the highest of all. The avadhUta in the eleventh book of the BhAgavatapurANa adheres closely to the descriptions of the avadhUta in the sannyAsopaniSad-s. JayakRSNa BrahmatIrtha (in the manuscript I mentioned above) cites the BhAgavatapurANa (seventh book; PrahrAda's encounter with a sage who has taken up the life of a python) as evidence for the authenticity of the practice of the Ajagaravrata, a vrata confined to the avadhUta-s. All in all, the sannyAsa described in the BhAgavatapurANa is the same as that of the sannyasopaniSad-s, the NAradaparivrAjakopaniSad citing the BhAgavatapurANa a few times even (or perhaps it is the other way round).

Anyway, the characteristics of the kuTIcaka and bahUdaka renouncers places them lower than the other renouncers. They can, for example, stay in one place near to their family and do not wander like the others. For this reason, it has been argued that it is these two types of sannyAsa that is outlawed in the kaliyuga (because they do not embrace the full range of renunciation). VAsudevAzrama, for example, admits that in his time people would only be initiated into the paramahaMsa order of sannyAsin-s, not into any of the lower orders.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Isn't Narada-parivrajaka older, than Sri Mad-Bhagavata?

No, I do not think so. When I wrote in brackets "or perhaps it is the other way round," I had not given the issue enough consideration. It appears to me that the verses were in the BhAgavatapurANa first and were then cited in the upaniSad. I base this on my impression that the context of the verses in the purANa is of a more uniform and consistent nature, whereas the context in the upaniSad is a string of citations from different works (among them the ViSNupurANa, which I think must be much older than the upaniSad).

Also, if we accept Sprockhoff's date of 1150 CE for the NAradaparivrAjakopaniSad, then it must be older than the BhAgavatapurANa which is mentioned by al-Biruni in the eleventh century CE.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Jaya Radhe!

Dear Elpis,
what is CE? If you mean Anno Domini (AD), date of christian era, then Bhagavata should be older, because 1150 is actually in XII century.

If sannyasa Upanishads (like Sannyasa, Narada-parivrajaka, Satyayaniya, etc.) are younger, than Puranas, then why do they recommend sannyasa, prohibited in Puranas?

Dear Sur Das,

CE abbreviates "Common Era" and is thus the same as AD. I see now that I wrote "older" above; the correct reading should, of course, be "younger." I am sorry about the mistake. Thank you for pointing it out.

Regarding your question, then it is more in the dharma literature than in the purANa-s that you find the prohibition of sannyAsa mentioned. In the BaudhAyana sUtra-s, for example, it is stated that the idea of a system with more than one Azrama was conceived of by an asura; the one Azrama system that the sUtra-s prefer consists of the gRhasthAzrama only.

According to the brAhmapakSa, the present kaliyuga began at sunrise (i.e. 6 AM local time) on 18 February 3102 BC in LaGkA (if we follow the ArdharAtrikapakSa, the kaliyuga would begin at midnight of 17/18 February 3102 BC in LaGkA).

This is quite a long time ago. The BhAgavata was written much later than this date, but it still lays forth the Azrama system and nowhere indicates that sannyAsa is not suitable for the kaliyuga. Consider that when Uddhava approaches KRSNa when the latter is about to depart this world, KRSNa advises him to take sannyAsa in order to avoid the evils of the kali age.

The debate between householder and renunciate is an old one in India. Despite the fact that some dharma writers opposed sannyAsa and sought to outlaw it in this age never meant that people stopped taking sannyAsa. So many people accepted sannyAsa, including many great spiritual teachers; they either interpreted the prohibition to refer to other kinds of sannyAsa than the type they were embracing or they ignored it altogether. More often than not, in my experience, the latter is the case. This also holds true for the sannyAsopaniSad-s; nowhere do the texts seek to justify their using the sannyAsa system in the kaliyuga, in fact I do not recall any references in them regarding the ages (they may be there, though). Why would the authors of the sannyAsopaniSad-s care about what some dharma writers said? They were interested in renunciation and pursued that. The scriptures consists of writings from different people with different opinions and are often shaped by debates. In opposition to those who placed the ban are others who extol the virtues of sannyAsa and actively practiced it in the kaliyuga.

I hope that this helps.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Thanks a lot for such detailed answer, dear Elpis!

I see we have a new pundit onboard. Welcome in.



Would you mind briefing us a bit, a word or two about your background?

Dear Madhava,

Yes, the Greek word word elpis occurs quite frequently in the New Testament in the sense of hope, hope of salvation because of god's love. In ancient Greek mythology, Elpis was one of the daimones that Zeus trapped in the box he entrusted to the care of Pandora, the first of women. When Pandora opened the box, only Elpis stayed behind to comfort mankind. Hope does indeed spring eternal. Even though Aristotle, according to Diogenes Laertius, once said that, "Hope is a walking dream," it is often all that we have.

Regarding myself, then we already know each other. You were the one who explained the diksa-mantras to me after my initiation by Suhotra Swami in the Danish ISKCON temple. I later asked Suhotra Swami to release me from obligation to him and was subsequently initiated by Swami B.V. Tripurari, who, however, later rejected me as a disciple. Thus I am currently without a guru and still in the process of finding myself spiritually.

Other than that, I work with cataloguing of Sanskrit manuscripts and also some editing.

Sincerely,
Elpis

I really think everyone here that is still mired in subjects like varnashram and the mythical yuga cycles should revamp their perspective. There is really nothing to be gained nor any advancement to be made on the path of raganuga bhakti by focussing on such things. Renunciation, on the other hand, is pertinent, but not in the same way as you may think. As much as becoming a possessionless mendicant living under the trees looks very idyllic on paper, it is not a very practical approach, especially outside of India (where it is virtually improbable). You would be much better off to consider yourself from the vantage point of a 21st century person living in contemporary society amidst high technology and with a view of history based on sciences like archaeology, geology and linguistics, while paying attention to your finances (real estate, investments and similar matters) so that you can actually have more free time when you reach retirement age and the kids have long left the nest to devote to bhajan. A more rational and pragmatic approach is going to get you much further and at a more sustainable level than some half-baked artificial attempt to reinvent yourself as some Eastern mystic in the dress of a swami, brahmachary or babaji. Any of the fifty something old timers here (myself included) can vouch for this from practical experience.

But you'll have to admit that adopting a new, mystified designation is a good way of avoiding the real problems we face on the path of bhakti, as well as in life in general. You will be very preoccupied in preserving your new status quo, adjusting to a new way of life; so much so that you won't have much time to worry about the real problems veiled behind your new dress. Unfortunately, you won't be making any advancement either ...

Oh, you are that Elpis. Long time, no see!

It's a pity we had so little time to spend together when we last met in Raman Reti. As I recall, at that time I was somewhere in between the movements trying to figure out my way ahead. I can't even remember which movements...

Dear Madhava,

Yes, it it a pity that we did not get to spend more time together in Vrndavana. I remember our meeting there well. If my memory serves me right, you had just left ISKCON, but had not yet become involved with Narayana Maharaja's group. I was in Vrndavana with Tripurari Maharaja and I recall that you were interested in attending one of his lectures. I meant to mention it to him, but when I came back after our meeting, he was having a rather heated discussion with Aranya Maharaja, one of Narayana Maharaja's disciples.

Anyway, it is good to be in contact with you again. I hope that all is well for you.

Sincerely,
Elpis

I just haven't been able to find a clear direction about exactly which type of sannyasa is meant to be given up, just like many others. Several people are holding opinions about the correct type of sannyasa which should be followed in this age. Apparently it goes under several names; tridanda-sannyasa, veda-sannyasa, bhakta-sannyasa, to name just a few.

However I find Dr. Radhagovinda Nath's essay to be of much use:

If someone says here: “Since the Master is the Lord himself, his taking sannyasa may not be an action that can be followed. But if a bhakta who follows him takes sannyasa, then there is no fault in someone’s following the action of that bhakta and taking sannyasa. Doesn’t the scripture teach acting like a bhakta?”
It must be replied that if some bhakta takes sannyasa, his taking of sannyasa would be contrary to scripture. Following an action contrary to scripture cannot be recommended. In the commentary on the verse from the Ujjvala-nilamani cited above, Visvanatha Cakravartin after considering the issue concludes: “Whether one is a perfected bhakta or a practitioner bhakta, a bhakta’s actions that are in accordance with scripture are to be followed. Other actions are not to be followed.”

I think that Dr. Radhagovinda Nath has written a good essay. Any comments?

Since there has been a few mention of some Sarasvata authorities, I should add that BS Govinda Maharaja (BR Sridhara's successor) implies that it is for the sake of the people who are impressed by the "red colour" that it is preferable to maintain the institution of sannyasa. Or something to the like; if necessary, I'll provide the exact quote.

Needless to say, I don't agree with his opinion with all due respects to him.

Yes, that red colour, which has since then been popularized by various tantric "renunciates" and other such folks. I say we make them all babajis to stand out from the crowd, if that is indeed what we need to do.

Maharishi believes people are impressed by men dressed in business suits with buttoned up collars and ties, so he used to insist on it, even when his followers were trying to meditate in Delhi in the middle of the hottest summer weather.

The Mormons. Now they are impressive!

Sannyas in Kaliyuga, be it in saffron, white or business suit, is not recommended because it has become largely an institution of and for profit, adoration and distinction. This is how Sukadeva predicted it for the age of Kali:

shudrah pratigrahisyanti tapovesopajivanam
dharmam vaksyanty adharmajna adhiruhyottamasanam
S.B. 12.3.38

"Shudras will accept charitable gifts, as they don the dress of an ascetic for a livelihood, and those who are ignorant about religion will mount the supreme seat (vyasasana) to speak about religion."

Dear Vaishnava-das,



I do not believe that any such clear direction exists. SannyAsa is included among the kalivarjyas by some dharmazAstra writers and its prohibition is also mentioned in the BrahmavaivartapurANa. Now, this never stopped people from taking sannyAsa, and some authors will present various arguments that it is only certain types of sannyAsa that is prohibited. An example is that some will argue that only the lower forms of sannyAsa, kuTIcaka and bahUdaka, that are forbidden, not the paramahaMsa form. In all the treatises on renunciation that I have read, I have never come across justifications for adopting sannyAsa; they simply ignore the ban. So among the writers of dharmazAstra there is some debate over the issue, but the actual renouncers just follow the path that they are attracted to.

I have never seen any systematic treatises dealing with karma-sannyAsa, bhakta-sannyAsa, etc. Perhaps someone in the Gaudiya Matha has written on this, though. It is a division alien to the traditional one; in my experience, the BhAgavata follow the traditional system when treating sannyAsa. I guess that since Caitanya cited that particular verse of the BrahmavaivartapurANa, modern-day Gaudiyas who have adopted sannyAsa feel a need to justify this and therefore delve into this. There are of course stray references to karma-sannyAsa, etc., but what exactly is it and was it ever practiced?

Sincerely,
Elpis

The tendency that you mention is certainly discernible these days. But to be fair, the modern-day forms of sannyAsa is rather different from the traditional form.

In the BhAgavata's 11th book, Uddhava approaches KRSNa before he leaves this world. KRSNa tells Uddhava that since men will be given to adharma in the age of kali, Uddhava should roam the Earth fixing his mind on KRSNa (BhP 11.7.5-6). Uddhava's response makes it clear that KRSNa meant sannyAsa (BhP 11.7.14). As we know, Uddhava rejects this proposal as being too difficult for people like him, but KRSNa still recommended sannyAsa as a way to protect oneself from the evils of the kali age.

The way that the sannyAsa system is today may actually be detrimental to the cultivation of bhakti in that it focuses on profit, adoration and distinction as you point out, but could there still be some value in the traditional approach? I mean, even the Gaudiya tradition has its renunciates.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Yes Elpis you are correct. I did not indicate in my last posting that I am 100% against Sannyas. As I said in another posting, Caitanya Caritamrita does mention vairagis. However, I also mentioned there what standard Mahaprabhu expected from those vairagis. It is clearly mentioned in Caitanya Caritamrita that even after Choto Haridas lost his life, Mahaprabhu, to set the standard, did not forgive him his violation. As a result the remaining vairagis around Mahaprabhu did not even look at women in their dreams anymore! Unfortunately, the incident has been largely forgotten by today's sannyasis and babajis. Again, this is not a blanket statement. There are sannyasis and babajis in good standing, too..... This status has been given and taken too easily, though, and often not for purily devotional reasons.

I would sure like to see some mature and deeply thoughtful discussion about the adoption of sannyasa ("renunciation") in all it's forms in all ages, especially the "vairagi" system of renunciation as adopted by the Gaudiya babajis in Kali-yuga. What are the rationales for adopting it? Is it necessary? Is it expected of a sadhaka at some point? What opportunites does it afford? Is it considered following in Mahaprabhu's footsteps, but not quite? When did it first come about in the Gaudiya tradition? And so on.

By the way, did anyone read Dr. Radhagovinda Nath's little essay? Was it clear, concise and a useful text?

So because of this is there any point, spiritual or material, in living the life of a vairagi?

Vairagya is an internal matter - as soon as a uniform and title gets involved subtle selfishnesses like profit, adoration and distinction can arise, if they were not already the reason to take a superior ashram in the first place.

When vairagya comes of its own accord, certainly one should not renounce it.