People have different calls in their life, to live as a family man or a sannyasi (or single in modern context). Though one can learn from others, yet it is wrong to take one as the example for another to live his/her life. One T.V. speaker (Tenkasi Swaminathan, Sun T.V. on July 13th (?) 2009) proved this by telling a story of a sannyasi. Before sharing further, I have to acknowledge that he is a very good speaker sharing more practical teachings on various subjects.
One time a sannyasi went and stayed with a King for a few days. And he received the best hospitality even enjoying the food, dress and ornaments and other facilities of the palace. After a few days, the King came with confusion and asked a question: ‘while we both are enjoying the same food etc. why do I always feel sad whereas you always remain happy?’ For this the sannyasi said that he was waiting for such a question and promised to give an answer after a few days. Finally one day, the sannyasi told the king that he wanted to go and asked the king to come along with him for a distance. When both reached the border of the kingdom, the sannyasi said to the king, ‘now I am going to leave everything that you gave. And if you want to be happy, leave everything and come after me.’ For this the king said, ‘how can I leave behind my family, kingdom and responsibility?’ Then the sannyasi said, ‘this is the secret of my happiness. Though I enjoy all your hospitality, yet I am ready to abandon everything and walk freely, as I am not attached to them. Whereas though you too enjoy them, as you are attached to them, you feel the burden more than the joy you get from it’.
And the moral of the story, according to Swaminathan is that while we enjoy the things of this world, like that sannyasi, we should not have attachment with them. And like that sannyasi, we too should be ready to give up everything and walk away freely.
Certain illustrations, though good in themselves, yet cannot convey the correct teaching that is relevant for the entire situation. It is wrong to say that sannyasis don’t have any attachment. In fact, some 35 years before I wrote a song in which I said, ‘“renounce the word” says a sannyasi but he too renounced the word with a DESIRE for mukti (moksha)’ (ulahai turandu nee vazhunduvidu yendru turanda jnanee solipponan; anda turanda jnanim veedu petreya virumbiye turavu kondan). What a sannyasi gave up is his responsibility towards a family (but not to the society). Here too, he has some kind of responsibility towards his mother. Whereas for a family wo/man ‘responsibility’ comes before her/his legitimate rights to enjoy the pleasure of life. And those who tactfully managed to keep a balance between ‘responsibility’ and ‘privilege’ can even enjoy that ‘responsibility’ more joyfully than treating it as a burden. Whether a sannyasi or a family man, no one can run away from responsibility. But a sannyasi could never be the best model for a family man to understand and accept his responsibility. King Janaka of Mithila should be the model for a family man and not any sannyasi—however great they might be.
Here as a sub point, I have to share my personal view. The so-called ‘nishkamyakarma’: ‘do your duty but never seek its fruits’ often consoles a person who failed after sincere efforts in any endeavor. Though the context of the sloka in Gita (2:47) is different, yet it is often used out of frustration than with a true spirit of nishkama karma.1 One can have the spirit of renunciation but none can give up responsibility which accompanies like a shadow for every stage in life. For me dharma gives clear answers and guidance in this regard: detached but accepting responsibility. A sannyasi remaining true to his dharma can remain detached to the material world, except using limited ways for his survival, whereas a Householder, remaining true to his dharma, should take care of the material things that he earns, spends and saves. Taking care is not attachment but responsibility that he accepted as a Householder. That’s why it is said that unless you earn you have the right to give in charity. Above all the King was entrusted with that responsibility which he voluntarily accepted because of his dharma. So if he walks away with this so-called ‘detachment’ then he violates his dharma and becomes ‘adharma’. Whereas if the Sannyasi takes away a few things that he enjoyed like jewls and fine cloths, then it will become a burden to him and he won’t remain true to his dharma and becomes an adharmi, as he voluntarily choose this kind of life.
Notes. 1. I am not an expert on Gita. However, the main context of this sloka in Gita (karmanyevaadhikaaraste maa phalesu kadaacana; maa karma phala hetur bhuuma te sangostvakarmani. ‘Your right is to perform your duty only, but never lay claim to its fruit. Let not the fruit of action be your object, nor let your attachment be to inaction’—Gita Press, Gorakpur) is based on the doctrine of ‘karma’ which binds every one. As the fruit of karma binds one, better do your duty but never seek its fruit. But this word ‘nishkamyakarma’ (which is not in Gita) often becomes a scapegoat for all our frustration in life. If I remember correctly, N.T. Ramarao (the late C.M. of Andhra) when he lost his elections, then quoted this word and even the Gita sloka. Whereas the best attitude to accept failures and defeat should be ‘at least I tried; though I failed’. This will help one to learn some good lessons from that failure and defeat than any frustration in life.
dayanand
Gurukulam, July 21, 2009.
People have different calls in their life, to live as a family man or a sannyasi (or single in modern context). Though one can learn from others, yet it is wrong to take one as the example for another to live his/her life. One T.V. speaker (Tenkasi Swaminathan, Sun T.V. on July 13th (?) 2009) proved this by telling a story of a sannyasi. Before sharing further, I have to acknowledge that he is a very good speaker sharing more practical teachings on various subjects.
One time a sannyasi went and stayed with a King for a few days. And he received the best hospitality even enjoying the food, dress and ornaments and other facilities of the palace. After a few days, the King came with confusion and asked a question: ‘while we both are enjoying the same food etc. why do I always feel sad whereas you always remain happy?’ For this the sannyasi said that he was waiting for such a question and promised to give an answer after a few days. Finally one day, the sannyasi told the king that he wanted to go and asked the king to come along with him for a distance. When both reached the border of the kingdom, the sannyasi said to the king, ‘now I am going to leave everything that you gave. And if you want to be happy, leave everything and come after me.’ For this the king said, ‘how can I leave behind my family, kingdom and responsibility?’ Then the sannyasi said, ‘this is the secret of my happiness. Though I enjoy all your hospitality, yet I am ready to abandon everything and walk freely, as I am not attached to them. Whereas though you too enjoy them, as you are attached to them, you feel the burden more than the joy you get from it’.
And the moral of the story, according to Swaminathan is that while we enjoy the things of this world, like that sannyasi, we should not have attachment with them. And like that sannyasi, we too should be ready to give up everything and walk away freely.
Certain illustrations, though good in themselves, yet cannot convey the correct teaching that is relevant for the entire situation. It is wrong to say that sannyasis don’t have any attachment. In fact, some 35 years before I wrote a song in which I said, ‘“renounce the word” says a sannyasi but he too renounced the word with a DESIRE for mukti (moksha)’ (ulahai turandu nee vazhunduvidu yendru turanda jnanee solipponan; anda turanda jnanim veedu petreya virumbiye turavu kondan). What a sannyasi gave up is his responsibility towards a family (but not to the society). Here too, he has some kind of responsibility towards his mother. Whereas for a family wo/man ‘responsibility’ comes before her/his legitimate rights to enjoy the pleasure of life. And those who tactfully managed to keep a balance between ‘responsibility’ and ‘privilege’ can even enjoy that ‘responsibility’ more joyfully than treating it as a burden. Whether a sannyasi or a family man, no one can run away from responsibility. But a sannyasi could never be the best model for a family man to understand and accept his responsibility. King Janaka of Mithila should be the model for a family man and not any sannyasi—however great they might be.
Here as a sub point, I have to share my personal view. The so-called ‘nishkamyakarma’: ‘do your duty but never seek its fruits’ often consoles a person who failed after sincere efforts in any endeavor. Though the context of the sloka in Gita (2:47) is different, yet it is often used out of frustration than with a true spirit of nishkama karma.1 One can have the spirit of renunciation but none can give up responsibility which accompanies like a shadow for every stage in life. For me dharma gives clear answers and guidance in this regard: detached but accepting responsibility. A sannyasi remaining true to his dharma can remain detached to the material world, except using limited ways for his survival, whereas a Householder, remaining true to his dharma, should take care of the material things that he earns, spends and saves. Taking care is not attachment but responsibility that he accepted as a Householder. That’s why it is said that unless you earn you have the right to give in charity. Above all the King was entrusted with that responsibility which he voluntarily accepted because of his dharma. So if he walks away with this so-called ‘detachment’ then he violates his dharma and becomes ‘adharma’. Whereas if the Sannyasi takes away a few things that he enjoyed like jewls and fine cloths, then it will become a burden to him and he won’t remain true to his dharma and becomes an adharmi, as he voluntarily choose this kind of life.
Notes. 1. I am not an expert on Gita. However, the main context of this sloka in Gita (karmanyevaadhikaaraste maa phalesu kadaacana; maa karma phala hetur bhuuma te sangostvakarmani. ‘Your right is to perform your duty only, but never lay claim to its fruit. Let not the fruit of action be your object, nor let your attachment be to inaction’—Gita Press, Gorakpur) is based on the doctrine of ‘karma’ which binds every one. As the fruit of karma binds one, better do your duty but never seek its fruit. But this word ‘nishkamyakarma’ (which is not in Gita) often becomes a scapegoat for all our frustration in life. If I remember correctly, N.T. Ramarao (the late C.M. of Andhra) when he lost his elections, then quoted this word and even the Gita sloka. Whereas the best attitude to accept failures and defeat should be ‘at least I tried; though I failed’. This will help one to learn some good lessons from that failure and defeat than any frustration in life.
dayanand
Gurukulam, July 21, 2009.
Leave a Reply