Is taking sannyas the ONLY option, since worldly people give me pain???

[krsna 3]

I am Satvic by nature, and it is getting increasingly difficult for me to handle ordinary people who are forever concerned with satisfying petty materialistic desires. Unfortunately, it isn't easy to ignore them, they are a pain in the you-know-what. What am I to do? I am not a fighter and moreover, I cannot stoop to their level. It is frustrating. Normally, I would ignore such people but ever since I became interested in Krishna, it has become virtually impossible, I am not able to endure the pain.

 

Is sanyas the only option for such sensitive souls? THough people say one should serve Krishna no matter where one is, I do not know how that's possible in this cruel world. The world and Krishna are so utterly distinct that I am at a loss to find common ground.

 

What is the Krsna Conscious view on this matter?

 

Does it encourage sannyas for such people?

 

Are there people here who have faced such problems, how did you handle them?

 

Though I am a neophyte devotee, I am seriously considering this option because I seem to have nothing in common with the folks around me, or with the world in general. Besides, the world is hindering my devotion to Krishna by giving me pain, arousing anger and similar emotions.

[betterlife 0]

World does not hinder anybody's devotion to Krishna by giving him pain, arousing anger and similar emotions.In fact, there is no pain or pleasure in the world.It is our perception about the situations around us. We perceive some situations giving us pain and some giving us pleasure.We nurture various expectations. When our expectations are fulfilled, we experience plaesure. When our expectations are not fulfilled, we experience pain.And under ignorance we blame the world and the people around us for the pain. We become selfish and start blaming others for pain, but when when we feel pleasure we do not give credit to others.

 

We must develop a positive attitude towards the people, the world and the situations around us.Becoming a sanyasi is not going to help. If our negative thought process continues then living in forests and mountains is also not going to help. Krishna is within us and we have to discover him within us.

[Vanguard 0]

Becoming Sanyasi does not exempt you from interacting with the people of the world (whom according to you give you much pain), nor does it magically remove that pain and allow you to interact with the masses with impunity. It would probably increase your pain unless you're a mahabhagavat.

 

Babaji vesh is for those who don't want to deal with others

[stonehearted 0]

Actually, from our perspective, tridandi sannyasa is not an option at all. It is for those whose lives are dedicated 100% to cultivating and teaching bhakti. Babaji vesha is for those whose lives are dedicated entirely to bhajan. The life of a misanthrope hermit is for those who don't think anyone else is good enough for them. Sannyasa is a positive response to people's need for spiritual instruction, not a negative one.

[Guest guest]

listen to gd wallahs karna, they are talkin sense u know

[stonehearted 0]

What you could do, though, is find a situation where you can make cultivating your bhakti the central, if not exclusive, focus of your energies. If there's some ashram where you could live or a sadhu with whom you could travel as an assistant, this may prepare you either for a life as a productive and spiritually progressive householder or as a full-time preacher.

 

I fully understand what you say about the pain of having to deal with worldly affairs. But it's best not to try to give them all up without some experience and knowledge. One of the things that has made it easier for people not to take our line seriously is premature renuciants who pop back out into lives of getting and spending. Be very wary.

[krsna 3]

Thank you for your sadhu cutting words applied with a top surgeons knife for eliminating the cancerous tumours of misconceptions and doubts:

 

"The life of a misanthrope hermit is for those who don't think anyone else is good enough for them. Sannyasa is a positive response to people's need for spiritual instruction, not a negative one."

 

 

 

 

And your kindly advice for the positive application for the sincere sadhaka:

 

"What you could do, though, is find a situation where you can make cultivating your bhakti the central, if not exclusive, focus of your energies. If there's some ashram where you could live or a sadhu with whom you could travel as an assistant, this may prepare you either for a life as a productive and spiritually progressive householder or as a full-time preacher.

 

I fully understand what you say about the pain of having to deal with worldly affairs. But it's best not to try to give them all up without some experience and knowledge. One of the things that has made it easier for people not to take our line seriously is premature renuciants who pop back out into lives of getting and spending. Be very wary."

 

[Guest guest]

All great masters have the same view, that sanyas in the only way. If we are not strong enough to renounce, there's then no point in justifying grhsta order, which is but an excuse to indulge in base pleasures. It is that simple.

 

BTW, this isn't directed at you, prabhu, just a general observation. Haribol!

[krsna 3]

1. I chant harinama that is very powerful, and therefore I am also a very powerful one, I am a bhakta.

 

2. I am vegetarian, so I am pure and superior than omnivorous ordinary humanoids.

 

3. I took Vaisnava-diksa and all my sins were burned forever, ordinary people who are not initiated in my sect would face the terrible fate of to born again like animals, or like ordinary karmis, rascals, hypocrites, demons, etc.

 

4. Only my sectarian viewpoints are correct in all aspects, as they are supported by powerful and infallible acaryas.

 

5. People are suffering in this world only due their ignorance caused by maya. I have nothing to do with their karma. They will be released from all suffer as soon as they adopt harinama.

 

6. All relationships I may have in this world are all temporary and they only will cause damage to my bhajana, therefore it is better to leave alone like a urban hermit and occasionally to have some meetings with some people of my sect.

 

7. My religion is superior than all the others and only it can give one the utmost experience of divine love.

 

8. Only those who follows all the rituals of my sect are eligible to advance in this spiritual path.

 

9. I'm controlling my senses, my mind and intelligence and I have no more interest in this world. I am freed from maya forever.

[Guest guest]

>>> All great masters have the same view, that sanyas in the only way. If we are not strong enough to renounce, there's then no point in justifying grhsta order, which is but an excuse to indulge in base pleasures. It is that simple.

 

-- /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Guest guest]

wow I have heard some pretty misguided comments in Krsna consciousness philosophy but this pretty much takes the boobs prize

 

the essence of family life is the assistance from you and your mate in Krsna consciousness and the responsibility of raising your children in Krsna consciousness.

 

other wise we humbly suggest you read Srila Prabhupadas books on the subject of raising a family in spititual life

 

Srila Bhaktivinode as well Srila Prabhupada both gave good examples of grhasta life ---really its not that simple as you think to live exemplary grhasta.

[Guest guest]

yes indeed the real pleasure is having kids and giving them good solid foundation of Krsna consciousness..but it is not that simple, do you have kids fella ?

[Guest guest]

you make your bed and lay in it do people cause you pain intentionally or do you cause others to suffer by intolerance of their ignorance ?

taking sannyas will not cure what ails you if anything it will exaserbate the feelings of frustration and disapointment you feel. do you want to end up an advanced sannyas that has to take depression drugs ? or confide intimately emotionally,physically with your female therapist ?

remember Krsna consciousness for anyone sannyas or Grhasta is joyful and performed as such; not depressing nor anxiety ridden, the stuff bogus persons of virulent character disorder suffer from by taking sannyas as a panacea to the real underlying problems....like not being a pure Vaisnava Acharya

 

[Guest guest]

ALL the asrams have their difficulties. Choose the one that is most suited to your personality & spiritual growth, and be realistic. Very simple.

[Guest guest]

Krsna you said:

 

"The world and Krishna are so utterly distinct that I am at a loss to find common ground"

 

 

It is from that perspective where your problems are coming from. Instead of seeing everything and everyone as separate from Krishna, try and see the reality. You feel annoyed or upset or angry only when you see everyone going on about their activites as if they are doing so separate from the control of Krishna. Once you can understand that what you see, hear, and think, is all controlled by Krishna, then you will see Krishna in everything and everyone. From Krishna instructing Uddhava:

 

 

 

Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

 

According to My instructions, one should fix the mind on Me alone. If, however, one continues to see many different values and goals in life rather than seeing everything within Me, then although apparently awake, one is actually dreaming due to incomplete knowledge, just as one may dream that one has wakened from a dream.

 

Those states of existence that are conceived of as separate from the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no actual existence, although they create a sense of separation from the Absolute Truth. Just as the seer of a dream imagines many different activities and rewards, similarly, because of the sense of an existence separate from the Lord's existence, the living entity falsely performs fruitive activities, thinking them to be the cause of future rewards and destinations

 

The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul, who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else. The appearance of the threefold material nature, which is perceived within Him, has no actual basis. Rather, you should understand that this material nature, composed of the three modes, is simply the product of His illusory potency.

 

Gold alone is present before its manufacture into gold products, the gold alone remains after the products' destruction, and the gold alone is the essential reality while it is being utilized under various designations. Similarly, I alone exist before the creation of this universe, after its destruction and during its maintenance.

 

That which did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future also has no existence of its own for the period of its duration, but is only a superficial designation. In My opinion, whatever is created and revealed by something else is ultimately only that other thing.

 

Although thus not existing in reality, this manifestation of transformations created from the mode of passion appears real because the self-manifested, self-luminous Absolute Truth exhibits Himself in the form of the material variety of the senses, the sense objects, the mind and the elements of physical nature.

 

If through meticulous study one becomes expert in reading Vedic literature but makes no endeavor to fix one's mind on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then one's endeavor is certainly like that of a man who works very hard to take care of a cow that gives no milk. In other words, the fruit of one's laborious study of Vedic knowledge will simply be the labor itself. There will be no other tangible result.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The world has its source in Krishna, but it is ever separate from Krishna. You can make a chair from wood, but wood and chair are separate, even if the chair depends on the wood for its very existence. So no point in deceiving oneself. Ravan's source is Ram, so what? Does that mean we should see Ravan as Ram? Ravan will be eternally separate from Ram, even though his very source is Ram. Get it.

[Guest guest]

Yeahhhhhh...we can hear from Krishna in the above and we can hear from you. Your position seems to be at odds with what Krishna says. Maybe you should read the those words and try to understand what is being said. If you do so in a humble state of mind you may have a new perception opened up for you.

[Guest guest]

One more thing. You said if a chair is made of wood that the wood and chair are separate. Well, no. The chair is made of the wood and therefore it is the same wood taking a different form and purpose. They are not separate they are one thing i.e wood. The wood can appear in many forms, just like Krishna describes how gold can be formed into many things but it is always gold. In this way God can manifest in different ways, but everything is made of God and nothing but God. Therefore Krishna said:

 

"Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts."

 

"The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul, who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else. The appearance of the threefold material nature, which is perceived within Him, has no actual basis. Rather, you should understand that this material nature, composed of the three modes, is simply the product of His illusory potency."

 

That is describing acintya bhedabheda tattva. God is not separate from anything, yet God is also distinct from everything. This is described usually in these temrs: Qualitatively one yet quantitatively different. Everything is one in quality with God because everything is comprised of God. Yet God is not equal to his parts because God or Bhagavan refers to the prime entity Himself who is one without a second. Bhagavan is quantitatively different from all of his parts and parcels because Bhagavan is the totality. The parts of Bhagavan are non different from Bhagavan because they are comprised of Bhagavan, yet different because Bhagavan is all the parts and more. Separation is an illusion caused ignorance.

[Guest guest]

God is not separate from anything, yet God is also distinct from everything.***

 

So you admit that krishna is distinct from the world. That's all that matters. Viveka refers to understanding distinctions, not similarities or cause-effect connection. That's not important. Krishna is the source of everything, so it is obvious that He is connected to everything. So? That doesn't help. According to the acharyas, one has to perceive distnctions and not similarities or connections.

[Guest guest]

The chair is made of the wood and therefore it is the same wood taking a different form and purpose.***

 

Translating this wrt Ram/Ravan, we get the following: Ram took Ravan's form to kidnap Sita, while at the same time he rescued her by remaining Ram!!!!

 

Will all due respect, Shiva, you need therapy.

[Guest guest]

Ha Ha, I could use some massage therapy, you offerin? But seriously maybe you would like to explain why Krishna says all those things which you contradict? I'm willing to accept you as my guru in this matter if you can do that to my satisfaction. Bhedabheda means one and different. It doesn't mean different. You claim that acaryas say this or that to support your position, maybe you could quote them?

[Guest guest]

But seriously maybe you would like to explain why Krishna says all those things which you contradict?***

 

I don't contradict Krishna's statements. It is your misinterpretation of the Gita if you believe that Krishna talks of "oneness" of the jiva and Iswara. Jiva and Iswara are eternally distinct.

 

Nor can they be one and distinct at the same time, they are either one or distinct. If they are one, there wouldn't be any distinction whatsoever. But since distinction is the only reality, your idea of oneness doesn't hold water. There is no pramana to that effect in the Veda.

 

You claim that acaryas say this or that to support your position, maybe you could quote them?***

 

If you are sincere, then read Ananda Tirtha's commentaries on Vedanta Sutras. He is the founder of Brahma sampradaya, which you claim you belong to.

 

Ha Ha, I could use some massage therapy, you offerin?***

 

I'll offer something better. I'll offer Gita's 'message therapy', you takin'?

 

[Guest guest]

You say the jiva is qualitatively one with Iswara. That is a common misunderstanding. Iswara has infinite gunas, ananta guna, of which the jiva 'uses' a portion according to its Atma-Swabhava. But it doesn't mean the jiva has the same qualities as that of the Lord, meaning they aren't qualitatively one as you claim.

 

Here's an analogy that might help. You (jiva) may use the money (qualities) that belongs to your father (Iswara), but it doesn't mean you possess that money (qualities). Since you're not the possessor of ANY quality and the Iswara the possessor of ALL qualities, there is only bhedha between jiva and Iswara.

 

The reason why we think jiva has the qualities of Iswara, albeit in a smaller measure, is because we assume that we are the possessors of qualities rather than their users. We use free will, so does Krishna, and hence we conclude that both of us have free will, only Krishna's will is infinite and ours limited. That isn't correct.

 

The truth is, Krishna's (Iswara) will is the only will and the jivas simply 'use' it according to their swabhava. So it projects an illusion that jivas too have free will just as Iswara, if only in a minute quantity. This confusion applies to practically everything. That's why you have the mistaken notion that the jiva is qualitatively similar to Iswara, when the jiva is totally dependent on Iswara.

[Guest guest]

IS TAKING SANNYAS THE ONLY OPTION ??????

since we are such a pain ! or id that we in pain ?

[Guest guest]

When we speak of qualitatively one we don't mean qualitatively equal.

 

The oneness we refer to is the oneness of substance. Not oneness of personal attributes, abilities, or gunas. We speak of oneness in Brahman. Krishna explains in the previous verses that He is everything.

 

So we are comprised of Krishna, just like the drop of water in the ocean is comprised of the same substance as the ocean. But the drop and the ocean are not equal. They are one in substance but not equal in substance and ability. In this way everything is one with God, yet God is different from all of the parts and parcels that can be delineated within Him. Every drop of the ocean is one with the ocean, yet the ocean is different then every drop. The drop is tiny and has limited potential energy. The ocean is huge and has huge potential energy.

 

Everything in existence exists within and as part of God. In that sense everything is one with God. Yet God is distinct from everything which exists within and as part of him because He is the only conscious being who is all pervading and in control over everything.

 

While everything exists within and is therefore part of and one with God, some parts of God e.g jivatmas and pradhana, are shaktis, whereas Bhagavan is shaktiman. Bhagavan controls everything, everything which is not Bhagavan is controlled by Bhagavan. Bhagavan meaning Isvara, Purusa, Krishna, i.e The Personality of Godhead.

 

If everything was different from God then that logically contradicts the essential nature of existence i.e Nothing can be considered to be comprised of something different then God because God created everything from Himself, not from something outside of Himself because there is nothing outside of Himself.

 

If everything was identical with God then that contradicts common sense i.e We are not all pervading consciousness nor can we control nature.

 

Therefore the only way out of both of those logically flawed outlooks is bhedabheda. Both oneness and difference at the same time. Everything is identical to God in one sense because everything is comprised and born out of God and exists within God, yet everything is distinct from God because only the origin Himself is all pervading and all powerful and independent.

 

Jiva Goswami comments on this in his Paramatma-Sandarbha Sarva-samvadini-tika:

 

 

Other sampradayas of Vedantists admit that boundless essays, dissertations, and theses can never be established as truth through any amount of argument. Still, they think that the principle of oneness and difference existing together in the same place transgresses the boundaries of reality. They take it that this is a symptom of the fault of neglecting the nature of universality - that is, that if difference is true, then it must be true universally, and if oneness is true then it must be true universally. Following this faulty logic they therefore think that these two - difference and nondifference - cannot independently coexist. There cannot be both duality and oneness, they reason; one of these doctrines must have supremacy over the other. Those who think it is one, find that their attempts to practice the doctrine of oneness are impossible. In the same way, those who attempt to practice a doctrine of absolute difference will find their position untenable. In this way, both the practitioners of absolute oneness and the practitioners of absolute duality will be unable to realize their philosophy. Therefore, in light of the difficulties of trying to realize oneness without distinction or distinction without oneness, the principle of acintya-bhedabheda-vada or inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and distinction has been accepted as the highest harmonizing principle.

 

The true opinion of the Vedas and Puranas, is bhedabedava-vada, oneness and difference. Even the followers of Shiva sometimes accept this. For example, the commentator Bhaskara accepts bhedabheda-vada in the idea that there is a difference between the articles offered to the Deity and the Deity Himself. In the opinion of the mayavadis the branches of difference are merely vyavaharika mundane or apparent. Gautama, Kanada, Jaimini, Kapila, and Pata-jali admit the existence of distinction. In the opinions of Ramanuja and Madhva's this principle reaches a higher level of perfection. Ramanuja's visisthadvaita philosophy supports difference and nondifference, and Madhva's suddhadvaita philosophy supports the principle of difference. The Supreme Lord has inconceivable potency; and He Himself supports the conclusions of acintya-bhedabheda-vada.

 

 

As far as accepting the conclusions of Sri Ananda Tirtha just because we claim to belong to the same Sampradaya (although it is called the Brahma sampradaya because Brahma is the founder); Sri Caitanya took initiation into the line of Sri Ananda Tirtha although he rejected the philosophical conclusions known as Dvaitavada in favor of Acintya Bhedabheda tattva. So even though he took initiation into the line of Sri Ananda Tirtha He branched off and started His own school of Vedanta.