Is sannyasa forbidden in Kali-yuga? If so, then why does ISKCON give sannyasa?
Important points from the answer:
1. The same Brahma-vaivarta Purana that contains the verse forbidding sannyasa also contains the following verse that glorifies sannyasa:
dandam kamandalum rakta-vastram matranca dharayet
nityam pravasi naikatra sa sannyasiti kirttitah
“A sannyasi accepts only a danda, water-pot, and saffron-cloth and resides near a village – this is the wealth of the sannyasa asrama.” (Brahma-vaivarta Purana 2.36.9)
2. Lord Chaitanya’s guru Sripada Isvara Puri Gosvami and his guru’s godbrothers Sri Svarupa Damodara, Paramananda Puri, Ranga Puri, Visnu Puri, Brahmananda Bharati, Kesava Puri, Govinda Puri, Sukhananda Puri, Brahmananda Puri, Nrsingha Puri and Nrsingha Tirthawere all in the renounced order of life.
Transcript
This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
This question by Ramnathai Prabhu Is sannyas forbidden in Kaliyuga? If so, then why did Chaitanya Mahaprabhu take sannyas? Answered, there is indeed a verse in the Brahma Vaivarta Puran which Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself quoted as is described in the Chaitanya Charita Amrit Adi Lila chapter 17 that apparently forbids sannyas. So that verse says So five things are forbidden in Kaliyuga and one of them is sannyas. But interestingly soon after speaking this verse, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself takes sannyas.
And then is he speaking one thing and doing another thing? Is there a contradiction between the two? And as if that contradiction were not enough in that same Brahma Vaivarta Puran in the another section 236.9 there is another verse which says dandam kamandalum raptavastram matrancha dharayet nityam pravasina ikkatra sa sannyasi krutthitaha So, a sannyasi accepts only a danda, water pot and saffron cloth and resides near a village. This is the wealth of the sannyasa ashram. So, how do we understand this? The same Brahma Vaivarta Puran is saying at one level that sannyas is forbidden.
Then it is saying that the sannyasi has a particular sannyasi is glorified in the sense that he has so little possessions. And if you look overall at the Vedic literature, there is only this one verse which forbids sannyas and there are so many passages and sections which glorify sannyas. For example, the Sruti Shastra says that brahmachari grhasthava mrdudaro vanecharaha jnatva samyak param brahma tyaktva sangam parivrajet So, once one understands the nature of the Absolute Truth, jnatva samyak param brahma, then what should one do? tyaktva sangam.
One should give up all material associated parivrajet. And who all should do this? brahmachari grhasthava mrdudaro vanecharaha So, whether a person be a brahmachari, grhastha or vanaprastha, this is what he should do. He should give it all up.
And now, which is the only ashram remain? That is sannyas. So, therefore, the recommendation, glorification of sannyas is found in many sections of the Vedic scriptures. In the Bhagavatam itself, it comes twice.
Once in the 7th canto, in the descriptions between the Trilahat Maharaj and the Abdhut Brahmana and once more in the 11th canto in Duryodhana Gita, where Lord Krishna is talking about the four ashrams. So, he talks about the sannyasa ashram. Also, quite a good number of verses.
So, whenever there is a seeming contradiction in the Vedic scriptures, there is a form of knowledge acquisition mentioned in the Vedic scriptures called artha-bhakti. Artha-bhakti means reconciliation or proposition for reconciliation. So, the standard example is given for this.
Devadatta does not eat food throughout the day. That’s the first proposition. Second proposition is Devadatta’s weight is increasing.
Devadatta is a name that is commonly used in the Vedic tradition, just as in modern times people may use Mr. X or Jack or whatever. So, now, these are two contradictory statements and if both of them are to be true, then a third statement has to be proposed, which maintains the truth of both these statements while at the same time qualifying them. What is that statement? Devadatta eats only at night.
So, Devadatta eats secretly at night. This statement, this proposition is not there in the first two statements, but it very clearly reconciles both. How he fasts throughout the day and still his weight is increasing.
So, there are many places in the Vedic scriptures where this sort of artha-bhakti is done by the acharyas so that the contradictions are seen not to be contradictions, but as statements emphasizing particular aspects of that one truth. So, for example, certain words in the Bhagavatam say that, in the Vedic scriptures in general, say that God has no form. Another statement says that God does have a form and they glorify that form also.
So, the reconciliation of artha-bhakti is that God has no material form. So, no form means no material form and he has form means he has spiritual form. Similarly, the Vaishnava acharyas have explained, Srila Prabhupada himself explains, Bhaktisanta Prabhupada has explained, when he himself took sannyas, that actually there are different kinds of sannyas.
So, there is karma-sannyas. Krishna himself talks about nitya-sannyasi. In the fifth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, this third verse, Krishna is saying that one who is nitya-sannyasi, such a person, he is basically free from attachment and he very easily attains liberation.
So, in the Vedic tradition, sannyas itself was a very extreme step. Sannyas often comes compared to civil suicide. And when a person takes sannyas, he just has to, practically speaking, give up all activity.
That’s called karma-sannyas. And this was possible in the earlier ages, that one can give up all activity. That means, even the activity to eat food, the activity to drink water, activity to do basic bodily functions.
If a person tries to do that, the person will die in Kali Yuga. But according to the Vedic tradition, in Satyuga, the people, human beings, prana, used to live in the bones. And that’s why, even if a person is reduced entirely of his flesh and fat, and he has nothing but bones, he can still survive.
In subsequent ages, the residence of the prana went from the bones to the nervous system and outwards. And in Kali Yuga, prana lives in the anna. So, karma-sannyas means one doesn’t take any anna, one doesn’t take any jala, no food, no water.
Practically survival is impossible in such a situation. But, in the Satyuga, in the previous ages, prana was not in the anna or jala. At that time, a person could sustain himself just by the power of meditation.
And we see this, Valmiki Rishi, when he was chanting the name Mara, Mara, Mara, practically his whole body was devoured by parasitic animals, parasitic germs and things like that. And ants and things like that. Just as it happened to Hiranyakashipu.
But, both when they attained the success of their meditation, Hiranyakashipu as well as Valmiki, they had their body restored. And how were they able to live? Because, in the life, the prana resides in the bones, and so they continued to live. Even when all the flesh of the body was removed, destroyed.
But that is not possible in Kali Yuga. So, therefore, what is forbidden according to the scriptures, according to this particular verse of Brahma Ved Purana, is actually the karma sannyas. Karma sannyas is something which is not allowed.
But that doesn’t mean that all forms of sannyas are not allowed. In fact, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu quoted this verse not to say that sannyas is banned. He said that cow sacrifice is banned.
He was talking in this verse. He was talking with Chand Kazi at that time he quoted this verse. So, not only Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did sannyas, but before him and around him, many of his, either his spiritual master or his spiritual masters, god brothers, they were all sannyasis.
So, his own spiritual master, Ishwara Puri, was a sannyasi. And along with him, not only Ishwara Puri, but we have Paramananda Puri, Sriranga Puri, Sarod Damodar, Vishnu Puri, Brahmananda Bharti, Kesava Puri, Govinda Puri, Sukhananda Puri, Nanda Puri, Narasimha Puri, Narasimha Teertha. So, they were all sannyasis.
So, obviously, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not disapprove of sannyas, because he took it and his spiritual master and his spiritual masters and god brothers were taking it. So, in that sense, both from the overwhelming scriptural statement point of view and both from the point of view of the example of the great soul, sannyas is certainly something which is not only allowed, but it is recommended and glorified. Of course, sannyas can be harmful if a person takes it prematurely.
And if somebody violates the sanctity of sannyas ashram, that can be also damaging to the faith of people. Sannyas has to be taken carefully, especially in Kali Yuga. And those cautions are also mentioned in the Vedic scriptures.
Subsequently, in our Gaudiya tradition, generally speaking, the sannyas was reduced, was restricted only for the Brahmanas. The Kshatriyas go till Vanaprastha. Just like we have the Pandavas retired timely as a chapter in the first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, after the disappearance of Lord Krishna, chapters 15-16, that area.
So, then the Pandavas don’t take sannyas in the sense of accepting saffron. They wear white and renounce the world. So, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was, of course, he was born in a Brahmin family, so he took sannyas.
But among his primary followers, the six Goswamis, although the two of them, Rupan Sanathan, who were their leaders, in one sense, they were born in respectable Brahmin families, Saraswati Brahmin families, but because they had been converted to Islam, so they, in one sense, could not take sannyas. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu accepted them and he said that they were Goswamis. They were completely sense-controlled, more sense-controlled than most sannyasis.
But because they did not take sannyas due to their, due to the possible criticism of the existing Hindus at that time, so they accepted what is called as Babaji Vaish. And because the Goswamis accepted the Babaji Vaish, the Babaji Vaish became common and traditional within subsequent Gaudiya Vaishnavism. And following the foots of the Goswamis, the Babaji Vaish was accepted by subsequent Acharyas.
And we say that Bhaktivinoda Thakur also accepted the Babaji Vaish and then Gaurav Vishwas Babaji was also Babaji, before him Jagannath Babaji had also accepted the Babaji Vaish. So now, if the Babaji Vaish had been accepted by most of our Gaudiya Acharyas, then why did Bhaktivinoda Thakur once again take sannyas? And why did Shri Prabhupada take sannyas and also institute sannyas for his disciples? The first point is sannyas is allowed, recommended, glorified in the Vedic scriptures and there are precedents for it even within our tradition. Which says that Mahabharata takes sannyas and his spiritual masters take sannyas also.
But, Bhaktivinoda Thakur at the crux of the 1920th at that time, 19th century basically Gaudiya Vaishnavism had become very misunderstood and misrepresented. Misunderstood by outside people, misrepresented by those who were practicing it. So those people who were wearing Babaji Vaish, many of them were Sahajiyas and they were imitating the Raspila of Krishna and doing all sorts of immoral activities.
So at that time, because the Babaji Vaish had become a symbol of disrepute for many people and Bhaktivinoda Thakur wanted to free Gaudiya Vaishnavism from this stain. So he, when he wanted to dedicate his life to preaching Chaitanya Mahabharata Vaishnavism, he decided not to take the Babaji Vaish. And in one sense, by refusing to take the Babaji Vaish, he said that the Babajis are actually meant to be so exalted that they are actually, following the principles of Goswamis, they are meant to be completely absorbed in Krishna Leela and completely free from all materials and gratification.
So in one sense, the Babajis are considered to be transcendental to Varanashram. When Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu accepted Rupin Sanatana Goswami as his disciples, he did not accept them back within the Varanashram. He did not make them into Sanyasis, although they had renounced their world.
So the Babajis are considered to be outside Varanashram. But Shri Bhakti Sanyasi Thakur said that actually because the Babajis are so exalted and he felt that for the re-spiritualization of society, Varanashram was necessary to be re-established. So therefore, he took Sanyas and he gave Sanyas.
So in one sense, he placed himself below those who were authentic Babajis, by saying that yes, they are beyond Varanashram, but I am not so advanced. I cannot be beyond Varanashram. So, he took Sanyas.
At the same time, because the number of Indian Swamis at that time had either gone abroad or had started preaching Hinduism in a way that was appealing to modern people, so the Sanyas Ashram also had got back its respectability. And because of that respectability of Sanyas Ashram, and there is a repute of the Babaji Ashram, so from the point of view of outreach, Bhakti Sahaj Thakur chose not to accept the Babaji Vesh, but accept the Sanyas Vesh, Sanyas Ashram, and used that for preaching Krishna Consciousness. Bhakti Sahaj Thakur, in one sense, did, in a small way, what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had done.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu actually took initiation, apparently, in a Mayavadi Sampradaya, so that he could gain respectability for his message when he was preaching it. So, Bhakti Sahaj Thakur did not take initiation in Mayavadi Sampradaya, but he saw that the Mayavadis were appropriating for themselves the respect that the Hindu culture had for Sanyasis. And because the Mayavadis were not taking people to the highest Vedic conclusion, he felt that that respect which Hindu piety has for Sanyas Ashram should be exercised to guide people to the highest conclusion of the Vedic literature.
And therefore, he sort of re-instituted Sanyas Ashram within our Gaudiya Sampradaya. It is not that he introduced something which was not there. It has the precedent with Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself.
So, he re-instituted it. And Sri Prabhupada continued that. So, therefore, Sanyas is certainly not forbidden in Kali Yuga.
Only Karma Sanyas, which involves renunciation of all activity and renunciation of all food and everything that one may… every activity that one may do for one’s existence and just sitting at one place and absorbing oneself in Brahman or Bhagavan, depending on whether one is personalist or impersonalist. That sort of renunciation is forbidden according to the Brahma-Viverth Purana verse. But other forms of renunciation are not forbidden.
Thank you.