The Philosophy of the Upanishads c12.s3.t2.54

c12.s3.t2.54

(3) The Vânaprastha and (4) the Sannyâsin (bhikshu, parivrâjaka). A distinction between these two periods of life was established at first gradually. Originally the solitary life in the forest existed as a special “kind of vocation” (dharmaskandha) side by side with the position of householder.⁵ Later it may have become usual to retire into the solitude of the forest on the approach of old age, after the obligations of the householder had been satisfied. Yâjñavalkhya is an example, when he addresses his wife Maitreyî:—“I will now abandon this state (of householder), and will therefore make a division between thee and Kâtyâyanî.”⁶ With Yâjñavalkhya this step means the putting into practice of his teaching in Bṛih. 3. 5. 1:—“In truth, after that Brâhmans have gained the knowledge of this soul, they abstain from desire for children and desire for possessions and desire for the world, and wander about as beggars.” Here the third and the fourth states are not yet distinguished. The case is otherwise with the king Bṛihadratha, who surrenders his kingdom, journeys into the forest, and gives himself up to the most painful mortifications, gazing fixedly at the sun and standing with arms crossed, and yet is obliged to confess:—“I am not acquainted with the âtman.”⁷ Here the anchorite, who devotes himself to ascetic practices with meditation,¹ has not yet attained the highest goal; if anyone without knowing the âtman “practises asceticism for a full thousand years, to him it brings only finite (reward).”² Asceticism leads only to the Pitṛiyâna,³ and the case is different only with those who can say :—“Faith is our asceticism.”⁴ Penance and fasting are only the means by which Brâhmans “seek to know” the âtman.⁵ According to some, tapas is indispensable as a means to the knowledge of the âtman;⁶ according to others, it is superfluous as far as any fruits of the system are concerned.⁷ For as long as the goal was future the hope might be cherished of approaching near to it by severing by means of asceticism the tie that binds to this life. If however emancipation is the discovery of oneself as the âtman, and therefore something that only needs to be recognised as already existing, not to be brought about as though it were future, the asceticism of the vânaprastha becomes as superfluous as the gṛihastha’s sacrifice and study of the Veda.⁸ He who knows the âtman is atyâs’ramin, “exalted above the (three) âs’ramas.”⁹ He has attained that which the ascetic only strives after, complete release from his individuality and from all that pertains to it, as family, possessions and the world.¹⁰ He is called sannyâsin, because he “casts off everything from himself” (sam-ni-as), because he “wanders around” homeless (parivrâj, parivrâjaka), because without possessions he lives only as a “beggar” (bhikshu).