Unlike a Fool, He is Not Defiled Ascetic Purity and Ethics in the Saṃnyāsa Upaniṣads - Vail, L....

8/10/2019 Unlike a Fool, He is Not Defiled Ascetic Purity and Ethics in the Sanysa Upaniads - Vail, L. F.

1/26

Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc

"Unlike a Fool, He Is Not Defiled": Ascetic Purity and Ethics in the Sanysa UpaniadsAuthor(s): Lise F. VailReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Fall, 2002), pp. 373-397

Published by: on behalf of Journal of Religious Ethics, IncStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40018091.

Accessed: 14/03/2013 07:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

WileyandJournal of Religious Ethics, Incare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Religious Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:59:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jreihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40018091?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40018091?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jrei


2/26

"UNLIKEA FOOL,HE IS NOTDEFILED"

Ascetic

Purity

and

Ethics

in

the

Samnydsa

Upanisads

Lise F.

Vail

ABSTRACT

The authors

of the

Samnydsa Upanisads,

manuals of ascetic

lifestyle

and

practice,

recommend that wanderers renounce

behavioral standards

of

their

formerly

Brahmin

householder

life,

including

ritual

purity

and fa-

milial duties. Patrick Olivelle

argues

that these

ascetics are thereafter

considered

impure

and

corpse-

or

ghoul-like, clearly

lacking

in

dharma.

However,

these

Upanisads

counsel

pursuing

mental

purity

and

moral be-

havior,

and

modeling

oneself after the

perfection

of the

Absolute. This es-

say investigates

ascetic notions of

purity

and

identity,

and virtues such as

non-violenceand kindness cultivated in forest isolation. Is ascetic dharma

universal

in

intent,

and is it

conceptually

opposed

to householder dharma?

What

type

of ethics is admired

by

the

authors,

what

type deprecated?

Oli-

velle's

position

is

reevaluated,

as is

Jeffrey Kripal's

notion that

monistic

mysticism

does not

support

ethics

adequately.

keywords:

ascetics,

Samnydsa

Upanisads,

purity,

Hinduism, virtue,

ethics,

non-violence.

RELATIVELY

SOLATED

FOREST-DWELLERS AND WANDERERS

CONSTITUTE one of

the most archaic

of Hindu ascetic traditions. The

Samnydsa Upanisads,

translated by Patrick Olivelle in 1992,xpresent the philosophyand rec-

ommended

lifestyles

for

formerly

Brahmin ascetic

wanderer-renouncers

(samnydsis).2

These

twenty

later sectarian

Upanisads

were

composed

sometime between

2nd-15th ents. C.E. and are of

varying lengths

and un-

known

authorship.

Olivelle

notes that the

purpose

for

their

composition

was the establishment

of the Vedic

scriptural

(and

thus

revelatory)

1

F. Otto Schrader

provided

scholars with a critical Sanskrit edition

in

1912 under

the

title The Minor

Upanisads,

Vol

I:

Samnydsa Upanisads.

Madras:The

Adyar Library.

Tex-

tual

abbreviations

employed

n

the

present

essay may

be

found

in

the References

section,

under Olivelle 1992.

2

Olivelle notes

that the

commonly

used word

samnyasa,

of Brahmin

ascetical

origin,

surprisingly

did not come into common

usage

as "renouncer" r "ascetic" ntil

around the

3-4th

century

C.E. It

originally

meant

casting

down or

off,

and/or

abandonmentof ritual

activity, among

other

significations.

JRE 30.3:373-397.

2002 Journalof

Religious

Ethics,

Inc.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/26

374

Journal

of

Religious

Ethics

validity of already established ascetic lifestyles and renouncertheology,

and that

they "played

a central role

in

the

theological

reflections

and dis-

putes concerning

that

key

institution of

Brahmanical

religion"

(Olivelle

1992,

5).

Despite

their

initially off-putting regulatory

language,

these

scriptures

are

interspersed

with beautiful

mystical

outpourings

and dec-

larations of the

union

of

Atman,

the individual

soul,

with

Brahman,

the

Absolute,

passages

taken from the earlier

classical

Upanisads,

Epics,

Puranas,

and other texts. To enhance this

higher experience,

ascetics

are told to remain in

solitude

as much as

possible,

meditating

and dis-

identifying

with their bodies.

Nonetheless,

Upanisadic

passages

about

the virtues and behavior proposedfor samnydsis are unexpectedly rich

in

ethical

reflection.

Moreover,

although

these

twenty scriptures

were

written

over more than a

thousand-year period,

and

represent

sectari-

ans of both

Saiva and Vaisnava traditions for

instance,

the

Sdtydyanlya

Upanisad

appears

to be of Sri Vaisnava

persuasion

their fundamen-

tal stances

on renouncer

values,

theology,

and

practices

are

remarkably

consistent

throughout.

We are therefore able to

explore

the ethics of the

Samnydsa Upanisads

in

a

comprehensive

manner.

One such

passage,

from Brhad-Avadhuta

Upanisad

(BAU)

304-5,3

from

which

my

article title is

drawn,

provides

us with more renouncer

ethical questions than answers:

[The

renouncer's]

conduct consists

of

wandering

about

freely

and unobtru-

sively.

He

may

wear a

garment

or

go

naked. For him there is neither

right

nor

wrong,

neither

pure

nor

impure.

He offers the internal sacrifice .... It

is a

great

sacrifice,

a

great

offering.

[Conducting

himself]

as he

pleases,

let

him

not

condemn all these manifold rites. That is the

great

vow. Unlike a

fool,

he is

not defiled.

Is this

passage

proposing

that Hindu

renouncers can do whatever

they

like,

that

they

have no

positive

ethical

system,

no

general

code

of

dharma? It is said here that ascetics have neither right (dharma) nor

wrong

(adharma),

and

Olivelle has claimed that renouncers have no

dharma as

general duty,

except negative

prohibitions,

and are them-

selves

defined

negatively

(Olivelle 1992).4

The

passage

also claims that

3

See

Referencesunder

Olivelle 1992 for

abbreviationsused

in

this

essay

for the overall

Samnydsa

Upanisads

and

each of the

twenty

individual

Upanisads.

4

Although

he admits:

"Following

he rule of their

dharma,

they perform

activities

distinctive to their

state,

such as

begging,

wearing particular types

of

clothes or no

clothes at

all,

carrying

a

begging

bowl,

bearing

a

staff,

and the

like,"

he soon

says

that

even

if

positively

expressed, specific

rules for renouncers are

"exclusive

specifications"

(parisamkhyd),

and so

prohibit any

other

behavior than what

they

state. So

they

are

still

considered

negative;

the

broader,

general regulations

are all

negative.

On

p.

64 he defines

dharma

as

"proper

onduct"or

regulations.

It

is

obviously

more than this

(Olivelle

1992,

63-67).

Olivelle

says

that the SamnU

and other Brahminical texts such as the 17th

century

Yatidharmaprakdsa

"A

Treatise on World

Renunciation")

by

Vasudevasrama,

define



4/26

"Unlikea

Fool,

He Is Not

Defiled"

375

ascetics are not "defiled"na villipyate) or it might mean they cannot be

defiled,

or that

they

are

pure.

Then who is the "fool"hat the

renouncer s

unlike?

perhaps

a

householder Brahmin. Is there a

renouncer ethical

system,

or set

of

principles,

that constitutes a conscious

subversion of

Brahmin householder

ethics;

yet

if

a renouncer can

do

as

he

likes,

what

is the sense

of that

oppositional,

subversive formulation?

Finally,

what

shall we

make of the renouncer as neither

pure (medhya)

nor

impure

(amedhya),

if

he is said

by

the texts to be "not defiled"?Olivelle as com-

mentator

says

that for the most

part

these

renouncers are

considered

impure

(Olivelle

1992,

92-93).

For this

reason,

many confusing

issues,

or at least paradoxes,await us in exploringthe ethics of the Samnydsa

Upanisads.

Renouncers

beyond

the initial

stages

are admonished

to "live free"

wandering,

seeking

no human

companionship,

and

maintaining

no rela-

tionships

with

those to whom

they

come

to

beg

for

food,

as a bee moves

easily

from flower

to flower

(NpU

174).5

In such a

physical

condition of

separation,

and

a

required

state of

inner

detachment,

what sort

of

ethics

or code

of dharma

could

emerge?

Jeffrey Kripal

has

recently suggested

that

the

nondual

(monistic)

Hindu

mystic

who attains the

highest

ex-

periential

state of moksa

(liberation)

may

be considered

beyond

human

morality and moral systems by definition, and that there is no neces-

sary

relation

between ethics

and

mysticism

(Kripal

1998).

So we must

ask:

Is the

nondual

Upanisadic

renouncer

a

mystic

who is

truly

consid-

ered

by

the

authors

to be

beyond

all

morality,

able

to do whatever he

or

she6

pleases

even

if

s/he

transgresses

ordinary

human laws and moral

codes?

First,

I think

we must

broaden

the

concept

of dharma here

to

in-

clude

more

than

the

performance

of

formal

duties or

rights.

In tradi-

tional

Hindu

parlance,

this

term also

signifies

cosmic

order,

righteous-

ness,

ethics,

moral

sense,

and

purity

of attitude

and

purpose,

as well as

righteous

actions. Even if one establishes that

Upanisadic

renouncers

renunciation

mostly

through negative

definition

(the

language

of

discarding

rites and

behaviors)

rather

than

positive

injunctions

to

action

(Olivelle

1977, 46;

1990,

138).

5

Scriptural

references

provided

n

this

paper

are

merely

illustrations

within the texts

of the

principles,

virtues,

or

points

being

discussed;

hey

are not exhaustive

of all references

on

each

subject

within the

Samnydsa

Upanisads.

Wandering

s but one

of the established

lifestyles

for ascetic

renouncers

n India. SamnU

and Pancamdsramavidhi

1 th

century)

are

examples

of texts

advocating

wandering

orthe

renouncers

of

highest

attainment

(Olivelle

1980).

Similarly,

field

studies have

frequently

located

ascetics who

place

high

value on

wandering,

such

as the North

Indian Ramanandis

who

practice

an

eight-month

annual

pilgrimage

(Burghart

1983).

bAs Olivelle

notes,

"There s no

point

in

hiding

the fact that

these documents and

much of

Brahmanical

heology speak

almost

exclusively

to men"

Olivelle

1992,

xv).

There

were

always

female

renouncers,

he

claims,

but

they

tended to

be

ignored

by

renouncer

theologians.

For

this

reason,

I will

mostly

use

the male

pronoun

he

in

this article.



5/26

376

Journal

of

Religious

Ethics

are not performersof Brahminical or even samnyasa (ascetic) rituals,

that

by

no means defines them as

lacking

a

samnyasa

dharma;

nor do

duties need to be

formally

defined as a

system

of ethics.

They

can

be

clearly

laid out intuitive or

pre-theoretical

values,

attitudes,

and be-

haviors that make

culturalogical

or

semiotic

sense within

the SamnU

(Samnyasa

Upanisads)

texts.

Many

of the discussions of ethical issues in these

Upanisads

center

around

purity

and how

it is

defined. Notions of

purity

(variously,

suddhi,

sauca,

soca,

medhya,puta,

niranjana,

and so

on)

both demarcate

admired

ascetic

virtues and

conduct,

and also constitute

categories

of constraint

that are to guide the ascetic toward categorically rejecting particular

behaviors,

such as violence

(himsa).

Some

behaviors,

as

well,

seem

to

have little

fundamental ethical

significance.

I

argue

here that there is

an ascetic

ethical

dharma,

or set of ethical

guidelines,

for renouncers

in

these

texts,

one

focused on both recommended and disdained

types

of

purity

and on

cultivation of divine virtues. This dharma

primarily

supports

a virtue

or aretaic ethics that

provides dispositions

for

guiding

an

ascetic's behavior.

Ultimately,

the

scriptures say,

it sets the renouncer

free

in

a kind of

natural or

supernatural

moral

state.

This article will be

less

concerned

with

the

rites, rules,

or

actions,

and more with the

present

textual emphasis on dharma as character and divinity.

Finally,

at

issue is also whether this

Upanisadic

ethical

"system"

or

renouncers is

intended

specifically

only

for

ascetics,

or

if

it is also

con-

sidered

a universal ethic at

the foundation of others'

(specifically

house-

holders')

ethics,

or is

it

fully

in

opposition

to,

and

subversive

of,

Brahmin

householder

purity

and ethics?

It is

possible

to

read the

Upanisadic

au-

thors

as,

in

part,

ascetic

renouncers

asserting

the

primacy

of

a virtue-

ethical

point

of

view,

while

de-emphasizing

a

purely rule-deontological

approach

to

ethical life.

1.

Impure

Body

or

Purified

Temple

of

Brahman?

The

authors of

the

Samnyasa

Upanisads

spend

little

time,

compara-

tively

speaking,

discussing

ritual

purity,

and

impurity

or

physical

dirt

connected with

the

physical

body.

I

must

mention this because discus-

sions of

purity

in

Hinduism have

generally

centered around issues of

the

body's

fragile

state of

purity

and

impurity,

with

the latter conditions

affecting

a

person's

everyday

state of

being

temporarily

and,

more

per-

manently,

his/her

caste

and

community

standing.

Louis

Dumont noted

some

time

ago

in

his

classical

formulation

that the

purity/pollution

dis-

tinction

forms an

important

ideological

basis for

caste

hierarchy

(Dumont

1970,

43).

Everyday

elements such

as

water, food,

touch, sex,

or even

a

person's

shadow

have

been

believed to

either

pollute

or

purify

those of

high

caste.

The

various

types

of

Brahmins are

particularly

vulnerable



6/26

"Unlike

a

Fool,

He Is

Not

Defiled"

377

to pollution, due to their attributed high purity status, with purity said

to be weaker and

more

static than

pollution

(for

an

early

discussion,

see

Mandelbaum

1972,

192-232).

These

conceptions

of

impurity/pollution

not

infrequently

have an associated attribution or

sometimes

merely

an

"aura"

f

immorality,

as

if

-

using

the

phrase

most familiar

in

the

West

cleanliness were

next to

godliness,

and

filth a moral

insult,

clearly

more

so than one

would find

in

many

countries

outside India

(and

traditional

Japan).

Likewise,

in

the

Samnydsa Upanisads,

the

body

is

not

infrequently

rejected

as

something

unclean. MU 109

says living

in

the human

body

is

like being a frogin a dark well: "Madewith its mother'sand father'sfilth,

this

body

dies soon

after it is born. It is a

filthy

house of

joy

and

grief.

When it is

touched,

a bath is ordained"

MU

113-4).

In a

fair number

of

passages

the ascetic is even told to

think of

his

body

as a

corpse

(for

example,

TaU

243).

In his

long

introduction to the

SamnU,

Olivelle notes

his

position

that the

renouncer s considered

mpure.

Although

he admits

the renunciation

ceremony

s

thought

to be

purifying,

the state the

ascetic

assumes

henceforth

in

Samnydsa

constitutes a kind of "cultural

death."

He

has had a funereal initiation

rite,

and since he no

longer

follows the

purifying

rites incumbent

upon

the householder

Brahmin,

he is no

longer

pure. Olivelle says: "The renouncer .. is as impure as a dead man ..."

(Olivelle

1992,

94).7

As a

culturally

deceased

being,

he

wanders

about,

living

like one animal

or

another,

and

purposefully appearing

to be mad

or a fool.

The author of the

Maitreya Upanisad

quoted

above, however,

has not

finished his

teaching.

From

discussing

the

problems

of

bodily

secretions,

touch,

and

disease,

and the

need for

frequent

baths,

he

abruptly

switches

gears.

The true

disgusting

feces and

urine,

he

says,

are not

body

and

bodily

secretions;

they

are instead

the notions of

/

and

mine,

in

other

words

human

egotism.

MU

114

continues: "Feces and urine are

T

and

'mine.'

Removing

their smell and stain is said to be true

purification

(suddha-saucam

iti).

Cleansing

with water and soil constitutes the com-

mon

(or

worldly) type

(laukikam).

I

Washing

with the soil of

knowledge

and the

water

of detachment

is called true

purification

(saucam)"

The

ordinary

Brahmin householder

notion of

purification

which connects

physical

cleanliness

to adharma

-

is demoted

in

importance

to

"worldly"

or

"common"

radition,

and

replaced by

what the author sees as true

in-

ner

purification,

that

is,

mental

purification,

purification

of character:

"It is the

purification

that

brings purity

to the mind and

destroys

the

7

Olivelle further

says:

"Deathsand births

in

the

family

create

periods

of

impurity

when

[normal]

rites

[or

worship]

are

suspended.

A renouncer is

similarly impure,

because his

mother

(delusion)

has

died,

and a son

(enlightenment)

s born to

him"

(1992,

163,

n.14).

It

is difficult to

comprehend

his

"analogical easoning."



7/26

378

Journal

of Religious

Ethics

three (karmic)tendencies (vasanas)"(MU 115).The author's statements

constitute a

disagreement

with

any

notion that ascetics are

generically

impure

(as

Olivelle

argues, pp.

92-93),

and

possibly suggest

that it is

bathed Brahmin

householders,

with

still

unpurified

minds,

who

may

be

less than

pure.

There

is

a

corresponding

shift

in

Upanisadic

discussions about

re-

nouncer food

consumption.

Brahmin householders

normally

must

ascer-

tain

carefully

correct or

pure

food choices and avoid

potentially

polluting

food and donors.8 Such ritual concerns

dealing

with food and caste

are

remarkably

reduced

in

these

texts,

though they

are not

entirely

absent.

BSU 266-7 notes:

An

ascetic

may beg

food

in

the manner of a bee even from the

house

of

a

barbarian

...

Let

him

maintain himself with solicited and unsolicited

types

of almsfood.

The

faults

of

what

it

touches do not defile the

wind,

or the act of

burning

the

fire. Urine and excrement do not defile

water,

or the faults of food an

ascetic.

The

more established renouncers thus are allowed to

beg

food from

any-

one,

except they

should

avoid

the

infamous,

those who have fallen

from

their caste, heretics, and temple priests (BSU 267), who are frequently

exchanging

foodstuffs

publicly.9

The

Dharmasutras

(Hindu

customary

law

books)

assume that the

body

can be

made either

impure

or

pure depending

on internal or ex-

ternal contact with

the world.10The

Samnydsa Upanisads, by

contrast,

assume that the

ordinary body

is

naturally filthy

(thus

supporting

Oliv-

elle's

point).

However,

such

radically

negative

words

about the

body

have

a

specific

pedagogical purpose

focusing

the

renouncer

away

from con-

centration on

his

body-as-self,

and the

perceived

continual need

to

manip-

ulate the

body's

physical

state

(as

householder Brahmins do

concerning

purification,foodconsumption,or ritual action). Instead, the renouncer

must

review the

purity

condition of his mind

and character.

Frequently

SamnU

authors

argue

that the

ascetic,

in

higher stages

of

his

practice,

should

begin

to

give up

the

ordinary

Brahmin

purity prac-

tices.

NpU

203

prescribes

reduced

bathing

correlated with

increasingly

high

levels of

spiritual

attainment:

"A

bath is

ordained three times a

day

for

(lowest

renouncer)

Kuticakas,

twice a

day

for

Bahudakas,

and once

a

day

for

Hamsas.

A

mental bath is

ordained

for

Paramahamsas,

a

bath

8

See, forexampleDharma Sutra ofApastamba 1.16-19;DhS ofBaudhayana 1.12, 3.3;

and

DhS

ofVasistha

Chapter

14 in

Olivelle 1999.

y

The call to

abjure

food

tainted

by

the

infamous

may

have to do with

transference

of

an ethical

impurity

(wrong-doing

or

-thinking)

unrelated to

caste.

10

For

positions

found in

the dharma

texts,

see,

for

example,

DhS

ofApastamba

1.15,

notes

2.28, 3.12,

3.27

(354),

and 10.28

(357),

and

other

passages

in

Olivelle 1999.



8/26

"Unlikea

Fool,

He Is

Not

Defiled"

379

with ashes for Tunyatitas, and a wind bath for (highest) Avadhutas."

Similarly,

there

is the decreased use of

ordinary

civilized

clothing

as

one

ascends levels

of

spiritual

attainment

(the

basis for

these

"types"

of re-

nouncers).

The

highest

ascetics,

the

"Tunyatitas

and

Avadhutas[,]

are

clad

as

they

were

at birth"

NpU

204).

One could

argue

that fewer

baths

and

fewer clothes mean

less

purity;

such an

argument

would be

aligned

with the

perspective

of the

Brahmin

householder.

However,

from the al-

ternative

SamnU authorial

perspective,

as the renouncer becomes

more

spiritually

advanced,

and

internally pure,

he

needs less and less

of

the

gross

material

world to

help purify

and cover him. So it seems more

likely

that greater purity is being suggested.

A feature

supportive

of the increased

purity

of more advanced as-

cetics

is

another

type

of

Upanisadic

statement about bodies. That

is,

there

are

passages

that treat the bodies

of

higher

renouncers as

sacred

places

rather

than

as

filthy

or

disgusting

places,

such

as the "the

divine

city

of Brahman

(divya

brahmapura)

of Brahma

Upanisad

75.

Passages

in

NpU

187

and

following explore

the vision of

the

body

as

made

up

of

Brahman,

the

Absolute,

from

head to toe. Nirvana

Upanisad

(NU)

228

s.51

refers

to the

liberated renouncer's

"immaculate

body

[as]

the seat

of the

supportless"

and

NU 229 s.68

claims of the liberated

ascetic,

"He

burns up illusion, selfishness, and egotism; so in the cemetery his body

remains

intact"

that

is,

apparently

pure

and

without

decay.11

The

sug-

gestion

here

is that

by

the

time the

renouncer's

practice

is

completed,

his

body

is rather

like an

animated

temple.

In

Maitreya Upanisad

113,

Lord

Siva

likewise

says:

"The

body

is said to

be a

temple,

and the soul is

truly

Siva.

Discard the

faded

flower

offerings

of

ignorance. Worship

with the

thought:

'I

am he.'"12

Crucially,

hese

texts

base their discussions

of the

body upon

the clear

necessity

of

the renouncer

knowing

"I

am not the

body."

dentification

with

one's

particular

body

and

mind,

with their

limitations of

gross

ma-

teriality

and a desire-ridden

psyche,

is

especially

abjured.

I

never

experience

the delusion

of

taking

the

body

for the self.

(BAU 307)

Let

him

stop

considering

the

body

as

his own. He indeed who

regards

not

the

body

as his own

is called

Brahman.

(NpU

191-2)

11

Hindu renouncers

and ascetic

gurus

are

frequently

buried

rather than cremated

in

India due

to

perceived

purity

of

person

in

life,

and also after death.

The tombs of saints are

often

believed

to emote

purifying power,

so

strong

is this

perceived "purity."

12It is possible that the body as a disgusting hell and the body as temple are two

separate

strands

of

Hindu

thought

found

in

these

scriptures

one

viewing

the human

body negatively

and

the other

positively.

I

think

it is rather that

they operate

as

stages

of

spiritual

development

within the

same texts. The notion

of

dynamic

stages

of

ascent,

as

I

will show

elsewhere,

is

clearly present

throughout

hese

Upanisads

"TheWormBecomes

a

Wasp:

Subtle

Ascetic

Strategies

in

the

Samnydsa

Upanisads?

article

in

progress.



9/26

380

Journal

of

Religious

Ethics

The belief that 'I am in my body' s the path to Kalasutra. It is the snare

of

Mahavici,

and the

row of

Asipatravana

(three hells).

(NpU

144)

In

fact,

replacing

human

physical

and mental

identity

with self-

identification with

Brahman,

the

Absolute,

is

required

no matter

how

the

body

is viewed.

Olivelle's statement that

the ascetic is

generically impure

is

thereby

countered

by

the textual

authors,

who

argue

that the

renouncer is not

his

body

no

matter whether it be clean or

unclean,

pigsty

or

temple,

or

somewhere

in

between. The

body

has been renounced

as his central

concern.

During

the

course of his

practice

there

may

indeed

be a notion

of

progressive

physical

purification,

as

I

believe is

suggested

but still

he

is not his

physical body.

So when BAU 305 remarks: "Unlike a

fool,

he

is not

defiled"

(na

sa

mudha-uillipyate),

one

meaning may

well be

something

like this: Unlike a

fool,

the

samnydsi

knows

that he is not

his

body,

whatever

its condition. He knows that his true Brahman-self

cannot ever be

defiled.

Another

useful

interpretation

would be:

Only

fools even think

up

no-

tions

of

impurity

or

defilement,

and

consider themselves

to

be

that

-

fools such as

those Brahmin

householders who are

so

concerned with

physical purificationby rites, food, and water, that they miss the more

elevated

meanings

of

purity.

Both

interpretations imply

that renouncers

here are not

impure

because

of

(a)

their lack of

body-identification

and

identification

with

Brahman;

(b)

their

rejection

of

ridiculous

conceptions

and

superficial

deontological

rules of

defilement

(impure

food, touch,

or

caste);

and/or

(c)

impurity categories

no

longer

apply

to those who have

renounced

mere

humanness. As we

shall

see,

knowing

Brahman-as-self

means

knowing

one is

generically

pure.

It

would not matter

if

one

never

bathed

again;

the

body's

external

physical

condition is

useful

perhaps

only

for lower

level

samnydsis

who

still need such

rules to

help guide

their

thinking and behavior.One can find similar statements about the ulti-

mate

uselessness of

rituals

and social

regulations.

("To

a mind that

rests

in

its source

. . .

things

within

the

purview

of rites

are false"

[MU 110].

"Fools,

ied to

customs of

class and

order,

get

their

rewards

according

to

their

deeds"

[MU

112].)

Is

this some

scathing

commentary

on

ordinary

householder

purity

in

relation to

ethical

dharmal Have

these

Upanisadic

renouncers

opted

completely

out of

the

householder

system

of

purity/impurity,

consciously

subverting

its

fascination with

sacred

rule,

denying

that external

pu-

rification

and

rites can

promote

genuine

goodness?

I

would

argue yes,

especially for higher-attaining ascetics. However,their proposal seems

also

to

represent

a

teaching

for

all

renouncers,

and

for Brahmin

house-

holders as

well,

suggesting

that a

deeper

meaning

to

purification

and

ethics can

be

sought

by

all.

They

opt

for

a

progressive

change

of mind



10/26

"Unlikea

Fool,

He

Is

Not

Defiled"

381

instead of a continual fiddling with body-states, and finally a new focus

on the

Absolute instead

of mind.

Although

the authors

seem to assume that householders and

early

stage

renouncers

will

probably

follow

external

purity regulations,

the

ascetic must

gradually

wean

himself from these

practices

because

they

are

misguided.

Rather

than

recommending

them as useful

preparation

for

spiritual

advancement,

as

one

might expect,

these texts often

connect

continuing

such external

practices

with

perpetuating

the

fundamental

error

of samsdra

that

is,

taking

the external

world for

the Real. So

they

are

speaking

with a

relatively

clear

oppositional

voice

with

regard

to purity of the body.Let us turn next to Upanisadic notions of mental

purity.

2.

RecastingPurity

as

Knowledge

nd Virtue

The authors

spend

considerable

time

discussing

two related

types

of

purity

seen

as

crucial

for the renouncer's

ife and

goals:

(a)

mental

purity,

and

(b)

an associated

ethical

purity.

These

Upanisads

say

that

knowledge

is the

purifier

of the

renouncer

(PbU

298),

that

is,

the

knowledge

of

the identity of Atman and Brahman. The renouncerpossesses a higher

"sacred

hread"

of

internal

knowledge,

making

it

possible

for

him

to never

again

become

sullied

or

unclean

(BU

86-87).

BSU

260 claims:

In the heart

of

those

liberated

while still

alive,

the latent mental

impres-

sions

become

pure,

resembling

withered seeds

bereft of the

germs

of future

births.

Resulting

from

the

pure

spirit,

they

are

purifying

and

highly

exalted.

Eternal

and

consisting

of the meditation

on the

self,

they

abide as

if in

deep

sleep.

With self-knowledgeas a major purifier,one must explorehow to attain

such

knowledge.

Certain

reflections

on

self-identity

and

good

conduct,

and

the avoid-

ance

of

many

other

unsavory thoughts

and

actions,

help

to

support

self-

knowledge.

For

instance,

the

renouncer is

often told to

practice

say-

ing

and

thinking

repeatedly,

"I

am not the

body

...

I

am

Brahman."

In

Kundika

Upanisad

26

he

says:

"I

am

pure

consciousness,

the witness

of

all!"'

. . . Let this

insentient

body

wallow

in

water

or on

land.

By

its

qualities

I am not

touched,

as

space

by

the

qualities

of a

pot

All are

myself

and

I

am

all!

I

am

unique

and

I

transcend

all!



11/26

382

Journal

of

Religious

Ethics

I am my own eternal bliss,

Pure

undivided

consciousness!

Many

passages

also

suggest

that the

samnydsi

should

keep

his

mind

pure

and

composed

"Introspective

and

engrossed

in

yourself, pure

and

composed,

wander

about the

world,

O

Narada,

abandoning

inner

attach-

ments"

(NpU

197)

and

in

many

passages,

inner

purity

and

goodness

are

essentially

the same

thing.

In

MU

110,

King

Brhadratha

is addressed

by

the

sage

Sakayanya

as follows:

Sound,

ouch,

and other

objects

f

sense are

truly

worthless.

A soulthat is

attached o them recallsnot thehigheststate

For

he mindalone s

samsdra

worldliness

eading

o

rebirth)!

et

a man

purify

t with

zeal.Theminda man

possesses hapes

his future ourse:hat

is the

eternal

mystery.

This

passage

counsels that

purity

and

goodness

come not

through

manipulation

of

material

objects

or

in

special

rites.

In

fact,

such

ma-

nipulation

can

become

binding;

one

becomes

desirously

attached

to the

objects,

and

consequently

forgets

"the

highest

state."

Instead the search

must be an

inward one.

Mental

purification

will

yield

up

true

purity

and

goodness.The ascetic's aim is to have a pure and tranquil mind, and the

highest

types

of

renouncers are

said to have it

(NpU

135, 155,

186, 197,

283;

JU

70).

Sakayanya

adds

further,

"Forwhen the mind is

tranquil,

he

destroys

(desirously

attached)

good

and evil deeds. His self

serene,

he

abides

in

the self and

enjoys

undecaying

bliss"

(MU

110).

Sakayanya

is

arguing

that a

pure

mind

(cittasuddhi)

prevents

immoral and

unkind

behavior,

a

position

characteristic of a

virtue or character-based ethics.

It

not

only

destroys

past

bad karma

("as

a

fire

when fuel is

spent"),

but

prevents

future

karma

("The

mind a man

possesses

shapes

his

future

course"

MU

110]).

A pure mind may be attained by meditation and repetition of the

mantra

of

identity

with

the

Absolute. "Whenall

the sins rise

up

en

masse,

let him

repeat

the

syllable

OM

12,000

times,

for it

effaces them"

(BSU

273).

Meditation

releases sins

and

cleanses the mind

(LAU

338),

and

such

purification

may

also be

assisted

by

renouncing impure thoughts.

As

a

reminder,

MU

110

claims:

"By

austerity itapas)

a

man achieves

goodness (sattva),

and

through

goodness

he

takes hold of the mind."The

ascetic life

leads

to the

higher

good

in

large

part

because it removes the

internal

traces

(intentions,

memories,

dispositions)

of bad

thoughts

and

deeds from

one's

mind. The

Samnydsa

Upanisads

contain

long

lists of the

"innerenemies" and impurethoughts which the renouncer must abjure.

PhU

48-50

says

of

the

Paramahamsa

renouncer of

high

attainment:

He

gives

up

slander,

pride,

ealousy,

deceit,

arrogance,

esire,hate,

plea-

sure,

pain,

lust,

anger,greed,delusion, xcitement,

ndignation, gotism,



12/26

"Unlikea

Fool,

He Is Not

Defiled"

383

and the like, and he regards his body as a corpse. He constantly turns

away

from this wretched

body,

the cause

of

doubt,

perversity,

and

error,

and abides

in

that

eternally pure Being.

That

itself is his

state.

I am

indeed that

calm and

unchanging Being,

a

single

mass of

bliss and

consciousness

By knowing

that the

highest

Self and

the

lower

self are

one,

the difference between

them dissolves into oneness. This

knowledge

is his

twilight worship.

The mention

of

twilight worship

here refers to an ascetical

redefinition

process,

wherein householder

Brahmin

samdhyd worship (bathing

and

repetition

of

special

Vedic

mantras)

is

replaced

by

an inner

worship,

which is self-knowledge.External is replacedby internal, physical wor-

ship

by

mental

worship,

and ethical

rules

by

ethical

being

(see

Note

12).

Such

lists of virtues

to assume and vices

to avoid are similar

in

content,

and

the

qualities

can

be

analyzed

into

several

categories.

Some

qualities

have to do

with

avoiding

egoistical

body

or

mind

self-identification.

The

preceding

inventory

includes

pride, arrogance,

indignation, greed,

delu-

sion,

and

egotism

itself. Others

have

to

do

with lack

of

concern

or bodily

states',

here

examples

are

giving

up pleasure

and

pain,

lust, excitement,

desire,

and love for

the

body.Finally,

he

must avoid emotional or mental

states

that hurt both others

and

oneself,

for

example,

slander,

jealousy,

deceit, hate,

and

anger.

Another

catalogue

of

qualities,

with

a number of more

positively

ex-

pressed

mental

and moral

qualities,

is found

at

NpU

195:

He

shall

always

remain

tranquil,

self-controlled,

devoted

to the

study

of

the

Vedantas

(probably,

he

Upanisads),

free from

fear, selfishness,

and

the

pairs

of

opposites,

without

possessions,

and with

his

senses

subdued.

. .

.

Who is free from

selfishness and

pride,

who is the same toward

friends

and the like

(enemies

[Olivelle,

n.

90])

and

friendly

toward all be-

ings,

who is

alone, wise,

and

composed,

shall attain

release.

The

positively

expressed

dharmic virtues here include

tranquility,

self-

control,

devotion

to the

study

of Vedanta

philosophy,

being

the same

toward

friends and

enemies,

being

friendly

toward

all

beings,

and re-

maining

wise, alone,

and

composed.

That

many

of the

qualities

in

this

passage

are

positively

expressed

counters

Olivelle's

argument

about

neg-

ative

samnydsi

dharma

(see

Note

4).

These virtues

can

again

be

classi-

fied,

into

(a)

a

pure,

tranquil

mental

state

(alone,

composed, tranquility,

self-control),

(b)

wisdom

(study

of

Vedanta,

being

wise),

and

(c)

kind-

ness to

others

(friendly

to all

beings).

Positively expressed

virtues men-

tioned

elsewhere include:

purity,knowledge,

and

equanimity (NpU

159-

61, 195);

and faith

(MU

116),

forbearance

and

sincerity (NpU

139-40),

fortitude

(NpU

157),

calm

tranquility

(MU

110-11),

and others.

I

think we can

safely

assume that

both the

positively

and

nega-

tively expressed

virtue

statements are

intended

to

impact

not

only

the



13/26

384

Journal

of

Religious

Ethics

renouncer,but also other people with whom he comes in contact. The

wise

tranquil

mind,

which

knows its

Brahman-self;

a mind free

of slan-

der,

jealousy,

deceit, hate, fear,

desire,

and

anger,

and

possessed

of the

virtue of kindness and

compassion,

certainly

has an

ethical

bent,

and

would

impact

others

in

human contact.

Evil deeds are

prevented

by

de-

stroying

evil

thoughts,

and a kind of

intuitive,

natural ethical

goodness

is

said to remain. The mind

again

becomes

foundational

consciousness

(KU

26;

PhU

49);

it

can hold no

taint,

as it could

when mental

perception

was

attached

by

attraction

or aversion to

gross

objects

and

persons

in

the

world.

Infact, the initial vow ofrenunciationtaken bythe Brahmincandidate

includes a

set of

powerful confirming

statements,

constituting

a

verbal

vow,

called

the

praisa

or

Call.

During

this ritual

Call,

the new renouncer

should

repeat

three times:

"I

have renounced!"

Samnydstam may

a),

af-

firming

his

new status

of

renunciation.

Immediately following,

he is to

say:

"Safety

(or

freedom from

fear)

from me to all

beings"

(Abhayam

sarvabhiltebhyo)

ArU

9;

PpU

282).

This dual vow is said to

burn

up

all

congenital

and

corporeal

aults or

impurities

(BSU

252).

The second

por-

tion of the vow

"Safety

from me to all

beings"

is

given special weight

by

its

location at the crucial invocational

high point

of this

initiatory

ritual. It could be called a new ascetic mandate, perhaps even one defin-

ing

mandate of renunciation. The renouncer

is

told

henceforth to show

kindness

by

not

injuring any living being

humans, animals,

or

plants

(ArUlO;

NpU

157, 183;

PpU

283),

including

worms, insects,

moths,

and

trees

(NpU

197).

This

injunction

to

ahimsd, non-violence,

also

includes

avoiding

the vicious forms of

thinking

and

speaking already

mentioned,

such as

anger, greed, lying, cheating,

deceit

(ArU

8),

and

insulting

oth-

ers

(NpU

143);

and also the renouncer should avoid desires

(ArU

8;

NpU

142)

which,

of

course,

frequently impinge upon

others.

The vow for a

future mendicant life also includes a

strong

ethical

statement: "Thereafter hey live the life of mendicants.

Celibacy

(brah-

macarya),

non-injury

(ahimsd),

non-possession

(aparigraha),

and truth-

fulness

(satya) guard

these

assiduously (yatnena

he raksato he raksato

he

raksata

itif

(ArU 10).

NpU

143

says

in

less formal

language:

Let him

bear

harshwordswith

patience;

et

him

not insult

any

man;

and

let him

not show

hostility

o

anyone

or

the sake of this

body.

At those

whoshow

anger

et him

not directhis

anger

n

return;

et him

bless

whenhe

is

cursed;

nd let him not

utter a false

speech

scatteredat

the seven

gates.

Rapt nthejoyof the innerself,he sits still,free rom aresand onging.

Withhimself

as sole

companion,

et

him

wanderon

earth

seeking

bliss.

Other

passages

mention similar

mandated

or

advocated virtues:

The

renouncer

should

practice

friendliness,

kindliness

(NpU

145),

and



14/26

"Unlikea

Fool,

He Is Not

Defiled"

385

impartiality to all beings (NpU 145, 157). Nirvana Upanisad 226 s.17

redefines the liberated renouncer's

ife as

a

play

of

kindness toward oth-

ers

in

its

aphorism "Compassion

alone is his

pastime

(keli)"

BAU 308

seeks

to redefine such

post-liberation

action

for others' sake as a non-

binding, acceptably

beneficial

goal:

"Even

though

I

have done all there

is to

do,

yet yearning

for the welfare of the world

I

shall

proceed along

the

path pointed

out

by

the

scriptures.

How could that hurt me?"The

ascetic is to

regard

others with

equal eyes (NpU

158)

and be the same

to all

beings

(BSU

260),

since he must see all

beings

as his own self

(NpU

159).

To move fora moment to an early modernsetting, Mahatma Gandhi's

position

on

the nature

of non-violence bears resemblance

to what is

said

on this

subject

in

the

Samnydsa Upanisads.

Gandhi

wrote that

non-violence

necessarily implies

self-purification

(Merton

1965,

1-111,

1-245). "[Mental

non-violence]

has

potency

which

the world does not

yet

know,"

he

says;

it is more

powerful

than violence

(1-256,

1-343).

Ahimsd

is the

supreme

dharma

(1-301)

"Where here is ahimsd there

is

Truth,

and

Truth is God"

(11.151)

Gandhi

mentions

Brahman/Atman as the

basic

power

behind

non-violence,

that which makes it

possible

to

be

non-

violent

(1-187,

1-191).

Finally,

he connects

ahimsd

with a

person's per-

ceived self-identity with all beings claiming that the common Self is

the reason

we should

all

live

according

o the ethic of

non-violence;

doing

violence

to others

does violence

to ourselves

(1-270,

1-279).

To sum

up,

he

argues

that

non-violence

is

a

positive

ethical

virtue

(not

merely

a

ques-

tion of

avoiding

a

vice),

with divine

underpinnings,

yet requiring

men-

tal

purification

to

attain

-

arguments

that the SamnU

authors make as

well.

An ascetic's

renunciation

is sometimes

said

in

these

Upanisads

to

be

useful

to

humanity

as

a whole.

His eremetical

garment

and

insignia,

the

authors

remark,

will be a

signal

and a favor

to the

world,

bringing

merit

to those who offer him food.13

Also,

his

renouncing

the world will

help

members

of

his extended

family

and

friends

sixty generations

before and

sixty

after

him

(BSU

251).

It is said

elsewhere

that one hundred

prior

and

three

hundred

subsequent

generations

will

benefit

if

a wise man

renounces;

a

virtuous ascetic

rescues

sixty generations

before and

thirty

after

him

(SU

331).

The usefulness

of the

ascetic to the

world or even

to other

renouncers

is not

particularly

stressed

in

these

Upanisads

as a

whole,

but

this feature

is

certainly

not absent.

They

are,

at

times,

told

13Olivelle

says:

"They[eremeticalgarments] are also good for the good of the world

because

people

recognize

him as a renouncer

by

reason

of these

insignia,

thus

enabling

them

to

acquire

merit

by

paying

him

homage

and

offering

him

food"

Olivelle

1992, 137,

n.

2).

Additional

meanings

are

possible,

including

instruction

of

householders,

support

of

spiritual

progress,

bestowal of

grace,

and

also the

performance

of

miracles.



15/26

386 Journal

of Religious

Ethics

to be teachers of others and to scatter their joy and kind compassion

wherever

they

move about

in

the freedom of liberation.

Ahimsd here is both a virtuous mental

disposition

of

gentle

and

kindly

harmlessness

and also

a

negative

action-avoidance

springing

from it.

In

line with the notion that the

renouncer-in-training

avoids rites and

ac-

tions in

general, yet

cultivates

inner virtuous

qualities,

the

Samnydsa

Upanisads

as a whole focus on the renouncer's

mind and character

more

than

on his actions. This is the

path

of

wisdom,

rather than the

path

of

action,

as has been so often

pointed

out for

samnydsis

(see

Olivelle

1992,

60-67).

However,

the avoidance of harm to others

is not

merely

a

self-protectiveavoidance of potentially binding actions (karmas),due to

the focus on

positive

virtues

-

kindness, friendliness,

equal

vision,

com-

passion,

and so on. To never be selfish or

greedy

around

others,

to never

expect anything

for

oneself from them

clearly

the

character

portrait

of the ideal

self-realized

samnydsi

in

these texts is

not

simply

a cultur-

ally

dead or wraithlike and

frightening being.

He is

portrayed

instead

as rather

quiet

and kind not at all what one

might

expect

from

an

ini-

tial

surface

reading

of the texts. The renouncer's

pretense

appearing

to

be

anti-social, anti-cultural, foolish, mad,

or

dumb

in

the

presence

of

others,

and

his

strange

appearance

naked,

matted

hair,

looking

like a

ghoul is only that, pretense. We must carefully distinguish character

and

identity

from what is utilized

purposefully

as

"masquerade"

Vail

2003).

The

Samnydsa

Upanisads

do call on the

ascetic

mostly

to

remain

soli-

tary,

wandering

or hidden

away

from humankind

in

caves and aban-

doned

temples.

Avoiding ntimacy

he

should

stay

alone

(NpU

143, 145-6),

free from

desirous love and

hatred

(rdgadvesa)

(NpU

142),

not associat-

ing

with

householders or hermits

(NpU

183-4),

not

gathering disciples

to

make fame or

money

(BSU

126),

and

not

answering stupid questions

with

wise answers

(BSU 173).

NpU

146 tells the

renouncer

merely

to an-

swer "Narayana! God)"o

inquirers,

a

strategy potentially

both

socially

off-putting

and

yet

possibly

aimed

at

Self-recognition

for

both

parties.

If

he

stops

in

any

one

place, NpU

220 further

says,

the ascetic is like a deer

trembling

with fear.

Why

tremble,

if

as

NpU

183

says,

his own

grant-

ing

of

safety

to others

makes

him

not be harmed

by

other creatures?

The

answer most

likely

lies

in

perceived danger

in

close

association with

people

of

desirous,

immoral

inclinations,

at least for

samnydsis

of

lower

attainments.

NpU

145-6

offers some

explanation

in

its claim that ordi-

nary

"peoplegossip

with each other

about news of

kings,

almsfood,

and

the

like.

Intimacyundoubtedly gives

rise to

attachment, backbiting,

and

jealousy."

To

help

the renouncer

avoid

cultivating

similar

qualities

in

himself

-

gustatory

desires,

sexual

longings,

wistfulness for home or

family

or com-

forts,

and desires for

amusement such

as

gambling

and

shows,

or

anger,



16/26

"Unlikea

Fool,

He Is Not

Defiled"

387

NpU 146-9 expresses analogicallythe renouncer'scorrectresponse to all

temptations.

He

is

to be as a

tongueless

man,

a

eunuch, lame,

blind, deaf,

and

stupid (NpU

147)

that

is,

like one who

has no

senses,

no

sexuality,

no

wanderlust,

nor keen interest

in

pleasure.

"Let

him

always

keep

his

conduct

sinless, honest,

and

sincere,

withdrawing

his

senses

completely,

as a tortoise

withdraws its limbs

..."

(NpU

148-9).

And

yet

the mandate also

to

practice

kindliness and

compassion

when

the renouncer

does encounter householders or other

renouncers

helps

to

keep

his "conduct

sinless,"

and since the

ascetic often is told to

beg

for

food,

that

is

one

major

time

during

which he must learn to

practice

such

virtues. One's actions, it is said, should be consistent with one's inner

state

(NpU

196).

How,

therefore,

should a

person

attain final success at

being

inwardly

virtuous?

3.

Recasting

Purity

as Brahman tself

According

o

these

texts,

there

is one final

purity

that must be attained

by

the

renouncer.

It is a fundamental

and essential

purity

the notion

of

Brahman

(or

Narayana/Visnu

or

Siva or

Purusa)

as

pure,

that

is,

eter-

nal

pure

Being (nityaputastha)

(PhU

45),

pure

undivided Consciousness

(akhandabodha)(KU 26):

When there

is

nothing

to

be

grasped,

a

man,

free of mind and breath and

endowed

with steadfast

knowledge,

becomes dissolved

in

the

pure

and

supreme

reality,

as

a

lump

of salt

in

water.

(LAU 338)

These

texts

repeatedly

say

that the

purity

of the renouncer who is

cleansed

of all samsaric

mental

qualities,

and cultivated

kindliness and

non-violence,

is the

same as the

purity

of Brahman.

"[The

Avadhuta

renouncer]

is

eternally

pure,"

says

Lord

Narayana

in

TaU 242. "He is a

great

man whose

mind abides

in

me alone.

I also

abide

in him

alone."

BAU 304

says

that the Avadhutais

properly

denoted

by

the

phrase

"You

are

That."

He is

rare,

and

eternally pure,

as

Brahman is

pure

(JU

70-71;

NpU

155);

yet

he also cannot

be defined

since Brahman is too

great

to

be defined

(NpU

213).

Some

of the same

terms,

such as

suddhate,

are

used to

refer

both to

Brahman-purity

and

to

physical

or ritual

purity.

However,

Brahman-purity

in

SamnU seems

to reflect a different

genus

of

purity

than

that

wrought

by bathing;

Brahman/liberated

renouncer

purity

is

permanent

and so

strong

as to be

completely

invulnerable to

pollution

(invalidating

Olivelle's

statement

in Note

7,

and

necessitating

scholars

regularly distinguishing types

of

purity

in

Hindu

thought).

The renouncer's

mind

either is held to

reflect,

or is the same

thing

as,

the

purity

of the

Absolute: "The

Imperishable

is his

purity" (Aksayam

niranjanam

[NU

225

s.5]).

This is

yet

another

way

of

approaching

the

phrase-

"Unlike

a

fool,

he is not

defiled"

(BAU 305).

As Brahman



17/26

388 Journal

of Religious

Ethics

cannot be defiled, the renouncer with 'I am That' awareness can never

be

anything

other

than

pure

Brahman,

the fundamental

Pure One.

Are

the

Absolute's

and the renouncer's

qualities

the same

set?

In

many

cases

yes

-

both are sacciddndnda

(existence, consciousness,

bliss),

both

are

supportless except

for

Self-support,

both are called the detached

Witness

(saksi)

of world

events,

both have

equality-consciousness

(Brah-

man is

like the

sun,

which illumines all

beings

[BAU

305]),

both are

considered

rooted

in

the subtlest of the subtle. Would

the authors con-

versely agree

that Brahman has the realized renouncer's

ethics?

The

higher

renouncers are told to

repudiate

social

distinctions be-

tween superiorand inferior (TaU243; PpU 288), and between high and

low

renouncers.

Caste, class,

and orders are said to be

temporary,

mul-

tipartite,

and a

great

torment

(MU

112),

eventually

to be

transcended

completely

(BAU

304;

TaU

243).

Even

seeing

differences between

hu-

mans and

animals,

or

bugs

and trees is to be avoided. None

should be

harmed.

YdjfiavalkyaUpanisad

314

says:

"The

BlessedLord

has enteredwith a

portion

of himselfas

the

soul":

o

thinking,

et

him

boweven o a

dog,

a Candala

outcaste), cow,

ra

donkey,

prostrating

imselfon the

ground

ike a stick.

And

"Enjoying

he wealth of

detachment because of his incessant

knowl-

edge,

he

reflects within

himself: There is no one else different from me.'

Perceiving only

his own form

everywhere,

he attains liberation while he

is still

alive"

(NpU

202).

Accordingly

Brahman, too,

is

universal,

conscious

Witness,

who sees

all

beings

equally

and has within

Itself no

conception

of

high

and

low,

no

concern

for caste

and social

honor. The

assumption

seems to be that

the

Absolute's

intention is

never to

harm,

but instead to

protect

all

beings,

who

are Its

own self.

. .

an

interesting

conception

of a

kindly,

non-

violent

Reality

certainly

in line with much of Advaita Vedanta

philosophi-

cal

thinking,

but

also

bearing

an

unexpectedly gentle,

almost

parental

quality

for a

formless,

genderless

Godhead.

This Brahman whose ethic

would

be

detached

caring

would

apparently reject

social

hierarchy

as

dharma,

and

much of the

human

melodrama of

loves, hates, desires,

and

dualities

as false

samsaric

currency.

The

Samnydsa

Upanisads

do

advocate a renouncer ethical

dharma fo-

cusing

on

cleansing

the mind

and

recognizing

the

divinity

of the

deeper

human

self.

The

authors

subvert and

replace

what

they

see as an

external

(overlyrule-deontological)dharma,

based

upon

Vedic

scriptural injunc-

tions,

preferring

instead to

find a

more essential

internal core to

Vedic

teachings.

The

informal

renouncer

virtue

ethical

dharma that remains

borrows

many

of

its

ethical

principles

from

householder

traditions,

and

utilizes

he its

behavioral

dharma

mostly

techniques

of mind

solitary



18/26

"Unlikea

Fool,

He Is Not

Defiled"

389

meditation,mantra repetition, contemplationon identity-truths, and re-

jection

of the false mental accretions

and the "inner

enemies";

and also

support

for the cultivation of

compassion,

kindness,

and some

teaching.

The

required spiritual techniques

orient the

aspirant

inward,

in

support

of the

mental

cleansing necessary

to reach the Atman/Brahman evel. Re-

nouncer

dharma thus includes a

variety

of attitudes and methods that

establish

it as an

informal or

pre-theoretical

system

of

virtue

ethics,

containing

some

universalized

deontological principles,

such as

non-

violence,

and the

all-important

fundamental

Brahman-identity.

There

is avoidance of

mental vices that

mask

It;

other rules of conduct receive

only secondarystatus. This ascetic dharma is intended to constitute an

exact mirror

of the intrinsic

goodness

the

purity

and

natural ethical

being

of

the Absolute.

However,

to

clarify

further,

Brahman-qualities

are

one's own

qualities,

beyond

mirrors

altogether.

One

of

the

arguments

virtue ethicists

make

against

deontic ethical

stances

is that

good

duties

performed

without the

requisite

good

inten-

tional

disposition

are

disingenuous

actions. Within

the Hindu

context,

at

least since the

sixth

century

B.C.E.,

variations of this

argument

have

also

been

assumed

by scriptural

authors

discussing

karma

and its effects.

Since

attached

actions

(ordinary

actions

and ritual

behavior

performed

out of greed, desire, anger,and so on) actually endanger one karmically

speaking

by producing

urther

negative

dispositional

seeds,

such

actions

are

worse than

useless;

they bring

the doer down

morally by perpet-

uation.

The

Samnydsa

Upanisads,

like

many

other

yoga-related

texts,

argue

vociferouslyagainst

such

tainted

actions,

taking

as one

of their ma-

jor projects

the

ending

of

both

dispositional impurities

and

superficial,

duty-alone

actions.

The ascetic

is advised

to

protect

himself

by ceasing

ordinary

work-in-the-world

action

altogether

during

the

period

of train-

ing,

while

cultivating

divine

nature and

virtues.

Only

at the end of the

training process

when

moksa is

reached

may

the

samnydsi

consider

himself free to act as he

likes,

forthen his actions will be dispositionally

pure

to

the core.

One

possibility

is to call

this kind of dharma

a Brahman-metaethic

a

foundational

ontological principle

by

which other

ethical considera-

tions

must be

viewed.

Such an

ethical foundation

subverts

some,

but not

all

of varndsramadharma's

ordinary

Brahmin deontic

positive-negative,

and

pure-impure,

social

regulations

by

rendering

them

foolish,

a mere

scratching

the

surface

of

deeper

ethical and

spiritual

issues.

The SamnU

passages

that

outline

broadly

the

general

duties

of householders

(for

example, NpU

131)

assume

that

lay

Brahmins

while

performing

these

duties

should

gradually

be

turning

in

an inward

direction

focusing

on

God

and

the virtues

such as these

six:

tranquility,

self-control,

equanim-

ity,

forbearance,

concentration,

and

faith

(p.

171,

n.

5)

so that detach-

ment

(vairdgya),

the

true

condition,

will

eventually

naturally

arise. One



19/26

390

Journal

of

Religious

Ethics

might expect that the dharmic householding life would be considered

a needed

preparation

for ascetic life. Such is

likely

the case.

However,

the

Upanisadic

textual

agenda

of

guiding aspirants

away

from a focus

on

external

materiality

is

expressed powerfully

enough,

that

I

believe

such notions of "valuable

preparation"

are

considerably

underplayed.

One should not find

such

preparatory

life

too

valuable;

too

many

are

tempted

to

stay

there. To miss the

underlying

metaethic would

be to

miss

everything.

Both

Hindu

Brahmin

householder and renouncer

normative

ethics

assume that human

nature

is

fundamentally

in

accord

wit

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	langravio-faustomaria-panattoni
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Unlike a Fool, He is Not Defiled Ascetic Purity and Ethics in the Saṃnyāsa Upaniṣads - Vail, L....

Documents