Were our scriptural recommendation of vanaprastha and sannyasa compulsory or voluntary?

Question

Our scriptures suggest to leave the family and go to forest at the age of fifty :पञ्चाशोर्द्ध्वे वनं व्रजेत्. Reference:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanaprastha

At the same time our scriptures advise to treat parents as Gods :मातृदेवो भव, पितृदेवो भव।

It is really a cruel system that compels aged parents who need more love and care to live in forests while their wards would live under the roof safe and sound. On what grounds was it recommended? Above 75 years, sannyasa was advised which meant roaming alone and begging which is also very painful at that age!

Were these compulsory or voluntary?

We are only a Q&A site. We do not decide or judge which practice is cruel or not. We have no authority in doing so. This question is like inviting opinions from users. Such questions will get closed as opinion based. — Sarvabhouma, Jan 23 '19 at 16:46
This is a valid question. He's asking "On what grounds was it recommended?" and also if it's "voluntary or obligatory?" -- neither of which is opinion-based. — Say No To Censorship, Jan 23 '19 at 23:18
@sv, while those 2 parts are not opinion-based, the part about 'it's a really cruel system' is. — ram, Feb 03 '19 at 04:53
if you're being neutral, why not say "it's a really just system that doesn't compel parents".. it's obvious you have a pre-conceived notion that it is compelling. Sati was also not compulsory, it was voluntary. that is also opinion-based. — ram, Feb 03 '19 at 05:06
@ParthaBanerjee, right. and what you think is opinion-based because it is biased towards one opinion/assumption (cruel), instead of being neutral. — ram, Feb 03 '19 at 05:18

score 1 · Accepted Answer · answered Feb 03 '19 at 04:38

1

I think it is just a recommendation. It might not be mandatory.

See Vashishta Smriti 7.3.7.1-3:

1 There are four orders of life: student, householder, forest hermit and wandering ascetic. After studying one, two, or all the Vedas, a man who has not violated his vow of chastity may live in whichever of these he prefers.

The Manu Smriti also says "He may" .. that means there is an option.

6.1. A twice-born Snataka, who has thus lived according to the law in the order of householders, may, taking a firm resolution and keeping his organs in subjection, dwell in the forest, duly (observing the rules given below).

6.2. When a householder sees his (skin) wrinkled, and (his hair) white, and. the sons of his sons, then he may resort to the forest.

6.3. Abandoning all food raised by cultivation, and all his belongings, he may depart into the forest, either committing his wife to his sons, or accompanied by her.

It is not mandatory because, Manu Smriti says, in whichever order a person is residing, he is fit for liberation, if he has understood the true purport of Vedas. So, for such a person it is not required to live the life of a forest hermit as a rule.

12.102. In whatever order (a man) who knows the true meaning of the Veda-science may dwell, he becomes even while abiding in this world, fit for the union with Brahman.

answered Feb 03 '19 at 04:38

Rickross

111,864
14
239
439

Yes may be u are right :) We can't be sure why such verses are there in the text .. but such verses are thr in other Smritis too .. and those were attributed to Saptarishis like Atri, Gautama, Vashishta @ParthaBanerjee – Rickross Feb 03 '19 at 04:47
So whoever interpolated had a massive task ahead of him :D He must have been paid huge sums for doing that job @ParthaBanerjee – Rickross Feb 03 '19 at 04:51
2

@ParthaBanerjee, there are also 'cruel' punishments for brahmanas. what may seem 'cruel' to you may actually be merciful , because the consequences of not punishing could be much worse. – ram Feb 03 '19 at 04:55
No I dont knw abt such critical versions .. Plus they hv the Puranas so lots of texts to work upon ..:D @ParthaBanerjee – Rickross Feb 03 '19 at 04:55
@ParthaBanerjee, the punishment for brahmins drinking liquor is to drink hot boiling liquor (or lead) until he dies. the punishment for sudras drinking liquor is just a hangover/headache next morning. Punishments are for those who do not do prayaschittas, so we must definitely pay heed to these punishments as a society. That's like asking who is higher authority 'parents, or the instructions of parents'. Smritis are the words of bhagavan (vedas) illumined by rishis. – ram Feb 03 '19 at 05:03
@ParthaBanerjee, but you're talking about a different point now. Earlier, you were saying that Manu Smriti prescribes cruel punishments only for Sudras, and not Brahmins, and I was refuting that point by saying it prescribes equally cruel punishments for both varnas, but for different acts. – ram Feb 03 '19 at 05:11
@ParthaBanerjee, suppose I kill a million people, is it enough prayaschitta for me to drinking hot ghee ? Obviously you will agree that the worse the crime, the harsher the punishment should be, right ? You may say 'drinking is not that bad of a crime' - well, that's your personal opinion. Rishis feel that the actions that could be committed by an intoxicated person could land him in naraka for several yugas, whereas the prayaschitta of dying would last only one lifetime. We don't know what punishments await us after death. Rishis do. – ram Feb 03 '19 at 05:21
@ram i think we have constitutions in these days, and so thinking about the punishments in the current time is useless – Feb 03 '19 at 05:32

Were our scriptural recommendation of vanaprastha and sannyasa compulsory or voluntary?

1 Answers1