Unlike A Fool, He Is Not Defiled Ascetic Purity and Ethics in The Sa Nyāsa Upani Ads - Vail, L. F.

Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc
"Unlike a Fool, He Is Not Defiled": Ascetic Purity and Ethics in the Sanysa Upaniads
Author(s): Lise F. Vail
Reviewed 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, Inc
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.
Wiley and Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc are 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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"UNLIKEA FOOL,HE IS NOT DEFILED"

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 familial 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 behavior, and modeling oneself after the perfection of the Absolute. This essay 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 conceptuallyopposedto householderdharma?
What type of ethics is admired by the authors, what type deprecated?Olivelle'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.
RELATIVELYISOLATED FOREST-DWELLERS AND WANDERERS CONSTITUTE one of
the most archaic of Hindu ascetic traditions. The Samnydsa Upanisads,

translated by Patrick Olivelle in 1992,x present the philosophy and recommendedlifestyles for formerly Brahmin ascetic wanderer-renouncers
(samnydsis).2 These twenty later sectarian Upanisads were composed
sometime between 2nd-15thcents. C.E. and are of varying lengths and unknown authorship. Olivelle notes that the purpose for their composition
was the establishment of the Vedic scriptural (and thus revelatory)
1F. Otto Schraderprovidedscholars with a critical Sanskrit edition in 1912 under the
title TheMinor Upanisads, Vol I: Samnydsa Upanisads. Madras:The Adyar Library.Textual abbreviationsemployedin the present essay may be found in the Referencessection,
under Olivelle 1992.
2 Olivelle notes that the commonlyused word samnyasa, of Brahmin ascetical origin,
surprisingly did not come into commonusage as "renouncer"or "ascetic"until aroundthe
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 ReligiousEthics, Inc.

374
Journal of Religious Ethics
validity of already established ascetic lifestyles and renouncer theology,

and that they "playeda central role in the theological reflections and disputes 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 declarations 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 disidentifying with their bodies. Nonetheless, Upanisadic passages about
the virtues and behavior proposed for samnydsis are unexpectedly rich
in ethical reflection. Moreover,although these twenty scriptures were
written over more than a thousand-year period, and represent sectarians of both Saiva and Vaisnava traditions- for instance, the Sdtydyanlya
Upanisad appears to be of Sri Vaisnava persuasion- their fundamental 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]conductconsists of wandering about freely and unobtrusively. 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. [Conductinghimself] 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 themselves 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: "Followingthe 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 behaviorthan what they state. So they are still
considerednegative; the broader,general regulations are all negative. On p. 64 he defines
dharma as "properconduct"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

"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"that the renounceris
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 commentator 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 exploring the ethics of the Samnydsa
Upanisads.
Renouncers beyond the initial stages are admonished to "live free"wandering, seeking no human companionship,and maintaining no relationships 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 experiential state of moksa (liberation) may be considered beyond human
morality and moral systems by definition, and that there is no necessary relation between ethics and mysticism (Kripal 1998). So we must
ask: Is the nondual Upanisadic renouncer a mystic who is truly considered 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 include more than the performance of formal duties or rights. In traditional Hindu parlance, this term also signifies cosmic order, righteousness, 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 injunctionsto action (Olivelle 1977, 46; 1990, 138).
5 Scripturalreferences providedin this paper are merely illustrations within the texts
of the principles,virtues, or points being discussed;they are not exhaustive of all references
on each subject within the Samnydsa Upanisads.
Wanderingis but one of the established lifestyles forascetic renouncersin India. SamnU
andPancamdsramavidhi(1lth century)are examplesof texts advocatingwanderingforthe
renouncersof 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, "Thereis no point in hiding the fact that these documents and
much of Brahmanicaltheology 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 pronounhe in this article.

376
are not performers of 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 behaviors 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 demarcateadmired
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 concernedwith 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"for
renouncers is intended specifically only for ascetics, or if it is also considered a universal ethic at the foundation of others' (specifically householders')ethics, or is it fully in opposition to, and subversive of, Brahmin
householder purity and ethics? It is possible to read the Upanisadic authors as, in part, ascetic renouncers asserting the primacy of a virtueethical point of view, while de-emphasizing a purely rule-deontological
approachto ethical life.
1. Impure Body or Purified Temple of Brahman?

The authors of the Samnyasa Upanisads spend little time, comparatively speaking, discussing ritual purity, and impurity or physical dirt
connected with the physical body. I must mention this because discussions of purity in Hinduism have generally centered around issues of
the body'sfragile state of purity and impurity,with the latter conditions
affecting a person's everyday state of being temporarily and, more permanently, his/her caste and community standing. Louis Dumont noted
some time ago in his classical formulation that the purity/pollution distinction forms an important ideologicalbasis 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

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"of immorality,as if - using the phrase most familiar in the Westcleanliness 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 frog in a dark well: "Madewith its mother'sand father's filth,
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 introductionto the SamnU, Olivelle notes
his position that the renounceris consideredimpure. Although he admits
the renunciation ceremonyis thought to be purifying,the state the ascetic
assumes henceforth in Samnydsa constitutes a kind of "culturaldeath."
He has had a funereal initiation rite, and since he no longer follows the
purifyingrites 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 common (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"tradition, and replaced by what the author sees as true inner purification, that is, mental purification, purification of character:
"It is the purification that brings purity to the mind and destroys the
7 Olivellefurther says: "Deathsand births in the family create periodsof impuritywhen
[normal]rites [or worship] are suspended. A renouncer is similarly impure, because his
mother (delusion)has died, and a son (enlightenment)is born to him"(1992, 163, n.14). It
is difficult to comprehendthis "analogicalreasoning."

378
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 renouncer food consumption. Brahmin householders normally must ascertain carefully corrector pure food choices and avoid potentially polluting
food and donors.8Such 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 anyone, 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 external contact with the world.10The Samnydsa Upanisads, by contrast,
assume that the ordinarybody is naturally filthy (thus supporting Olivelle's point). However,such radically negative words about the body have
a specific pedagogical purpose- focusing the renouncer away from concentration on his body-as-self,and the perceivedcontinual need to manipulate the body'sphysical state (as householder Brahmins do concerning
purification, food consumption, 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 practices. NpU 203 prescribes reduced bathing correlated with increasingly
high levels of spiritual attainment: "Abath 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, for exampleDharma Sutra
ofApastamba 1.16-19; DhS of Baudhayana 1.12, 3.3;
and DhS ofVasistha Chapter 14 in Olivelle 1999.
y The call to abjure food tainted the infamous
by
may have to do with transference of
an ethical impurity (wrong-doingor -thinking) unrelated to caste.
10For 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.

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 renouncers). 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 alternative 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 coverhim. So it seems more likely
that greater purity is being suggested.
A feature supportive of the increased purity of more advanced ascetics 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.11The suggestion here is that by the time the renouncer'spractice is completed,his
body is rather like an animated temple. In Maitreya Upanisad 113, Lord
Siva likewise says: "Thebody is said to be a temple, and the soul is truly
Siva. Discard the faded flower offerings of ignorance. Worshipwith the
thought: 'I am he.'"12
Crucially,these texts base their discussions of the body upon the clear
necessity of the renouncer knowing "I am not the body."Identification
with one's particular body and mind, with their limitations of gross materiality 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)
11Hindu renouncers and ascetic gurus are frequently buried rather than cremated in
India due to perceivedpurity of person in life, and also after death. The tombs of saints are
often believed to emote purifyingpower,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 developmentwithin the same texts. The notion of dynamic stages of ascent, as I
will show elsewhere, is clearly present throughoutthese Upanisads- "TheWormBecomes
a Wasp:Subtle Ascetic Strategies in the Samnydsa Upanisads? article in progress.

380
The belief that 'I am in my body'is 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 selfidentification 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 notions of impurity or defilement, and consider themselves to be thatfools such as those Brahmin householders who are so concerned with
physical purification by 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 forlower level samnydsis who still need such rules to help guide their
thinking and behavior. One can find similar statements about the ultimate uselessness of rituals and social regulations. ("Toa mind that rests
in its source . . . things within the purview of rites are false" [MU 110].
"Fools,tied to customs of class and order,get their rewards accordingto
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 purification 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 householders as well, suggesting that a deeper meaning to purification and
ethics can be sought by all. They opt for a progressive change of mind

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. RecastingPurityas Knowledgeand Virtue

The authors spend considerable time discussing two related types of
purity seen as crucial for the renouncer'slife 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 renouncer possesses a higher
"sacredthread"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 impressions 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-knowledge as a major purifier, one must explore how to attain

such knowledge.
Certain reflections on self-identity and good conduct, and the avoidance of many other unsavory thoughts and actions, help to support selfknowledge. For instance, the renouncer is often told to practice saying 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!

382
I am my own eternal bliss,

Pure undivided consciousness!
Many passages also suggest that the samnydsi should keep his mind
pure and composed- "Introspectiveand engrossed in yourself, pure and
composed,wander about the world, O Narada, abandoninginner attachments"(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,touch,andotherobjectsof sense are trulyworthless.A soulthat is
attachedto themrecallsnot the higheststate
Forthemindaloneis samsdra(worldlinessleadingtorebirth)!Leta man
purifyit withzeal.Theminda manpossessesshapeshis futurecourse:that
is the eternalmystery.
This passage counsels that purity and goodness come not through
manipulation of material objects or in special rites. In fact, such manipulation 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-basedethics.
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 fromone'smind. The Samnydsa Upanisads contain long lists of the
"innerenemies" and impure thoughts which the renouncer must abjure.
PhU 48-50 says of the Paramahamsa renouncer of high attainment:
He gives up slander,pride,jealousy,deceit,arrogance,desire,hate, pleasure,pain,lust, anger,greed,delusion,excitement,indignation,egotism,

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 replaced by internal, physical worship 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, delusion, and egotism itself. Others have to do with lack of concernfor 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 expressed mental and moral qualities, is found at NpU 195:
He shall always remain tranquil, self-controlled, devoted to the study of
the Vedantas (probably,the 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 beings, who is alone, wise, and composed,shall attain release.
The positively expressed dharmic virtues here include tranquility, selfcontrol, devotion to the study of Vedanta philosophy, being the same
toward friends and enemies, being friendly toward all beings, and remaining wise, alone, and composed. That many of the qualities in this
passage are positively expressed counters Olivelle's argument about negative samnydsi dharma (see Note 4). These virtues can again be classified, into (a) a pure, tranquil mental state (alone, composed, tranquility,
self-control), (b) wisdom (study of Vedanta, being wise), and (c) kindness to others (friendly to all beings). Positively expressed virtues mentioned elsewhere include: purity,knowledge, and equanimity (NpU 15961, 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 negatively expressed virtue statements are intended to impact not only the

384
renouncer, but also other people with whom he comes in contact. The
wise tranquil mind, which knows its Brahman-self; a mind free of slander,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 destroying 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.
In fact, the initial vow of renunciation taken by the Brahmin candidate
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: "Ihave renounced!"(Samnydstam maya), affirming 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 corporealfaults or impurities (BSU 252). The second portion of the vow- "Safetyfrom 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 defining 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 others (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: "Thereafterthey live the life of mendicants. Celibacy (brahmacarya), non-injury(ahimsd), non-possession (aparigraha), and truthfulness (satya)- guard these assiduously (yatnena he raksato he raksato
he raksata itif (ArU 10). NpU 143 says in less formal language:
Let him bearharshwordswith patience;let him not insult any man;and
let him not showhostilityto anyoneforthe sake of this body.
At thosewhoshowangerlet him not directhis angerin return;let him
bless whenhe is cursed;and let him not utter a false speechscatteredat
the sevengates.
Raptin thejoyofthe innerself,he sits still, freefromcaresandlonging.
Withhimselfas sole companion,let him wanderon earthseekingbliss.
Other passages mention similar mandated or advocated virtues:
The renouncer should practice friendliness, kindliness (NpU 145), and

385
impartiality to all beings (NpU 145, 157). Nirvana Upanisad 226 s.17
redefines the liberated renouncer'slife as a play of kindness toward others in its aphorism "Compassionalone is his pastime (keli)" BAU 308
seeks to redefine such post-liberation action for others' sake as a nonbinding, 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 for a moment to an early modern setting, 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). "[Mentalnon-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)- "Wherethere 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 nonviolent (1-187, 1-191). Finally, he connects ahimsd with a person's perceived self-identity with all beings- claiming that the common Self is
the reason we should all live accordingto 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 question of avoiding a vice), with divine underpinnings, yet requiring mental 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.13Also, 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[eremetical garments] 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). Additionalmeanings are possible, including instruction of householders, support of
spiritual progress,bestowal of grace, and also the performanceof miracles.

386
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-avoidancespringing from it. In
line with the notion that the renouncer-in-trainingavoids rites and actions in general, yet cultivates inner virtuous qualities, the Samnydsa
Upanisads as a whole focus on the renouncer'smind 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-protective avoidance of potentially binding actions (karmas), due to
the focus on positive virtues- kindness, friendliness, equal vision, compassion, 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 culturally dead or wraithlike and frightening being. He is portrayed instead
as rather quiet and kind- not at all what one might expect from an initial 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 solitary, wandering or hidden away from humankind- in caves and abandonedtemples. Avoidingintimacy he should stay alone (NpU 143, 145-6),
free from desirous love and hatred (rdgadvesa) (NpU 142), not associating 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 renouncermerely to answer "Narayana!(God)"to inquirers, a strategy potentially both socially
off-putting and yet possibly aimed at Self-recognitionfor 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 granting 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 ordinary "peoplegossip with each other about news of kings, almsfood, and
the like. Intimacy undoubtedly 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 comforts, and desires for amusement such as gambling and shows, or anger,

387
NpU 146-9 expresses analogically the 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. "Lethim 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 compassionwhen
the renouncerdoes encounter householders or other renouncers helps to
keep his "conductsinless," and since the ascetic often is told to beg for
food, that is one majortime 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. RecastingPurityas BrahmanItself
Accordingto 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, eternal 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 Avadhuta is properlydenoted 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'smind 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

388
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 (Brahman is like the sun, which illumines all beings [BAU 305]), both are
considered rooted in the subtlest of the subtle. Would the authors conversely agree that Brahman has the realized renouncer'sethics?
The higher renouncers are told to repudiate social distinctions between superior and inferior (TaU 243; PpU 288), and between high and
low renouncers. Caste, class, and orders are said to be temporary,multipartite, and a great torment (MU 112), eventually to be transcended
completely (BAU 304; TaU 243). Even seeing differences between humans and animals, or bugs and trees is to be avoided. None should be
harmed. YdjfiavalkyaUpanisad 314 says:
"TheBlessedLordhas enteredwith a portionof himselfas the soul":so
thinking,let himbowevento a dog,a Candala(outcaste),a cow,ora donkey,
prostratinghimselfon the groundlike a stick.
And "Enjoyingthe wealth of detachment because of his incessant knowledge, 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).
AccordinglyBrahman, too, is universal, conscious Witness, who sees
all beings equally and has within Itself no conceptionof 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 philosophical 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 renouncerethical dharma focusing on cleansing the mind and recognizing the divinity of the deeper
human self. The authors subvert and replace what they see as an external
(overly rule-deontological)dharma, based upon Vedic scriptural injunctions, 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

389
meditation, mantra repetition, contemplation on identity-truths, and rejection 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/Brahmanlevel. Renouncer 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 nonviolence, and the all-important fundamental Brahman-identity. There
is avoidance of mental vices that mask It; other rules of conduct receive
only secondary status. 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 performedwithout the requisite good intentional 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 producingfurther negative dispositional seeds, such actions
are worse than useless; they bring the doer down morally by perpetuation. The Samnydsa Upanisads, like many other yoga-related texts,
argue vociferouslyagainst such tainted actions, taking as one of their major projects the ending of both dispositional impurities and superficial,
duty-alone actions. The ascetic is advised to protect himself by ceasing
ordinarywork-in-the-worldaction altogether during the period of training, 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, for then his actions will be dispositionally
pure- to the core.
One possibility is to call this kind of dharma a Brahman-metaethica foundational ontological principle by which other ethical considerations must be viewed. Such an ethical foundation subverts some, but not
all of varndsramadharma'sordinaryBrahmin 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,equanimity, forbearance,concentration, and faith (p. 171, n. 5)- so that detachment (vairdgya),the true condition, will eventually naturally arise. One

390
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 with the good
pattern (dharma) of a divine cosmos. This is somewhat similar to the
Roman Catholic natural law tradition, and also to the traditional Chinese notion that the true human is aligned with the will and nature of
Heaven (Slingerland 2001, 117). There is perhaps a greater similarity
between Hindu samnydsa and the Taoist "being"one with the cosmos,
and (contrastingly) between householder Brahmin and Confucian emphasis on "rules"of conduct that guide one toward alignment with the
cosmos. In the Samnydsa Upanisads, one regains at liberation the nature, virtue, and conduct of the Absolute; one is not obeying a dharmic
law established by the Absolute (so this is not a DCT- divine command
theory). Virtue ethics' focus on being (Brahman) rather than doing, and
on those who embody saintly character,capable of serving as moral exemplars (liberated renouncers), fits well here. Without unveiling one's
inherent Brahman-character,a person's actions cannot, it is implied, be
truly moral or spiritual. These Upanisads are thus manuals of simultaneous virtue and spiritual-liberation training; the two facets of mystical
spirituality and ethics cannot, I believe, be distinguished here at all, since
Brahman is the nature of both metavirtue and metaspiritual being.
4. AntinomianEssentialistEthics
But what about the actions that proceed from such virtues? Many
virtue ethicists including Aristotle, and much more recently Alasdair
Maclntyre (1981, 119), have argued that virtue ethics is linked with a
positive stance toward one's cultural tradition. It is interesting therefore to ask whether solitary Hindu renouncers can be thought to possess
the matrix of community and cultural tradition that would inform and
enliven their ethics. First, it is difficult to know how often solitary wandering renouncerswere expected to join/rejoineither dsrama or monastic
communities, or even to become teachers of householders after the training period was completed. In any case, I propose that we be willing to
set aside any requirement of community involvement, due to the radical, "whole-life"nature of the samnydsi's ethical training. The Brahmanvirtues he regains as self-virtues are assumed in solitude- he purposely

391
avoids further social interactions until they could be guaranteed to be

pure. Once this foundation is regained, "he may do what he likes" and
will not overstep the bounds of the highest ethics. Beneficial, compassionate post-self-realization action, such as social service, is not stressed
in these texts, yet suggestive hints are given of an unencumbered and
joyful condition, free of the need for religious rules, in which one's state
of being naturally is beneficial for others. What seems implied here is
a combined natural inaction (sitting) and action (wandering, teaching,
showing compassion). The Taoist notion of wu-wei, natural action, and
St. Augustine's "loveGod and do what you will" appear to be similar to
what is unfortunately not fully explained in the Samnydsa Upanisads. In
both cases the higher Power is somehow mysteriously a person'sguiding
motivator.
Would radical social separation actually prepare one for any truly
moral-spiritual action, were one to choose thereafter to act? There is a
great reverence mentioned in these texts for the renouncer as teacher, as
giver of wisdom. Sdtydyanlya Upanisad 333 praises him: "The teacher
alone is the highest dharma. The teacher alone is the highest goal. Learning, austerities, and knowledge seep away from a man who praises not
the teacher who imparted to him the single syllable OM, as does water from an unbaked pot."This educational role is one important service
clearly mentioned as duty for some who have attained much in forest life.
Certain Western and Eastern monastic traditions in the historical arena
have likewise advocated silence, solitude, and sometimes permanent removal from the outside world. It is interesting to note, too, that many
Brahmin samnydsis have served, for instance, as heads or residents of
monasteries, teachers, public speakers, overseers of temples, authors of
scriptures or philosophicalcommentaries, problem-solvingadvisors, and
social welfare contributors (see Mahadevan 1975, 23, 26-27, and 42-43
for examples). Many non-Brahmin ascetics have also been quite active
in service areas.14 It is difficult to know whether the SamnU authors
would have supported such activities, but "post-liberation"ascetics are
theoretically allowed to do as they like, in keeping with the free nature
of Brahman.
There remain certain questions about liberated renouncer ethics,
about the limits of the metaethical stance. Certain passages- including
our opening one (BAU 304)- seem to claim that the liberated ascetic
is to have no ethical restrictions on him whatsoever. "[The realized
14Burning the Body, Nourishing the World:Virasaiva Gurus and Social Abundance
in Oral Historical Narrative, my forthcomingbook (The Edwin Mellen Press), discusses
various ascetic and householderconceptionsof benefits and services- fromgrace-bestowal
to personal empowerment to education- believed to constitute core dharma for ascetic
Virakta Jagadgurus in Karnataka State.

392
renouncer's] conduct consists of wandering about freely and unobtrusively .... For him there is neither right nor wrong, neither pure nor
impure"(BAU 304). "Thereare no rules or prohibitions,no laws on what
is allowed and what is forbidden, nor any other restrictions, O Narada,
for those who know Brahman,"says NpU 194.
Can the renouncer really do whatever he wants? ... in a state of nonaction or perhaps some wild, unfettered or purposefully immoral action?
When Olivelle calls this state beyond purity and impurity the liberated
renouncer's"antinomianstate" (1992, 233 n. 61; and 107-12), he considers it a cultural death, lacking in positive dharma, marked by animal,
fool, or ghoul behavior.He also notes of the liberated renouncer:
[H]is freedom is total and unconditioned.He is subject to no injunction or
prohibition;he transcends both the ritual sphere and the realm of morality.
Liberation while still alive is thus an antinomian state. Translated into
Brahmanical vocabulary,it means that the liberated renouncer is beyond
dharma, the totality of which is subsumed in the code "dharmaof classes
and orders"(varndsramadharma)(Olivelle 1992, 81).
However, we must be careful not to slip up by translating renouncer

theology into "Brahmanicalvocabulary."While a number of traditional
principles of householder dharma- respect for teacher, periodiccelibacy,
penance, avoidance of the inner enemies and unkindness to others (as
seen in DhS of Apastamba 1.22-23 in Olivelle 1999)- remain worthy
of respect, and are often not subverted by renouncers, these formerly
Brahmin renouncers have rejected substantial portions of Brahmin
householder theology and practice and, I would argue, created their
own (which of course borrows from what it has rejected). We can easily argue that the totality of Hindu dharma is not subsumed under varndsramadharma- the rules of caste, class, and stage of life.
Renouncer-as-Brahman. . . and Brahman-as-Absoluteare in these texts
viewed as the supreme dharma- a super-moral, nondualistic, natural,
and highest Self-expression of what morality is- an intrinsic Good(sat)
basic to human and divine nature. The idea that the renouncer'sbehavior and state of mind constitute an antinomian state is, I think, a point of
view that primarily expresses the concept of a unified householderBrahmin morality and society, with its dualistic conceptions of good and bad,
external purity and impurity, necessary performanceof rites, and social
insider vs. outsider conceptions.The SamnU authors' virtue ethics must
be evaluated from the core of their own stated or implied value system.
Hinduism as a whole does allow for such plural moral systems, though
many commonvirtues and codes of behavior are widely shared.
The rather antinomian statements, such as "he conducts himself as
he pleases" (NU 230 s.75), do suggest that the renouncer is to do whatever he wants, but we cannot automatically assume, out of our early

393
21st-centurymind-sets, that this is to be some unfettered fulfillment of

personal desires. BAU 305 follows the words "unlike a fool, he is not
defiled,"with lines that explain how in the depths of the mind- in the
state of Brahman- one remains a divine Witness, free of the pairs of
opposites- pure and impure, good and evil. BAU 305 says: "Asthe sun
imbibes all liquids, and as fire consumes everything, even so a yogin enjoys all objects while remaining pure, untouched by good or evil deeds."
Nirvana Upanisad 229 s.61 informs us: "Fromthe absence of restrictions (aniydmakatva) is derived his immaculate power (nirmalasakti)";
his ethical purity is the unboundedBrahman, which lies beyond dualistic
conditional concepts. Immersed in the joy of Brahman, he experiences a
kind of fundamental enjoyment of living-as-Brahman, with his life as a
play of witnessed detachment and kind compassion- different, but not
that far removed fromAristotle's words about the exceeding naturalness
of the good man enjoying doing good (Aristotle 1962, 1099a).
Although we cannot ask these anonymous teachers to name the constituents of their freedom, NPU 182 remarks: "Peoplewith a pure mind
remain within their properbounds, as the ocean within its shores. Great
men leave not the prescribedcourse, as the sun its appointedpath."There
are also intriguing passages proposingthat the renouncer not offend the
dharma of good people, though he does not live like them and follow their
specific rules (BAU 304-5). He may allow- even support- himself being
reviled (NpU 192), but he is not in his heart ever to revile others. Similarly, not only a renouncer'spure inner qualities but also the behavioral
results are paramount. Good conduct is more important than the number of years in renunciation for determining the type of person to whom
one should pay homage (YU 314).
In his recent article Slingerland discussed the natural moral state
Confuciusalludes to in his Analects; it is a state of virtue-mastery which
"bringswith it a certain independence from the rules that constitute the
Practice mastery thus brings with it a type of transcendence:
practice
the freedom to evaluate, criticize and seek to reform the practice tradition itself" (Slingerland 2001, 102-3). Confuciussays in the Analects that
finally, at the end of his life, "Icouldfollowmy heart's desire without overstepping the bounds of propriety"(2:4). Although the Upanisadic ascetic
was likely allotted much more leeway to forge his own spiritual-moral
path in line with Brahman-dharma than was the Confuciangentleman,
who was to master and maintain certain rules of conduct (li) as well as
inner goodness (ren), I think it unlikely that the Upanisadic expectation was a moral free-for-all.In India, samnydsis often do adopt ordinary
rules of conduct, and are often considered as fully acceptablepramdnas,
means of correct,guiding knowledge, who can modifythe rules of conduct
for ordinary people and present them with fresh interpretations of their
familiar teachings, in ways similar to the Confucian gentleman.

394
My suggestion is that according to the logic of these Upanisads,

the Brahman-metaethic would not be discarded post-self-realization,
precisely since it is brought fully into being in self-realization. Divinity acts like, and is like, divinity. Desirelessness, kindness, witnessconsciousness, non-violence,and so on are called Brahman-qualities. For
this reason, the liberated renouncer's "actionless actions" and freedom
to live without the restrictions of ethical rules would be unlikely to include theft, murder,sleeping with young village women, stealing people's
gold, and so on. Unlike others who are not liberated and must struggle
with desires and mental confusions that may taint their actions, or who
need formal ethical regulations and purification rites to help guide or restrain them, one who is self-realized is said to have the freedom and ease
to simply be who he is. Could such a liberated renouncer do wrong?Not
by many of the more fundamental moral standards we hold dear todayavoiding killing, rape, deceit, and so on. Concerningthose thorny ethical
dilemmas of the good-hearted Robin Hood, however- stealing from the
rich, or lying to prevent someone else from suffering- it is difficult to
know what they would do in such cases.
5. Conclusion
Brahmin householder rites, physical purification, and moral codes
are seen in these Upanisads as common dharma for householders, yet
finally insufficient to produce a truly purified, moral human being.
The Samnydsa Upanisads do reiterate some of these regulations for
householders, but they do not glorify them as centrally necessary as
do the Dharmasdstra law books, which insist that householder life is
the foundation of Hindu society. The Upanisadic core assumption is that
one's life must be a gradual turning inward, away from material, traditional, and ritual culture. It should be a search for the wisdom and
virtue that will be effective in engendering a pure mind and behavior,
and higher self-knowledge rather than accumulated knowledge of Vedic
texts. Their recommendation?Take a long look, in solitude, at yourselfwithout the distractions of family,job, money, entertainment, and ordinary comforts. . . being willing to spend hours in meditation and to face
inner cleansing and a total change of ordinary self-identity. Although
a difficult prescription, such an approach is, at least, not difficult to
fathom today. The mind is the source of immorality; tainted thoughts
drag one into tainted actions, so the mind must be purified by direct
but psycho-spiritual means- meditation, mantra, solitude, mental selfaffirmations, and false-self repudiations.
The overall SamnU model of the perfected ascetic temperament is
worthy of note. Traits described include: gentleness, joyfulness, never
desiring to hurt anyone or anything, and selflessness or lack of egotism.
The liberated renouncer is a master of silence, quite patient, and wise

395
in mattersof Brahman.He understandsdesire in others,havingovercomeit in himself.Theidealizedliberatedasceticmaypurposelyappear

quite strange,but as the texts describehim he is actuallysincereand
artless(NpU139-40),anddecidedlya potentmodelof ethicallyvirtuous
character.He sees all selves as himself,and so is kind to himselfand to
others.This personis not, strictlyspeaking,an individualmoralagent,
but neitheris he consideredmerelyan individualhumanbeing.He is,
however,properlymorallyalignedwith himself/thehigherpower.
To answera questionasked at the start of this essay,I suspectthat
this metaethicalsystemis actuallyintendedto be a universaldharma,
ratherthan just a set of guidelinesfor formerlyBrahminrenouncers.
baseddharmaareinitiallysubverted,
Facetsof Brahmindeontologically
common
renouncer-householder
of
metaphysicaland
yet a kind deeper,
metaethicalunityis to be discoveredduringthe self-realizationprocess.
Similarly,JeffreyKripaFssuggestionsthat ethics and mysticattainment are not necessarilyrelated,and that Hindunondualmetaphysics
specificallydoes not supportethical systems well, receiveat least one
powerfulnegativeexamplehere. The assumptionthat the renouncer's
highestaimis spiritualunitywith the sourceof Creationcertainlyqualifies him, ideally speaking,as a nondualmystic. That this BrahmanSourceis inherently,essentiallyethicalseems also clearlyto be present
in these scriptures;a liberatedpersoncan be ethicalpreciselybecause
s/he has reacheda permanentawarenessthat the otheris his/herown
self.It is thus assumedthat egoisticself-interesttransformsduringspiritual practiceinto interestin humanity(and all creatures),and finally
self and otherare knownfullyto be one:I am you;you are me. "Dounto
others..." ethicsbecomesas obviousas "doit forme."Themysticwhois
liberatedin Brahmanthus is definedas the mostnaturallymoralbeing,
becausehe sees himselfas unifiedwith Brahmanand everyliving being.Thetexts suggestthat ordinaryethicsis onlyconstructedby human
beings- as superficialreligiousmechanism,needing two (falsely)ontologicallyseparateand somewhatopposedindividualsto function,and
dualgoodandevil distinctions- whenthe nondualnatural/supernatural
model has been abandonedor simply lost. Self-knowledgeis natural
ethical recovery,the path home. The Upanisadicauthors, therefore,
metaethicas the foundationalhumanethical
view this Brahman-based
blueprint.
REFERENCES
Aristotle
Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Martin Ostwald, Bobbs-Merrill.
1962
and Kripal, Jeffrey J, eds.
G.
William
Barnard,
2002
CrossingBoundaries:Ethics in the History of Mysticism, New York,
NY:Seven Bridges Press.

396
Burghart, Richard
1983
"WanderingAscetics of the Ramanandi Sect."History of Religions
22: 361-80.
Dumont, Louis
1970
Homo Hierarchicus. Chicago:The University of ChicagoPress.
1976
Volume4, Number 1 (Issue on Ethics and Mysticism)
Kripal, Jeffrey J.
1998
"Crossing Boundaries: Mysticism, Ethics, and Antinomianism."
Paper presented at the American Academy of Religion meeting.
November.Orlando,Florida.
Maclntyre, Alasdair
1981
After Virtue.Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
Mahadevan, T. M. P.
1975
Sage ofKanchi. New Delhi: Arnold-HeinemanPublishers.
Mandelbaum,David G.
1972
Society in India, Volume I: Continuity and Change. Berkeley:
University of CaliforniaPress.
Merton, Thomas, ed.
1965
Gandhi on Non-Violence: A Selection from the Writings of
Mahatma Gandhi's "Non-Violencein Peace and War."New York:
New Directions.
Olivelle, Patrick
1977
A Treatise on WorldRenunciation."WZKSA
"Yatidharmaprakdsa:
21.
Olivelle, Patrick
1980
uPancamdsramavidhi:Rite for Becominga Naked Ascetic."WZKSA
24.
Olivelle, Patrick
1981
"Contributionsto the Semantic History of Samnydsa" Journal of
the American Oriental Society 101: 265-74.
Olivelle, Patrick
1990
"Villagevs. Wilderness:Ascetic Ideals and the Hindu World."Creel
and Narayan, eds. Monastic Life in the Christian and Hindu Traditions. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Olivelle, Patrick
1992
Samnydsa Upanisads. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Abbreviations:
ArU
Aruni Upanisad
AsU
Asrama Upanisad
BAU
Brhad-AvadhutaUpanisad
BhU
Bhiksuka Upanisad
BSU
Brhat-Samnyasa Upanisad
BU
Brahma Upanisad
JU
Jabala Upanisad
KsU
Kathasruti Upanisad

'Unlike a Fool, He Is Not Defiled"
397
KU
Kundika Upanisad
LAU
Laghu-AvadhutaUpanisad
LSU
Laghu-SamnyasaUpanisad
MU
Maitreya Upanisad
NpU
NaradaparivrajakaUpanisad
NU
Nirvana Upanisad
PbU
ParabrahmaUpanisad
PhU
Paramahamsa Upanisad
PpU
ParamahamsaparivrajakaUpanisad
s
sutra (in Nirvana Upanisad)
SamnU Samnyasa Upanisads (Olivelle 1992)
SU
Satyayanlya Upanisad
TaU
TurfyatitavadhutaUpanisad
YU
YajnavalkyaUpanisad
Patrick
Olivelle,
Dharmasutras. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press
1999
Abbreviation:DhS
Pojman,Louis P.
Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
1999
Publishing Company.
Schrader,F. Otto
The Minor Upanisads, Vol I: Samnydsa-Upanisads. Madras: The
1912
Adyar Library.
Slingerland, Edward
2001
"VirtueEthics, the Analects, and the Problem of Commensurability."Journal of Religious Ethics 29:1:97-125.
Vail, Lise F.
2003
"AsceticMasquerade in the Samnyasa Upanisads." South Asia.
Forthcoming.


Unlike A Fool, He Is Not Defiled Ascetic Purity and Ethics in The Sa Nyāsa Upani Ads - Vail, L. F.

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Unlike A Fool, He Is Not Defiled Ascetic Purity and Ethics in The Sa Nyāsa Upani Ads - Vail, L. F.

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:59:03 AM