Once
a householder went to a sadhu and asked him, "In order
to attain freedom (moksha), is it necessary to renounce the
home?" The sadhu said, "Surely not. Look since men
like Janaka have lived in palaces and found salvation (moksha),
where is the need for you to leave the home?" Later, another
man came and asked the sadhu, "Swamiji, can one attain moksha
without leaving the home?" Now the sadhu replied,
"Whoever said so? If one could stay at home and get moksha,
were Suka and others, then, fools to renounce their homes?"
When later these two men met, a loud dispute arose.
One asserted, "The sadhu
(ascetic) says we must renounce our homes." The other
protested, "No, he says that it is unnecessary. "Then both
came to the sadhu, who said, "You are both right. The
way is in accord with the attitude of mind; the answer follows the
question. One should leave one's home; one need not leave one's home
- both are true." This is the doctrine of "AND ALSO."
19. From the example of
Pundalik one can understand how far the renunciation of fruit can
take one. The temptation before Pundalik (the vision of the Lord)
was much more subtle than the material temptation offered to Tukaram.
But he was not taken in even by that. If he had been, he would have
been lost. So then, once one's way has been chosen, it should be
pursued to the end, even if the vision of the Lord crosses the path.
The body exists for the fulfillment of a purpose. The vision of God
is always in our grasp; how could it escape us? |