Salutations, shivsomashekharji
I very much appreciate the time you have taken to pen a thoughtful response and the respect you've offered while doing so. I hope you feel it is mirrored back to you. We will, however, probably have to settle for agreeing to disagree.
Even so, because it seems you might have missed several salient points in this exchange, I'm duty-bound to address that.
How many Hare Krishnas do you know who were "inspired" to leave everything behind....? ...So, "birth of these pangs" - as you put it, is not good enough to push one into Sanyasa.
Your example is exactly opposite to what I said "true sannyas" is. I clearly stated that renunciation isn't the abandonment of the world, the works and one's duties which is what some (but not all) of those devotees did. The outcome of such an abandonment of one's
svadharma will, of course, have consequences. "Inspired" is a misnomer in this instance. They were cajoled (actually, probably unmercifully badgered) by a charismatic person or persons who also were not true sannyasins because those persons had a vested selfish interest (often financially motivated, and equally as often, by lust for power over others) in the outcome of the devotees' choice.
It very much feels like you are laboring under a case of mistaken identity, as is the case of all
bandhas, the bound ones, and I number myself among them when I also forget. The experience of
mumukshutva is not a push from the ego (the mistaken, untruthful identification of who we are);
it is not a choice to be made nor being made by one's outward-viewing personality. It's a pull, an attraction or shout out from one's truthful inner identity; it is the lament of one's soul which yearns for freedom. Everyone will at some time, in one birth or another, hear this clarion call to be free from delusion for that is the nature of soul, the spark, that which is "made in God's image." And he or she who thinks God is not in a hurry ("will always be there") is absolutely correct. God permits a soul to play in the realm of His
maya--enjoying and suffering before Self-realization--for as looooooong as that soul agrees to it. No one who knows will say that is an error or a spiritual flaw. It's simply the nature of things; it is said, however, that a stream (individuality) will only, can only end in the ocean (Self-realization). And the birth where one is beckoned to diligently apply oneself on the journey to true freedom by hearing the faint roar of the ocean is a blessed birth. Note, I did not say easy birth, just blessed.
I have to disagree (regarding acting without regard for the outcome/fruits of the act). That would only be possible if someone functions like a zombie. Humans are emotional and it is simply impossible to be unconcerned about the outcome of effort. ...It is all about the passion to succeed and it is very personal. People driven by ambition are the ones who are more likely to go up the corporate chain; people who want the gold medals are the one who are likely to do better at athletics and so on.
When you meet or enter the presence of a Self-realized Master--perhaps your guru--you might see and begin to understand "acting without personal investment in the outcomes." Not zombie-like at all, but it is decidedly different. Until then, you have only met (hu)man or woman beings are ARE driven by the motives you enumerate, but these are not God-men nor God-women. They do exist and they know that God alone is the Doer, the Enjoyer. Also, every one of your examples is dealing with success in the world, not success in one's spiritual efforts. I repeat myself again, though--the two are not mutually exclusive!!
I completely disagree with your discussion here re the meaning of the Bhagavad Gita verses on this subject. You are interpreting the Gita to match your understanding instead of the other way around.
But, let us just agree to disagree.
Done!
