Humans are by nature active. All life is active. Consciousness is animated. There is no inactive consciousness, except in sleep or illness temporarily. The natural condition of all life is pleasure seeking. We all want happiness. 

![1000078013.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/julianhorack/23tSWEfpQQA7m3kv7ZY6UrYQ4G24ouGdJmghCsrKFDan3gfjXU9QCZ9jLAXD9T5rP8qej.png)

This is true also of the eternal spirit soul, or the consciousness that resides within this body of ours. On a mundane level we eat, sleep, reproduce and defend, and that makes us happy regardless of species. It's simply the inherent nature of consciousness. 

The philosophy of negation is illogical and counter-intuitive. And the practice of renunciation, or giving up the activities of the senses, is in itself incomplete, when practiced by the aspirant who seeks liberation from the miseries of temporary material life in this body. It often is unsustainable. 

There is the school of thought, like certain sects of Buddhism and certain Adwaita (non-dual) Vedic traditions, that cultivate renunciation from work and the pursuit of sense gratification. But they don't add a positive focus for the practitioner. They only deny, negate and renounce. 

Now asceticism is not a bad path. In fact it's part of the whole attitude and practice of the aspiring transcendentalist. But it's not complete in itself. It denies life, it denies personality. It denies the layers of consciousness that are real, even if only temporary. That is the difference between the Dwaita and Adwaita schools if thought. Adwaita says matter and identity is illusory and non existent, whereas the personalized Dwaita school says matter is real, but temporary. Your current body is temporary. But it's real. It's also originating from one source - spirit or Brahman - but it's an external energy not internal energy, while we the actual living entities are a third marginal energy - all emanating from the source. 

To deny our negate the existence of the material energy, including our self, is to deny some of the creations and manifestations of the divine spirit source, Brahman. 

To deny that spirit is conscious, and therefore has personality and is animated, is also to deny or limit the Godhead, which is absurd. To deny that Godhead has name, form, qualities and activities is to show lack of comprehension regarding the described nature of Brahman or spirit. 

Our form and personality may be conditioned, limited, incomplete, problematic and temporary, but the great spirit has both a form and a formless aspect, yet that form and personality is not limited like ours. It's unlimited, ever blissful and complete. That is clearly described in the Sanskrit texts and commentaries by the Dwaita school of thought. 

The third way
Ultimately the Vedanta or mature conclusion of the Vedas is not that spirit Brahman is either all one or different, but a synthesis of both to form a philosophy of inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference between all things, between us and God.

In Sanskrit this is described as
"*achintya bhedabheda tattva*".

We are separated parts and parcels of the great spirit Brahman. We are non different in quality, but very small in quantity by comparison, and that is the difference. 

Until this is realized, impersonalists will continue to practice dry artificial austerity which only harms them in the long run because it is loveless and denies part of the creation which includes ourselves. All of this separated energy of Brahman can be engaged best in service to Brahman, in its personalized aspect as Parabrahman or Supersoul or Krishna deity. 

The proper application of renunciation and austerity is to renounce desire for sense gratification unless it is dovetailed first as an offering of service to the source, to Brahman, to the deity, who is, after all, the actual proprietor of this material energy, including ourselves. 


Bhagavad Gita ch5:6

**सन्न्यासस्तु महाबाहो दु:खमाप्‍तुमयोगत: ।
योगयुक्तो मुनिर्ब्रह्म न चिरेणाधिगच्छति ॥ ६ ॥**

***sannyāsas tu mahā-bāho
duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ
yoga-yukto munir brahma
na cireṇādhigacchati***

SYNONYMS
sannyāsaḥ—the renounced order of life; tu—but; mahā-bāho—O mighty-armed one; duḥkham—distress; āptum—to be afflicted with; ayogataḥ—without devotional service; yoga-yuktaḥ—one engaged in devotional service; muniḥ—thinker; brahma—Supreme; na—without; cireṇa—delay; adhigacchati—attains.

TRANSLATION
**Unless one is engaged in the devotional service of the Lord, mere renunciation of activities cannot make one happy. The sages, purified by works of devotion, achieve the Supreme without delay.**

> PURPORT
There are two classes of sannyāsīs, or persons in the renounced order of life. The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are engaged in the study of sāṅkhya philosophy, whereas the Vaisnava sannyāsīs are engaged in the study of Bhāgavatam philosophy, which affords the proper commentary on the Vedānta-sūtras. The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs also study the Vedānta-sūtras, but use their own commentary, called Śārīraka-bhāṣya, written by Śaṅkarācārya. The students of the Bhāgavata school are engaged in devotional service of the Lord, according to pāñcarātrikī regulations, and therefore the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs have multiple engagements in the transcendental service of the Lord. The Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs have nothing to do with material activities, and yet they perform various activities in their devotional service to the Lord. But the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, engaged in the studies of sāṅkhya and Vedānta and speculation, cannot relish transcendental service of the Lord. Because their studies become very tedious, they sometimes become tired of Brahman speculation, and thus they take shelter of the Bhāgavatam without proper understanding. Consequently their study of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam becomes troublesome. Dry speculations and impersonal interpretations by artificial means are all useless for the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. The Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs, who are engaged in devotional service, are happy in the discharge of their transcendental duties, and they have the guarantee of ultimate entrance into the kingdom of God. The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs sometimes fall down from the path of self-realization and again enter into material activities of a philanthropic and altruistic nature, which are nothing but material engagements. Therefore, the conclusion is that those who are engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness are better situated than the sannyāsīs engaged in simple Brahman speculation, although they too come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, after many births.

Reference: Bhagavad Gita As It Is, translation and commentary by Swami A C Bhaktivedanta, original MacMillan 1972 edition. 

Image: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/ai-generated-space-fantasy-people-9266245/