Gita Satsang - Chapter 6 - Verses 1-4

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

mat chittaaH mat gata-praaNaaH bodhayantaH parasparam.h .

kathayantaH cha maa.n nitya.n tushhyanti cha ramanti cha ..

 

shriimad-bhagavad-giitaa 10:9

 

'With their thought on Me, with their life absorbed in Me,

instructing each other, and ever speaking of Me,

they are content and delighted.'

Ch.10:v.9.

___________________

 

 

atha shhashhTho.adhyaayaH. [aatma-sa.nyama-yogaH]

[dhyaana-yogaH] Chapter 6. The Yoga of Meditation[with Shankara-

Bhashya, tr.Sw.Gambhirananda]

 

shrii bhagavaan uvaacha .

 

anaashritaH karma-phalaM kaarya.n karma karoti yaH .

saH sa.nnyaasii cha yogii cha na niragniH na cha akriyaH .. 1..

 

The blessed Lord said:

1. He who performs an action which is his duty, without depending on

the result of action, he is a monk and a yogi; (but) not (so in) he

who does not keep a fire and is actionless.

anaashritah, without depending on;-on what?-on that which is karma-

phalam, the result of action- i.e. without craving for the result of

action-. He who craves for the results of actions becomes dependent

on the results of actions. But this person is the opposite of such a

one. Hence (it is said), 'without depending on the result of action.

Having become so, yaH he who; karoti, performs, accomplishes; (karma,

an action;) which is his kaaryam, duty, the nityakarmas such as

agnihotra etc. which are opposed to the kaamya-karmas-.

Whoever is a man of action of this kind is distinguished from the

other men of action. In order to express this idea the Lord says,

saH, he ; is a sa.nnyaasii, monk, and a yogi. sannyaasa, means

renunciation. he who is possessed of this is a sa.nnyaasii, a monk.

And he is also a yogi. Yoga means concentration of mind. He who has

that is a yogi. It is to be understood that this man is possessed of

these qualities. It is not to be understood that, only that person

who does not keep a fire (niragniH) and who is actionless (akriyaH)

is a monk and a yogi. niragniH is one from whom the fires [viz

Garhapatya, Ahavaniya, Anvaharya-pacana, etc.], which are the

accessories of rites, have bocome dissociated. By kriyaa are meant

austerity, charity, etc. which are performed without fire.

akriyaH, actionless, is he who does not have even such kriyas.

Objection: Is it not only with regard to one who does not keep a fire

and is actionless that monasticsm and meditativeness are well known

in the Vedas, Smrtis and scriptures dealing with meditation? Why are

monasticism and meditativeness spoken of here with regard to one who

keeps a fire and is a man of action-which is not accepted as a fact?

Reply: This defect does not arise, because both are sought to be

asserted in some secondary sense.

Objection: How is that?

Reply: His being monk is by virtue of his having given up hankering

for the results of actions; and his being a man of meditation is from

the fact of his doing actions as accesories to meditation or from his

rejection of thoughts for the results of actions which cause

disturbances in the mind. Thus both are used in a figurative sense.

On the contrary, it is not that monasticism and meditativeness are

meant in the primary sense.

With a view to pointing out this idea, the Lord says:

 

ya.n sa.nnyaasam iti praahuH yoga.n ta.n viddhi paaNDava .

na hi asa.nnyasta-saN^kalpaH yogii bhavati kashchana .. 2..

 

2. That which they call monasticism, know that to be Yoga, O Pandava,

for, nobody who has not given up expectations can be a yogi.

yam, that which is characterized by the giving up of all actions and

their results; which praahuH, they, the knowers of the Vedas and the

Smritis, call; sa.nnyaasam iti, monasticism, in the real sense;

viddhi, known; tam, that monasticism in the real sense; to be yogam,

Yoga, consisting in the performance of actions, O Pandava.

Accepting what kind of similarity between Karma-yoga, which is

characterized by engagement (in actions), and its opposite,

renunciation in the real sense, which is characterized by cessation

from work, has their equation been stated?

When such an apprehension arises, the answer is this; From the point

of view of the agent, there does exist a similarity of Karma-yoga

with real renunciation. For he who is a monk in the real sense, from

the very fact of his having given up all the means needed for

accomplishing actions, gives up the thought of all actions and their

results-the source of desire that leads to engagement in work.

[Thoughts about an object lead to the desire for it, which in turn

leads to actions for getting it. (Also see note under 4.19)] also,

even while performing actions, gives up the thought for results.

Pointing out this idea, the Lord says: hi, for; kashcit, nobody, no

man of action whosoever; asa.nnyasta-sa.nkalpaH, who has not given up

expectations-one by whom has not been renounced expectation,

anticipation, of results;bhavati, becomes, i.e. can become; yogii, a

yogi, a man of concentration, because thought of results is the cause

of the disturbance of mind. Therefore, any man of action who gives up

the thought of results would become a yogi, a man of concentration

with an unperturbed mind, because of his having given up thought of

results which is the cause of mental distractions. This is the

purport.

Thus, because of the similarity of real monasticism with Karma-yoga

from the point of view of giving up by the agent, Karma-yoga is

extolled as monasticism in, 'That which they call monasticism, know

that to be Yoga, O Pandava.'

Since Karma-yoga, which is independent of results, is the remote help

to Dhyana-yoga, therefore it has been praised as monasticism.

Thereafter, now the Lord shows how Karma-yoga is helpful to Dhyana-

yoga:

 

aarurukshoH muneH yoga.n karma kaaraNam uchyate .

yoga-aaruuDhasya tasya eva shamaH kaaraNam uchyate .. 3..

 

3. For the sage who wishes to ascend to (Dhyana-) yoga, action is

said to be the means. For that person, when he has ascended to

(Dhyana-)yoga, inaction alone is said to be the means.

aarurukshoH, for one who wishes to ascend, who has not ascended, i.e.

for that very person who is unable to remain established in Dhyana-

yoga;-for which person who is desirous to ascend?-muneH, for the

sage, i.e. for one who has renounced the results of actions;-trying

to ascend to what?-yogam, to (Dhyana-) yoga; karma, action; uchyate,

is said to be; the kaaraNam, means. tasya, for that person, again;

yoga-aaruuDhasya, when he has ascended to (Dhyana-) yoga; shamah,

inaction, withdrawal from all actions; eva, alone; uchyate, is said

to be; kaaraNam, the means for remaining poised in the state of

meditation. This is the meaning.

To the extent that one withdraws from actions, the mind of that man

who is at ease and self-controlled becomes concentrated. When this

occurs, he at once becomes established in Yoga. And accordingly has

it been said by Vyasa: 'For a Brahmana there is no wealth comparable

to (the knowledge of) oneness, sameness, truthfulness, character,

equipoise, harmlessness, straightforwardness and withdrawal from

various actions' (Mbh. Sa. 175.37).

After that, now is being stated when one becomes established in Yoga:

 

yadaa hi na indriya-artheshhu na karmasu anushhajjate .

sarva-saN^kalpa-sa.nnyaasii yogaaruuDhaH tadaa uchyate .. 4..

 

4. Verily, [Verily: This word emphasizes the fact that, since

attachment to sense objects like sound etc. and to actions is an

obstacle in the path of Yoga, therefore the removal of that

obstruction is the means to its attainment.] when a man who has given

up thought about everything does not get attached to sense-objects or

actions, he is then said to be established in Yoga.

hi, verily; yadaa, when; a yogi who is concentrating his mind, sarva-

sa.nkalpa-sa.nnyaasii, who has given up thought about everything-who

is apt to give up (sa.nnyaasa) all (sarva) thoughts (sa.nkalpa) which

are the causes of desire, for things here and hereafter; na

anushhajjate, does not become attached, i.e. does not hold the idea

that they have to be done by him; indriya-artheshhu, with regard to

sense-objects like sound etc.; and karmasu, with regard to actions-

nitya, naimittika, kaamya and nishhiddha (prohibited) because of the

absence of the idea of their utility; tadaa, then, at that time;

uchyate, he is said to be; yoga-aaruuDhah, established in Yoga, i.e.

he is said to have attained to Yoga.

>From the expression, 'one who has given up thought about eveything',

it follows that one has to renounce all desires and all actions, for

all desires have thoughts as their source. This accords with such

Smrti texts as:

'Verily, desire has thought as its source. Sacrifices arise from

thoughts' (Ma. Sm. 2.3);

'O Desire, I know your source. You surely spring from thought. I

shall not think of you. So you will not arise in me' (Mbh. Sa.

177.25).

And when one gives up all desires, renunciation of all actions

becomes accomplished. This agrees with such Upanisadic texts

as, '(This self is identified with desire alone.) What it desires, it

resolves; what it resolves, it works out' (Br. 4.4.5); and also such

Smriti texts as, 'Whatever actions a man does, all that is the effect

of desire itself' (Ma. Sm. 2.4). It accords with reason also. For,

when all thoughts are renounced, no one can even move a little. So,

by the expression, 'one who has given up thought about everything',

the Lord makes one renounce all desires and all actions.

When one is thus established in Yoga, then by that very fact one's

self becomes uplifted by oneself from the worldly state which is

replete with evils.

Hence,

[to be cotd.

next posting on Mar. 15.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________

_______________________

 

 

 

 

For Gita Dhyana Shlokas/Mantras and Mahatmya

/message/advaitin/6987

----

-----------------------

Adi Shankara's commentary, translated by Swami Gambhirananda, at URL:

[kindly supplied by Madhava-ji]

advaitin/Gita/Shankara1/gmbCH5.htm

____________________

_______________________

 

Adi Shankara's commentary, translated by Shri Varriar, at URL:

[kindly supplied by Shankara-ji]

advaitin/GCh5SYAABV1-24

____________________

_______________________

 

Swami Chinmayananda's commentary at URL:

[kindly supplied by Ram-ji]

advaitin/Gita/Chinmaya/COMM5.HTM

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

This is a short comment on the verse BG 6.1. I have suggested

in an earlier post

 

advaitin/message/7846

 

that there is really no option for a human whether he/she has

to perform karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa. This verse (BG6.1) can

also be interpreted on the same theme as presented in the earlier

referred post.

 

Meaning of this verse is:

 

The one who performs his/her defined duties without craving

for karma-phala is a sannyAsi as well as a yogi, but not one

who does not maintain the sacred fire nor one who has given

up work.

 

There is no option for a human whether he/she has to perform

karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa. At a given stage of spiritual

development of a sAdhaka, there is only one -

karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa. Not everyone is eligible for

karma-sannyAsa. At the stage of (spiritual) development of

Arjuna, he is not eligible for karma-sannyAsa. Thus for him

to ask: should I do karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa is a misguided

question. Lord Krishna told him clearly in the fifth chapter

(in response to Arjuna's question) that karma-yoga is that

which he (Arjuna) has to perform. Lord Krishna is further

amplifying on that topic in this verse.

 

Agnihotram is a responsible duty of a gr^ihastha. For a

gr^ihastha not to perform this under the misguided premise

(that actions such as agnihotra lead to karmaphala and hence

to rebirths) is an inferior option. A superior option is to

do the bounden duties with no phalApeksha. Similarly, akriyaH

is one who took to karma-sannyAsa (even of nitya kramas) under

the misguided premise that nitya karmA-s also have karma phala

which bounds one to rebirth. Superior to such akriyaH is one

fulfilling the bounden duty without phalApeksha.

 

How does one who performs bounden duty without phalApeksha is a

yogi as well as a sannyAsi?

 

We can say sannyAsa is renunciation - mental and physical - a true

sannyAsi. We can aslo say yoga is one where there are no distractions

of the mind. This person (who performs duties without phalApeksha)

is a sannyAsi as well as a yogi because he/she has renounced all

the fruits (sannyAsa) and beacuse there are no mental distractions

in the form of anticipating and depending on the results (yoga).

 

Another way to look at this verse is:

 

Neither a person who does not keep fire (agnihotra) can be considered

a sannyAsi; nor one who is actionless can be considered a yogi. The

true yogi and sannyAsi is one who does his/her obligatory duties

without any craving for the results of the actions.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

All excellent points, Murthygaaru. To go even one step further,

the lock of bondage can be even more easily opened if both karma and

phala are offered to the Lord.[ brahmaarpaNaM...Gita 4:24].

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> namaste.

>

> This is a short comment on the verse BG 6.1. I have suggested

> in an earlier post

>

> advaitin/message/7846

>

> that there is really no option for a human whether he/she has

> to perform karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa. This verse (BG6.1) can

> also be interpreted on the same theme as presented in the earlier

> referred post.

>

> Meaning of this verse is:

>

> The one who performs his/her defined duties without craving

> for karma-phala is a sannyAsi as well as a yogi, but not one

> who does not maintain the sacred fire nor one who has given

> up work.

>

> There is no option for a human whether he/she has to perform

> karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa. At a given stage of spiritual

> development of a sAdhaka, there is only one -

> karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa. Not everyone is eligible for

> karma-sannyAsa. At the stage of (spiritual) development of

> Arjuna, he is not eligible for karma-sannyAsa. Thus for him

> to ask: should I do karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa is a misguided

> question. Lord Krishna told him clearly in the fifth chapter

> (in response to Arjuna's question) that karma-yoga is that

> which he (Arjuna) has to perform. Lord Krishna is further

> amplifying on that topic in this verse.

>

> Agnihotram is a responsible duty of a gr^ihastha. For a

> gr^ihastha not to perform this under the misguided premise

> (that actions such as agnihotra lead to karmaphala and hence

> to rebirths) is an inferior option. A superior option is to

> do the bounden duties with no phalApeksha. Similarly, akriyaH

> is one who took to karma-sannyAsa (even of nitya kramas) under

> the misguided premise that nitya karmA-s also have karma phala

> which bounds one to rebirth. Superior to such akriyaH is one

> fulfilling the bounden duty without phalApeksha.

>

> How does one who performs bounden duty without phalApeksha is a

> yogi as well as a sannyAsi?

>

> We can say sannyAsa is renunciation - mental and physical - a true

> sannyAsi. We can aslo say yoga is one where there are no

distractions

> of the mind. This person (who performs duties without phalApeksha)

> is a sannyAsi as well as a yogi because he/she has renounced all

> the fruits (sannyAsa) and beacuse there are no mental distractions

> in the form of anticipating and depending on the results (yoga).

>

> Another way to look at this verse is:

>

> Neither a person who does not keep fire (agnihotra) can be

considered

> a sannyAsi; nor one who is actionless can be considered a yogi. The

> true yogi and sannyAsi is one who does his/her obligatory duties

> without any craving for the results of the actions.

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

> --

----

[Guest guest]

>namaste.

>

>This is a short comment on the verse BG 6.1. I have suggested

>in an earlier post

>

>advaitin/message/7846

>

>that there is really no option for a human whether he/she has

>to perform karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa. This verse (BG6.1) can

>also be interpreted on the same theme as presented in the earlier

>referred post.

>

>Meaning of this verse is:

>

>The one who performs his/her defined duties without craving

>for karma-phala is a sannyAsi as well as a yogi, but not one

>who does not maintain the sacred fire nor one who has given

>up work.

>

>There is no option for a human whether he/she has to perform

>karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa. At a given stage of spiritual

>development of a sAdhaka, there is only one -

>karma-yoga or karma-sannyAsa. Not everyone is eligible for

>karma-sannyAsa.

 

Thanks for pointing these Murthy gaaru.

 

There was some discussion in old advaita list whether or not

renounciation is the prerequisite for moksha. These sloka clearly

points one important thing. Who is a real sanyaasi and why it is

said only a sanyaasi alone is entitled for moksha. In advaitic

tradition it is accepted that sanyaasa ashrama is required before

moksha. But what Krishna really says in this sloka is that it is not

the ashrama that is the prerequiste but the manasika sanyaasa is what

is required. This should be so if one understands the nature of the

problem is adyaasa and it is the renounciation of the karma phala to

start with and ultimately the kartR^itva bhaava or I am the doer

notion. These are the notions that need to be given up - they are

the notions only because the truth is different - the truth is the

one is neither a doer or non-doer. One is beyond doing and

non-doing. Hence real sanyaasa is not giving up the obligatory

duties (as long as one feels one is a karthaa) - which depend on ones

role - as father, mother, gruhasta, brahachaari or even sanyaasa

ashramite - whatever one assumes that one is - one should not give up

the nitya and nimittika karama. - these include vedavihita karma,

or shtaana and kaala vihita karam etc - duties or injunction by the

veda, duties depending on the society, and duties depending on ones

place - which is same as the society but depending on the individual

place in the family as well - a father, mother, a student - an

employee etc. Hence Krishana is very firm that one should not run

away from the field yet one can live as a sanyaasi - where sanyaasi

is the one who gives up the fruits of actions and ultimately the

notion of agency of the actions.

 

I am not against sanyaasa ashram - if one is prepared for it. The

environment can be much helpful to live the life of detachment where

one can detach from the fruits of action and from the notion of

agency of action. But that is not necessary nor sufficient although

that is helpful. That something is helpful does not make it as a

necessary.

 

This was one of the controversial topics in the past. But from my

understanding of both the ahdyaasa prakarana of Shankara and the

meaning of the sloka-s - Krishna's teaching is universal, logical and

practical as well. I am still puzzled why and when the requirement

of physical sanyaasa ashram as pre-requisite for moksha crept into

Advaita. It is possible that from practical point of view it is

difficult to live the life of detachment when one is surrounded by

pressures of life, but that does not make it as a necessary.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Recently I read about this very point. It appears that sanyasa

ashrama was deemed a 'nishhiddha' action in Kali Yuga, but Adi

Shankara exonerated it in view of its adoption by Buddha's followers,

its anti-Veda influence and its subsequent degradation.

If someone else has a reference to this, I am sure the list

members would appreciate it.

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

 

I am still puzzled why and when the requirement

> of physical sanyaasa ashram as pre-requisite for moksha crept into

> Advaita. It is possible that from practical point of view it is

> difficult to live the life of detachment when one is surrounded by

> pressures of life, but that does not make it as a necessary.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Fortunately I found the reference!

 

Gita Rahasya , B. G. Tilak 7th English Edition, 1991, pp. 702-704;

transl.B. S. Sukhthankar; [Orig. Marathi. Ed. 1915]; publ. Tilak

Bros., Pune.

 

".....Although this Path of Renunciation was not something new which

had been invented by Shri Shankaracharya, yet, it is true that he

removed the inferiority which had become attached to it, as it had

been included among the things prohibited in the Kali Yuga.......

...and the works of Shankaracharya advocate abandonment of action, yet

his own life bears testimony to the fact that he had no objection to

Jnanins, or even Sanyasins, performing the Action of universal

welfare according to their own qualifications, e.g. for establishing

religion [Vedanta Sutra, Sahnakara Bhashya, III:iii:32].

 

If the teaching of Shankaracharya based on the Smritis had been

responsible for the predominance of the Path of Renunciation,

Ramanujacharya, who belongs to the modern Bhagavata school, would

have had no reason to give an inferior position to the Karma Yoga in

his commentary on the Gita, in the same way as Shankaracharya.

 

But, if the Karma-Yoga, which had once been very powerful, has been

put into shade even by the renunciatory Path of Devotion included in

the Bhagavata cult, one must say that there must have been some other

reasons for its having thus lost ground, which apply equally to all

countries or all cults.

 

In my opinion the first and most important of these reasons was the

growth and development of the Jain and the Biddhist religions; and as

both these religions had opened the door of Renunciation to all the

castes, the Path of Renunciation has gained ground even with the

warrioe [kshatriya] class from the date when these two religions came

into vogue......

 

....and although Shankaracharya had refuted the Jain and the

Buddhistic doctrines, yet, he gave a Vedic turn to the respect which

reigned in the public mind for the life of an ascetic, and brought

into existence Vedic ascetics for the establishment of the Vedic

religion, instead of the Buddhistic religion, who were as active and

energetic as the Buddhist ascetics......

 

Seeing in this way that Shankaracharya had established an institution

similar to the Buddhist societies of ascetics, a doubt even at that

time nay have arisen as to whether there was any difference between

the teachings of Shrimat Shankaracharya and the Buddhistic teachings;

and possibly Shankaracharya on that account said in his commentary on

the Chandogyopanishad that:"'Buddhistic and Sankhya asceticism is

outside the purview of the Vedas and false; and as the Path of

Renunciation enunciated by me is consistent with the Vedic religion,

it is true' [Chandogya Shankara Bhashya II:xxiii:1], in order to

clear that doubt.

 

Whatever may be the case, there is no doubt that Asceticism was first

introduced in the Kaliyuga by the Buddhist and Jain teachers......"

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, sunderh wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Recently I read about this very point. It appears that

sanyasa

> ashrama was deemed a 'nishhiddha' action in Kali Yuga, but Adi

> Shankara exonerated it in view of its adoption by Buddha's

followers,

> its anti-Veda influence and its subsequent degradation.

> If someone else has a reference to this, I am sure the list

> members would appreciate it.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> s.

>

>

>

>

>

> advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

>

> I am still puzzled why and when the requirement

> > of physical sanyaasa ashram as pre-requisite for moksha crept

into

> > Advaita. It is possible that from practical point of view it is

> > difficult to live the life of detachment when one is surrounded

by

> > pressures of life, but that does not make it as a necessary.

> >

> > Hari Om!

> > Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji:

 

Hari Om!

 

Here is one possible resolution for the puzzle that you are referring

to. It is very difficult to separate the philosophical understanding

drastically away from the social and cultural understanding of Sanyasa

and Moksha. According to Tamil Cultural Tradition (which quite

parallel in most parts of India)human life is stratified by four

divisions: Aram (time dedicated to learning the fundamentals of life),

Porul (time spent for Earning and living a materialistic life), Inbam

(time for enjoyment and fulfilling desires and obligations) and

finally Veedu (renunciation of worldly comforts and seeking liberation

and peace.

 

The last period relates to the Sanyasa Ashram, physically renouncing

the material world in order achieve the mental renunciation. This

practice was quite common across the spectrum of the population - rich

and poor, king and the clergy all alike. With such deeply rooted

traditional bound society, the acceptance of Sanyasa as a pure mental

renunciation was likely very difficult. Whether right or wrong, most

of the scholars of Shanakara's time probably believed that physical

renunciation is quite essential ingredient to achieve the ultimate

goal of mental renunciation.

 

Hari Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

>...... I am still puzzled why and when the requirement

> of physical sanyaasa ashram as pre-requisite for moksha crept into

> Advaita. It is possible that from practical point of view it is

> difficult to live the life of detachment when one is surrounded by

> pressures of life, but that does not make it as a necessary.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

[Guest guest]

The Yoga of Meditation is the subject of this Chapter and it is also

known as Dhyana Yoga. We have noticed that, for purposes of

Meditation, a convenient place, free from distractions, is necessary.

The time that we choose for Meditation, also, is to be such that it

should not have the background of any engagement or activity which may

distract the attention of the mind from the goal of Meditation. A

suitable place, a suitable time, these two are very important

prerequisites. But more important, perhaps, than place and time is the

preparedness of the mind. The mind should be eager to sit for

Meditation and it should not feel any kind of compulsion Most people

feel a difficulty in getting any kind of satisfactory result, because

the mind is not prepared. How is the mind to be prepared? The focus of

this chapter is to prepare the mind free from all attachments. The

first four verses emphasize the importance of cultivating the Yagna

spirit while conducting our actions.

 

Verse 1: Although the Lord says nothing in this verse about

renunciation of attachment, and speaks only of giving up dependence on

the fruit of actions, the former should be taken as implied in the

latter type of renunciation. All enjoyments of this world and the

next, such as the possession of a wife, progeny, wealth, honor, fame

and the enjoyments of heaven etc., should be treated as included in

the fruit of actions. Whatever an ordinary man does, he does it with

reference to a particular motive or fruit. That is why his actions

throw him repeatedly into the whirligig of births and deaths.

Therefore, regarding all enjoyments of this world and the next as

transient, momentary and a source of suffering, one should wholly give

up attachment, the sense of possession and the desire for fruit. This

is what is meant here by renunciation of dependence on the fruit of

actions. The Ideal Yogi of Gita is the one who having renounced all

activities remains constantly engaged in meditation and whose mind is

altogether free from evils like the sense of possession, likes and

dislikes, lust and anger, and who has thus given up all thoughts of

the world. In the preceding verse the Lord called such a Yogi who

does duties without reference to the fruit as a Samnyasi.

Essentially, the ideal Yogi becomes the ideal Samnyasi and the next

verse establishes the identity between `Samnyasa' and ` Yoga':

 

Verse 2: To be established in identity with God, eradicating the

sense of doership in respect of all activities of the body, senses and

mind, is what is meant by `Samnyasa'. This represents the final stage

in the praetice of Sankhyayoga. And `Yoga' means the attainment of

actionlessness, which is the highest stage of Karmayoga reached

through renunciation of the sense of possession, attachment and

desire. Thoughts of the world are totally absent in both these states,

and the Supreme Reality or God whom the Sankhyayogi attains is no

other than the God attained by the Karmayogi. It is in this sense

that `Samnyasa' and `Yoga' have been declared in this verse as one.

 

Verse 3: Although that perfection in Yoga can be attained even by

anyone who renounces all actions and practices meditation in a

secluded corner it should be remembered in this connection that the

practice of meditation in seclusion too is a form of mental activity.

Those who just retires into seclusion and practices meditation has to

perform bodily functions in the shape of answering the calls of

nature, ablution, taking of food and drink and so on for the

maintenance of body. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to say that

performance of duties consistent with one's order in society, stage in

life, position and circumstances, without attachment and the desire

for fruit is a stepping stone to the attainment of perfection in Yoga.

It was for this very reason that the Lord stated in verse 4 of Chapter

3 that one cannot attain freedom from action without entering upon

action. The word `Samah' cannot be interpreted to mean actual

renunciation of activity. For verses 2 and 4 both speak of

renunciation of thoughts of the world. Etymologically also the word

`Samah' means attainment of tranquillity through control of the mind.

The Gita uses the word in the same sense in verse 42 of chapter 18 as

well. And thoughts of the world completely cease only when the mind

has been brought under control and has attained tranquillity. Besides

this it is not possible to renounce activity altogether. Therefore, it

is but reasonable to interpret the word `Samah' as meaning absence of

thoughts of the world.

 

Verse 4: Attachment is the root of desire (Chapter 2, Verse 62). When

one ceases to have attachment for sense-objects and actions, desire

will cease automatically and as a matter of course. There can be no

effect without cause. Therefore, absence of desire should be taken as

implied in absence of attachment. We are found attached ' not only to

sense-enjoyments but to certain activities as well. Hence it was

necessary to mention attachment for objects and actions separately.

Attachment for action may linger even after one has given up

attachment for sense-enjoyments; for we find thoughtless people

attached even to vain pursuits. Therefore, in order to show total

absence of attachment in the Yogarudha it was necessary to mention to

absence of both kinds of attachments.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 sunderh wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Is there an injunction anywhere which states that sannyasa

> ashrama is a pre-requisite for moksha? If it were so, it would not

> have been a 'nishhiddha' for Kaliyuaga!

>

> [...]

>

> Regards,

>

> s.

>

 

 

namaste.

 

The only pre-requisite for moksha is jnAnam. JnAnam even is not

a prerequisite. JnAnam IS moksha. I cannot imagine how sannyAsa

Ashrama could be a prerequisite!

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Is there an injunction anywhere which states that sannyasa

ashrama is a pre-requisite for moksha? If it were so, it would not

have been a 'nishhiddha' for Kaliyuaga!

 

Taittiriya Upan. I:xi:1 in fact states:

prajaatantuM maa vyavachchhetsiiH .

 

Jabala Upan. IV gives it as an option.

 

Brahmasutra Shankara Bhashya III:iv:17-18-19 discusses the

ashramas.

 

Mandukya Karika IV:90 refers to 4 things to be known by the

sages, but sannyasa is not refrred to except as 'have renounced the

threefold desires' - [children, wealth, and heavenly felicity].

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Sadaji:

>

> Hari Om!

>

> Here is one possible resolution for the puzzle that you are

referring

> to. It is very difficult to separate the philosophical

understanding

> drastically away from the social and cultural understanding of

Sanyasa

> and Moksha. According to Tamil Cultural Tradition >

> The last period relates to the Sanyasa Ashram, physically

renouncing

> the material world in order achieve the mental renunciation. This

> practice was quite common across the spectrum of the population -

rich

> and poor, king and the clergy all alike. With such deeply rooted

> traditional bound society, the acceptance of Sanyasa as a pure

mental

> renunciation was likely very difficult. Whether right or wrong,

most

> of the scholars of Shanakara's time probably believed that physical

> renunciation is quite essential ingredient to achieve the ultimate

> goal of mental renunciation.

>

> Hari Om!

>

> Ram Chandran

>

>

> advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

>

> >...... I am still puzzled why and when the requirement

> > of physical sanyaasa ashram as pre-requisite for moksha crept

into

> > Advaita. It is possible that from practical point of view it is

> > difficult to live the life of detachment when one is surrounded

by

> > pressures of life, but that does not make it as a necessary.

> >

> > Hari Om!

> > Sadananda

[Guest guest]

I brought this issue up since there was somewhat aggressive

discussions in the past - some of the more traditionally oriented

members quoting Shankra's words claiming that the requirement of

sanyaasa ashrama is essential for moksha as per Shankara's advaitic

doctrine. I am not sure how far that is true - I know some brought

Vidyaranya swami's quotes as well. May be Ram remembers - In fact

if I remember the discussion went out of control and became somewhat

personal to the degree that motivated formation of this separate

advaitin list.

 

My interest is mostly academic -(I also heard ISCON using this as one

of the arguments against what they call Maayavaada). How far this

requirement is true and if perhaps Vidya and/or Anand can educate us

whether this is really a requirement By Shankra or post Shankara and

why was this introduced - is it for political or tactical reason or

what? - I raised this issue since Krishna is very clear in sloka-s

1-4 of Ch. 6. in terms of what is a true renounciation.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>Namaste,

>

> Is there an injunction anywhere which states that sannyasa

>ashrama is a pre-requisite for moksha? If it were so, it would not

>have been a 'nishhiddha' for Kaliyuaga!

>

> Taittiriya Upan. I:xi:1 in fact states:

>prajaatantuM maa vyavachchhetsiiH .

>

> Jabala Upan. IV gives it as an option.

>

> Brahmasutra Shankara Bhashya III:iv:17-18-19 discusses the

>ashramas.

>

> Mandukya Karika IV:90 refers to 4 things to be known by the

>sages, but sannyasa is not refrred to except as 'have renounced the

>threefold desires' - [children, wealth, and heavenly felicity].

>

>

>Regards,

>

>s.

>

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

 

K. Sadananda [sada]

Wednesday, March 07, 2001 2:28 PM

advaitin

Re: Gita Satsang - Chapter 6 - Verses 1-4

 

 

I brought this issue up since there was somewhat aggressive

discussions in the past - some of the more traditionally oriented

members quoting Shankra's words claiming that the requirement of

sanyaasa ashrama is essential for moksha as per Shankara's advaitic

doctrine. I am not sure how far that is true - I know some brought

Vidyaranya swami's quotes as well. May be Ram remembers - In fact

if I remember the discussion went out of control and became somewhat

personal to the degree that motivated formation of this separate

advaitin list.

 

My interest is mostly academic -(I also heard ISCON using this as one

of the arguments against what they call Maayavaada). How far this

requirement is true and if perhaps Vidya and/or Anand can educate us

whether this is really a requirement By Shankra or post Shankara and

why was this introduced - is it for political or tactical reason or

what? - I raised this issue since Krishna is very clear in sloka-s

1-4 of Ch. 6. in terms of what is a true renounciation.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

Sadaji, I am not familiar with any of the academic issues related to this.

But since you asked whether requirement of

sanyaasa ashrama can be understood in the context of political or tactical

reasons, let me offer the following points related to that.

>From a purely practical perspective, the monastic traditions which involve

taking of Sanyaasa allow much more time for meditation, contemplation, and

spiritual practices (without worries of family responsibilities and how to

earn a living and related problems). Because protracted and intense Sadhana

is a prerequisite for purification of the mind and making the intellect

subtle for most people, sanyaasa ashram may be considered as advantageous.

 

The second point is that a pure and monastic life led primarily in

meditation and study tends to generate great spiritual and intellectual

power that can influence society and people. If other religions such as

Buddhism and Jainism were producing people of that caliber, perhaps it

became necessary to have such a visible tradition in Hinduism as well,

simply as a practical matter of remaining competitive.

 

My overall understanding is that the Vedic monastic traditions related to

Hinduism go back several thousand years prior to the time of Shankracharya.

For example, The Himalayan Institute founded by Swami Rama (who was at one

time a Shankracharya) traces its traditions back to several thousand years

in the Himalayan caves.

 

One cannot help but agree with Gummuluruji when he says that, "The only

pre-requisite for moksha is jnAnam. JnAnam even is not a prerequisite.

JnAnam IS moksha. I cannot imagine how sannyAsa Ashrama could be a

prerequisite!"

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

advaitin, sunderh wrote:

> [Ch.6 The Yoga of Meditation Verses 1-4]

 

1: Importance of performance of duty while renouncing fruit of action

is brought out. Failure to perform duty is discouraged.

 

2:Renunciation is yoga and is a necessary condition to become a yogin.

 

3: Action is the means of becoming a yogin; tranquility is the means

for the yogin.

 

4: Unattachment to senses and action; renouncing of purpose -- yoga

is then said to have been attained.

 

To my little understanding, it is striking that performance of action

while renouncing the fruit is the starting point of this chapter,

where the topic is "The Yoga of Meditation". Meditation as lot of us

know, is not just sitting quietly in one place struggling hard to

concentrate that which is difficult to control. It is easier, as the

Lord says, thru initial preparation of appropriate action. As verse3

then says, tranquility is then the means.

 

Further, as I recollect, renunciation of purpose is easier to achieve

if all fruits are offered to the Lord. [From Swami Vivekananda]

 

Regards,

Raghava