Sanyasi and karma-yogi

January 8, 2004

Namaste to all members,

Both Sanyasi and Karma-yogi are doing self-less action without any desire for

the fruit of action.

So what is the difference between them? Is it just the ochre robe?

Hari Om

January 9, 2004

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Namaste to all members,

>

> Both Sanyasi and Karma-yogi are doing self-less action without any

desire for the fruit of action.

> So what is the difference between them? Is it just the ochre robe?

>

Namaste:

Your question Ranjeet-ji, is exactly the question asked by Arjuna at

the beginning of the 5th chapter of the Gita. Don't you think

therefore the entire fifth chapter is the answer to your question?

Also refer to VI - 3:

"For a sage who is ascending the hill of Yoga, action is the means;

For the same sage when he has got to the top of the yoga, withdrawal

(from action) is the means"

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

January 9, 2004

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

> <thefinalsearch> wrote:

> > Namaste to all members,

> >

> > Both Sanyasi and Karma-yogi are doing self-less action without

any

> desire for the fruit of action.

> > So what is the difference between them? Is it just the ochre robe?

> >

>

> Namaste:

>

> Your question Ranjeet-ji, is exactly the question asked by Arjuna

at

> the beginning of the 5th chapter of the Gita.

Namaste,

It may be added here that the 'sanyasi' is deemed to have

fulfilled all the obligatory 'karmas' of the other ashramas

(brahmacharya, grihastha, vanaprastha), and is therefore exempt from

engaging in them. The Guru determines this based on the 'adhikara'

(viveka, vairagya, sadhana-chatushtaya, and mumukshutva). The sanyasi

is SOLELY devoted to the realization of the Spirit.

17 of the 108 upanishads are classed as 'sanyasa' upanishads,

and give details about the sanyasa - ashrama.

For the other ashramas, the Dharma-shastras are the reference,

and the kula/vamsha guru, or the mathadhipati is the interpreter.

A j~nani, regardless of the ashrama in which he/she is found,

is known as 'ati-ashrami', and is beyond any regulations of the

shastras.

Regards,

Sunder

January 9, 2004

-

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

> advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

> > Both Sanyasi and Karma-yogi are doing self-less action without any

> desire for the fruit of action.

> > So what is the difference between them? Is it just the ochre robe?

> >

>

> Namaste:

>

> Your question Ranjeet-ji, is exactly the question asked by Arjuna at

> the beginning of the 5th chapter of the Gita. Don't you think

> therefore the entire fifth chapter is the answer to your question?

>

Namaste Krishnamurthyji,

Actually, I am attending a satsangh headed by one of Shri Parthasarathy's

disciples here in Muscat. We discuss Bhagavat Gita, Upanishad and Vedanta

Treatise (writted by Shri Parthasarathy). I am somehow getting the

impression that vedanta is getting 'diluted' here into something like

'Management principles in Vedanta' or 'Vedanta for the grihastha(only)'.

Thats why these mundane doubts crop up.

As advised, I will go through the 5th chapter once again. Thanks for the

reply.

Hari Om

January 10, 2004

Namasge

< A j~nani, regardless of the ashrama in which he/she is found,

is known as 'ati-ashrami', and is beyond any regulations of the

shastras.

It is interesting to note the above. I would be grateful where this statement

appears, any upanishads, etc?

Thank you, Hari om

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

January 10, 2004

Namaste,

-

"R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani

> < A j~nani, regardless of the ashrama in which he/she is found,

> is known as 'ati-ashrami', and is beyond any regulations of the

> shastras.

> It is interesting to note the above. I would be grateful where this

statement appears, any upanishads, etc?

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

These verse from the Bhagavat Gita says so..

'yAvAnartha udhapAne..' - Gita 2.46

To a knowing Brahmin, Veda-s are as good as the well when water is flooding

all around.

'yastvAtmaratireva syAd..' - Gita 3.17

But one who delights in the Self, satisfied in the Self, is completely

contented in the Self, for such a person there is nothing that needs to be

done.

'naiva tasya kr^tenArdhe...' - Gita 3.18

For such a person, there is no purpose in doing or not doing anything in

this world. Nor is there any reason whatever for such a one to take refuge

in any beings.

A point to note is that SankarAchArya says that only sanyAsa-ashrama leads

to moksha. According to him external and internal renunciation is necessary.

Hari Om

January 10, 2004

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> Namasge

> < A j~nani, regardless of the ashrama in which he/she is

found,

> is known as 'ati-ashrami', and is beyond any regulations of the

> shastras.

> It is interesting to note the above. I would be grateful where this

statement appears, any upanishads, etc?

> Thank you, Hari om

>

Namaste,

Shvetasvatara upan. 6:21 -

atyaashramibhyaH paramaM pavitraM

provaacha samyagR^ishhisaN^ghajushhTam.h ..6:21..

Kaivalya upan. 24

bhavatyatyaashramii sarvadaa sakR^idvaa japet.h ..

anena GYaanamaapnoti sa.nsaaraarNavanaashanam.h . tasmaadevaM

viditvainaM kaivalyaM padamashnute kaivalyaM padamashnuta iti .. 24..

Regards,

Sunder

January 10, 2004

Namaste

Thank you very much for the quotation. I hope I did not inconvenience you.

With respectful regards and Hari Om

Mani

Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

advaitin/

advaitin

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

January 10, 2004

NaMASTE

Thank you very much. It is very kind of you to clarify the point and quote the

relevant quotations from Gita.

With kind regards

hari Om

Mani

Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch wrote:

Namaste,

-

"R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani

> < A j~nani, regardless of the ashrama in which he/she is found,

> is known as 'ati-ashrami', and is beyond any regulations of the

> shastras.

> It is interesting to note the above. I would be grateful where this

statement appears, any upanishads, etc?

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

These verse from the Bhagavat Gita says so..

'yAvAnartha udhapAne..' - Gita 2.46

To a knowing Brahmin, Veda-s are as good as the well when water is flooding

all around.

'yastvAtmaratireva syAd..' - Gita 3.17

But one who delights in the Self, satisfied in the Self, is completely

contented in the Self, for such a person there is nothing that needs to be

done.

'naiva tasya kr^tenArdhe...' - Gita 3.18

For such a person, there is no purpose in doing or not doing anything in

this world. Nor is there any reason whatever for such a one to take refuge

in any beings.

A point to note is that SankarAchArya says that only sanyAsa-ashrama leads

to moksha. According to him external and internal renunciation is necessary.

Hari Om

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

advaitin/

advaitin

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

January 10, 2004

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> Thank you very much for the quotation. I hope I did not

inconvenience you.

Namaste Maniji,

You are welcome! No inconvenience at all. It always serves me

as a refresher course, and keeps me on my toes! Thanks.

Regards,

Sunder

January 10, 2004

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

>

> A point to note is that SankarAchArya says that only sanyAsa-

ashrama leads

> to moksha. According to him external and internal renunciation is

necessary.

Namaste Ranjitji,

Do you happen to have the reference to this statement?

Thanks.

Regards,

Sunder

January 11, 2004

-

"Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh

> advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

> <thefinalsearch> wrote:

> >

> > A point to note is that SankarAchArya says that only sanyAsa-

> ashrama leads

> > to moksha. According to him external and internal renunciation is

> necessary.

> Do you happen to have the reference to this statement?

>

> Sunder

>

Namaste Sunderji,

We can find this in the introduction of both aitareya and munDaka bhAshya.

In munDaka, SankarAchArya acknowledge the right to knowledge of the veda-s

for people in all stages of life. However, he specifically says that the

knowledge of Brahman "founded on monasticism only" is the means for moksha.

He admits that many householders are found in the traditional line of

Knowers of Brahman. But he dismisses it by saying "For when the co-existence

of light and darkness cannot be brought about even by a 100 injunctions,

much less can it be done so by mere indications"!

In aitareya, AchArya takes the stance against people proclaiming

renunciation while engaging in domestic life(grihasta). According to him,

the habit of resorting to any particular house of one's own is prompted by

desire and so this cannot be termed as renunciation. Also, he says that

monasticism is obligatory for the unillumined soul that hankers after moksha

(a mumukshu). AchArya maintains that the physical and mental control which

is needed for the realization of the Self is not possible when engaged in

any stage of life other than sanyAsa. The highest result for a householder

will be merging with the deity (hiranyagarbha) and not moksha.

Swami GambhIrAnanda in his footnote says that Ananda Giri held a contrary

view! Anyway, SankarAchArya was advocating both external and internal

renunciation either through grihastAshrama-vAnaprastha or directly from

brahmacharyAshrama.

Hari Om

January 11, 2004

This brings out an interesting issue of what is sanyaasa?

To me the word sanyaasa has to be understood for the significance of

the term itself, sat + nyaasa? Not just a renunciation from being a

householder and definetly not running away from the duties.

Performing "nyaasa" of "that sat (which is trikaala abaadhita)" at

and of everything imaginable.

Such practice will automatically liberate from any possible bondage

imaginable. Understanding this and applying this process to

everything is the real practice of austerities. The term renunciation

is just the first step leading towards sanyaasa.

All the sages who practice penance for a while always return back to

the society. In doing so, they actually increase the radius of their

family [From individual family to a bigger family of the society

(samaaja)].

Unfortunately, their followers create attachments to that

smapradaaya, which becomes a bigger hurdle for the followers of the

next generations by creating the bondage. This often leads to the

basic human nature to preserve the identity of that sampradaaya.

All of our Upanishad are just the boats that take us across from one

bank to the other. Once we reach the other side we have to get off

the boat.

Just my thoughts.

Regards,

Dr. Yadu

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

>

> -

> "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

>

> > advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

> > <thefinalsearch> wrote:

> > >

> > > A point to note is that SankarAchArya says that only sanyAsa-

> > ashrama leads

> > > to moksha. According to him external and internal renunciation

is

> > necessary.

>

> > Do you happen to have the reference to this statement?

> >

> > Sunder

> >

>

> Namaste Sunderji,

>

> We can find this in the introduction of both aitareya and munDaka

bhAshya.

>

> In munDaka, SankarAchArya acknowledge the right to knowledge of the

veda-s

> for people in all stages of life. However, he specifically says

that the

> knowledge of Brahman "founded on monasticism only" is the means for

moksha.

> He admits that many householders are found in the traditional line

of

> Knowers of Brahman. But he dismisses it by saying "For when the co-

existence

> of light and darkness cannot be brought about even by a 100

injunctions,

> much less can it be done so by mere indications"!

>

> In aitareya, AchArya takes the stance against people proclaiming

> renunciation while engaging in domestic life(grihasta). According

to him,

> the habit of resorting to any particular house of one's own is

prompted by

> desire and so this cannot be termed as renunciation. Also, he says

that

> monasticism is obligatory for the unillumined soul that hankers

after moksha

> (a mumukshu). AchArya maintains that the physical and mental

control which

> is needed for the realization of the Self is not possible when

engaged in

> any stage of life other than sanyAsa. The highest result for a

householder

> will be merging with the deity (hiranyagarbha) and not moksha.

>

> Swami GambhIrAnanda in his footnote says that Ananda Giri held a

contrary

> view! Anyway, SankarAchArya was advocating both external and

internal

> renunciation either through grihastAshrama-vAnaprastha or directly

from

> brahmacharyAshrama.

>

> Hari Om

January 11, 2004

Namaste All,

In the Brahma Sutra Bhasya (Gambhirananda'a translation), Section IV,

Topic 9, Sankaracharya states that anyone in any stage of life may

attain knowledge. Raikva and Gargi from the Upanishads and Samvarta

from the Smritis have been cited as examples. It is also stated that

even japa may lead to knowledge depending on the deeds and practices

in previous lives.

There is enough evidence to show that Sankaracharya advocated sanyasa

ashrama for "attaining" moksha, but at the same time he did not deny

that moksha is open to anyone and in any stage of life.

Submitted with respect,

Chittaranjan

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

>

> -

> "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

>

> > advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

> > <thefinalsearch> wrote:

> > >

> > > A point to note is that SankarAchArya says that only sanyAsa-

> > ashrama leads

> > > to moksha. According to him external and internal renunciation

is

> > necessary.

>

> > Do you happen to have the reference to this statement?

> >

> > Sunder

> >

>

> Namaste Sunderji,

>

> We can find this in the introduction of both aitareya and munDaka

bhAshya.

>

> In munDaka, SankarAchArya acknowledge the right to knowledge of the

veda-s

> for people in all stages of life. However, he specifically says

that the

> knowledge of Brahman "founded on monasticism only" is the means for

moksha.

> He admits that many householders are found in the traditional line

of

> Knowers of Brahman. But he dismisses it by saying "For when the co-

existence

> of light and darkness cannot be brought about even by a 100

injunctions,

> much less can it be done so by mere indications"!

>

> In aitareya, AchArya takes the stance against people proclaiming

> renunciation while engaging in domestic life(grihasta). According

to him,

> the habit of resorting to any particular house of one's own is

prompted by

> desire and so this cannot be termed as renunciation. Also, he says

that

> monasticism is obligatory for the unillumined soul that hankers

after moksha

> (a mumukshu). AchArya maintains that the physical and mental

control which

> is needed for the realization of the Self is not possible when

engaged in

> any stage of life other than sanyAsa. The highest result for a

householder

> will be merging with the deity (hiranyagarbha) and not moksha.

>

> Swami GambhIrAnanda in his footnote says that Ananda Giri held a

contrary

> view! Anyway, SankarAchArya was advocating both external and

internal

> renunciation either through grihastAshrama-vAnaprastha or directly

from

> brahmacharyAshrama.

>

> Hari Om

January 11, 2004

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

> This brings out an interesting issue of what is sanyaasa?

>

> To me the word sanyaasa has to be understood for the significance

of

> the term itself, sat + nyaasa? Not just a renunciation from being

a

> householder and definetly not running away from the duties.

>

> Performing "nyaasa" of "that sat (which is trikaala abaadhita)" at

> and of everything imaginable.

>

Namaste,

From what I have gathered, the etymology of the word sanyasa

is:

saM = wholly or completely

ni = down

as/As = throw, abandon

saMnyAsa = To abandon all worldy ties.

Can someone else confirm or reject this? Thanks.

Regards,

Sunder

January 11, 2004

Namaste,

This was the derivation which Swami Dayananda Saraswathi gave in one of his

talks on Gita which I personally attended. praNAms,

Venkat - M

Namaste,

From what I have gathered, the etymology of the word sanyasa

is:

saM = wholly or completely

ni = down

as/As = throw, abandon

saMnyAsa = To abandon all worldy ties.

Can someone else confirm or reject this? Thanks.

Regards,

Sunder

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

advaitin/

advaitin

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download

Messenger Now

January 12, 2004

Namaste,

Same way I was also taught by my Teachers. S stands for Samyag i.e. well like in

the word Santhushti. Hope others of the group can go into it and clarify.

Hari Om

R.S.Mani

Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

> This brings out an interesting issue of what is sanyaasa?

>

> To me the word sanyaasa has to be understood for the significance

of

> the term itself, sat + nyaasa? Not just a renunciation from being

a

> householder and definetly not running away from the duties.

>

> Performing "nyaasa" of "that sat (which is trikaala abaadhita)" at

> and of everything imaginable.

>

Namaste,

From what I have gathered, the etymology of the word sanyasa

is:

saM = wholly or completely

ni = down

as/As = throw, abandon

saMnyAsa = To abandon all worldy ties.

Can someone else confirm or reject this? Thanks.

Regards,

Sunder

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

advaitin/

advaitin

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

January 12, 2004

My understanding:

sanyaasa - samyak nyaasa - nyaasa used here in the sense of giving up or

renouncing or relinquishing.

In VishisshTaadvaita they emphasize the stage of vanaprasta involving

bharanyaasam equivalent to sharanaagati - surrendering oneself

completely at the feet of the Lord. There is a sharanaagati gadyam by

Bhagavaan Ramaanuja.

At the sadhana stage - this is essence of shama and dama. restraining

oneself mentally and physically.

In the Upanishad we have the sloka that is chanted when we receive a

sanyaasi with puurNakumbham

na karmanaa na prajayaa dhanena taganaike amRitatvamaanasuH|

Not by action, not by prodigy not by wealth but by renunciation alone

one can reach the immortality.

It is interesting to note that one cannot renounce what one does not

have it - it is like my renouncing the president ship of the United

States!

Also one cannot renounce what one intrinsically has it - ones own

intrinsic nature.

So what do we have to renounce for realization.

All we need to renounce is our notions of 'this is I' and 'this is mine'

- ahankaara and mamakaara.

Is that essential for self-realization - yes indeed. One cannot have

the notions that 'I am this' and understand 'I am Brahman'.

By taking a sanyaasa Ashram can one renounce the notions of 'This is I'

and 'This is mine'. - As we look around we see that is not necessarily

the case.

Does one have to take up Sanyaasa Ashrama for self-realization? It helps

in the sense of one's encountering with the worldly situations that

nourishes the attachments are minimized, but from the point of the

theory, it is neither necessary nor sufficient. It is helpful. Since the

notions are in the mind, the absolute renunciation of mental notions is

required for self-realization.

In all these issues I generally separate the essence versus practices.

The essence of advaita Vedanta that Shankara Bhagavat paada propounds on

the basis of scriptures is about the absolute nature of the reality.

Practices, which are in the realm of vyavahaara, have to be adopted with

the goal in mind but in terms of what is the best within the constraints

of desha and kaala (place and time). If one argues that sanyaasa

ashrama is necessary for moksha, I would say that the statement is

contradictory from the point of a goal. It is helpful but not

necessary. I am sure Bhagavaan Ramana's answer ( I do not remember the

ref.)may be the same. As Swami Satcchidanandendra Saraswati puts it, if

there is a conflict one has to resolve the issue based on Veda-s and

logic- If we had yaj~navalka-s, Janaka-s, Rama-s, and Krishna-s, the

veda cannot insist on physical sanyaasa for moksha. From the logical

point it makes no sense either. Also a sanyaasin can get attached to

his koupiinam too! - Hence it is neither necessary nor sufficient but

helpful. We have Shankara's two sloka-s from Bhajagovindam -

jatilo muchii lunchita keshaH, kaashaamabara bahukRita veshaH|

and

Yogaratova bhogaratova sangaratova sanghavihiinaH ...

Emphasis is that sanyaasa ashram is neither necessary nor sufficient.

I emphasize again that this is my understanding, since if I recall this

was one of the sensitive topics and some of the traditional advaitins

from adviataL list jumped all over me when I posted my understanding!

Hari OM!

Sadananda

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

January 12, 2004

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

> We have Shankara's two sloka-s from Bhajagovindam -

>

> jatilo muchii lunchita keshaH, kaashaamabara bahukRita veshaH|

As an expert in typos - here is one - it should be jaTilo mundii...

Hari OM1

Sadananda

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

January 12, 2004

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

-

"chittaranjan_naik" <chittaranjan_naik

> In the Brahma Sutra Bhasya (Gambhirananda'a translation), Section IV,

> Topic 9, Sankaracharya states that anyone in any stage of life may

> attain knowledge. Raikva and Gargi from the Upanishads and Samvarta

> from the Smritis have been cited as examples. It is also stated that

> even japa may lead to knowledge depending on the deeds and practices

> in previous lives.

> There is enough evidence to show that Sankaracharya advocated sanyasa

> ashrama for "attaining" moksha, but at the same time he did not deny

> that moksha is open to anyone and in any stage of life.

Please note that the sutra which you had mentioned is not about

people in 'any stage of life'. It is about people NOT in any of the 4 stages

of life, like a widow for example. Such a person can do prayer or japa which

'helps' in knowledge. According to SankarAchArya, practices such as japa

would purify one's antahkaraNa making an adhikAri out of him. I dont think

AchArya would ever say that japa would lead to knowledge of the Self !

So this sutra is only pointing out that people who are not in the 4 stages

of life can also do religious practices which will help in raising of

knowledge and not that people in any of the stages of life will

attain moksha.

Hari Om

> Submitted with respect,

> Chittaranjan

January 12, 2004

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> It is helpful but not

> necessary. I am sure Bhagavaan Ramana's answer ( I do not remember

the

> ref.)may be the same.

Namaste,

Indeed it is!

>From Talks with Maharshi - 1972, 5th ed. Ramanashram :

p. 242 "...So long as one thinks that he is a sanyasi, he is not

one. So long as one does not think of samsara, he is not a samsari;

on the other hand he is a sanyasi ."

p. 394 "....Sanyasa is to renounce one's individuality. This is not

the same as tonsure and ochre robes. A man may be a grihi; yet, if he

does not think he is a grihi, he is a sanyasi. On the contrary, a man

may wear ochre clothes and wander about; yet if he thinks he is a

sanyasi, he is not that. To think of sanyasa defeats its own purpose.

pp. 539-540 "... Sanyasa is mentioned for one who is fit. It

consists in renunciation not of material objects but of attachment to

them. Sanyasa can be practised by anyone even at home. Only one must

be fit for it.

Also : Shankara Gita Bhashya - 5:13, 18:46 and 49.

Regards,

Sunder

January 12, 2004

> --- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> As an expert in typos - here is one - it should be jaTilo mundii...

> Hari OM1

> Sadananda

>

> =====

Namaste Sadanandaji

U have also successfully divided the indivisible. I see a new type of

OM called OM1.

Many Pranams to all

Sridhar

> What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have

is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

>

> Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

January 12, 2004

>

> Namaste Sadanandaji

> U have also successfully divided the indivisible. I see a new type of

> OM called OM1.

> Many Pranams to all

> Sridhar

Yes Sridhar - this is all part of MAAYA!

Sadananda

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

January 12, 2004

Dear Sadanandji:

Thank you for your post. May be in my original post I should have

been more specific and presumed that everyone understands the term as

samyak nyasa.

It is also important to understand both terms very clearly.

>>>>>sanyaasa - samyak nyaasa - nyaasa used here in the sense of

giving up or renouncing or relinquishing<<<<<<<

Sanyasa,

Let us evaluate this from a following perspective.

samyak nyasa = well or properly positioned.

This involves the process of nyasa and can be understood

as 'trust', 'positioning' , …… etc.

Now this can enhance communicate other additional adjectives as well.

'manas' = mind' but when this is "properly positioned', then it is

understood as 'yoga'. ['sanyasa yogaat yatayah shuddha satvah'.]

When 'Buddhi ' is 'properly positioned', then it becomes Buddhi

yoga, vedanta.

When 'karma' activity' is 'properly positioned', then it becomes

karma yoga.

When 'body' is 'properly positioned', then it becomes hatha yoga.

When 'energy' prana spanda or vibrations' get 'properly positioned',

then it becomes kundalini yoga.

When 'jeevatma' is 'properly positioned' with 'paramatman' , then it

is Viveka , Moksha.

When 'bhaava' specific feeling of devotion in mind gets 'properly

positioned', then it becomes bhakti yoga.

This proper positioning is achieved by the various 'dharma shrama' as

applied to individual cases,

samnyasa is therefore not abandoning, I would like to consider this

as the process of 'yoga' - integration

Now let us look at the application of this which may explain the

position more clearly.

"sat (trikaal abaadhita satya)" + "nyaasa (to place it (the observed

truth) in every situation or place) for evaluation of that truth"

This could also resolve the issue why we sat R^itam vacami; satyam

vacmi before performing pujaa and other religious practices.

"R^ita" is a conditional truth as observed. I can sat that such and

such person is a "gadhaa" (donkey). In reality that person is not a

donkey but that person acted as a donkey under a specific conditions

or a situation.

May be a better example of conditional truth in science could also be

used to understand this term as well. Difference between "mass"

and "weight"

Weight = mass X gravity

If something weighs 100 kg on the Earth would weigh only 10 Kg on the

Moon. Therefore the observed "weight" is the "R^ita" where as that

mass it represents is the "satya".

The real key is performing the nyaasa of that truth to find the

ultimate "pruruSha"?"

This can then solve the relationship between "jivaatmaa" -------

> "pramaatmaa".

Even the traditional definition as pointed out by Sunder can be

satisfied with this explaination.

>>>>

saM = wholly or completely

ni = down

as/As = throw, abandon

saMnyAsa = To abandon all worldly ties.

<<<<<

Therefore I am tempted to interpret sammyaka nyaasa as beging the

process that leads to sanyaasa (final product); because every time

the evaluation of all worldly things on come to the conclusion

that "This is not that (truth)" (neti-netti process). Thus what one

finds that all this is manifested is temporary and transient and is

constantly changing therefore is not trikaalaatiita. Gaining such

knowledge, and then realizing it the temporary world must have lead

to the conventional meaning of "abandoning all worldly ties"

Saffron colored robes of Hindu only help identify theses folks who

are in the pursuit of truth within a society.

Once the "truth" is found then there can remain no attachment. For

this reason I was interpreting the "san" as "sat". I certainly

would love to hear from scholars on the list if this explanation does

not make sense for some reason.

I my sincere opinion semantics should not be taken to feed the

feelings of comfort. It is not who has said it but what is important

is what is being said and why?

As far as moksha is concerned all I can say is "aj~nana hR^idaya

gra.nthiH naasho moxaada iti smR^ita"

As you correctly pointed out sanyaasi can develop attachment to his

kaupiina. It is not a bad idea that he remains attached to it.

Society would rather rather see it being attached rather than

detached. (When it comes to the kaupiina, I could not resist making

the comment.)

Semantics should not be taken to feed the feeling s of comfort.

Regards,

Dr. Yadu

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> My understanding:

>

> sanyaasa - samyak nyaasa - nyaasa used here in the sense of giving

up or

> renouncing or relinquishing.

>

> In VishisshTaadvaita they emphasize the stage of vanaprasta

involving

> bharanyaasam equivalent to sharanaagati - surrendering oneself

> completely at the feet of the Lord. There is a sharanaagati gadyam

by

> Bhagavaan Ramaanuja.

>

> At the sadhana stage - this is essence of shama and dama.

restraining

> oneself mentally and physically.

>

> In the Upanishad we have the sloka that is chanted when we receive a

> sanyaasi with puurNakumbham

> na karmanaa na prajayaa dhanena taganaike amRitatvamaanasuH|

> Not by action, not by prodigy not by wealth but by renunciation

alone

> one can reach the immortality.

>

> It is interesting to note that one cannot renounce what one does not

> have it - it is like my renouncing the president ship of the United

> States!

>

> Also one cannot renounce what one intrinsically has it - ones own

> intrinsic nature.

>

> So what do we have to renounce for realization.

>

> All we need to renounce is our notions of 'this is I' and 'this is

mine'

> - ahankaara and mamakaara.

>

> Is that essential for self-realization - yes indeed. One cannot

have

> the notions that 'I am this' and understand 'I am Brahman'.

>

> By taking a sanyaasa Ashram can one renounce the notions of 'This

is I'

> and 'This is mine'. - As we look around we see that is not

necessarily

> the case.

>

> Does one have to take up Sanyaasa Ashrama for self-realization? It

helps

> in the sense of one's encountering with the worldly situations that

> nourishes the attachments are minimized, but from the point of the

> theory, it is neither necessary nor sufficient. It is helpful.

Since the

> notions are in the mind, the absolute renunciation of mental

notions is

> required for self-realization.

>

> In all these issues I generally separate the essence versus

practices.

> The essence of advaita Vedanta that Shankara Bhagavat paada

propounds on

> the basis of scriptures is about the absolute nature of the reality.

> Practices, which are in the realm of vyavahaara, have to be adopted

with

> the goal in mind but in terms of what is the best within the

constraints

> of desha and kaala (place and time). If one argues that sanyaasa

> ashrama is necessary for moksha, I would say that the statement is

> contradictory from the point of a goal. It is helpful but not

> necessary. I am sure Bhagavaan Ramana's answer ( I do not remember

the

> ref.)may be the same. As Swami Satcchidanandendra Saraswati puts

it, if

> there is a conflict one has to resolve the issue based on Veda-s and

> logic- If we had yaj~navalka-s, Janaka-s, Rama-s, and Krishna-s, the

> veda cannot insist on physical sanyaasa for moksha. From the

logical

> point it makes no sense either. Also a sanyaasin can get attached

to

> his koupiinam too! - Hence it is neither necessary nor sufficient

but

> helpful. We have Shankara's two sloka-s from Bhajagovindam -

>

> jatilo muchii lunchita keshaH, kaashaamabara bahukRita veshaH|

>

> and

>

> Yogaratova bhogaratova sangaratova sanghavihiinaH ...

>

> Emphasis is that sanyaasa ashram is neither necessary nor

sufficient.

>

> I emphasize again that this is my understanding, since if I recall

this

> was one of the sensitive topics and some of the traditional

advaitins

> from adviataL list jumped all over me when I posted my

understanding!

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

=====

> What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have

is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

>

> Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

January 12, 2004

Respected Yaduji

Namaste

<It is not a bad idea that he remains attached to it.

Society would rather rather see it being attached rather than

detached. (When it comes to the kaupiina, I could not resist making

the comment.)

It is really very humourous!

Hari Om and regards

Mani

ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: