pravRtti dharma & nivRtti dharma

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Many recent posts, esp those by Chittaranjan-ji, had references to

pravRtti dharma & nivRtti dharma.

 

The advaitin position on pravRtti & nivRtti is clear cut as the latter

emphasizes the renunciation of all karma. I suppose this is also

related to the division of the veda into karma-kANDa and jnAna kANDa.

 

But what is the position of other sampradaaya-s, such as the

Sri-vaiShNavam, on this issue? Do sampradaaya-s that accept

jnaanakarmasamuccaya have any need for distinguishing between pravRtti

& nivRtti? If yes, what specifically is the distinction? If no, what

is the position/requirement of saMnyAsa in such traditions?

 

While this question does not pertain specifically to advaita-vedAnta,

I think it is important to understand:

1) where is it that advaita-vedAnta departs from other sampradaaya-s

2) what is a specific advaitin position as opposed to a generic Hindu

position or a position shared by several sampradaaya-s

 

dhanyavaadaH

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ramesh Krishnamurthyji,

 

 

advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

<rkmurthy wrote:

> The advaitin position on pravRtti & nivRtti is clear

> cut as the latter emphasizes the renunciation of all

> karma. I suppose this is also related to the division

> of the veda into karma-kANDa and jnAna kANDa.

>

> But what is the position of other sampradaaya-s, such

> as the Sri-vaiShNavam, on this issue? Do sampradaaya-s

> that accept jnaanakarmasamuccaya have any need for

> distinguishing between pravRtti & nivRtti? If yes, what

> specifically is the distinction? If no, what is the

> position/requirement of saMnyAsa in such traditions?

>

> While this question does not pertain specifically to

> advaita-vedAnta,

> I think it is important to understand:

> 1) where is it that advaita-vedAnta departs from other

> sampradaaya-s

> 2) what is a specific advaitin position as opposed to

> a generic Hindu position or a position shared by several

> sampradaaya-s

 

 

All the three great Acharyas - Sri Shankaracharya, Sri

Ramanujacharya, and Sri Madhvacharya - make a distinction between

Pravritti Dharma and Nivritti Dharma. All three of them agree that

mere Pravritti Dharma does not lead to Supreme Knowledge. The

differences between Advaita, Visistadvaita and Dvaita seem to arise

mainly from the different ways in which they see a relationship

between Pravritti and Nivritti Dharma. I present here below my

understanding on the bhashyas related to this topic as obtained from

the Sariraka Sutra Bhashya of Sri Shankaracharya, the Sri Bhashya of

Sri Ramanujacharya, and the Purna Prajnya Bhashya of Sri Madhvacharya:

 

1. Pre-requisite for brahma-jignasa

 

Interpretation of the sutra: "athatho brahma-jignasa"

 

Sri Shankara interprets the sutra as meaning that brahma-jignasa

requires only the fourfold qualifications, and that prior performance

of Vedic works is not a pre-condition for brahma-jignasa. Brahma-

jignasa involves sravana, manana and nidhidhyasana on the meanings of

the Upanishads, and depending on the strength of the qualifications,

knowledge may arise either by merely hearing of the Sruti, or it may

require all the three steps. (If we are to be consistent in

understanding Shankara bhashya, it would mean that Vedic works in the

case of such sadhakas have already been done in their past lives, and

that it is not a pre-condition in the life when the hankering for

liberation arises).

 

Sri Ramanuja interprets the sutra as meaning that brahma-jignasa

follows the performance of Vedic works, and that brahma-jignasa

involves continuous and deep meditation on the meanings of Sruti

verses.

 

Sri Madhva interprets the sutra in a completely different manner than

the other two acharyas do. He says that 'aum' and 'atha' are the

words that Lord Vishnu uttered in the beginning when He desired to

create. And that after these two words, the Lord uttered 'atah' as

the third word, and that it is because of this that the words 'atha'

and 'atah' are uttered in the beginning of the Mimamsa Sutra.

According to Sri Madhva, the cause of brahma-jignasa is Lord Vishnu

alone. Moreover, the adhikara for brahma-jignasa is already given by

the nature of the soul, there being three types of adhikaris - the

lower, the middle and the higher. Of these, the adhikaris from among

human beings are the lowest, the rsis and gandharvas are the middle

adhikaris, and the gods are the higher adhikaris.

 

 

2. On Samnyasa

 

Interpretation of the Brahma Sutras III.iv.16 to 20

 

Sri Shankara interprets these sutras as meaning that knowledge

belongs to the monks, that the order of samnyasa is to be observed

for obtaining knowledge just like the other three stages are to be

observed for obtaining the fruits of works. Shankara says that the

order of the stages is an injunction, and that it must be followed.

 

Sri Ramanuja interprets these sutras as meaning that knowledge is not

subsidiary to works, that the order of samnaya is to be observed for

obtaining knowledge. Sri Ramanuja's interpretation is generally in

agreement with that of Shankara.

 

Sri Madhva interprets these sutras in a different way. He says that

since there are Sruti sentences stating that a jnani may behave in

any way he pleases, and since such verses may lead one to believe

that prohibited behaviour is permissible, the Brahma Sutra is here

pointing out that it is not so on account of there being clear

statements that aparokshita jnana should only be imparted to those

who observe continence. When the behaviour of jnanis appear to

conflict with acceptable norms of behavior, they are to be understood

as the injunctions of the Lord Himself because the jnani has no will

of his own, and it is the Lord's Will that vouchsafes to the jnani

the desires in his mind.

 

 

2. On following the order of ashramas

 

Interpretation of Brahma Sutra III.iv.32 to 35

 

All the three acharyas interpret these sutras to mean that the order

of the ashramas have to be observed. Sri Madhva makes an exception

only when there is dire danger to one's life. While Sri Shankara and

Sri Ramanuja say that the duties of the other stages, i.e.,

Agnihotra, etc, need not be performed during samnyasa, Sri Madhva

says that even though a jnani may not perform them, their performance

is recommended because they enhance the bliss of jnana. It is

interesting to note that Sri Madvacharya's dilution of the importance

of samnyasa is commensurate with his interpretation that duties

related to works should preferably be performed even by the jnani. It

may be noted that while Sri Shankaracharya says that these duties are

not to be perfromed during samnyasa, he lays great stress on the fact

that the worls done in the stages prior to samnyasa become

cooperative factors to make the conditions suitable for knowledge to

arise.

 

 

Note 1: My interpretation of Visistadvaita and Dvaita is open to

correction by those who have studied these darshanas in greater

detail and depth.

 

Note 2: There is a relation between the order of the ashramas and the

intrinsic structure of the Vedas. The Vedas are divided into four

sections called Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads (the

Upanishads being the last part of the Aranyakas). The Samhitas are to

be learnt during brahmancharya ashrama, the Brahmanas pertain to the

yajnas to be performed during grahasta ashrama, the Aranyakas pertain

to the meditations to be performed during vanaprasta ashrama, and the

Upanishads pertain to the knowledge that is to be learnt while

sitting by the side of the Guru (upanishad means 'sitting by the

side').

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan