Guest guest Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Pranams The following is a mananam exercise on tyaga and sannyasa. In the Kaivalya Upanishad we find these words: tyaagena eke - only by renunciation amrtatvam anashuhu - immortality is attained parena naakam - higher than heaven nihitam guhayam - in the cavity of the heart vibhraajate - shines brightly yat yatayaha - ascetics vishanti - enter And in the Mundaka Upanishad as well we find: Vedaantavijnaana sunishchitaarthaaH sanyaasayogaat yatayaH shuddhasattvaaH te brahmalokeshu paraantakaale paraamRitaath parimuchyanti sarve Sunishchitaarthaah: Those who have come to learn Vedanta Vijnana: this direct knowledge of Vedanta Sanyasa yogaat: through renunciation Yatayah: those ascetics shudha sattva: pure in mind Te: They; Paramruthaath: gain the highest immortality and Parimuchyanti sarve: get freed from all bondage Later the Mundaka Upanishad cautions that this brahmavidya should only be imparted to ascetics. tesham evaitam brahma-vidyam vadeta shiro-vratam The Brihad Up also contains this idea Br Up 3.5.1 Knowing this very Self the Brahmanas renounce the desire for sons wealth and for the worlds and lead a mendicants life.bhikshacharyam charanti ....he becomes meditative..having known all aboput meditativeness and its opposite..he becomes a knower of Brahman. Thus we find the Shruti clearly affirming that the proximate cause to Moksha is JnAnA ALONGWITH tyaga and sannyasa. And these terms tyaga and sannyasa here IS meant in the most literal sense of the term - a complete and total renunciation of worldly life. Is there some laxity or relaxation of rules in this? Is it possible to maintain some degree of mundane wordly existence , with a spirit of detachment or karmayoga, as even one contemplates on the mahavakyas? According to Shankara the answer is a resounding NO. Some of his bhashyas where he addresses this - Chandogya 2,23,1 There are 3 kinds of virtue. First is sacrifice,study and charity, Second is austerity itself. THird is a brahmacharin living in the house of his teacher - wholly dedicating himself there for life. All these become attainers of the virtuous worlds. The man established in Brahman attaines immortality.(Brahmasamsathoamrtatvameti) Opponent: Can it not be said that whoever among the persons following the virtues prescribed for their own stae of life remains established in Brahman he attains immortality? [in other words, as a grhastha or a householder, by practicing a life of virtue and right conduct and at the same time established in the idea of Brahman-oneness, can one not attain immortality?] Shankara: NO, because knowledge required for performance of rites and duties and the knowledge needed for the realization of Brahman are opposed to each other.........because the conviction arising from Knowledge and ignorance are opposed to each other. This being so, whoever has got rid of the conviction about differences based on which the injunction about rites and duties come into effect, he desists from all kinds of rites and duties becasue all causes for this cease to exist as a result of the conviction of the Oneness arising from the vedic texts....and he who has ceased from all rites and duties is spoken of as one established in Brahman and HE MUST BE A MONK because it is impossible for ANYONE ELSE to be so. For the other has not got his conviction about differences removed. because of his seeing hearing thinking and knowing differences he believes I shall get this by doing this. In the case of such a man who is engaged thus there cannot be any establishment in Brahman for he is possessed of the ideas arising from his attachment to false transformations whihc have speech alone as their basis. ....Because remaining established in Brahman is possible for the monk alone. And we said he alone remained unmentioned.Therefore the man of Realization alone who has ceased from rites and duties is meant by the word parivrajakah(monk) ..... And the term parivrajakah is not used conventionally for the phrase one remaining established in Brahman like the words barley and pig - this has been rebutted since remaining established in Brahman is possible for him(the monk) ALONE and NOT FOR ANYONE ELSE. Also in Br.Up 4.4.22 " Desiring this Self alone monks renounce their homes " ......etameva viditva munir bhavanti...Shankara says - therfore desiring the world of the Self monks renounce their home i.e. SHOULD RENOUNCE. Thus it is an injunction and harmonieses with the eulogy that follows. Because ancient Sages desisting from rites did renounce their homes therefor people today also renounce them i.e. SHOULD RENOUNCE them. A sannyasin sam-ni-asa casts off everything from himself - he is an out- " cast " - he wanders around homeless - parivrajaka and he lives only on alms bhikshu When should a person take sannyasa? ....... he shall renounce THAT VERY DAY on which he has become disillusioned with the world.....(Parivrajaka Up) a person may renounce worldly life that very day on which distaste for it dawns on him, (Jabala Up) How - what is the process? ....pull out the tuft muttering the Pranava; snap the sacred thread; discard the garment too on the ground or in the waters; become unclad reciting the mantra `Om Bhuh Svaha, Om Bhuvah Svaha and Om Suvah Svaha'; meditate on his own form; again recite mentally or in speech the Pranava and the vyahritis separately and utter three times three the farewell words, `I have renounced, I have renounced, I have renounced' in gentle, middling and sharp tones; deeply engage in meditation on the Pranava and raise his hand saying `Freedom from fear to all from me, Svaha'. He shall then start for the north thinking over the meaning of great scriptural texts such as `The Brahman I Am', `That Thou Art' and proceed in the unclad state. This is renunciation........(Par Up) Conduct - what is prescribed and proscribed? He shall ..practise the Pranava; be well established in the path of (realizing) Brahman; merge his favourite desire in the Atman; become free of `mine-ness' and get established in the Self; give up passion, anger, greed, delusion, intoxication, rivalry, false pride, pride, egotism, intolerance, arrogance, desires, hatred, gloating, impetuosity, `mine-ness', etc.; possessed of wisdom and dispassion he shall turn away from wealth and women and possessing a pure mind he shall ponder over the truths of all the Upanishads; guard bestowing particular care his celibacy, non-possession, universe-injuring attitude and truthfulness; conquer his senses and be free from affection externally and internally; secure alms for sustaining the body, like a harmless cow.. (Par Up) ....is afraid of respect as poison and always longs for disrespect as nectar......considering as worthless like vomit all worldly actions..(San Up)...(The ascetic) shall discard clarified butter like blood, taking food in one house like flesh, using cosmetics like smearing himself with unclean things, salt and molasses like an outcaste, garment like dirty dishes, oil bath like courting women, pleasant company of friends like urine, desire like beef, familiar places like the hut of an outcaste, women like snakes, gold like deadly poison, an assembly hall like a cemetery...(Sanny Up) Food? ....eat food (secured as alms from many places) like a bee, using the hand as a vessel; not increase fat (but) become lean; feel that he is Brahman; (Pari Up) He shall consider food as medicine. He should take food as medicine... He should eat as and when he gets food, without discontent..for bare sustenance and in such a way that there is no increase of fat. Stay? ... go about alone for eight months and shall not journey as two (i.e. with a companion)...... be without a (fixed) abode..not resort to a fire-place (for warmth), (Par Up) .....sheltering himself, without an abode (of his own), in an unoccupied house, a temple, a clump of (tall) grass (or a heap of straw), an anthill, the shade of a tree, a potter's hut, a cottage where sacred fire is kept, sandy bank of a river, a mountain thicket or cave, a hollow in a tree, the vicinity of a water fall or a piece of clean ground; (Jab Up) And for such a ascetic is said - " .....he who has knowledge of the non-dual Atman has the real sacred thread (i.e. that knowledge itself is the sacred thread). His deep absorption in meditation is itself the tuft. This activity is (itself) the possession of the sanctifying ring of holy grass (pavitra). He does all actions, he is the Brahmana, he is deeply absorbed in Brahman, he is the illumined being (deva), he is the sage, ..he is devoid of the six human infirmities (hunger and thirst, sorrow and delusion, old age and death), and is free from the six properties (of the body, birth, existence, change, growth, decay and death)..Excepting the Self he sees nothing else..firmly established in Consciousness consisting of Existence, Knowledge and Bliss.... " (Par Up) The Tirukural also states- The scriptures exalt above every other good the greatness of virtuous renunciates. Those who perfectly renounce attain the highest peak; the rest remain ensnared in delusion's net. Tirukural 21; 348. Why then does everyone not embrace ascetism? There is an element of fate... In the case of Shankara and Ramana the strength of prior samskaras drags them into sannyasa at a very early age - 7 yrs of age is when Shankara took sannyasa!!....so one reason may be the sheer strength of prior karmas and negative tendencies make it difficult for the individual to see the wisdom in embracing sannyasa... But in terms of free will - i think it boils down to this - I think if one examines in the above the spirit of what is entailed in the pregnant expression " tyaga " one can well come to understand how extraordinarily difficult is this path.... it makes the physical act of climbing a Mount Everest seem as demanding as taking a sip of water!....morover mukti is seen to be extraordinarily rare....there is a disbelief in one's own capacity to achieve this in this lifetime...or a belief that if " fated " it will somehow spontaneously happen on its own..or a lack of courage and conviction in " aham brahmasmi " as well as in one's own strengths and fortitude...or perhaps encosnement in a relative peace...and in the meantime samsara - though seen to be illusory - is too comfortable to discard.... And so we Eschew the Elusive for the Ephemereal...the Elusive while Real is not in hand..yet.. - and the Ephemereal though fleeting - soon to be gone...seemingly seems to be...for now. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam > advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani@> wrote: > > > > > Thyaga of what? > > What exactly is hinted by Amrutatwam or immortality in this context? > > R. S. Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams > > The following is a mananam exercise on tyaga and sannyasa. > Is there some laxity or relaxation of rules in this? Is it possible to maintain some degree of mundane wordly existence , with a spirit of detachment or karmayoga, as even one contemplates on the mahavakyas? According to Shankara the answer is a resounding NO. > > Hari OM > Shri Gurubhyoh namah > Shyam Dear Shyamji, The above sentence gives the impression that liberation can be attained only in the sannyAsa Ashrama. I had sent a post in reply to yours, but somehow it has not appeared. I am therefore repeating it. The following statements contradict what you have said. taitt. up, 1.11.S.B (at the very end) —sarveshaam cha adhikaaraH vidyaayaam ---- iti siddham. -- Persons belonging to all Ashramas are entitled to Self-realization. B.S.3.4.36 to 39. bhAShya—Even those who do not belong to any Ashrama are entitled to attain Self-knowledge (e.g. Raikva, Gaargii). Regards, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 taitt. up, 1.11.S.B (at the very end) —sarveshaam cha adhikaaraH vidyaayaam ---- iti siddham. -- Persons belonging to all Ashramas are entitled to Self-realization. B.S.3.4.36 to 39. bhAShya—Even those who do not belong to any Ashrama are entitled to attain Self-knowledge (e.g. Raikva, Gaargii). Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji Hare Krishna And we can also refer shankara's commentary on apashudrAdhikaraNa's last sUtra (1-3-38) wherein shankara says even Sudra's like vidhura and dharmavyAdha have attained the ultimate through the shravaNa & manana of smruti like geeta, purAna & other epics. So, we cannot categorically declare that jnAna is an exclusive asset of followers of saMnyAsa Ashrama...jnAni might be a emperor like janaka or he might be a gruhasta maharshi like yAjnAvalkya or he might be a virakta like shukAchArya or he might be a saNyAsi like our Adi guru shankarAchArya or he might be a celestial beings like Indra, yama or he might be a little boy like prahlAda or nachiketa or she might be a lady like gArgi or maitreyi or he might be a trader like tulAdhAra or he might be a shUdra like vidhura or dharmavyAdha or he might be a nagna yOgi (naked yOgi) like saMvarta or he might be like avatAra purusha like rAma, krishna... OR he might be a scientist, scholar, doctor & well established participant in vedAntic discussion in electronic media like your goodself, Sri Sadananda prabhuji, Sri Prof. VK prabhuji, Sri Ananda wood prabhuji, Sri Sunder prabhuji etc. etc. So, mortals like me, can not conclude anything unquestionably about jnAni, his attitude & his Ashrama... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 There is a sentence in Shri Shankaracharya's introduction to the munDakopaniShad on this topic that seems to be a bit difficult to understand (I was just reading this just yesterday night, coincidentally...) The passage is: jnAnamAtre yadyapi sarvAshramiNAm adhikArastathApi sanyAsaniShThaiva brahmavidyA mokshasAdhanam na karmasahiteti... I only have a Hindi translation of this, not an English one, but I think it goes roughly like this: " Even though people of every ashram have adhikAra to mere knowledge, brahmavidyA is a means of moksha only when attended with sanyAsa, not together with karma " How is this should be interpreted? Also, does somebody know what Anandagiri say here? Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 " Even though people of every ashram have adhikAra to mere knowledge, brahmavidyA is a means of moksha only when attended with sanyAsa, not together with karma " praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji Hare Krishna Nice to see you on the list after long time :-)) How are you prabhuji?? Welcome back... IMHO, shankara refuting here samucchaya vAda...Ofcourse, advaita teaches us jnAna & karma cannot go hand in hand when you are seriously persuing the brahma jignAsa. So, if one is pure karmi, doing karma with an expectation of fruit he is not fit to do jnAna sAdhana ( dont point your finger at me and ask : ' then how can you'?? I am just sharing my intellectual understanding :-)) and does not have the eligibility to get Atma jnAna and resultant mOksha. However, if a karmi does karma with an IshwarArpaNa buddhi & adhere to karmaphala tyAga rUpa saNyAsa then it is 'as good as' observing the 'saNyAsa' itself. There is hardly any difference between pravrutti para karma yOgi & nivrutti para saNyAsi. AFAIK, the life style is common to both vAnaprasthi-s or karmayOgi-s (not karmi-s) and saNyAsi-s as the former renounced the house-holder's order & obligations mentally and later formally & physically. Both are going to see inaction in action, and action in inaction... Anyway, you can wait for the better answer from the learned prabhuji-s of this list. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > taitt. up, 1.11.S.B (at the very end) †" sarveshaam cha adhikaaraH > vidyaayaam ---- iti siddham. > -- Persons belonging to all Ashramas are entitled to Self-realization. > B.S.3.4.36 to 39. bhAShya†" Even those who do not belong to any Ashrama are > entitled to attain Self-knowledge (e.g. Raikva, Gaargii). > Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji Reference Ramana Maharshi We carry knowledge (whatever it may be)over our head in a running train. All knowledge is past and time bound. Emptying consciousness is amrutatwam but what is consciousness?This question to be resolved. We accumulate knowledge in bits and is functioning in bits but not as a whole.But we assume this fragmentary knowledge can bring in a change both inside and out side. First step is the last so Are we different from this immutable word essence? thank you sekhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 --- On Wed, 9/16/09, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote: taitt. up, 1.11.S.B (at the very end) —sarveshaam cha adhikaaraH vidyaayaam ---- iti siddham. -- Persons belonging to all Ashramas are entitled to Self-realization. B.S.3.4.36 to 39. bhAShya—Even those who do not belong to any Ashrama are entitled to attain Self-knowledge (e.g. Raikva, Gaargii). PraNAms to all, Without getting into nitty-gritty details, let us look at the problem without personalities involved (my bias as a scientist is coming out). If the problem is self-ignorance, it can be only removed by self-knowledge. For the knowledge to take place the mind has to be prepared - the saadhana chatuShTaya sampatti - are the pre-requisites of the mind for the knowledge to take place. Shankara goes on exhaustively analyzing this fundamental requirement while analyzing the first suutra of Brahmasuutras, where he rejects the puurvapakshi's insistence that karma is required as preparatory. What is required is the four fold qualifications of the mind - the rest of the saadhanas could be accessories to gain those qualifications but one cannot insists that they are essential. either Action or giving up the action has no bearing in the ultimate analysis as long as one has acquired the four-fold qualifications required for the mind to gain the knowledge. What has to be given up kartRitva and bhuktRitva bhaava - notion of doership and enjoyership. Hence if knowledge is the only solution to the problem what is given up is only the ignorance - the rest are only preparatory for the mind. Whatever that helps to gain the four-fold qualifications is the right preparatory saadhana - and the rest has no bearing - that includes taking bhoutika sanyaasa. In the language of Swami Paramaarthanandaji - what is to be given up are the PORT - clinging attachments to possessions, obligations, relationships and transactions - I am seeing the beauty of these statements as I am going through the modern-day vananaprasta! Yes mental detachment is prerequisite for gaining the knowledge - hence the statement - tyaagenaike amRitatvam. As Bhagavaan Ramana says - the external Sanyaasa - is not necessary but helpful to give-up the PORT. One can, of course, get attached to his koupinam too. Swami Chinmayanandaji mentioned about a great traditional sanyaasin who was invited for the inauguration of the Banaras Hindu University - they made all the arrangements for him to be comfortable. As he was about to retire, he asked whether they have brought the tiger's skin for him to sleep on - which they forgot - they have provided an air-conditioned room with soft conventional matrix. That swamiji complained that he cannot sleep on that as he needs his tiger's skin. The point is - he was attached to his tiger-skin without which he cannot sleep. Implications are- as Bhagavaan Ramana says for any of these - they are helpful but not necessary. The Bottom line is what is required is giving up attachment to PORT. The sanyaasa can help tremendously in providing the necessary environment to give-up attachments to PORT. But one cannot insist that it is necessary for self-realization. Shree Sastriji reference endoreses that. I think somewhere in Gita IIIrd ch. Bhaashya also Shankara mentions this as he was addressing jnaana-karma samucchaya vaadins. Looking from the point of the goal - it makes no sense to insists only external sanyaasa will lead to self-realization. Viveka which is one of the primary requirements has to be used even in these things, which involves discrimination of nitya and anitya vastu viveka - discrimination of what is eternal and what is ephemeral and sanyaasa to ephemeral to gain the knowledge of the eternal. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 namaskarams in this day and age when ishwara anugraham is being showered like what visbhishana got ,it emphasises at any time knowledge takes place only awareness that it is taking place is vital which is something not descibable. a few weeks ago a mahatma was conducting discourses in Toronto not many people could attend because as a lady voiced out that the prerequisite was even though the entire days events were packed it was to be held in a local hotel and for many costs involved were high.  so even when mind sets were prepared to listen organisers had booked hotel.  giving gurudakshina is a must but wanting to listen was profound preparedness but organisers not willing to give up " stipulations " .  so it makes one wonder is it time and wanting to attend but there was no facility. tygha and what is giving up is when one understand and then decides to give up or not? spiritual understanding from teachers who come to Toronto and organisers insisting on having it in hotels is something to be included in such understanding.  This message is not for the whole forum but when we quote ADI SHANKARA it is to also apply that in this day and age what is happening now.  humbly  sukanya shankar    --- On Wed, 9/16/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada Re: Re: thyagena eka amrutatwam. advaitin Received: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 4:01 AM  --- On Wed, 9/16/09, snsastri <sn.sastri (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: taitt. up, 1.11.S.B (at the very end) —sarveshaam cha adhikaaraH vidyaayaam ---- iti siddham. -- Persons belonging to all Ashramas are entitled to Self-realization. B.S.3.4.36 to 39. bhAShya—Even those who do not belong to any Ashrama are entitled to attain Self-knowledge (e.g. Raikva, Gaargii). PraNAms to all, Without getting into nitty-gritty details, let us look at the problem without personalities involved (my bias as a scientist is coming out). If the problem is self-ignorance, it can be only removed by self-knowledge. For the knowledge to take place the mind has to be prepared - the saadhana chatuShTaya sampatti - are the pre-requisites of the mind for the knowledge to take place. Shankara goes on exhaustively analyzing this fundamental requirement while analyzing the first suutra of Brahmasuutras, where he rejects the puurvapakshi' s insistence that karma is required as preparatory. What is required is the four fold qualifications of the mind - the rest of the saadhanas could be accessories to gain those qualifications but one cannot insists that they are essential. either Action or giving up the action has no bearing in the ultimate analysis as long as one has acquired the four-fold qualifications required for the mind to gain the knowledge. What has to be given up kartRitva and bhuktRitva bhaava - notion of doership and enjoyership. Hence if knowledge is the only solution to the problem what is given up is only the ignorance - the rest are only preparatory for the mind. Whatever that helps to gain the four-fold qualifications is the right preparatory saadhana - and the rest has no bearing - that includes taking bhoutika sanyaasa. In the language of Swami Paramaarthanandaji - what is to be given up are the PORT - clinging attachments to possessions, obligations, relationships and transactions - I am seeing the beauty of these statements as I am going through the modern-day vananaprasta! Yes mental detachment is prerequisite for gaining the knowledge - hence the statement - tyaagenaike amRitatvam. As Bhagavaan Ramana says - the external Sanyaasa - is not necessary but helpful to give-up the PORT. One can, of course, get attached to his koupinam too. Swami Chinmayanandaji mentioned about a great traditional sanyaasin who was invited for the inauguration of the Banaras Hindu University - they made all the arrangements for him to be comfortable. As he was about to retire, he asked whether they have brought the tiger's skin for him to sleep on - which they forgot - they have provided an air-conditioned room with soft conventional matrix. That swamiji complained that he cannot sleep on that as he needs his tiger's skin. The point is - he was attached to his tiger-skin without which he cannot sleep. Implications are- as Bhagavaan Ramana says for any of these - they are helpful but not necessary. The Bottom line is what is required is giving up attachment to PORT. The sanyaasa can help tremendously in providing the necessary environment to give-up attachments to PORT. But one cannot insist that it is necessary for self-realization. Shree Sastriji reference endoreses that. I think somewhere in Gita IIIrd ch. Bhaashya also Shankara mentions this as he was addressing jnaana-karma samucchaya vaadins. Looking from the point of the goal - it makes no sense to insists only external sanyaasa will lead to self-realization. Viveka which is one of the primary requirements has to be used even in these things, which involves discrimination of nitya and anitya vastu viveka - discrimination of what is eternal and what is ephemeral and sanyaasa to ephemeral to gain the knowledge of the eternal. Hari Om! Sadananda ________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote: > > There is a sentence in Shri Shankaracharya's introduction to the munDakopaniShad on this topic that seems to be a bit difficult to understand (I was just reading this just yesterday night, coincidentally...) > > The passage is: > > jnAnamAtre yadyapi sarvAshramiNAm adhikArastathApi sanyAsaniShThaiva brahmavidyA mokshasAdhanam na karmasahiteti... > > I only have a Hindi translation of this, not an English one, but I think it goes roughly like this: > > " Even though people of every ashram have adhikAra to mere knowledge, brahmavidyA is a means of moksha only when attended with sanyAsa, not together with karma " > > How is this should be interpreted? Also, does somebody know what Anandagiri say here? Namaste, It would seem primarily to be aimed at refuting 'j~nAna-karma samuchchaya'. The following references may be helpful: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mundak/mun_1-1.html " ...Though everyone has the right for Knowledge, it is Knowledge that is connected with renunciation that becomes the means to liberation. Renunciation is the necessary implication of the attempt at an expansion into universality of nature. Knowledge cannot be expected to be co-existent with worldly activity. Love for the world is not consistent with love for the Absolute. Therefore, true spiritual Knowledge is found only in those who find no value in anything that is objective.... " ==================================================================== http://www.advaitin.net/Vedanta%20Classics/Anandagiri%20tIkA.pdf pp.158-160 (of 2290) of the file (file size - 254MB) ==================================================================== http://www.skriptar.cz/Notes-on-Spiritual-Discourses-by-Sri-Atmananda-Krishna-Me\ non/234 704. HAS THE WAY OF LIFE ANY BEARING UPON TRUTH ? (400) " The ways of life of Shri Krishna, Shri Shuka, Shri Rama and Shri Vasishtha were all different. But they were all equal as jivan-muktas. kRRiShNo bhogI shukastyAgI nRRipau janaka-rAghavau | vasiShThaH karma-kartA cha teshAm mukti-sthitiH samA || --Vishnu Purana [Krishna enjoyed the fruits of life. Shuka renounced what others sought. Rama and Janaka were kings. Vasishtha practiced formal rites. But in that freedom each attained, they are the same. Each is that one.] (?) Answer: Yes. As individuals, they were all different. They were not Sages as such. The Sage was Krishna, the Sage was Shuka, the Sage was Janaka, the Sage was Rama, and the Sage was Vasishtha. The Sage is only one, and that is the Truth. But, as living entities, they were all different. " Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Respected Shastri-ji Sashtang namaskarams. I agree with you that there are exceptions. In these cases the only explanation is purvajanma samskaras. These are the words of His Holiness the Sage of Kanchi in his text advaita sadhana, on this issue. The following is an excerpt from Advaita Sadhana where-in we find articulated the veiwpoint of the Sage of Kanchi - Apex of Saadhanaa is only for the sannyAsi ! " MumukshhutvaM -- the yearning for moksha – is the end of the second stage. The first stage is that of eradicating the mind's dirt and vacillation by karma and bhakti. SAdhanA-chatushTayaM is the second stage. The SAdhanAs remove mostly all the defective vAsanAs and perturbations adhering in the mind; if at all there are any that may be only five or ten percent. It is in such a circumstance that the moksha-seeker (mumukshhu) feels he has only one work to do, namely to get the Release. So he renounces his home and possessions, takes Sannyasa and goes to the third stage. In other words, the Acharya's conclusion is, in that last stage, it is the Sannyasi that has the right qualifications for Atma-SAdhanA. Having renounced all attachments, bondage and worldly obligations, Atma-vichara (Enquiry into the Atman) becomes his whole-time job. IT IS ONLY FOR such a seeker THAT THE MOST BLISSFUL GIFT of Realisation of Brahman happens. THAT IS THE MAXIM OF THE Acharya, as also confirmed by the Upanishads...The Brahmasutra (III – 4 – 17) gives a rule for the study of Atma-VidyA: Eligibility is only for `Urdva-retasis'. Who are they? They are the ones who have not wasted their energy in sensual-experience but have conserved all of it for the uplift of their spirituality. The one who has thus destroyed his lust will become a Sannyasi.......CITING CASES OF EXCEPTIONS and asking for withdrawal of regulations in all cases IS NOT RIGHT.....That is why the third stage in the Advaita-SAdhanA is prescribed ONLY FOR those of the fourth Ashrama (Sannyasa) who has already thrown off all his obligations of karma and has totally dedicated himself to the enquiry of jnAna. Only if one throws off the burdens that make one run around for the family establishment, the responsibility of feeding oneself or the household and also the bondage of relatives as well as of money and position and sit whole time as a Sannyasi for the purpose of Atma-Vichara, -- ONLY THEN can one eradicate the inner burden of thoughts and also wash off the long-lasting dirt and moss of the mind. Upto a certain stage the composites of right action, svadharma and obligatory duties do help to wash off this old dirt; but after a stage they themselves become a potential for further dirt and moss of the mind. They stick to one's mind and prevent the mind from losing itself in eternal peace. When we wash sticky and dirty vessels don't we apply tamarind and earth on them and even allow them to stay there for some time? But even they are ultimately rinsed off and only then the vessels become bright and pure. In the same way, THE KARMA that helps to purify SHOULD THEMSELVES BE ERADICATED IN FULL in order for the inner organ (antahkaraNaM) to become pure and crystal clear. That is exactly what Sannyasa means. After one becomes a Sannyasi, the inner activities have also to stop and give relief. Activity means peacelessness. Total peace is an ocean of bliss; one should dissolve in it and be Brahman. That is immutable peace. If it is possible to reach that state from our present state of perturbation and restlessness, then is it not our duty to put in the maximum possible effort for it? If we don't, then we are only duds, whatever position or status we hold in whichever field it may be. " Another point is that the sutrabhashyas refer to adhikartvam primarily - i.e. who is qualified for atmajnana. Just because it is said that people of all ashramas and even those who do not belong to any ahsramas are QUALIFIED for self-knowledge does not mean that jivanmukti is possible without embracing sannyasa. The two things are completely unrelated. We are talking about the importance of sannyasa in terms of consummation of self-knowledge not in reference to the qualification to acquire it. Is there not a world of difference between the two? My humble pranams. Hari OM Shyam advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > taitt. up, 1.11.S.B (at the very end) —sarveshaam cha adhikaaraH vidyaayaam ---- iti siddham. > -- Persons belonging to all Ashramas are entitled to Self-realization. > B.S.3.4.36 to 39. bhAShya—Even those who do not belong to any Ashrama are entitled to attain Self-knowledge (e.g. Raikva, Gaargii). > Regards, > S.N.Sastri > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 > " snsastri " <sn.sastri@> wrote: > > Persons belonging to all Ashramas are entitled to Self-realization. > > B.S.3.4.36 to 39. bhAShya—Even those who do not belong to any Ashrama are entitled to attain Self-knowledge (e.g. Raikva, Gaargii). Pranamas, As a matter of reference, I have been hearing Swami Paramarthanandaji's tapes on the Gita (Chapters 3 and 4) in the past three to four months (actually these discourses are on the net for everyone to hear). And throughout his lectures he emphasized in several places a position identical to Sri Sastriji's statements, defining very clearly what sanyasa means, not taking them as exceptions. The only exceptions he talked about are related to jnanis that Slef-Realized without the help of a teacher. Whoever has doubts about Swami Paramarthananda's view on this may also take a look, or we may say, take a hear of these lectures. pranamas All, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Pranams dear Rishi-ji It is such a pleasure to hear from you after a long time. First of all according to both Shruti and according to Shankara brahmavidyA should be imparted ONLY to sannyasis. In the Upadesha Sahasri Shankara at the very outset is categorical in stating tadvidam mokshasadhanam jnanam....pratipannaparamahamsapaarivrajyaaya shamadama... The means to liberation viz. knowledge should be explained...to one who is indifferent to everything that is transitiory... HAS ADOPTED THE LIFE OF A WANDERING MONK WHO HAS EMBRACED THE ORDER OF PARAMAHAMSA... and who is endowed with control of the mind and senses... The Mundaka Upanishad itself says that " tesham evaitam brahma-vidyam vadeta shiro-vratam " ONLY To those individuals who have undertaken asceticism (the shaving of the head) should brahmavidya be imparted. Now with regards to your question. There is knowledge of the self and jivanmukti or Moksha. One leads to the other but the two terms are not synonymous by any means. Selk-knowledge should lead to sannyasa and then it results in a consummate state of abidance in that very self-awareness, and that alone is jivanmukti. Achievement of immortality is not a joke, an armchair reading and contempating exercise at best or a retirement interest or hobby at worst - it is by far the very pinnacle of ALL human pursuits. There can be two reasons why people take to sannyasa - One is for acquisition of knowledge - as seekers - see in Br.Up 4.4.22 " Desiring this Self alone monks renounce their homes " ......etameva viditva munir bhavanti...Shankara says - therfore desiring the world of the Self monks renounce their home i.e. SHOULD RENOUNCE. Thus it is an injunction and harmonieses with the eulogy that follows. Because ancient Sages desisting from rites did renounce their homes therefor people today also renounce them i.e. SHOULD RENOUNCE them. " Here the reference may be to seekers of Self-knowledge. But the second reason is for consummation of knowledge - i.e. it is intended for Knowers of Brahman! Why? Why should a knower of Brahman need any form of spiritual discipline? This is made clear by BHagwan Krishna in the Gita but is only through the genius of Shankara that this message gets amplified. What Krishna says is : vivikta-sevi laghvasi yatavak-kayamanasah dhyanayoga paronityam vairagyam samupasritah ahankaram balam darpam kamam krodham parigraham vimucya nirmamah santo brahma-bhuyaya kalpate Shankara in s bhashya makes it amply clear what is meant here... " Even after giving up the flaws of the senses and the mind, one may have to maintain external possession TO SUPPORT bodily life and practice righteousness; this too HAS TO BE GIVEN UP. IN OTHER WORDS, becoming A PARIVRAJAKA...such an ascetic arrests all forms of turbulence, becomes disciplined in knowledge and acquires fitness for the Brahman-status.. " To this the opponent raises an objection - " Is this not selfcontradictory?...The moment one acquires knowledge of an object, the knower knows it; there is NO FURTHER NEED for a discipline of knowledge " ...The Vedantin's reply is " This is no flaw. By discipline what is meant is the definitive consummation of Self-awareness which is no longer exposed to doubts of any kind; for it is the FINAL FRUIT of the RISE of self-knowledge....this discipline of knowledge can be achieved ONLY by means of renunciation of ALL works - tasmaat sarvakarmasannyaasenaiva jnananishta kaaryaa iti siddham " . Note here the words FINAL FRUIT of knowledge - meaning that only in the fertile soil of total sannyasa can the tree of knowledge give rise to the fruit of jivanmuti - not otherwise. And of course the Shruti also affirms the same The Brihad Up also contains this very idea Br Up 3.5.1 Knowing this very Self the Brahmanas renounce the desire for sons wealth and for the worlds and lead a mendicants life.bhikshacharyam charanti...he becomes meditative..having known all aboput meditativeness and its opposite..he becomes a knower of Brahman. Thus we find the Shruti clearly affirming that the proximate cause to Moksha is JnAnA ALONGWITH tyaga and sannyasa. Note here the Shruti talks about the Self-knowers taking to renunciation so that they may achieve mukti. This is the reason that Yajnavalkya, even though a knower of Brahman, renounces the world, and discards all his possessions and takes to the life of a wandering monk in the very same Upanishad. If this were not the case, if as can be argued by some, that " internal " or " mental " renunciation is adequate, there would be absolutely no need for Yajnavalkya being a knower of Brahman to renounce his ashrama. If one looks through the code of conduct of habitat, home (or lack of), food, behavior etc of the parivrajakas one can gain a sense of how difficult the path is. To pretend that such austerity is optional and at best conducive but not compulsory is totally against what Shankara advocates numerous times in his bhashyas - what I have humbly presented are just a few excerpts. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote: > > There is a sentence in Shri Shankaracharya's introduction to the munDakopaniShad on this topic that seems to be a bit difficult to understand (I was just reading this just yesterday night, coincidentally...) > > The passage is: > > jnAnamAtre yadyapi sarvAshramiNAm adhikArastathApi sanyAsaniShThaiva brahmavidyA mokshasAdhanam na karmasahiteti... > > I only have a Hindi translation of this, not an English one, but I think it goes roughly like this: > > " Even though people of every ashram have adhikAra to mere knowledge, brahmavidyA is a means of moksha only when attended with sanyAsa, not together with karma " > > How is this should be interpreted? Also, does somebody know what Anandagiri say here? > > Regards, > > Rishi. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Dear Bhaskar-ji Pranams You say: " However, if a karmi does karma with an IshwarArpaNa buddhi & adhere to karmaphala tyAga rUpa saNyAsa then it is 'as good as' observing the 'saNyAsa' itself " My reply: karmaphalatyagarupa sannyasa?? Karmaphalatyaga -i.e. karmayoga is of course a necessary step for preparing the mind for jnana. But to equate that with sannyasa as a proximate path to jivanmukti is very much incorrect. This is what Shankara has to say with regards to self-knowledge and karmayoga in his Ch 5 introduction " Both karmayoga and sannyasa promote liberation. Of the two Karma yoga is better " is the Lord's reply - this requires critical analysis. Does this reply affirm that while karma-sannyasa and karmayoga, performed BY A SELFKNOWER promote liberation, karmayoga is for some reason the better? Or do these two pertain to the non-self-knower? " ....and he himself answers in this very lengthy introduction.. " This is irrational - that sannyasa and karmayoga each has the power to promote liberation " ... " SInce the avidya of the SELFKNOWER has been abolished he CANNOT undertake karmayoga that is rooted in error....therefore it is rational to maintain that Karmayoga is out of question for the self-knower...the self-knower having discharged all; duties has no further purpose to fulfil..renunciation and karmayoga equally promote liberation refers to the non-self-knower....which is distinct from the TOTAL RENUNCIATION of a self-knower. " .. A study of this entire introduction will shed more light on this subject. I am not reproducing it here as it is freely available online. Hope this clarifies. A self-realized Maharhi like Bhagwan Ramana took to leading the life of a parivrajaka for nearly 2 decades AFTER he gained self-knowledge. So when we hear mahatmas such as Ramana and/or our own Gurus say " External sannyasa is not a requisite; it is enough to have internal sannyasa " - can we not see that they themselves are sannyasis, perfect renunciates, and embodiments of the lofty ideals of sannyasa? What would a person who has just returned from climbing the summit of Mount Everest say to a lame old man in the valley below who is beaten down in spirit and body.... " It is the same view my friend - I did not see anything you dont already see. Why do you want to make this journey? " ....fully knowing that for one burning intensely for that vision, there would be no waiting for a recommendation or permission - he would already be on his way! May the Grace of Bhagavatpada Shankara ever inspire us. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > So when we hear mahatmas such as Ramana and/or our own Gurus say " External sannyasa is not a requisite; it is enough to have internal sannyasa " - can we not see that they themselves are sannyasis, perfect renunciates, and embodiments of the lofty ideals of sannyasa? What would a person who has just returned from climbing the summit of Mount Everest say to a lame old man in the valley below who is beaten down in spirit and body.... " I SRi Shyam, Pranams, I always felt and thought that the realization we come about when we self-realize is that in reality there is no such thing as top of Mount Everest and " down-there " valley. If we think we are at the top and the rest of mortals are " down there " looking up there is definitely something wrong with that picture. Bhagavan Ramana always made that clear. Not a single recorded word of his teachings tells that he said that formal sannyasi was required, in fact it's quite the opposite, he said that a grihastra had more possibilities (maybe because a grihastra has to deal with a mother in law!) And better not mention Nisargadatta, who once took off to become a wandering monk (parivrajaka) and was instructed to return to his family. He ended up being a jnani!... And how many might be out there that are not acharyas, or sannyasis, or saints that also are self-realized. Definitely neither any of us can tell, and as we say often, only God knows... Pranams All, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 advaitin , " carlosartista2000 " <maunna wrote: > > > I always felt and thought that the realization we come about when we self-realize is that in reality there is no such thing as top of Mount Everest and " down-there " valley. If we think we are at the top and the rest of mortals are " down there " looking up there is definitely something wrong with that picture. Namaste, Here is another perspective from Vishnu Purana: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp157.htm (The Vishnu Purana, translated by Horace Hayman Wilson, [1840], at sacred-texts.com) (Book 6, Chapter 2) --------------- p. 627 UPON this subject, Maitreya, you shall hear what the wise Vyása has related, as it is communicated truly by me. It was once a matter of dispute amongst the sages, at what season the least moral merit obtained the greatest reward, and by whom it was most easily displayed. In order to terminate the discussion, they went to Veda Vyása to remove their doubts. They found the illustrious Muni, my son, half immersed in the water of the Ganges; and awaiting the close of his ablutions, the sages remained on the banks of the sacred stream, under shelter of a grove of trees. As my son plunged down into the water, and again rose up from it, the Munis heard him exclaim, " Excellent, excellent, is the Kali age! " Again he dived, and again rising, said in their hearing, " Well done, well done & #346;údra; thou art happy! " Again he sank down, and as he once more emerged they heard him say, " Well done, well done, women; they are happy! who are more fortunate than they? " After this, my son finished his bathing, and the sages met him as he approached to welcome them. After he had given them seats, and they had proffered their respects, the son of Satyavatí said to them, " On what account have you come to me? " They replied, " We came to you to consult you on a subject on which we entertain some doubt; but that may be at present suspended: explain to us something else. We heard you say, 'Excellent is the Kali age! Well done, & #346;údra! Well done, women!' Now we are desirous to know why this was said, why you called them repeatedly, happy. Tell us the meaning of it, if it be not a mystery. We will then propose to you the question that occupies our thoughts. " Being thus addressed by the Munis, Vyása smiled, and said to them, " Hear, excellent sages, why I uttered the words 'Well done, well done.' The fruit of penance, of continence, of silent prayer, and the like, practised in the Krita age for ten years, in the Treta for one year, in the Dwápara for a month, is obtained in the Kali age in a day and night: therefore did I exclaim, 'Excellent, excellent, is the Kali age!' That reward which a man obtains in the Krita by abstract meditation, in the Treta by sacrifice, in the Dwápara by adoration, he receives in the Kali by merely reciting the name of Ke & #347;ava. In the Kali age a man displays the most exalted virtue by very little exertion; therefore, pious sages, who know what virtue is, I was pleased with the Kali age. Formerly the Vedas were to be acquired by the twice-born through the diligent observance of self-denial; and it was their duty to celebrate sacrifices conformably to the ritual. Then idle prayers, idle feasts, and fruitless ceremonies, were practised but to mislead the twice-born; for although observed by them devoutly, yet, in consequence of some irregularity in their celebration, sin was incurred in all their works, and what they ate, or what they drank, did not effect the fulfilment of their desires. In all their objects the twice-born enjoyed no independence, and they attained their respective spheres only with exceeding pain. The & #346;údra, on the contrary, more fortunate than they, reaches his assigned station by rendering them service, and performing merely the sacrifice of preparing food, in which no rules determine what may or may not be eaten, what may or may not be drunk. Therefore, most excellent sages, is the & #346;údra fortunate. " Riches are accumulated by men in modes not incompatible with their peculiar duties, and they are then to be bestowed upon the worthy, and expended in constant sacrifice. There is great trouble in their acquisition; great care in their preservation; great distress from the want of them; and great grief for their loss. Thus, eminent Brahmans, through these and other sources of anxiety, men attain their allotted spheres of Prajápati and the rest only by exceeding labour and suffering. This is not the case with women: a woman has only to honour her husband, in act, thought, and speech, to reach the same region to which he is elevated; and she thus accomplishes her object without any great exertion. This was the purport of my exclamation, 'Well done!' the third time. I have thus related to you what you asked. Now demand the question you came to put to me, in any way you please, and I will make you a distinct reply. " The Munis then said to Vyása, " The question we intended to have asked you has been already answered by you in your reply to our subsequent inquiry. " On hearing which, Krishn & #769;a Dwaipáyana laughed, and said to the holy persons who had come to see him, whose eyes were wide open with astonishment, " I perceived, with the eye of divine knowledge, the question you intended to ask, and in allusion to it I uttered the expressions, 'Well done, well done.' In truth, in the Kali age duty is discharged with very little trouble by mortals, whose faults are all washed away by the water of their individual merits; by & #346;údras, through diligent attendance only upon the twice-born; and by women, through the slight effort of obedience to their husbands. Therefore, Brahmans, did I thrice express my admiration of their happiness; for in the Krita and other ages great were the toils of the regenerate to perform their duty. I waited not for your inquiry, but replied at once to the question you purposed to ask. Now, ye who know what virtue is, what else do you wish me to tell you? " Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > > First of all according to both Shruti and according to Shankara brahmavidyA should be imparted ONLY to sannyasis. Dear Sri Shyam, In the ten principal Upanishads, you can see that a king imparts Brahma-Vidya to a brahmin, father imparts to his son, a husband imparts to his wife, a teacher imparts to a householder, etc.etc. Bhagavan Krishna who was a householder imparts Brahmavidya to Arjuna who was also a householder. Were not the sages , the mantradRaShTArAs, house holders? In the light of the above facts your statement does not ring to be true.Sruti does not support your contention. Further in such matters Sruthi alone is pramana and nobody else . My Guru was not a sanyasi . Venerable Sri Atmananda of Kerala was not a sanyasin. Was he not a Jnani? He was imparting Self-Knowledge to all who had sincere longing to realize their true svarupa. I think this is the onlybasic qualification required by a mumukshu in the present times. Kathopanishad specifically says " yamEvaiSha vRuNutE tEna laByaH | tasyaiSha AtmA vivRuNutE tanUgM svAm || 1-2-23 " I stand to be corrected if there is an error in my understanding. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote: > > From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy > Pranams to all. > advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md@> wrote: > > > > > First of all according to both Shruti and according to Shankara > brahmavidyA should be imparted ONLY to sannyasis. > > Dear Sri Shyam, > > In the ten principal Upanishads, you can see that a king > imparts Brahma-Vidya to a brahmin, father imparts to his son, > a husband imparts to his wife, a teacher imparts to a householder, > etc.etc. Bhagavan Krishna who was a householder imparts Brahmavidya to > Arjuna who was also a householder. Were not the sages , the > mantradRaShTArAs, house holders? > > In the light of the above facts your statement does not ring to > be true.Sruti does not support your contention. Further in such matters > Sruthi alone is pramana and nobody else . My Guru was not a sanyasi . > Venerable Sri Atmananda of Kerala > was not a sanyasin. Was he not a Jnani? He was imparting Self-Knowledge > to all who had sincere longing to realize their true svarupa. I think > this is the onlybasic qualification required by a mumukshu in the > present times. Kathopanishad specifically says " yamEvaiSha vRuNutE > tEna laByaH | tasyaiSha AtmA vivRuNutE tanUgM svAm || 1-2-23 " > > I stand to be corrected if there is an error in my > understanding. > > With warm and respectful regards, > Sreenivasa Murthy > > Jnana is not an exclusive entity nor limited to a fixed domain.Knowledge,intellect,intelligence is free and should give freedom from the known ignorance. thank you sekhar > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > Dear Shyamji, > The above sentence gives the impression that liberation can be attained only in the sannyAsa Ashrama. > The following statements contradict what you have said. > > taitt. up, 1.11.S.B (at the very end) —sarveshaam cha adhikaaraH vidyaayaam ---- iti siddham. > -- Persons belonging to all Ashramas are entitled to Self-realization. > B.S.3.4.36 to 39. bhAShya—Even those who do not belong to any Ashrama are entitled to attain Self-knowledge (e.g. Raikva, Gaargii). > Regards, > S.N.Sastri > Hari Om Shri Sastriji, Pranaams! I feel, Shri Shyamji's posts do not imply that 'liberation can be attained only in the sannyAsa Ashrama'. All are eligible for brahmajnAna but it follows their taking sarvakarmasannyAsa which enables to have AtmajnAna-nityatva or adhyAtmanityatA. This is the considered view of AcAryaji and he has the following to say regarding some examples here and there pointing to contrary. 'yat tu grhastheShu brahmavidyA-sampradAya-kartrtvAdi lingaM na tat sthita nyAyaM bAdhitum utsahate. na hi vidhi-shatena api tamaH-prakAshayoH ekatva sambhavaH shakyate kartum kim uta lingaiH kevalaiH iti. (Mundaka Introduction) As for the indirect indications (suggesting that knowledge and karma can co-exist), to wit, the fact that among the householders are found some with whom started the traditional lines of the knowers of Brahman, that cannot override the established rule. For when the co-existence of light and darkness cannot be brought about even by a hundred injunctions, much less can it be done so by mere indications. (Translated by Sw. GambhIrAnandaji) Aith respect to brahmavidya all ashramites are eligible but attainable on their taking up sarvakarmasannyAsa. In Shri Guru Smriti, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 My apologies for this re-post - I just wanted to correct this particular sentence that doesn't sound intelligible - " Now with regards to your question. There is knowledge of the self and jivanmukti or Moksha. One leads to the other but the two terms are not synonymous by any means " Should read as " There are two distinct entities - knowledge of the Self and jivanmukti or Moksha. One leads to the other but the two terms are not synonymous nor necessarily simultaneous by any means " ..... Hari OM Shyam advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams dear Rishi-ji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 [First, some greetings. Bhaskarji: Its very nice to read your messages again. How are you? Shyamji: Thank you for the welcome. How is everything?] I thought I would try to summarise and comment on some of the positions that we have seen in this discussion. As Shyamji points out, sanyAsa can be taken either before the rise of knowledge for the sake of gaining knowledge or after the rise of knowledge. I think we find from different places that Sri Shankara approves of both of these options and this is not a controversial point. [An old controversy in this discussion list, however, used to be (and I doubt this has been resolved...) whether after the rise of knowledge, one has to abide in knowledge to gain moksha or whether the rise of knowledge immediately gives moksha. According to the latter view sanyAsa after gaining knowledge is not part of sAdhanA. Perhaps we can leave this specific topic aside for a moment, though it may be hard because it is very connected.] The question then arrises as to what exactly non-sanyAsis are entitled to. I think it is quite clear that non-sanyAsis are entitled to the upadesha. Shyamji says: " First of all according to both Shruti and according to Shankara brahmavidyA should be imparted ONLY to sannyasis. " This to me (especially with the capital ONLY) seems to be a position that would be very hard to support. There are many non-sanyAsis receiving upadesha in the Upanishads (and Arjuna in the gIta, too of course). Even the case of someone taking sanyAsa after knowledge (which Shankara clearly approves of) is going to imply that the person received knowledge first. The sentence I quoted from the munDaka upaniShad introduction also clearly states that non-sanyAsis are entitled to knowledge and the imparting of brahma-vidyA. So non-sanyAsis are also entitled to receive brahmavidyA, but now there are at least two positions. Bhaskarji's position (and others too it seems) is that if someone who performs actions with attachment is taught brahmavidyA, that person cannot gain knowledge. However, if someone who is established in nishkAmya karma gets the upadesha, then that person can gain knowledge and moksha even without formal sanyAsa. Shyamji's position seems to be that non-sanyAsis can gain knowledge but have to take sanyAsa in order to gain abidance in knowledge. Shyamji also brought up a point about the need to be a parivrAjaka sanyAsi. On this matter, does anybody know (or even know of) any parivrAjaka sanyAsis? Such sanyAsis are supposed to not stay at the same place more than a few (very few) nights (except during cAturmAsya) and basically always be wandering. It seems like some sanyAsis do this for some time, but I do not know of *anyone* who lived like this their whole life or even during the whole course of sAdhanA. If, as Shyamji says, a parivrAjaka lifestyle is not something optional and merely conducive, then I think we can be safe in saying that pretty much any jIvanmukta we ever heard of is an exception. This may be due to a sample selection bias since parivrAjakas do not stick around long enough to become known by us, but it seems to be a somewhat difficult position. Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > > My apologies for this re-post - > I just wanted to correct this particular sentence that doesn't sound intelligible - > > " Now with regards to your question. > There is knowledge of the self and jivanmukti or Moksha. One leads to the other but the two terms are not synonymous by any means " > > Should read as > > " There are two distinct entities - knowledge of the Self and jivanmukti or Moksha. One leads to the other but the two terms are not synonymous nor necessarily simultaneous by any means " ..... > > Hari OM > Shyam Dear Shyamji, Shri Shankara has repeatedly stressed that after the the dawn of knowledge there is nothing more to be done and that there is no interval between the rise of knowledge and mukti. Your statement clearly goes against this. I am not in a position to strain myself to find out the reference. But I am sure Bhaskarji will be able to point out this. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Should read as " There are two distinct entities - knowledge of the Self and jivanmukti or Moksha. One leads to the other but the two terms are not synonymous nor necessarily simultaneous by any means " ..... praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna Kindly give shankara bhAshya reference to your above declaration. We shall study together. Next four days I will be on leave prabhuji. I shall write to you next Tuesday as I have to share lot (yes..a lot!!) of thoughts with you :-)) Till then... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Dear Rishi-ji You said: Shyamji says: " First of all according to both Shruti and according to Shankara brahmavidyA should be imparted ONLY to sannyasis. " This to me (especially with the capital ONLY) seems to be a position that would be very hard to support. **** My response - A clarification Rishi-ji - this is not my view - this is just one view that both Shruti and Shankara endorse unequivocally and I gave the relevant references. Some laxity in this is surely permitted by both, as they then also talk about sannyasa after the dawn of knowledge in the numerous references I provided. Naturally if it was meant to be a exclusionary rule, then the second injunction that self-knowers should take to sannyasa would be defunct. So in places where we find Shankara and Shruti attesting to mukti contemporaneous with jnana then we can infer that these are indeed references to those ideal students who were sannyasis to begin with - something that they recommended to begin with. But since there are/could be (almost everyone in todays age) other types of underprepared students also, sannyasa after the dawn of knowledge is recommended. And it is in this context alone that we find numerous statements like the one I quoted " By discipline what is meant is the definitive consummation of Self-awareness which is no longer exposed to doubts of any kind; for it is the FINAL FRUIT of the RISE of self-knowledge....this discipline of knowledge can be achieved ONLY by means of renunciation of ALL works - tasmaat sarvakarmasannyaasenaiva jnananishta kaaryaa iti siddham " Here if jnana is seen to be synchronal with mukti the sentence loses any meaning - note the words " definitive " " consummation " , " final " , and " fruit " of the rise of self-knowledge - all these words indicate non-simultaneity. You say- " On this matter, does anybody know (or even know of) any parivrAjaka sanyAsis? " My response: 3 that immediately come to mind are the Sage of Kanchi, Totapuri - the guru of Ramakrishna Paramahans, and Swami Tapovan - the paramaguru of Swami Chinmayananda. If you read the very detailed biographies of the latter (at least 2 of them) one gets a wondrous glimpse of the lifestyle of a true parivrajaka and a jivanmukta. There are I am sure others known to others on this list, and perhaps many such roaming anonymously in the Himalayan region - many we perhaps may never hear about. There are of course numerous parivrajaka sannyasis who are neither jnanis nor jivanmuktas. Besides, here, I think one can take the term parivrajaka in the sense of a sannyasi or a ascetic, one who has simply left his house, and is without a home, one taken to total renunciation - who is without possessions, without any livelihood, and is ever living on bhiksha (a sannyasi or a bhikshu) and who fulfil many of the other qualifications of conduct that are specified in the jabala upanidhas and the narada parivrajaka upanishad [except for the stipulation about not staying in one place] and by this token there are a great many ascetics who would fit the description. I think you will agree that even such a lifestyle is a far cry from the " convenient " lifestyle of a so-called " karmayogi self-knower " - a term which Shankara has emphasized is an impossibility, let alone conducive to liberation. Humble pranams Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Thu, 9/17/09, risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote: risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane Re: thyagena eka amrutatwam. advaitin Thursday, September 17, 2009, 5:44 AM [First, some greetings. Bhaskarji: Its very nice to read your messages again. How are you? Shyamji: Thank you for the welcome. How is everything?] I thought I would try to summarise and comment on some of the positions that we have seen in this discussion. As Shyamji points out, sanyAsa can be taken either before the rise of knowledge for the sake of gaining knowledge or after the rise of knowledge. I think we find from different places that Sri Shankara approves of both of these options and this is not a controversial point. [An old controversy in this discussion list, however, used to be (and I doubt this has been resolved...) whether after the rise of knowledge, one has to abide in knowledge to gain moksha or whether the rise of knowledge immediately gives moksha. According to the latter view sanyAsa after gaining knowledge is not part of sAdhanA. Perhaps we can leave this specific topic aside for a moment, though it may be hard because it is very connected.] The question then arrises as to what exactly non-sanyAsis are entitled to. I think it is quite clear that non-sanyAsis are entitled to the upadesha. Shyamji says: " First of all according to both Shruti and according to Shankara brahmavidyA should be imparted ONLY to sannyasis. " This to me (especially with the capital ONLY) seems to be a position that would be very hard to support. There are many non-sanyAsis receiving upadesha in the Upanishads (and Arjuna in the gIta, too of course). Even the case of someone taking sanyAsa after knowledge (which Shankara clearly approves of) is going to imply that the person received knowledge first. The sentence I quoted from the munDaka upaniShad introduction also clearly states that non-sanyAsis are entitled to knowledge and the imparting of brahma-vidyA. So non-sanyAsis are also entitled to receive brahmavidyA, but now there are at least two positions. Bhaskarji's position (and others too it seems) is that if someone who performs actions with attachment is taught brahmavidyA, that person cannot gain knowledge. However, if someone who is established in nishkAmya karma gets the upadesha, then that person can gain knowledge and moksha even without formal sanyAsa. Shyamji's position seems to be that non-sanyAsis can gain knowledge but have to take sanyAsa in order to gain abidance in knowledge. Shyamji also brought up a point about the need to be a parivrAjaka sanyAsi. On this matter, does anybody know (or even know of) any parivrAjaka sanyAsis? Such sanyAsis are supposed to not stay at the same place more than a few (very few) nights (except during cAturmAsya) and basically always be wandering. It seems like some sanyAsis do this for some time, but I do not know of *anyone* who lived like this their whole life or even during the whole course of sAdhanA. If, as Shyamji says, a parivrAjaka lifestyle is not something optional and merely conducive, then I think we can be safe in saying that pretty much any jIvanmukta we ever heard of is an exception. This may be due to a sample selection bias since parivrAjakas do not stick around long enough to become known by us, but it seems to be a somewhat difficult position. Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Dear Bhaskar-ji, Pranams. Please carefully go through my series of posts for the numerous references from Shankarabhasya - on the necessity for sarvakarmasannyasa (and not mere karmayoga) in order to achieve of consummation of jnana and an abidance in the same - jnananishta - which alone is the hallmark of jivanmukti. If you can offer alternative interpretations to what, (to me), are lucid and unequivocal assertions of Shankara in these passages, or can show me where Shankara himself asserts the contrary - i.e. sarvakarmasannyasa is NOT necessary for mukti, and that karma, as karmayoga as you and others suggest, and jnana can not only co-exist but also constitute or consummate in mukti - then we can certainly discuss that - before switching gears to this topic regarding jnana and mukti. The two issues are very closely-related and my comments to Rishi-ji should point to you why. I would prefer we arrive at a mutual understanding of Shankara's stance on this issue before we proceed to the next, if that is okay with you. Thank you, and others, for your responses which always serve the purpose of allowing me to reflect on these issues in a focussed manner. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Thu, 9/17/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr Re: Re: thyagena eka amrutatwam. advaitin Thursday, September 17, 2009, 8:23 AM Should read as " There are two distinct entities - knowledge of the Self and jivanmukti or Moksha. One leads to the other but the two terms are not synonymous nor necessarily simultaneous by any means " ..... praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna Kindly give shankara bhAshya reference to your above declaration. We shall study together. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Recent Activity 5 New MembersVisit Your Group Give Back for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 sukanya shankar, In todays world,Vedantic truths have become products,whereby 'dakshina' is collected to meet ends meet.It was true in Guru Shankaracharyas time too;,the difference being,Kings/Queens patronised acharyas of various schools,even though individually,acharyas, were going about 'bhah-vathi bhikshandehi' as their karmam. suresh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.