Thyagena eka amrutatwam

[Guest guest]

Pranams Dear Bhaskar-ji

 

You write:

 

" a gruhasthA may also get that 'jnAna' without undergoing a formal saNyAsa

initiation but following the above sAdhana meticulously & religiously. "

 

***

 

My reply:

Such a contention has been refuted.

 

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 stage 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.

 

He again references this in the sutrabhashyas as well BSB 3.4.20 - highlighting

another lengthy commentary...

 

....an injunction about steadfastness in Brahman HAS to be admitted. And then it

has to be considered as to whether that steadfastness is meant for anyone

belonging to any one of the four stages of life OR TO THE MONK ALONE>. Now if by

the mention of the stages of life the monk too becomes alluded to then it may as

well follow that anyone belonging to the four stages of life are mentioned

equally. If however the monk is not alluded to then the conclusion will be that

the MONK ALONE CAN BE STEADFAST IN BRAHMAN he alone having been left out of the

enumeration.

 

Opponent

 

How can the term steadfast in Brahman ised in its derivative sense and possible

application to people in ALL the stages of life be confined to the monk alone?

 

Vedantin's Reply

 

The term steadfastness in Brahman implies a conusmmation in Brahman a total

absorption in Brahman which is the same as the absence of ANY OTHER

PREOCCUPATION except THAT - and that is NOT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE IN THE OTHER

THREE STAGES

 

In this context he quotes the Mundaka Upanisahd.

 

Mundaka 3.2.6 Those to whom the entity presented by the vedantic knowledge has

been fully ascertained AND who ENDAVOR assiduously with the help of the Yoga of

Monasticism (become free)....Monasticism is meant as a subsidiary of the

knowledge of Brahman FOR ITS FULL MATURITY. And again he quotes from the jabala

Up.

 

Thus it is absolutely clear or at least should be clear what is Shankara's

considered and consistent stance on this issue.

 

There are other points which I shall bring up in the context of my next replies

to Rishi-ji and others.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> And finally why this justification?? because I am also a gruhastha and

> right now donot want to take saNyAsa :-))

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

>