Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Dear Shyamji, I wish to add the following to my previous posts on this topic. (My last post appeared twice due to some mistake). The following sentence appears towards the end of the bhAShya on ch. up. 2.23.1:-- Hereby it follows by implication that, when a householder realizes Unity, he has to resort to monasticism (pArivrAjyam) as a matter of course. The portion underlined above clearly shows that a householder can attain Self-knowledge. As I have already pointed out in my last post, this itself is mukti. After that he may take vidvat sannyAsa. If he continues as a householder but does not perform nitya karma, people who do not know that he has become a jnAni and is under no obligation to perform nitya karma will criticize him and some people may cite his example for justifying their own non-performance of nitya karma due to indolence. It is to avoid these that he has to take vidvat sannyAsa. Moreover, it will free him from his social responsibilities to his family. This sannyAsa is not a means to attain jivanmukti as you seem to say, since he has already attained it. 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 PraNAms to all Interesting on going discussions on the requirement of sanyaasa for self-realization. Here we are not talking about not just metal sanyaasa that is required for the mind to contemplate on higher reality through vichaara, but physical sanyaasa where one has to give up at the physical level for the mind to contemplate. Shyamji - to say that those gruhastaas that were referenced must taken sanyaasa in their past lives is just begging the issue. One can also argue on that basis that all that external sanyaasa is not required for any gruhasta, since he might have already done that in his previous life or lives? Hence eligibility for the study of scriptures cannot be denied to him. Since this is adRiShTa or unseen, and no one either support or deny that it is so, other than justify ones arguments. Fundamentally, it is incorrect to say that anything else is required other than the purity of the mind for the knowledge to take place. One can say the external conducive environment for the mind to have a single pointedly inquire is helpful, but to say that it is essential otherwise it is not possible is just begging the issue only; as it is illogical at best. The culture and traditions are different and one can establish the rules to preserve the tradition and culture. Knowledge is not purusha tantra and what is essential for the knowledge is preparation of the mind conducive for the knowledge to take place. The rest is subjective, of course, from my subjectivity. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > Interesting on going discussions on the requirement of sanyaasa for self-realization. > Knowledge is not purusha tantra and what is essential for the knowledge is preparation of the mind conducive for the knowledge to take place. The rest is subjective, of course, from my subjectivity. Namaste, Total self-surrender ('sharaNAgati/prapatti') and Absolute Grace ('anugraha/prasAda') occur coevally, and are 'aparokSha' (un-mediated) and 'svataH-pramANa' (evident to oneself only.) Also being 'atIndriya' (beyond sense-perception - Gita 6:21) and 'buddheH parataH' (beyond the intellect/logic - Gita 3:42), the 'sAdhanA' (spiritual practice) instructed by the enlightened master ('Guru') is the only sure way to succeed. The practices ('vidyA'-s) are many, and self-prescription (or prescribing it for others) by trial and error is a disastrous choice. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Respected Shastriji Sashtang Namaskarams. The sentence you quoted " ...HAS TO resort to parivrajyam.. " is exactly in line with what Shankara is saying all along, throughout that entire section, and once again establishes the absolute necessity for sannyasa in order to attain mukti. Your reading of " MAY take sannyasa " is clearly an error. Also, the reason that you postulate - " people who do not know that he has become a jnAni and is under no obligation to perform nitya karma will criticize him and some people may cite his example for justifying their own non-performance of nitya karma due to indolence. " neither follows from this, nor is it explicitly or implicitly cited by Shankara. In fact, the reason Shankara says that he HAS TO RESORT TO PARIVRAJYAM are entirely different and are actually elaborated at length by him in that very section of the bhashyam. In fact in the very section you quote there is a counterobjection - can it not be said that knowledge in association wit the virtuous conduct of a mendicant becomes the cause of Immortality? To which the Opponent replies - No, because these virtues are indistinguishable from the virtues prescribed for the stages of life. Or, even if it is held that virtues in association with knowledge become the cause of knowledge, then, this can equally be the case with regard to virtues of all the stages of life. The Upanishads declare that Moksha is a result of knowledge. Therefore whoever among the persons following the virtues prescribed for their own stage of life remains established in Brahman he attains Moksha. {Note here the opponent clearly implies that establishment in Brahman is possible for all ashramas - i.e. there is no need for sannyasa - what is required is jnana AND a life of virtues or mental purity and freedom to remain in whatever stage of life one is in. See how Shankara vehemently demolishes this seemingly " logical " argument by showing that there is NO SUCH THING as a HOUSEHOLDER established in BRAHMAN) Reply: 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 BECAUSE 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. FOT 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. Thus what Shankara says is that any ESTABLISHMENT in Brahman, means a conviction about differences have been removed and this is incompatible with any work. What Shankara is saying here is that if a householder attains knowledge of Unity he needs to take to the discipline of external sannyasa in order to REMAIN ESTABLISHED IN BRAHMAN - i.e. jnanaprapti alongwith sannyasa will lead to jnananishta and hence Moksha. It is this very same refrain and line of reasoning that Shankara employs in the BSB section, as well as the Gitabhashya section, as well as the Brh Up, all of which I referenced earlier, as well as at various points in many other bhashyas as well. This has nothing to do with setting an example " for others who may be misled " . If anything, taking sannyasa may be seen by the ignorant as an escape route from his problems, ( " i feel like running away too " ...and seeing this they too may resort to monasticism for the wrong reasons - in that same section Shankara mentions it saying " As for the recourse to inactivity taken by the ignorant people owing to their indolence that too is wrong because their idea of agentship has not been eliminated by correct knowledge " So if it is from a standpoint of setting an example, what is logical would be the exact opposite, i.e. he - the so-called " jivanmukta-householder " (which Shankara says is impossible) instead of resorting to monasticism, should simply continue doing his prescribed duties, and do it with perfection and dedication, so that he can set an example and not mislead the others - as Krishna advises " loka-sangraham evapi sampasyan kartum arhasi yad yad acharati sresthh tat tad evetaro janah " Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Dear Shyamji, > I wish to add the following to my previous posts on this topic. (My last post appeared twice due to some mistake). > The following sentence appears towards the end of the bhAShya on ch. up. 2.23.1:-- > Hereby it follows by implication that, when a householder realizes Unity, > he has to resort to monasticism (pArivrAjyam) as a matter of course. > > The portion underlined above clearly shows that a householder can attain Self-knowledge. As I have already pointed out in my last post, this itself is mukti. After that he may take vidvat sannyAsa. If he continues as a householder but does not perform nitya karma, people who do not know that he has become a jnAni and is under no obligation to perform nitya karma will criticize him and some people may cite his example for justifying their own non-performance of nitya karma due to indolence. It is to avoid these that he has to take vidvat sannyAsa. Moreover, it will free him from his social responsibilities to his family. This sannyAsa is not a means to attain jivanmukti as you seem to say, since he has already attained it. > > Regards, > S.N.Sastri > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Respected Acharya Sadananda-ji Sashtang Namaskarams. You write: " to say that those gruhastaas that were referenced must taken sanyaasa in their past lives is just begging the issue. " My reply: The explanation of past karmas from prior births, as explanations for these handful of exceptions (stretching back over centuries!), is not a theory being advanced by me - it is explicitly stated by Shankara in his BSB, as well as by the Sage of Kanchi in the excerpt I provided in my last post, and the possibility about sannyasa in the previous birth is mentioned by Swami Paramarthanananda in one of his talks - it is by no means something I am theorising indepedently. In fact there is no other way to explain the phenomena of " exceptions to the rule " in any field - be it Music or Math or Moksha. To reiterate what the Sage of Kanchi states: " .......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. " You write " One can also argue on that basis that all that external sanyaasa is not required for any gruhasta, since he might have already done that in his previous life or lives? " My reply Very true. Now a person who is thus arguing (that he doesnt have to take external sannyasa as he might have already done it) - such a one is certainly not fit for vidwat sannyasa - is it not? - more maturity is needed as well as a greater conviction in aham brahmasmi before he can take that final necessary step. You write: " Hence eligibility for the study of scriptures cannot be denied to him. " My reply: As RIshi-ji very nicely summarized this is tangential to what is being discussed - here we are talking about the necessity of vidwat sannyasa for jnana-nishta - adhikartwam for jnana-prapti is a different topic altogether. You write: " Fundamentally, it is incorrect to say that anything else is required other than the purity of the mind for the knowledge to take place. " My reply: It may be your subjective opinion that to say such a thing is incorrect - but this is EXACTLY what is Shankara's position. He clearly states that mental purity ALONE is NOT enough as far as jnananishta is concerned - you need renunciation i.e. sannyasa. Please read this bhashya on vivikta sevi laghvasi - " 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.. " You write: One can say the external conducive environment for the mind to have a single pointedly inquire is helpful, but to say that it is essential otherwise it is not possible ...is illogical at best. My reply: Once again Acharya Sada-ji, this is not my independent or subjective opinion- but is exactly what is the considered and consistent opinion of Bhagawatpada Shankara which he articulates repeatedly not only in the section above but in numerous sections thorughout his bhashyas. In fact if one is objective in one's approach to his bhashyas, wherever he gets a chance he will immediately talk about external sannyasa with regards to moksha even if the context does not necessarily demand it. FOr example in this section of the Gitabhashya if you simply read Bhagwan Krishna;s words there is no mention whatsoever of external sannyasa - he just enumerates qualities like shama, dama, vairagya, and absence of kama, krodha, ahankara etc - and talks about living in a secluded place, and eating less, etc - Shankara could have well left it at that - but he takes great pains at this juncture to say that ONLY a sannyasi is being talked about here - why?? Because brahmabhuyaha kalpate is there - and in Shankara's schema a fitness for Jnana-nishta is external sannyasa. In fact he introduces an elaborate objection by the purvapakshin here just to reemphasize that knowledge alone is not adequate for mukti unless it is accompanied by sannyasa. I do not find this havng anything to do culture or tradition - with sannyasa alone does tyagena eka amrutatwam becomes meaningful and hence alone this is what is chanted in welcoming any sannyasi to one's home or prior to giving them bhiksha. Yes, one can strain to find some " loophole in the law " by pointing out that Shankara seemingly allows for Shudras to gain jnana and then in an unrelated context point out that shudras are ineligible for sannyasa and then try and put two and two together. But nowhere can one find one instance where Shankara explicitly dissociates Moksha from external sannyasa, and to the contrary, many many places where Shankara takes great pains to lucidly, and explicitly establish that Jnana PLUS SANNYASA alone lead to jnana-nishta and Moksha. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 --- On Thu, 9/17/09, shyam_md <shyam_md wrote: Shyamji - PraNAms Thanks for taking time to answer point by point. With all due respect to individuals and aachaaryaas, I am looking at the problem from the problem point only due to my training and interpretations of the Shaastra in logical and self-consistent way. As swami Paramaarthanandaji brings out at several places in his discourses on Naiskarmya siddhi that there are many places where Sureswara aacharya himself differs from the aacharyaa's interpretation. It is not a sign of disrespect but a sign of intellectual honesty. Irrespective of interpretations of aachaaryaas - there is a logical fallacy in the statements. We are bringing out the issues only not the personalities here. We respect all aachaaryaas and we follow the truth. I am restating here not for discussion but for recapitulation to see the problem. 1. The truth is all pervading and eternally present and infinite. 2. 'In principle' there cannot be any path for the truth. 3. Since the truth is not recognized, even if it is ever present, the problem is the ignorance of the truth; therefore knowledge is the only solution for the realization. 4. Any knowledge can only take place when the mind is prepared (pre-requisites for the mind). 5. The saadhana chatushTaya provides the preparatory discipline for the mind as Shankara eloborately provides in this bhaashya for sutra 1. 6. In principle, it is not the external circumstances but internal adjustments needed for the mind- saadhana catushtaya addresses these. 7. The external environment can be made conducive for the internal adjustments. This is true for any knowledge to take place - subjective or objective. 8. A teacher is required to guide the students or for the student to properly redirect his mind without getting lost in trivialities. 9. Knowledge will takes place if the mind is properly prepared and tuned. That is the law. 10. Putting conditions for the external environment for the subjective knowledge is contrary to the nature of the knowledge that is being sought. Now let us say that there is a law or utsarga that the bhoutika sanyaasa is required for knowledge to takes place. Now we have examples both in the scriptures as well as in the day to day claims that there are many mahatmaas who are gruhastaas that have realized. We can offer two explanations. 1. That every rule or utsarga there are apavaada or exceptions, and leave it with that. 2. To bring in another explanation that these mahatmaas must have in their previous lives that they have taken bhoutika sanyaasa to rule out any exceptions, no matter who offers this explanation, involves the past lives that we have no way to confirm or deny. ---------- Now taking option 1, if we accept as bhoutika sanyaasa is necessary for self-realization, there we have to provide under what circumstances these exceptions can occur - to ensure that future gruhastaas have clear idea whether they fall into the exceptions or not. Taking the option 2, we run into serious problem since no one can know the past lives of anybody and even if one claims that they know, it will remain as subjective declaration only, it will leave gruhastas in blind that there is no way to know whether they had or had not in the past have taken bhoutika sanyaasa to qualify themselves for self-realization. We can overcome these objections by stating affirmatively that BHOUTIKA SANYAASA IS REQUIRED FOR SELF-REALIZATION. Only problem in that declaration is it is fundamentally against the nature of the knowledge that is being discussed. All pervading infinite reality requires no path. The mental discipline is only required to see the truth as truth or remove the ignorance that clouds the mind. To me it is a better to say that bhoutika sanyaasa provides a conducive environment for the knowledge to takes place in concurrence with the nature of the knowledge - but to state that it is necessary for self-realization is against the nature of the self-realization which is aprameyam. Therefore, the statement of the aachaaryaas have to taken be in the right spirit consistent with the scriptures, yukti and anubhava. Some times Shankara takes gouna prayoga using jaha-ajahallakshaNaas for some of the scriptural declarations to make sure it is consistent with the nature of the knowledge and truth. My subjective interpretations seem to be shared by many others and also by swami Paramarthanandaji in my private discussions with him. He has a talk on sanyaasa and if I remember, he does provide the exceptions to the rule that bhoutika sanyaasa is required for self-realization. He discusses in terms of PORT that I discussed earlier. In the sloka - na karmaNaa - includes na akarmaNaa - That is either by action or by renouciation of actions - since both involve a notion of doership - What is tyaaga altimately as Krishna discusses eloberately in the 18th ch. is the very notion of kartRitva bhaava and the associated bhoktRitva bhaava to be give-up for the knowledge to take place. This does not necessarily mean taking or not taking bhotika sanyaasa. With this, I close this topic from my perspective. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > > In the sloka - na karmaNaa - includes na akarmaNaa - That is either by action or by renouciation of actions - since both involve a notion of doership - What is tyaaga altimately as Krishna discusses eloberately in the 18th ch. is the very notion of kartRitva bhaava and the associated bhoktRitva bhaava to be give-up for the knowledge to take place. This does not necessarily mean taking or not taking bhotika sanyaasa. Namaste, " gahanA karmaNo gatiH " (Gita 4:16-17) - profound and hard to understand is the path of action !! Some verses from the Gita on Sannyasa may serve for contemplation: mayi sarvaaNi karmaaNi sa.nnyasyaadhyaatmachetasaa . niraashiirnirmamo bhuutvaa yudhyasva vigatajvaraH .. 3\-30.. 3.30 Devoid of the fever of the soul, engage in battle by dedicating all actions to Me, with (your) mind intent on the Self, and becoming free from expectations and egoism. yogasa.nnyastakarmaaNaM j~naanasa~nchhinnasa.nshayam.h . aatmavantaM na karmaaNi nibadhnanti dhana~njaya .. 4\-41.. 41. He who has renounced actions by YOGA, whose doubts are rent asunder by 'Knowledge, ' who is self-possessed, actions do not bind him, O Dhananjaya. sa.nnyaasaH karmayogashcha niHshreyasakaraavubhau . tayostu karmasa.nnyaasaatkarmayogo vishiShyate .. 5\-2.. 2. Both renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga lead to Liberation. Between the two, Karma-yoga, however, excels over renunciation of actions. j~neyaH sa nityasa.nnyaasii yo na dveShTi na kaaN^kShati . nirdvandvo hi mahaabaaho sukhaM bandhaatpramuchyate .. 5\-3.. 3. He who does not hate and does not crave should be known as a man of constant renunciation. sa.nnyaasastu mahaabaaho duHkhamaaptumayogataH . yogayukto munirbrahma nachireNaadhigachchhati .. 5\-6.. 6. But, O mighty-armed one, renunciation is hard to attain without (Karma-) yoga. The meditative man equipped with yoga attains Brahman without delay. sarvakarmaaNi manasaa sa.nnyasyaaste sukhaM vashii . navadvaare pure dehii naiva kurvanna kaarayan.h .. 5\-13.. 13. The embodied man of self-control, having given up all actions mentally, continues happily in the town of nine gates, without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all. anaashritaH karmaphalaM kaarya.n karma karoti yaH . sa sa.nnyaasii cha yogii cha na niragnirna chaakriyaH .. 6\-1.. 1. He who performs an action which is his duty, without depending on the result of action, he is a monk and a yogi; (but) not (so in) he who does not keep a fire and is actionless. yaM sa.nnyaasamiti praahuryogaM taM viddhi paaNDava . na hyasa.nnyastasaN^kalpo yogii bhavati kashchana .. 6\-2.. 2. That which they call monasticism, know that to be Yoga, O Pandava, For, nobody who has not given up expectations can be a yogi. shubhaashubhaphalairevaM mokShyase karmabandhanaiH . sa.nnyaasayogayuktaatmaa vimukto maamupaiShyasi .. 9\-28.. 28. Thus, you will become free from bondage in the form of actions which are productive of good and bad results. Havng your mind inbued with the yoga of renunciation and becoming free, you will attain Me. ye tu sarvaaNi karmaaNi mayi sa.nnyasya matparaH . ananyenaiva yogena maa.n dhyaayanta upaasate .. 12\-6.. 6. As for those who, having dedicated all actions to Me and accepted Me as the supreme, meditate by thinking of Me with single-minded concentration only-. aniShTamiShTaM mishra.n cha trividhaM karmaNaH phalam.h . bhavatyatyaaginaaM pretya na tu sa.nnyaasinaa.n kvachit.h .. 18\-12.. 12. The threefold results of actions-the undesirable, the desirable, and the mixed-accrues after death to those who do not resort to renunciation, but never to those who resort to monasticism. asaktabuddhiH sarvatra jitaatmaa vigataspR^ihaH . naiShkarmyasiddhiM paramaa.n sa.nnyaasenaadhigachchhati .. 18\-49.. 49. He whose intellect remains unattached to everything, who has conquered his internal organs and is desireless, attains through monasticism the supreme perfection consisting in the state of one free from duties. chetasaa sarvakarmaaNi mayi sa.nnyasya matparaH . buddhiyogamupaashritya machchittaH satataM bhava .. 18\-57.. 57. Mentally surrendering all actions to Me and accepting Me as the supreme, have your mind ever fixed on Me by resorting to the concentration of your intellect. [shankara Bhashyas (in transln.) on these are in the Files section.] Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 In this discussion, there seem to be at least two sets of positions. 1) Even after gaining knowledge, sAdhanA is neccesary in order to gain abidance in knowledge. (except exceptionally, perhaps) 2) After gaining knowledge, there is no sAdhanA whatsoever left - moksha is immediately attained. (There would no exceptions to this) a) If a non-sanyAsi gains knowledge, that person takes sannyAsa. (except exceptionally). b) If a non-sanyAsi gains knowledge, sannyAsa is optional (so there is nothing exceptional about not taking sannyAsa at this stage). These positions seem to turn into four possibilities: 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b. Of these, 2a and 2b seem to not be very different in practice. It becomes an issue of whether a non-sanyAsi jIvanmukta takes sannyAsa almost always or just often. This is merely an empirical matter. [1a and 1b, on the other hand, are significantly different from each other. It seems reasonable to assume that no one should consider themselves to be an exception. In that case, 1a (Shyamji's position, if I am correct) basically states that even if a non-sanyAsi gets knowledge, they should take sanyAsa to gain moksha. 1b suggests that even for someone who has gained knowledge, abidance in knowledge needs to be gained but it can be gained without taking sanyAsa.] So the first key issue does seem to be whether there is sAdhanA needed after the rise of knowledge in order to gain abidance in knowledge. My understanding (and this is based on Swami Ramsukhdasji's writings) is that there is a distinction between viveka-jnAna and tattva-jnAna. In viveka-jnAna, a clear, sharp distinction between the Self and non-Self takes place. This viveka-jnAna is not the same as tattva-jnAna, because in viveka-jnAna, duality remains. The Self may be sharply distinguished from non-Self, but the non-Self is still given some reality independent of the Self. While there will typically be sAdhanA left after gaining viveka-jnAna, there is no sAdhana after gaining tattva-jnAna. Perhaps it is possible that when Shankara seems to talksabout abidance in knowledge after gaining knowledge (not that clear that he does this though), it is a reference to viveka-jnAna and when he talks about liberation immediately following from knowledge, that is a reference to tattva-jnAna. I still have some additional comments to make about parivrAjaka sannyAsis vs. other sannyAsis topic, but that will be for another time. Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote: > So the first key issue does seem to be whether there is sAdhanA needed after the rise of knowledge in order to gain abidance in knowledge. My understanding (and this is based on Swami Ramsukhdasji's writings) is that there is a distinction between viveka-jnAna and tattva-jnAna. In viveka-jnAna, a clear, sharp distinction between the Self and non-Self takes place. This viveka-jnAna is not the same as tattva-jnAna, because in viveka-jnAna, duality remains. The Self may be sharply distinguished from non-Self, but the non-Self is still given some reality independent of the Self. While there will typically be sAdhanA left after gaining viveka-jnAna, there is no sAdhana after gaining tattva-jnAna. Perhaps it is possible that when Shankara seems to talksabout abidance in knowledge after gaining knowledge (not that clear that he does this though), it is a reference to viveka-jnAna and when he talks about liberation immediately following from knowledge, that is a reference to tattva-jnAna. > Regards, > > Rishi. Namaste. Here are some references for consideration: In the Gita verse 18.49, Shankara says: naiShkarmyasiddhim paramAm ...sadyomuktyavasthAna-rUpAm, sannyAsEna samyagdarshanEna, tatpUrvakENa vA sarvakarma-sannyAsEna, adhigacchati prApnOti. The meaning of this is: The Sublime state of naiShkarmya, transcendence of action, of the form of being established in liberation instantly here itself, is attained through 'sannyAsa' called 'samyagdarshana' (Right Perception). OR by the sannyAsa, renunciation of all actions, ATTENDED by the Right Perception. Here, we see Shankara 'equating' sannyAsa and samyagdarshana, giving us a glimpse of His view: sannyAsa is synonymous with Right Perception, Direct KNowledge of the Atman. Anandagiri clarifies: sannyAsasya shruti-smRtyoH samyagdarshanatva-aprasiddhEH ayuktam tAdAtmyam ityAshankyA pakShAntaram Aha: tatpUrvakEti. This means: Since it is not popular in the Scriptures that 'sannyAsa' is synonymous with samyagdarshana, it is improper to 'equate' the two. To such a question Shankara replies by giving the alternative: sannyAsa of all actions ATTENDED by samyagdarshana. [The Gita verse itself has used the words: sannyAsena adhigacchati.] Shankara concludes the above commentary by quoting the Gita 5.13 verse: sarva-karmANi manasA sannyasya naiva kurvan na kArayan aaste MEANING: He, the Knower, abides renouncing all actions mentally, doing nothing and not causing to do anything. In other words, THIS Jnani neither has the 'kartrutva' nor the 'kArayitrutva' bhAva. This is the essence of 'Naishkarmya siddhi' or the state of Actionlessness, Moksha. After having set forth the Ultimate State, the Gita proceeds to provide the steps leading to that State in the subsequent verses. Shankara says this is what 'jnAna niShThA' is in the commentary to 18.55 (end): Objection: Coeval with the knowledge arising in the knower he gets to know the object. Thus, there is no need for a 'jnAnaniShThA' characterized by 'jnAnAvRtti'. Thus,(as per you) one does not know through knowledge but knows only when the 'repitition' of jnAna is practiced. Reply: This is no defect. (It is a formidable task to translate the bhashyam sentences) The jnAna that is accompanied by the causes that refine/ripen it, and which is free of the adversaries to it, which results in abiding with the experience of the Atman with certitude - aatmAnubhava-nishchaya-avasAnatvam - is fit to be called by the word 'niShThA' or abidance. This is called 'parA jnAna nishthaa' or supreme abidance in knowledge. This is the Fourth kind of Devotion (Gita 7.16. The commentary to the verses here are also supportive reading to the topic we discuss here). Through this Supreme Devotion one gets the Knowledge of the Lord 'as He Is'. IT IS ONLY UPON THIS KIND OF KNOWING does THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTION BETWEEN THE LORD AND THE SOUL CEASES COMPLETELY. Thus, the jnAna-nishthaa-characterized bhakti is the means to KNow the Lord. Thereby there is no defect that was pointed out in the foregoing. Here we see these distinct points: 1. After securing 'jnAna', there is a need for abidance, a practice called 'jnAna nishThaa'. 2. This practice culminates in perfect abidance. This is called 'Bhakti'. 3. This perfect abidance, Bhakti, is the means for the total cessation of the erroneous perception of difference between the Lord and the Soul. 4. Shankara makes a significant statement at the end of the commentary to 18.55: pratyagAtma-viShaya-pratyaya-santAnakaraNa-abhiniveshaH jnAnaniShThA. He defines 'jnAnaniShThA' as: the intensive engaging in the practice of the unbroken thought of the innermost self. It is this practice, the intensity it calls for, that engenders the need for sarva karma sannyaasa in the opinion of many Acharyas. For, such an intense practice is simply impossible unless a sadhaka gives himself exclusively to this practice whole time. It would be easy to take sides with the protagonists of this view as also to bitterly differ from this view. It is a highly subjective issue that belongs to the exclusive domain of the Guru-Shishya duo. It would be interesting to see what Shankara has said in the Brihadaranyka bhashya 1.4.7 regarding the 'maintaining of the unbroken thought of the innermost self'. Here He says: Even as the Upanishad-effected Right Perception, AtmAvagatiH, arises, it eradicates the mithyAjnAnam coevally. Thus, there is no room there for an effort-induced maintaining of the unbroken current of Atman-consciousness. By juxtaposing the above two apparently contradicting statements of Shankara, we have to carefully conclude that what is said in the Gita commentary citation is the state that has not yet culminated in the liberating knowledge called variously by the terms apratibaddha aparoksha jnAna, or sAkshAtkara or avidyA nivRtti. The Br.Up. case is clearly the one who has THE liberating knowledge and is a Mukta in the absolute sense. Taking Rishi ji's classification, we could call the steps 1 and 2 above as 'viveka jnanam' and 3 as tattva jnanam. Shankara uses these very terms in various places. Terms like 'jnanam', jnani, samyagdarshana, when used by Shankara are likely to create a confusion to a casual reader. It is only when repreated study of the bhashyam is undertaken, in satsanga, that one comes to know of the different shades in the meanings these terms convey in the different contexts. Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 --- On Sat, 9/19/09, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote: Subbuji - PraNAms Beautiful post. Hari om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 hare krishna,namaskarams. the following is from bhagavan ramana maharishi's garland of sayings as posted in satsang. " V.83 As an immature girl may think that the festivities of marriage are conjugal enjoyment, so the man or woman that has not won Experience of the Truth believes book-knowledge to be the same as that Experience knowed " as swami paramarthananda said many a times on the subject of sanyasa ashrama, i am convinced that it is not a pre requisite to gain the supreme knowledge-moksha.there is no final word on this since interpretations of the shruti can change is still a possiblity.in another lifetime another shankara or krishna or buddha can come and give another version of the same.i am convinced again that what you need is the god's grace for that final liberation/moksha since it is beyond guru,ashrama and scriptures.anthara sanyasa is the best other option available for many grahasthas as an alternative. also none of us would have had the chance even to study the vedas in the present times if that was strictly followed as some centuries back. thanks to swami chinmayananda who boldly ventured to do that which resulted in so many eminent teachers/gurus like swami dayananda saraswathi,swami paramarthananda and otherse from whom it is availble to one and all without discrimination of ashrama, caste creed and gender disticntions. may lord krishna bless us with that knowledge the way we should get that is liberation. baskaran Keep up with people you care about with India Mail.. Learn how. http://in.overview.mail./connectmore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Dear Acharya Sadananda-ji Sashtang Pranams. Thank you for your detailed note. I humbly agree with your entire schema that culminates in " Knowledge will takes place if the mind is properly prepared and tuned. That is the law. " The thrust of my discussion (perhaps overly pedantic!) regarding the need for absolute renunication, is not with regards to the acquisition of such knowledge (jnanaprapti), or the qualifications for the same (adhikartvam), but about abidance in such knowledge (jnananishta or sthiraprajna) - the latter alone is true jivanmukti - or the fruit of this (already acquired) knowledge. The sannyasa(vidwat) that Shankara endorses/recommends repeatedly - both explicitly and implicitly - is in this context of a " Knower of Brahman " - so that that very " knowledge " and " conviction of Unity " culminates in its own abidance or " jnananishta " or " brahmanishta " - the fruit of which alone is jivanmukti or Moksha. With regards to the 18th chapter discussion of tyaga and sannyasa, it is important to understand that the context deals ONLY with regards to the non-knower - i.e. its only in relation to the ignorant jivA, that tyaga and sannyasa are talked about as being of three types, and as you very correctly point out sattvik tyaga consists in letting go of the kartrtva bhava, etc while even engaged in yajna dana and tapas as one's prescribed duties - Shankara in his bhashya makes this distinctioin extremely clear that what is NOT even a topic under discussion here is the " absolute renunication " ....(in Shankara's own words) characteristic of a Knower of Brahman. Rishi-ji, and Subbu-ji, have brought up some interesting comments as well, and my thanks to them - I shall time-permitting, present some more of my thoughts regarding jnana, (sarvakarma)sannyasa, and jivanmukti in a few days. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Fri, 9/18/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada Re: thyagena eka amrutatwam. advaitin Friday, September 18, 2009, 7:39 AM Shyamji - PraNAms To me it is a better to say that bhoutika sanyaasa provides a conducive environment for the knowledge to takes place in concurrence with the nature of the knowledge - but to state that it is necessary for self-realization is against the nature of the self-realization which is aprameyam. In the sloka - na karmaNaa - includes na akarmaNaa - That is either by action or by renouciation of actions - since both involve a notion of doership - What is tyaaga altimately as Krishna discusses eloberately in the 18th ch. is the very notion of kartRitva bhaava and the associated bhoktRitva bhaava to be give-up for the knowledge to take place. This does not necessarily mean taking or not taking bhotika sanyaasa. 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...
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.