Karma and Sanyaasa
sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL
Sat Aug 1 12:22:31 CDT 1998
>Sada why dont you prove the other side of the coin is right by citing some
Nagy there are two problems in the proof - You have asked me that before
and I have answered to the best I can- Jalandhar also raised the same issue
in his post and I was going to respond but was going to re-study the 6th
chapter that he wanted me to take a close look at it.
The first problem is the question of what is the criteria that one has
realized or not - to make judgments about if some X, Y, Z has realized. -
If you study the sthitah praJNa lakshna it is obvious that is oneself knows
about oneself. atamanyeva aatmanaa tushTaH - one revels in one self.
Realization is atmani atmanaa atmaanam - oneself in oneself by oneself.
You have given a list of some realized souls - I am not going to contradict
nor endorse but ask you a simple question - is it not a subjective opinion
on your part - We can not established by taking a vote whether one is
realized or not.
The one who has realized knows what he has realized. For example if I say
just for an argument sake since you asked for examples - Gandhi or Tilak or
Nisarga datta Majaraj etc., have realized that. Neither you have
statements to disprove nor I have statement to prove. It is just a matter
of ones faith. If by reading their literature, it helps you to go beyond,
that is all that matters. Is it not?. One may consider it as a trash and
others may think it is a blessing indeed. But one should be aware of the
limitations of the so called proofs when one asks for a proof.
When I consider that my guru has realized, it is my intense faith in him
that makes me feel that way. Since I am immensely blessed by his teachings
and I know what I was before and what I am now, I have that devotion and
faith. Others who do not have that faith will not endorse that view. Now
does that change my opinion of my Guru. Now who is right or who is wrong.
This is completely subjective.
That is the reason why people only give references from the scriptures
assuming that scriptures are pramaana at least for those who agree that
they are pramaanaas. If someone says Janaka has realized and other asks
how me who has that kind of viveka. Now one is asking again a proof. If
scriptures say janaka has realised, at least it is prooving that boutika
sanyaasa is not a pre-requisite. This does not mean that every gruhasta
can realize not it means that every sanyaasi can realize. There is no
disagreement to the fact that external sanyaasa would help to achieve the
necessory viaraagya and living with a family it is indeed difficult to
achieve that living with family due to family pressures. But to claim that
it is a pre-requisite for self realization is wrong, atlest in my
understanding of the nature of the problem.
>In my view, perhaps it is the truth that bhoutika sanyaasa is essential and
>prerequisite if one wants to progress in spirituality.
It is only the prerequisite and essential part that I am questioning. A
converse proof is not necessary to establish the essential part.
>People often justify their statements by quoting some sloka from some text as
>pramana. That sloka may mean some thing entirely different in another
Quotations I made atleast are from B.G. in terms of who is a sanyaasi.
Krishna defined who is a real sanyaasi. Since the topic is centered on
sanyaasi - I donot think it is out of context since Arjuna is confused
whether what Krishna's advice for him is since he is asking to act at the
same time glorying the renunciation. If you say that is not pertinent to
the discussion, I may have to justify why I think it is so.
There are three grounds one can argue and these are stated clearly in our
scriptures - one is shastra pramaanaas, second yukti or logic and third is
the anubhava. Each one is has its limitations. Shastraas are limited not
because of their intrinsic limitations, but because the apparent
contradictions at different places. Notice my word apparent. Hence
interpretations of the achaaryaas become a basis to resolve these
differences. Sankara, MadWa and Ramanuja have interpreted the same
shaastras differently. I am aware of atleast two of them, and partly the
third. - The point is that to resolve the apparent contradictions, yukti or
logic becomes important. It is my bias that Sankara used that most
effectively to resolve. This is where he establishes particularly in the
Brahmasuutra that if the direct meaning is not logical one has to go for
implied meaning to which Ramaanuja disagrees. Yukti also has its
limitations and cannot be applied for that which is beyond the logic.
Hence Shankara's emphasis on the anirvachaneeyam aspect of the avidya. I am
realizing I am digressing the point, but want to make a point here where
the logic also has its limitation. The third is anubhava or ones
experience. Is it experience of others or ones own experience? If it is
others experience, then one requires faith on the others experience, since
by definition it is subjective. My approach is to take it only if it
sounds logical with the rest of my understanding. The references I gave
was from Geeta which I cherish. No where Krishna has pointed out one needs
boutika sanyaasa as a requirement for self-realization. As promissed, I
will study Chapter 6 carefuly as Jalandhar asked and then respond. There
rests my point.
>Let me see how you answer the following. By the way I asked the same question
>Swamy Chinmayananda and shankaracharyas Kanchi and Sringeri.
>Sri Adi Shankara says "Ardham Anardham"
>Sri Markandeya Maharishi writes "Rajyam Dehi, Dhanam Dehi, Samrajyam Dehi me
>sada" in a prayer to Devi. Whom to believe? Both are Jnnanis.
>I realize people do not respond for various reasons. 1. They do not know the
>answer. 2. They are afraid their answer may be wrong. 3. They couldn't care
>Well what is your responce my friend.
Nagy - I respond to my best - I was not plannning to respond any more on
this topic but you asked me to do so, and I did to the degree I could. At
least I pushed myself from the third category you have. You can take
whatever it is worth, and trash the rest.
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list