Karma and Sanyasa
sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL
Tue Aug 4 08:26:52 CDT 1998
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>Since the domain of shabda pramana is to explain the nature of Moksha, it
>is anumana or logic which is out of bounds.
I agree and applies to Moksha which is out of bounds for anumaana
but the discussion does not pertain to that.
>Sannyasa IS renunciation!
Yes. but that renunciation is detachement at the manas level that I have
been emphasizing from the begining. No disagreemnt that the external will
>Ok. But to prove that sannyasa is not essential you would have to give
>the example of a non-sannyasi who is non-attached. But by your definition
>above such a thing is an oxymoron.
Not in principle. Hence my quatation of B.G. sloka for definition of
sanyaasi - Also please read my response to Nagy's question about the proof.
>> Here is Krishna's statement in 6th chapter in the very first sloka what
>> sanyaasa means:
>> annasritaH karmaphalam kaaryam karma karoti yaH|
>> sa sanyaasii cha yogii cha na niragnirna ca akriyaaH|
>> One who performs the actions without depending (mentally) on the fruits of
>> the action, he is the one who is sanyaasi and yogi and not the one who
>> renounces the actions and niyamita karmaas.
>the tatparya of this verse is that _just_ giving up the niyamas
Sorry - sloka does not have words that mean - giving up niyama is not
enough. Please read the words again. na nir agniH and na akriyaH - not
the one who has no agni( who does not perform vihita or niyamita karmas)
and not the one who does not act. The rest is interpretation.
> It must be accompanied by vairagya. Thus one who has this
>sense of detachment is more praiseworthy (more of a sannyasi and yogi) than
>one who doesn't. But read the next two verses. They make it clear that
>even more praiseworthy than this is the person who mentally _and_
The and part in the last sentence is the question!
The next sloka in fact emphasies the above aspect.
nahya sanyasya sankalpo yogi bhavati kaschana.
sankalpa is what one takes before undertaking an action or even veda vihita
karma even including puja. The very nature of the sankalpa involves the
doership - I am the doer - including why I am doing this puja or karma etc.
The essence there is ego of doership and Krihna's emphasis the one who has
not given up the doership will not become yogi. This essentially auguments
the first part of the first sloka - What is to be renouced is the doership
and the fruits of the action. External renouciation is not demanded in the
slokas. That is again an interpretation.
>So far from being a praise of "Armchair" sannyasa these verses are
>actually recommending karma. Krishna Bhagavan is saying if you are not
>mentally ready, do not practice Vedanta at all. Practice karma until you
>are really ready.
Yes - no disagreement in that. Action has to be performed and it should be
performed with proper attitude. He had already emphasized in earlier
chapter that one can not aviod performing action -nahi kaschit kshaNamapi
jatu tushTasya karma kRit - now it is only question of attitude that is
required in changing karma into karma yoga.
>But as long as there is no sannyasa the mind will never be free as it is
>karma itself which causes the pressure.
I have no disagreement in terms of sanyaasa - If external ashrama helps by
all means. Is the external environment essential or helpful - is the topic
of the discussion. That is all.
>I agree. But we shoud also agree to understand when we are in error and
>not get upset when we are corrected.
By all means. But the error should be addressed to the issues or not at a
personal however one may disagrees with the issue. Unfortunately we are
all struggling with our egos, it is better to avoid personal attaches. To
that degree we grow.
>The mere existence of other interpretations does not mean they are valid.
True and who is judge of that. This is where anumaana comes to help and
used effectively in all bhashyaas when the discussion pertians to
interpretation of the shabda pramaana.
> Perhaps not all but in the case of
>the necessity of sannyasa the answer is crystal clear. It is necessary
>and to say otherwise is wrong.
Sorry. May be it is to you but not to me. To say it is, is incapatible
with the nature of the problem. I cannot agree with you nor with those
interpretations that are not logical. You can say I am wrong. So be it.
>> Neither truth nor logic does not depend on number density. One
>> has to evalaute with reference to the goal we are seeking.
>Neither do they depend on one persons "evaluation."
Agreed. one person is a number too. and my statement obviously applies.
Hence the logic.
>Then please don't. But we should bear in mind that a stubborn refusal to
>face the truth is the ultimate fanaticism.
Jaldhar - Thank you for this reminder. Yes we all have to watch it
ourselves. That is the reason we churn these so many times in our
discussion groups to avoid get trapped by our own so called stubborns. I
am greatful to you to remind me of this. I will try to watch out myself as
Thanks again for your helpful comments. Now I retire from this subject.
Now a subject that is irrevalent to the reference topic. I have followed
some of the posts related to f. maiello retirement from the form.
Couple of days back I asked Shri Murthy to join back. Now I am wondering
my self if I should continue in this list. I found f. maiello's posts were
relavent and pertain to advaita. I am not sure any more what Advaita that
Shankara taught versus what is the other advaita. With due respect to all
members, I am failing to find distinctions. If one says only discuss
Shankaras texts and his commentaries - I have no problem with the scope,
even though it is restricted but well defined. From my personal growth, I
find the list serve becoming too restrictive. I have no problems even with
personal attaches nor disagreements. I take only what I like. But
restrictions also curtails the vichaara required. Hence from my point the
utility of the list serve is diminishing. With due considerations, I am
also deciding to retire from this list. I request Ravi to remove my name
immediately from the list.
Before I retire, I want to thank you all and I learned from everybody. I
want to express my gratitude to Vidya, and Anand whose discussions were
specially educative. I may be stubburn in my own views of advaita as
Jaldhar cautioned me. That last education from Jaldhar, I will try to
Ravi, you have done an excellent job maintaining the list. Please continue
the service to your best. Please remove my name from the list.
With this I am retiring from the list. God bless you all.
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list