[Advaita-l] Meditation Vs nitya karma
Jaldhar H. Vyas
jaldhar at braincells.com
Thu Oct 16 00:36:35 CDT 2008
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:
> There is no question of hurting. I was restating my statement correctly
> to avoid misinterpretations.
> Now question of injunctions. There was discussion on this topic related
> to this - Ref.B.Gita Ch. III Shankara Bhaashya introduction to the ch.
> Taking the jnaana karma samucchaya vaada, shankara again addresses the
> injunctions and the taking the purvapakshii's position that karma has to
> be done as there are Vedic injunctions - if it is not done one will
> incur pratyavaaya paapam.
> Shankara rejects the arguments.
There is a serious misunderstanding of GYAnakarmasamucchayavAda here. It
does not apply in this situation.
> Non-performance cannot produce anything (pratyavaaya) since absence
> cannot be a cause for production.
But there is production here. As a gR^ihastha you are engaged in action
whether you "feel" it or not. Actions produce consequences Therefore you
_must_ regulate those actions according to dharma if you wish to avoid
pApa. If you wish to avoid the consequences of your actions, you must
take up sannyasa. The sannyasi is exempt from the production of puNya and
pApa not on the basis of feelings but because he _has_actually_given_up_
actions. Shankaracharya admits of two paths only: pravR^itti and
nivR^itti. If you are not on one you must be on the other. It is a gross
misinterpretation of his position to suggest otherwise.
Now it can legitimately be argued that the heart of sannyasa is not the
danda and ochre robes etc. but rejection of the fruits of action and you
may be a sannyasi in that sense but then go on to say...
> Karma and jnaana have to be sequential not as purvapakshi wants as
> mixing of the two - Until one can become yogaaruudhaH.
(hold that thought)
> When I said I get bored - does that mean I am immature. Prabably. I get
> bored with lot of things in the world starting from the useless US
> presidential debates. I rarely I turn TV on because most of it is
> boring. Now I realize that I could be immature - since I should enjoy
> everything since everything is His vibhuuti, right? No sir,
> unfortunately I tolerate certain things and I try to avoid certain
> things and I go after certain things - all though I do understand that
> sarvam khalu idam brahma - all that I see is Brahman.
That self that says "I am bored" is an illusion projected on your true
self (as is the one that says "I enjoy." If you do not realize that you
are only in the first stages of sadhana and not fit for sannyasa. In that
case the logic is crystal clear. You _must_ perform your obligatory
duties. As you say karma and jnana cannot be combined.
> Sama dRishTi means
> take things as they come - even if it is boring but not necessarily
> going after boring things. Hence I do not go and do as part of Lord's
> wish; but if I am put in a position to do, I will do what need to be
> done as that too as Lord's wish.
Come on, you have read enough of the shastras to know full well that the
Lord's wish is that you practice your svadharma by following the nitya and
naimittika karmas set forth for you. Arjuna did not "feel" like doing his
duty either but bhagavAn set him straight.
> All injunctions are for karmayogi - chittasya suddhaye karma na tu
> vastuupa labhyate - all actions are for purificaition and not for
> gaining moksha.
No one is arguing that it is. karma is for the person who identifies with
samsara. In the best scenario (that of the karmayogi) it can lead to
dispelling that identification and _that_ will lead to moksha.
> Yes there are veda vihita
> karmaas for gruhastaas - but these are constrained by kaala and desha
> niyamita karmaas.
...but they are not constrained by boredom and other "feelings." And
correct me if I'm wrong but don't you live in a place which has one of the
highest concentrations of karmayogis in the fullest Vedic sense of
anywhere in the world? What is it about your desha and kAla which are
> We do not have those varnaasrama dharmaas - yet we do
> have some obligatory duties as husband as a wife as a son and as
I am confused. If one can abandon the obligation to follow vedic kriya,
why is there an obligation of duty to a wife who after all only became a
wife because of following the vedic injunction of vivAha saMskAra?
> That is my understanding. I am follwing my swadharma!
Judging solely by what you have written here, you are basing your actions
only on sentimental attachments. That is not svadharma and it is not
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list