[Advaita-l] Samnyasa and Sankara's position?
ayyar at akilesh.com
Fri Apr 12 23:45:02 EDT 2019
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:37 PM S Jayanarayanan via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Akilesh Ayyar ayyar at akilesh.com wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:57 PM S Jayanarayanan via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, these examples are persuasive as to Sankara's overall view. But
> in the
> > > > Aitaraya excerpts *specifically* he seems to be saying something
> > > > He poses no exceptions and does not soften his language. He does not
> > > > it's merely *beneficial* to take sannyasa; he says in no other
> station is
> > > > sadhana *possible*.
> > > >
> > > > It's also says -- and this is very interesting -- that a jnani,
> > > > his ashrama was before, *always* becomes a sannyasi, because to stay
> > > > householder requires desire that is no longer present post-jnana.
> > > >
> > > > Again, these are very cut-and-dry, definitive statements.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sankara does not accept Vidura and Janaka as *muktas*, only as GYAnIs;
> > > as sannyAsa is a requirement for mukti (or mokSha), not GYAna.
> > >
> > > There is absolutely no contradiction here:
> > >
> > > Vidura, Janaka: gRRihasthas and GYAnimAtras (NOT jIvanmuktas)
> > > yAGyavalkya: vidvat-sannyAsin and sthitapraGYa (jIvanmukta)
> > >
> > This seems hard to square with BrU 4.4.23:
> > "This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman...He becomes sinless,
> > taintless, free from doubts, and BrAhmana (knower of Brahman). This is
> > world of Brahman, O Emperor, and you have attained it--said Yajnavalkya."
> > Sankara writes in commentary on this verse:
> > "Such a man becomes in this state a BrAhmana...Before living in this
> > of identity with Brahman, his BraHmanahood was but figurative. This
> > identity with the Self of all is the world of Brahman, the world that is
> > Brahman, in a real, not figurative, sense... Janaka, thus identified with
> > Brahman--helped on to this state by Yajnavalkya--replied, 'Since you have
> > helped me to attain the state of Brahman, I give you, sir, the empire of
> > Videha...The topic of the knowledge of Brahman is finished, together with
> > its offshoots and procedure as well as renunciation. *The highest end of
> > man is also completely dealt with. This much is to be attained by a man,
> > this is the culmination, this is the supreme goal, this is the highest
> > good. Attaining this one achieves all that has to be achieved and
> becomes a
> > knower of Brahman. This is the teaching of the entire Vedas*."
> Where in the above quoted BU passage, or Sankara's commentary thereon,
> does it say that
> Janaka or yAGYavalkya were *muktas*? They were GYAnIs, but not jIvanmuktas
> - at least
> not until yAGYavalkya took up vidvat-sannyAsa.
> I thought you were aware of the differences between a GYAnimAtra and the
> GYAnimAtra: BrahmaGYAna is aparokSha (Direct) and saMyak (Perfect), but
> asthitaM (*Unsteady*).
> sthitapraGYa: BrahmaGYAna is aparokSha (Direct) and saMyak (Perfect), AND
> sthitaM (*Steady*).
> More on this topic at:
> BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 2 (The Case of YAGYavalkya)
> (4 Nov 2006)
I think the issue is that not everybody agrees with Sri Vidyaranya's idea
that "GYAnI" means merely a GYAnImatra, and that post-GYAna one must take
up vidvat-sannyAsa to become a jivanmukta.
Some believe that Sankara and the sruti say that when one is a GYAnI, that
by definition means one is no longer a GYAnImatra -- that a GYAnimAtra is
*not* a GYAnI.
When Sankara writes "this is the supreme goal, this is the highest good,"
that Janaka has "attained the state of Brahman," that the topic of "the
knowledge of Brahman is *finished*," it is hard to credit the idea that it
is not enough, that there is further to go, that he is merely a GYAnImAtra.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list