[Advaita-l] Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 09:04:51 EDT 2021
In continuation, Swamiji apparently has made similar remarks in his
Gurupurnima talk in 2007. A gist off the same is available at the following
link on ** What is Sanyasa ** by the Swamiji
Please see page 8 on ** Is Antara sanyasa compulsory **. I am copying
below an extract from the same. Not sure if it will come out properly in
this post. Hence I have provided the link for the article.
<< Is Antara Sannyasa compusory?
Lastly, before conclusion we will discuss one more topic and conclude. Is
this Āntara Sannyāsa compulsory or not. Inner renunciation is compulsory if
Moksha is the goal. It may not be compulsory immediately as in today. We
can postpone it but we can never avoid that. Therefore Āntara Sannyāsa is
compulsory. 8 What is Sannyasa? – Swami Paramarthananda Then the next
question is – what about Bāhya Sannyāsa [external Sannyāsa], i.e., Āshrama
Sannyāsa [formal Sannyāsa] ? Is this form of Sannyāsa compulsory or not ?
This is a technical topic of academic interest, but we will briefly discuss
this and conclude. Is formal renunciation, which is taking to monastic
order, compulsory or not ? There are two types of view with regards to
this. Generally, when we discuss this, invariably the topic will be centred
on King Janaka. Janaka will be the example taken for finding whether
external Sannyāsa is required or not. When we read the scriptures, we find
that everywhere, wherever Janaka is mentioned, it is clearly said that
Janaka is an Āntara Sannyāsi and Janaka is a liberated person. We see that
in Bhagavad Gītā and Ashtāvakra Gītā, we find that Janaka is a Grihastha as
well as an Āntara Sannyāsi. Based on this instance, the question arises
whether external Sannyāsa is required or not ? Generally we infer that
Janaka became an Jnāni and Janaka became liberated remaining a Grihastha.
>From this the conclusions that we make are two. One group of people say
that external Sannyāsa is not compulsory because in the case of Janaka, he
is not an external Sannyāsi as he is a Grihastha, yet he is liberated.
There is a second group of people who say, external Sannyāsa is not
required in this Janma. If Janaka has practiced Āntara Sannyāsa and has got
liberation, it only proves that he was an external Sannyāsi in his Pūrva
Janma [previous birth]. So their argument is that in the Pūrva Janma,
Janaka had taken external Sannyāsa. But because of some reason, he could
not gain Moksha and therefore he became a Yoga Bhrashtaha [fallen yogi] and
then in his Janma (as King Janaka), because of his Sannyāsa Vāsanā
[Sannyasa tendency], he became an Āntara Sannyāsi. Therefore their argument
is that every Āntara Sannyāsi Grihastha has been an external Sannyāsi in
the Pūrva Janma – therefore external Sannyāsa is also part of liberation
either in the previous Janma or in the current Janma. Therefore if you all
successfully practice Āntara Sannyāsa in Grihastha Āshrama, you have taken
Bāhya Sannyāsa in Pūrva Janma. Therefore the conclusion is that both
Sannyāsa are there and therefore both Sannyāsas go with Jnānam. Therefore
whether Bāhya Sannyāsa [external Sannyasa] is taken in the Pūrva Janma or
in the present Janma or future Janma, we need not bother. We focus on
Āntara Sannyāsa like King Janaka. Therefore we, all serious spiritual
seekers, should prepare the mind for becoming Āntara Sannyāsi one day or
the other. There afterwards, Jnānam and Sannyāsa put together will give
both Jīvan Muktihi [liberation while living] and Videha Muktihi [liberation
upon dropping of body] >>.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 3:30 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> Namaste Jaldhar Ji,
> Reg << Now there is room for flexibility in some
> areas but this idea that mukti is possible without physical renunciation
> is stretching things beyond the limit >>,
> I had earlier mentioned regarding the contrary views of Swami
> Paramarthananda on this topic. But at the time, in spite of my best
> efforts I could not get a specific reference to backup my statement. Since
> you made this observation now, I made another attempt for the same. Though
> I could not get to the particular talks by the Swamiji on Upanishads on
> which I had made my observation, I could still get a reference to the same
> in one of his Gurupoornima talks. The reference unfortunately is not to the
> talk itself, but a transcription of the talks by one of his disciples, but
> it can be considered authentic as it is published by Arsha Avinash
> Foundation. The link is
> Please see the last part of the talk.
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:02 PM Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021, S Jayanarayanan via Advaita-l wrote:
>> > Although Akilesh has a view of Sannyasa that I believe is not really
>> held by either
>> > Traditionalists or a specific Teacher, he has done two things correctly:
>> > 1) He has quoted passages from Ramana Bhagavan's teachings, rather than
>> mere empty talk.
>> > 2) He has not resorted to any personal attacks.
>> > For the above reasons, I would recommend that he not be removed, but of
>> > you are the moderator.
>> Even the moderator can make mistakes so I welcome your feedback. What
>> have said is true and that's why after the first big argument a few weeks
>> back I didn't take any action. It's ok to have different opinions if you
>> can back them up but the measuring stick is ultimately what is the
>> teaching of Advaita Vedanta? Now there is room for flexibility in some
>> areas but this idea that mukti is possible without physical renunciation
>> is stretching things beyond the limit. As Akilesh just kept grasping at
>> straws instead of acknowledging this, there was no point in just
>> continuing to bash heads fruitlessly.
>> n Mon, 21 Jun 2021, S Jayanarayanan via Advaita-l wrote:
>> > Ramana Bhagavan has been revered by both the Sringeri and Puri Acharyas
>> > of His time.
>> And it was the Kanchi Acharya who told Paul Brunton to visit him. These
>> are the kind of recommendations that are of great weight to me. What was
>> it about him exactly that impressed them so much? It would be
>> instructive to find that out from discourses etc.
>> n Mon, 21 Jun 2021, Sanju Nath via Advaita-l wrote:
>> > I was actually looking forward to reading his commentary/interpretation
>> > RM’s most important work, which is a big commitment of time on his part,
>> > and some discussion on how it aligned with Bhagvadpada Shankarcharya’s
>> > works.
>> > But the main purpose - the posting of the verses, and his
>> > was useful, I felt, for contemplation on “Who Am I” message of Ramana
>> > Maharishi.
>> If someone else would like to take this up (maybe you?) it would be
>> welcome by many readers.
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021, Anand N via Advaita-l wrote:
>> > When I read about Arjuna being called a Jnani and the quote being used
>> > BG, it was very suspect.
>> > Jaldharji took the effort to point out to sources in Mahabharatha which
>> > shows otherwise.
>> Especially when answering Akilesh I made it a point to include the
>> sanskrit text. Because the problem with people with "opinions" is that
>> they think everyone else is just giving an opinion too so the entire
>> concept of objective truth falls by the wayside.
>> > These excerpts were simply speculated upon. The problem of or the rules
>> > of the tradition, is that the texts are Pramana, since Anubhava cannot
>> > be documented. If we interpret texts however we want, then we are
>> > entering chaos, which will be inconsistent with the overall message of
>> > the Vedas.
>> That kind of radical subjectivity was championed by the Jains and some
>> sections of the Buddhists. And Advaita Vedanta has opposed this. This is
>> a historical fact.
>> > Let us now see the rules of this list,
>> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/lists/
>> > Focus of the list is also NOT on the new non-dual and neo-vedanta
>> > teachings. But, scholarly articles comparing these traditions with
>> > traditional advaita-vedAnta are welcome.
>> > The problem is the word neo-vedanta is nebulous, since it's very hard to
>> > define who all fall under the category.
>> > For e.g. for me J. Krishnamurthi would be a Neo Vedantin. But wikipedia
>> > will define it otherwise.
>> I am relieved that there is someone who actually read that. :-) I get the
>> feeling most people treat it like those popups with long legal "end-user
>> license agreements" that you have to agree to when installing software.
>> Just click ok so I can get to the good stuff. :-) But we have that for a
>> reason. We don't want to have our time wasted by people who aren't
>> discussing things which aren't Advaita at all but we also don't want to
>> waste their time if what we are discussing is not what they are
>> interested in.
>> Now Ramana is an interesting case. I think he is more of a transitional
>> figure between traditional and neo. (It's not a fixed boundary as you
>> say. Who can point to the exact place where the Ganga ends and the Bay of
>> Bengal begins?) So he has followers from both camps.
>> (And btw Wikipedia is a terrible source for anything related to Hinduism.
>> I advise you not to rely on it.)
>> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
>> Archives: https://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