Karma and Sanyaasa

[sadananda]

When I pressed a reply button to Rama's last post, I did not ralize that it
did not go to Advaita list but only went to Rama.   Unfortunately he
responded to me privately.  Since there is nothing personal about these
other than the issues,  I am taking the liberty to post to the adviata
list.  If that affends Rama my apologies again.
----------------------

Posted on Friday:
Rama wrote:

>Frankly all this has been already answered 100s of times in this list
>and it mmakes me wonder who is "re-hashing" issues.


Sir - I was not the one who woke up what you called a dead horse!


>If you don't have
>the capacity to take up sannyAsa why not admit it?

This statement is rather uncalled for and shows lack of respect for the
other individuals.  Obviously my post was neither read correctly nor
understood. I would have ignored your response, but wanted to point out
when you do not want others to be personal about you, you have no right to
do that for others.

The whole of my post is to say that sanyaasa is not essential but helpful.
Now where does  my capacity of sanyaasa comes into this picture.  If I feel
it is essential and still if I am not taking it, then your question may be
valid, even though it is still personal!  By the by, if I feel that is of
great help, then I will be taking it.

>There is instead an
>effort to disparage the sannyAsa dharma by giving pointless examples.
>
>Rama.

Sir, I beg to disagree with your interpretation of my posts again.  Please
read carefully before you respond.  You are making again sweeping
conclusions without basis. I have never made any effort to disparage the
sannyAsa ashrama. In fact, you may not know, I have been supporting that in
many ways.  And my guru himself was a sanyaasi.

My statement is bhoutika sanyaasa is neither necessary nor sufficient but
helpful for self-realization.  And none of the posts provided logic to
contradict that statement.

As a general comment to the group and Rama:

Why cannot arguments be made on a objective basis without out insulting
individuals.   If I am wrong prove it to me that for self-realization
bhoutika sanyaasa is essential.  I have argued purely on the basis of the
nature of the problem.  I have seen Jalandhar's post to my mail and he has
provided some thought provoking comments and deserve to be contemplated on
before my response. I thank him for that.

Hari Om!
Sadananda
---------------------
For the above post Rama responded, unfortunately again privately.  I am
taking the liberty to reference only the part of the post.  If Rama wishes
he can put the whole of his post to the list.

Rama wrote in response:

>
>If you had the guts you should have said "Why are YOU trying to rechurn
>the issue"? I would not have been offended and would have answered you
>properly. Instead of addressing me directly you revel in insinuating
>statements instead.
>
>Rama.

Sir, God knows if I have guts or not!  Please read my posts again with an
open  mind, I have never insulted or insinuated anyone on any count.  I try
to stick to topic and not to the individuals per sec. Since the issue was
raised again, I felt the need for me to write my two cents worth of what I
think too. I am not addressing you, if so I would have send a private mail.
(the last mail did go to his private mail since I did not realize that the
reply button did not click to advaita address).  I was addressing the
issue.  If someone has affected his life reading mental renunciation, I am
sorry to say that he has not understood what renunciation is.  It is not
the fault of the discussion but his understanding of the topic. Unless one
is mentally renounced one should not also take the physical renunciation.
Otherwise it is called smashaana vairaagyam.   In fact a proper guru will
not give it.  Without mental renunciation the physical renunciation is
useless.  I am all for physical renunciation if one has the prepared mind
and if physical renunciation would help.

My central objection is against the claim that physical renunciation is
essential for self-realization. The solution to the problem at hand does
not demand that - and it is as simple as that.  I have no disagreements if
one says it is of great help.

If I have offended you with my posts, my sincere apologies. With the Lords
name
in front of you, and with the Load reflecting in you, definitely I have no
guts to insult you. If I have done so unintentionally, please excuse me.

At the same token, if my logic is faulted, I am very happy to learn.

As a policy, I try to avoid discussions on a subjective level.  If I do not
agree, I present my thoughts and leave it with that. This is what we are
trained for in our scientific fields.  If it is my understanding which may
differ from others, I try to paraphrase my statements with what I
understand.  Please read my posts again.

  If your understanding differs, I have no problem.  I will be happy to
read and take what I like to take and discard what  does not appeal to my
logic.  I may put forth my ideas if they are different from the mail in
hand.  I am fully aware of Sri Jalandhar's warning in his last mail- in not
being a fanatic, I may become fanatic to my own ideas. I really thank him
for that. That is a fair  and timely warning.  All these issues, we discuss
constantly in our study groups and contemplate constantly by swaadhyaayana
to avoid exactly that.  But it is a warning we should all keep in our mind
including Jalandhar!  - This is another attachment at the intellectual
level that we are all trying to avoid.

Any way - Rama please note that I have nothing personal against you nor
anyone, nor I like to get into personal.  If my understanding differs from
you, I cannot help it. If you think mine is non-sense so be it. That is
your opinion. I stick to my understanding not out of fanaticism but out of
understanding.   I realize there is a fine demarcation line.  I am glad
there are people like Jalandhar to keep me aware of that line.   Let us
make use of this list- serve the best we can as we all grow together.

I will have no further responses on this topic other than to what Jalandhar
raised.

Hari Om!
Sadananda







K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623

>From  Sat Aug  1 11:07:18 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.110718.0400.>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:07:18 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: Karma and Sanyaasa
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

sadananda wrote:

> When I pressed a reply button to Rama's last post, I did not ralize that it
> did not go to Advaita list but only went to Rama.   Unfortunately he
> responded to me privately.  Since there is nothing personal about these
> other than the issues,  I am taking the liberty to post to the adviata
> list.  If that affends Rama my apologies again.

Actually, (unfortunately) I had sent the reply to the list and not to
you. I have got so used to the "Mail to" headers changing to the person
instead of the list that I changed the header without looking at your
post. I see that this is happening to some other people also since
sometimes I get two copies when someone reples to me (people usually add
advaita list but do not delete my name).

> issue.  If someone has affected his life reading mental renunciation, I am
> sorry to say that he has not understood what renunciation is.  It is not
> the fault of the discussion but his understanding of the topic. Unless one

Definitely. But the fact remains that to mentally renounce in the MIDST
of wife, car etc is much much more difficult. Mentally renouncing is
more difficult than taking up physical sannyAsa. Sha.nkara makes this
point clear in the prose part of the UpSa when he asks his disciple how
he can realize the Atman when he is thinking of himself as a sannyAsI!
However it is also much easier to fool oneself that one is "mentally
renounced". It's a fact and cannot be denied. My point however is that
our AchAryas are firm that nitya karmas cannot be given up unless
physical sannyAsa is taken. The whole point was raised ONLY because you
mentioned karma is not useful in the "ultimate sense" when pUjA was
being discussed. You never commented on my statement that
sureshvarAchArya is quite firm that karma has to be done unless physical
sannyAsa is taken?

> is mentally renounced one should not also take the physical renunciation.
> Otherwise it is called smashaana vairaagyam.   In fact a proper guru will
> not give it.  Without mental renunciation the physical renunciation is
> useless.  I am all for physical renunciation if one has the prepared mind
> and if physical renunciation would help.

Yes, but before that all karma HAS to be performed and there is no
question of saying that "I am not interested in that type". As per
sureshvara you HAVE to be interested in "that type of thing" (I am
assuming you are not a sannyAsI here!). The remarks about how karma is
not useful in the ultimate sense is also then a non-sequitur in a
discussion about pUjA. The whole discussion IMO was about doing karma
and not about taking up sannyAsa. I had explained this in my reply to
Kartik.

> My central objection is against the claim that physical renunciation is
> essential for self-realization. The solution to the problem at hand does
> not demand that - and it is as simple as that.  I have no disagreements if
> one says it is of great help.

When did I ever say that everyone needs to take physical sannyAsa? This
itself shows my posts needed clarification!

> As a policy, I try to avoid discussions on a subjective level.  If I do not
> agree, I present my thoughts and leave it with that. This is what we are
> trained for in our scientific fields.  If it is my understanding which may

The the comment of "re-hashing" should not have been made! That was
speculation on your part. I suppose that had I made a comment like "Why
do people who cannot take up sannyAsa bring down the value of sannyAsa?"
it would not have been taken as a personal remark! IMO, it's only making
personal remarks, but generalizing it to appear polite!

>   If your understanding differs, I have no problem.  I will be happy to
> read and take what I like to take and discard what  does not appeal to my
> logic.  I may put forth my ideas if they are different from the mail in
> hand.  I am fully aware of Sri Jalandhar's warning in his last mail- in not
> being a fanatic, I may become fanatic to my own ideas. I really thank him
> for that. That is a fair  and timely warning.  All these issues, we discuss
> constantly in our study groups and contemplate constantly by swaadhyaayana

Fanaticism is a loose word and is 100% based on ones own opinions. I am
sure Jerry Falwell thinks that Shankara Mathas are cults and it's
followers are fanatics. To give an e.g., sha.nkara makes the point again
and again that the seer behind all intellects is one only. Does that
make him a fanatic? Should he also admit that the number of seers is 2,
3 and also 5 1/2? Similarly the AchAryas are very clear that karma has
to be performed unless sannyAsa is taken up? Does that make them
fanatics? Perhaps to you, but that's what shruti and smR^iti say and if
that's fanaticism so be it!

> you, I cannot help it. If you think mine is non-sense so be it. That is
> your opinion. I stick to my understanding not out of fanaticism but out of

The nonsense referred to the wrong understanding about renunciation of
someone, not to you.

Rama.