102. haladhR^ikpUjitA

[Ravisankar S. Mayavaram]

102. haladhR^ikpUjitA

SHE who is worshipped by one who carries a  plough.

haladhR^ik means one who bears a plough and it refers to Balarama. pUjitA
means she is worshipped with meditation, etc.

AUM haladhR^ikpUjitAyai namaH

>From  Thu Jul 23 20:49:32 1998
Message-Id: <THU.23.JUL.1998.204932.0400.>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 20:49:32 -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 Sanyasa
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

Maadhavan Srinivasan wrote:

> I have a doubt regarding renunciation.
>
> To attain Jeevan Mukth state, Is it necessary to renounce physically?
>
> How come, being a king, Janaka was in Jeevan Muktha state.
>
> ( If one is a king, he can't renounce everything physically.)
>
> And please explain the term, " Renounce Physically ".
>
> My understanding is, one has to renounce all his physical possessions.
> Then, his body is  the primary possession. So, if he renounce physically
> he can't live .
>
> So, i think physical renunciation is not a must to attain Mukthi.
> But mental renunciation is a must.
>
> ( If we realize TRUTH, we are not renouncing anything but we will become
> everything.)

Hello,

I haven't seen you post before, I think you must be a new list-member. I
am not sure if my previous message was the first message you read. No
one claimed everyone has to take up physical sannyAsa. If you read my
posts on pUjA (please refer the archives) and then my previous post,
you'll realize that my post had nothing to do with sannyAsa per se. The
point I wanted to make was completely different and I only tangentially
touched upon sannyAsa, only because I had to. As to sannyAsa etc and
importance of actual, physical renunciation of possessions, please refer
to the Giri's excellent post, which you should be able to find in the
archives. I posted a pointer to that message about 2-3 months back also.
Also refer to Anand Hudli's various posts on karma, sannyAsa etc.

As to statements like "I am truth" etc, if you really have realized
that, my humble obeisances to you. If you are merely repeating what some
GYAni said, it's of no consequence. Sorry to sound churlish, but in the
past this list was inundated with posts which carried statements like
this from various people as "answers" to any and every question. I have
completely lost my patience with this type of stuff.

Rama.

>From  Thu Jul 23 21:11:14 1998
Message-Id: <THU.23.JUL.1998.211114.0400.>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:11:14 -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 Sanyasa
Comments: To: Advaita-L <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> 2. In an objective sense, in Hindu philosophy, in vyavahArika advaita,
> karma is the residual effect which clings on to the subtle aspect of the
> jeeva as a result of action or omission either mentally, orally or
> physically or any way. It is this aspect of karma which is important
> and which cannot be given up as long as one is embodied. Either a
> sannyAsi, a grihastha, even Shri RamaNa maharshhi or Shrikrishna
> cannot escape from this.

Very good of you to bring up the name of a GYAni. Here's what he says
about pUjA:

Pandit Bala Kak Dhar, a jagridar from Kashmir, had come all the way from
Srinagar to have darshan of Bhagavan on Dipavali day. He gave a bundle
of papers to Sri Bhagavan containing an account of his life and
position. His talks with Bhagavan were all personal.

One of his questions was: "Now that I have had darshan of Sri Bhagavan
and it is enough for me, may I throw all the charms, tantras and pujas
into the river?"

M: Daily puja as presribed in the Dharma Sastras is always good. It is
for the purification of the mind. Even if one feels oneself too advanced
to need such puja, still it must be performed for the sake of others.
Such action will be an example to ones children and dependents."

(Talks with Sri RM, page 522)

My point of the post had nothing to do with what you are talking here
(BTW what is this vyavahArika advaita? Is there a pAramArthika advaita
also?)

> The only way this karma would not cling to the jeeva (note - this is
> not of *giving up* of karma by jeeva, but it is the karma not clinging
> to the jeeva; there is an ocean of difference between the two) is if
> the jeeva performs the duties (whatever they are) without any any touch
> of anticipation or attachment to the result.

Very good. I was talking about performing the duties vs renouncing them
as by a sannyAsi. This is what is meant by renouncing karma. It should
have been fairly obvious.

> The subject karma (which I explained in # 1 above) is of minor importance
> in understanding, compared to # 2. I am not sure which karma Shri
> Ramakrishnan is talking about. The latter part of Shri Ramakrishnan's post
> (re ac, house, car, fat paycheck and other so-called modern "conveniences"
> or hindrances) can only be interpreted as one's prArabdha karma.

I think I didn't make my point clear.

Again, read carefully:

If everything is alloted by prArabdha karma one should do one's duties
with detachment (karma includes the duties enjoined by smR^iti also) and
also get the fat paycheck with the same detachment. I was pointing out
that on this list many have prescribed NOT PERFORMING the duties (worse
is claiming one can do it any way one pleases), since karma cannot lead
to moxa as per Shankara. But the same people are getting fat paychecks
etc with "detachment". If one really believes that fat paychecks, AC car
etc are due to prArabdha they should ALSO PERFORM their alloted duties
in the same detached manner. Why is the performance of duties, which
requires EFFORT, being given up while AC cars, etc (which make life
convenient) are accepted with "detachment"?

Do I make myself clear? Have I pointed out clearly the absurdity of the
situation?

Rama.