[Advaita-l] Pratyavaaya paapam

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Yadu ji - PraNams

Your points are well taken. The discussion came only when some gruhasta wanted to know if he will be committing sin if he does not do the daily rituals. My understanding based on Shankara's commentary is no. 

What Shree Jaldhar says is right with reference to sanyaasi's. The point of disagreement is only with reference to Gruhastas.

My understanding, and after taking to Shree Sastriji also, that it is Shankara's position that one does incur sin for not performing but by performing one reduces one's sins- like any other obligatory actions. I have given reference. Shree Sastriji says it is said in Taittiriya bhaasya also again with reference jnaana karma samucchaya vaada khanDana. 

Anyway the discussion came because someone has asked. This is nothing do the sanyaasins' code of conduct. Remember the sloka - jaTilo munDii....

We are not evaluating the sanyaasa ashram. Every ashrama will have its own problems and one has to watch out - kshurasya dhaara.. durgam patanaat. 

For those who do not agree with my understanding, that is fine. I have no problem. I stick to my understanding, until I hear from my teacher that the position is not correct.  I will discuss this with Pramarthanandaji also to insure I am not worng. 

I should have stopped the discussion earlier, but now I will.

Hari Om!
Sadananda




--- On Mon, 10/20/08, Dr. Yadu Moharir <ymoharir at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Dr. Yadu Moharir <ymoharir at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Pratyavaaya paapam
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
> Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 5:53 PM
> Namaste Sadananda-Ji:
>  
> The position if so, does not make sense.  Chittashuddhi
> has to continue at all times regardless of the so called
> Official sanyaasa.  I feel it is more important to remain
> watchful of oneself at that stage and thus serves as an
> important utility tool.
>  
> Just count for yourself how many sanyaasi fall off the the
> wagon and get trapped in the worldly things, including
> affairs with this disciples.  I personally know someone who
> was a shankaracharys at one time and then landed up having
> an affair in US with his student.  His settlement is still
> on the FTC/FDA's web site.
>  
> There is a saying in Marathi:
>  
> suurya tethe chhaya (Meaning - Where there is Sun there
> will always be a shadow)
> brahma tethe maayaa (Meaning - Where there is brahma there
> will always be maayaa)
> and buuvaa tethe baayaa ( Meaning - Where there is a
> 'boovaa" there will always be women).
>  
> IMO-  There is no point in discussing if things do not
> apply to the present.
>  
> Various rituals keep one sharp that may help the individual
> to be married to his vows, whatever those may be.
>  
> prakshaalanaadya pa~Nkasya duuraad sparsha na varam
>  
> I feel it is better to keep away from the mud rather than
> having required to wash it after becoming dirty.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Dr. Yadu
> 
> --- On Mon, 10/20/08, kuntimaddi sadananda
> <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] Pratyavaaya paapam
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 12:31 PM
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 10/20/08, Jaldhar H. Vyas
> <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> 
> Jaldharji - PraNAms
> 
> Here is my understanding:
> 
> The discussion of pratyavaaya paapam is irrelevant for
> sanyaasins since they do
> not have those nityya karmas. The discussion with reference
> to them only
> pertains to mixing karma with jnaana as requirement for
> moksha. Hence Shankara
> dismisses jnaana karma samucchaya taking sanyaasins as
> basis. 
> 
> The subsequent discussion of Shankara related to
> pratyavaaaya paapam therefore
> refers to only gruhastas. 
> 
> The pertinence of Ch. Up reference with bhovotpatti from
> abhaava is across the
> board - one cannot have existence from non-existence. This
> argument stands on
> its own without any relavence to aashrama of the adhikaari.
> 
> 
> Looks like my understanding of bhaashya differs from yours.
> All I can say is my
> understanding is based on Swami Purushottamanandaji's
> not too long ago
> detailed analysis of Shankara Bhaashya of B. Gita. 
> 
> 
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Archives:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
> around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com