[Advaita-l] Pitrupaksha questions

[Srikanta Narayanaswami]

>Finally I would like to ask you,What is physical renunciation of nama -rupa? Kindly explain.
Jaldhar vyasji wrote:
As brhadaranyakopanishad 2.4 relates Maharshi Yajnavalkya achieved jnana.
Then he spoke to his wife Maitreyi thusly:

maitreyIti hovAcha yAGYavalkyaH udyAsyanvA are.ahamasmAtsthAnAdasmi hanta te.anyayA kAtyAyanyAntaM karavANIti || 1 ||

"'Maitreyi' said Yajnavalkya, 'Oh I am going to leave this place[1].  Let it be that I might make a finish[2] with you and the other, Katyayani[3]."

[1] Shankaracharya explains this place is gR^ihasthAShrama.  yAGYavalkya is going to leave it for parivrAjaka or sannyAsAshrama.  Now if he is already a jnani why is this necessary?  Because the householder life by definition is predicated on a form with name, gender, caste, education, wealth etc.  A jnAni has no use for any of these so he is naturally repelled from householder life.

[2] antaM karavANi "make a finish" is explained by Shankaracharya as vicchedaM karavANi dravyavibhAgaM kRItvA to make a settlement, to divide up  material property.  Why?  He is free?  He can just run off to the Himalayas right?  Wrong.  In accepting a kanya from her family at the time of marriage, he has made a commitment to look after her which must be honored.  He cannot renege on that promise, he must see that it is wound down in an orderly fashion and that she is properly cared for.  Then and only then is he free to renounce.



[3]  In fact Yajnavalkya has two wives.  Polygamy is not unknown in Hinduism but only the rich could afford it.  Apart from that he was the trusted adviser of a powerful emperor and perhaps because of that a great deal of material wealth.  (The stereotype of the Rshi as being a hermit in the forest is not always true.)  Yet he gave it all up.  Not just the shraddha or other "inconveniences" but all of it.  That is sannyasa.

-- Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
________________________________________________________
To Jaldharnyas,
As usual you are going away from the point.What I am saying is not about AShankara discussing karma,but pointing out Jnana.Infact,a Jnanai that he is nothing is going to be gained and everything is to gained for the hearer(sadhaka)the teaching of shankara on Jnana.Everyone knows about performance of karmas as they have been dealt in the Purva mimamsa,on Karma rituals.Now,what Shankara brings to focus is Jnanakhandha inthe BG by citing the Bhagawan's words,"Karmani akarma yah pasyeth---"by these words it is clear that this is meant not for a person who is revelling in karma.If it is impled he becomes a 'Purvapakshin"and not a 'Siddhantin".If karmas are to be beneficial about gaining "svarga"and other enjoyments he can by all means know from Purva mimamsa.What Shankara says is on Uttara mimamsa which is caled "Vedantha.Yajnavalkya,the Upanishad seer cannot state as shankara wrote,because he is a Upanishadic seer.Many wrong views had been built up over the
 years since the days of Vyasa which is also brought in his Brahmasutras and the Upanishads of which Brhadaranyaka is one,and it fell to Shankara's lot to clear away all these wrong contentions and views.Shankara in his BSB,BGB,Upadeshagranthas,has strived to clear away all these wrong conceptions,preoccupations,Objections by way Purvapkshas these wrong views of the Vrttikaras who he addresses them without naming them as "Kecith".
How doyou know what Yajnavalkya did after words.A rishi is a rishi,but a sanyasi is different.he has to do effort to take sanyasa.A rishi need not take sanyasa.He remains as a rishi.This is for him the end of karmakahanda.he lives a Jnani thereafter.
N.Srikanta.