[Advaita-l] Pitrupaksha questions

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Srikanta Narayanaswami wrote:

> As usual you are going away from the point.

You asked me what I thought was physical renunciation of nama-rupa.  I
gave the answer to that question.

> 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.

First of all, you are distorting the word karma by reducing it to rituals 
only.  The Vedas do mainly talk about rituals because they are karma par 
excellence and also in pre-modern times there was no distinction 
between sacred and secular.  But everything that is said about e.g. 
agnihotra or shraddha applies mutatis mutandis to every other volitional 
action you can think of.

Second no everyone doesn't know about performance of karma.  Members of 
this list come from various backgrounds.  Some have not gone through the 
traditional progression of study,  As Vedantins we strive for the welfare 
of all beings so we should try and help them out by filling in any gaps in 
their knowledge of correct action.  Others come to Vedantic ideas  for the
wrong reasons or with wrong notions.  To encourage such people (like 
Arjuna) in self-delusion is not friendly or helpful.


> 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.

Performing obligatory nitya and naimittika karma is not "revelling" in it 
if performed as karmayoga.

> 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.

Nitya and naimittika karma is not done for the purpose of reward such as 
svarga.  So once again you have raised a straw man.


> How doyou know what Yajnavalkya did after words.

Oh for Gods sake!  Try reading the passage I quoted to you and the bhashya 
thereon.

Let me help you.  Here is Shankaracharyas exact words of explanation of 
the passage ahamasmAtsthAnAdasmi

ahamasmAdgArhasthyAtsthAnAdAshramAdUrdhvaM gantumichchhannasmi bhavAmi |

Get it?  He is leaving grhasthashrama for the next (higher) one.

> A rishi is a rishi,but a sanyasi is different.

A rshi can belong to any ashrama or none.  This one became a sannyasi.

> he has to do effort to take sanyasa

Only the kind that Swami Vidyaranya calls vividisha in jivanmuktiviveka 
has to do effort.  The other called vidvan renounces as a natural 
consequence of his jnana.  Maharshi Yajnavalkya was one of the latter.


> .A rishi need  not take sanyasa.

Yet this one did.

> He remains as a rishi.This is for him the end of  karmakahanda.

Only if he is a sannyasi.  Like this one.

> he lives a Jnani thereafter.

In sannyasa.  Like this one.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>