[Advaita-l] Samit Pani, do we really have to stretch this ??

[V Subrahmanian]

There is said to be a 'novel' explanation to the 'samitpANiH'  believed to
be given by the Kanchi mahAperiyava:

'samyag itau pANI yasya saH samitpANiH'.  He whose palms have been well
joined (in the manner of namaskAra) is 'samitpANiH'.  [I have not checked
the sentence for grammar; I am only citing from memory  what I heard from
someone long ago.]

subrahmanian.v


On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste
>
> Important point is to consider the Advaita Parampara given in
> http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html
>
> By this we can come to this logical conclusion on 'Samit Pani'.
>
>  In Advaita Parampara we can see Rishis like Vasishtha, Sakti, Parashara,
> Vyasa and Suka. Those Rishis were householders living with wives and
> children. They were doing Yajnas regularly. But they were Brahma Jnanis. No
> one can deny that.
>
> In Upanishad period all Brahma Jnanis were householders only. There were no
> Sanyasis. All disciples with Brahma Jijnasa were going to the Brahma Jnani
> Rishis with Samit in hands to give them for Yajna purpose. The Rishis were
> using the Samits for Yajnas.
>
> In Upanishad period the Advaita was followed was different. It was like
> Mandana Mishra's Advaita like mixing Jnana and Karma. A Brahma Jijnasu was
> doing Yajnas and studying Upanishads also at the same time. It was Jnana
> Karma Samuccaya Vada of Mandana Mishra. Mandana Mishra has praised Vaidika
> Karmas are important for Brahma Jnana.
>
>  But when Kali Yuga started the people's minds became corrupted. There was
> distraction by Yajnas. The disciple's minds became disturbed because Guru
> was living with wife and children but those disciples were living alone
> like Brahmacharis.  Adi Sankara brought the Sanyasa order to avoid all the
> problems . He made a rule only Sanyasis can be Brahma Jnanis. Brahma
> Jijnasu also has to become Sanyasi only. Adi Sankara argued very much
> against Mandana Mishra's Advaita. He said no person can practice Karma
> Kanda and Jnana Kanda at the same time. Give up Karma if you want Jnana.
>
> The 'Samit Pani' is not relevant today. If you go to Sringeri Swamiji with
> Samits in hand all the people will laugh at you. It was only for Upanishad
> Age of Mandana Mishra. Not now.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
> > As far as I am aware of, Upanishads say that, he who wishes to take
> > Sanyasa
> > and practice Moksha-Sadhana, he must take samidha to the Guru. The Sticks
> > represent the Karmas of the Student. The Guru will burn the stick, their
> > by
> > burning all the blocking Karmas of the Student. The ritual denotes that
> > Guru by burning the blocking Karmas of a student, now takes him along the
> > path to Moksha.
> >
> > praNAms
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> > It is a good esoteric explanation indeed.  But I am really wondering do
> we
> > really need symbolical explanations like this for each and every
> utterance
> > of shruti?  I dont think so!!   we dont  have to read too much into
> 'samit
> > pANi' issue, when 'vishaya' in this shruti statement is something else.
> > This maNtra saying how important it is to have  a brahma nishTa guru in
> > brahma jignAsa and indispensability of the shrOtreeya / brahmanIshTa guru
> > in brahma jignAsa.  Here vishaya vAkya is not about : 'what  shishya
> > should hold in his  hand or what he should  wear when approaching a guru,
> > but here insistence and importance is all about having a brahma nishTa
> > guru by a shishya in brahma jignAsa.  If I can give a loukika example,
>  if
> > I say to someone : "yesterday I had been to Ashram with fruits to have
> the
> > darshan & AshirvAdam of swamiji...nobody would in turn ask, why 'fruits'
> > why not sweets/flower etc.   Because it is evident here in this statement
> > that, 'yesterday',  'with fruits' in my hand etc. are 'gaUNa' vivaraNa
> and
> > mukhya 'vishaya' is 'darshana of the guru'.  .  If the samit in the hand
> > is the must for the shishya for brahma jignAsa, shruti would have
> insisted
> > that invariably in other instances also like in taitireeya 'varuNam
> > pitaramupasasAra' etc.  Hence, I think this 'samit pAni' is just a
> passing
> > explanation by shruti and digging deep on this issue with a 'samit' in
> the
> > pANi is not required :-))
> >
> > Just my few thoughts on this and open for correction.
> >
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > bhaskar
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>