[Advaita-l] The Glory of Sannyasa

[Sujal Upadhyay]

Pranams,

Shruti is of course eternal. But we must make a note that the commentary is
technically not shruti, but it reflects the understanding of the
commentator. Since laymen is not capable to comprehend subtle truth, a
shrotriya and brahmaniṣṭha āchārya is needed to expound the truth.
Teachings of kaṭha upanishad are a collection of teachings of kaṭha rishi
which is his own understanding of upnishads.

In our case, we strongly believe that our ācharya Ādi Śankara Bhagavadpāda
was an avatāra and hence his understanding of shāstra-s is perfect.
However, as I understand commentaries are written to iron out
misunderstandings during the then prevalent time. Upadeśa-s, commentaries,
their behaviour all depends upon deśa, kāla and paristhiti.

For example, there is an incident in young Ādi Śankara's life (shown in
movie dedicated to him). He sees that a thief is stealing some coconuts
form a farm. Brāhmin owner catches him. He ties his angavastra on tree
trunk and orders him not to cross the cloth until he himself removes it.
Thief obeys and stays on the tree branch. After few minutes, the un-ties
the cloth and lets the thief go. He even gives them the coconuts that he
had cut off and requested him not to commit robbery. If need arises, ask
and you will receive help.

Can we expect such obedience form a thief today?

In another incident, Ādi Śankara as a brāhmaṇa boy begs for alms. He
notices that the donor is wealthy and kēps a hugh stock of grains. He
rejected the donation saying that those who kēp a huge stock of grains are
not worthy of giving alms. These words of a young boy has great impact on
the donor family they they distributed excess grains to the needy.

Are hearts of people so pure these days?

Kanchi Paramacharya has said that in commentaries, āchārya has refuted more
of nyāya then other philosophies like vaiṣṇava siddhanta-s. Had our āchārya
been born in 19-20th century, what would he have refuted nyāya, which has
already collapsed due to attacks by Śrī Harśāchārya? All schools during his
days were of the opinion that advaita is the final position, which is not
the case now, specially after Ranga Rāmānuja Muni wrote bhāśya-s on
upanishads and is said to interpret upanishads like panchbrahma upanishads
in vaiṣṇava way.  Of source the essence of vedānta would have bēn retained,
as it is eternal truth. Some principles cannot ve compromised, but examples
might have bēn changed, presentation of teachings have bēn changed to suit
current mindset and happensing in our country.

Ādi Śankara established four matha-s in four corners of Bhārata.
Parivrājaka saints are asked to travel to all these matha-s. They pass
through villages, jungles and cities. They get different kinds of
experiences, sometimes, they earn respect, sometimes they are insulted.
They even do not know that the person giving alms is earning money in fair
way i.e. dharmic way or not. After travelling a distance, they each one
matha to which one veda is associated. Saints nourish themselves again with
vedic knowledge. While travelling, they may get sick, they may not get
proper food, but they are helpless. They have to keep faith in Īśvara. At
times there is language barrier. When such a person walks length and
breadth of country also know the psychology of masses. He has received all
kinds of experiences.

After he returns back to his guru, guru tests him and then judges him. Now
the real sanyāsa is given.

Unfortunately paribramaṇa is almost lost. Very few saints are now wandering
monks. Some matha-s for example Sri Ramakrishna math does not send their
brahmachāri-s or svāmī-s for paribramaṇa. Hence such saints are not
mentally strong as compared to wandering monks.

OM
Sujal


On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Humble sAshtAnga praNAms Sri Jaldhar prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
>
> Not all of them.  The relevant text for this topic is Maitreyi Brahmana of
> Brhadaranyaka upanishad.  Rshi Yajnavalkya was married (twice no less!) but
> on "cognizing his true svarupa" as you said left the grhastha ashrama. Ask
> yourself why was it neccessary?
>
> >  Yes, I too am wondering.  Does this mean after 'cognizing (realizing)
> the true svarUpa' there needs to be done something else also to complete
> the formality??  After realizing the svarUpa, one has to go to conducive
> place to maintain this jnana intact??  Not sure...Anyway, as per some
> prakaraNa grantha (pancha dashi / jeevanmukti viveka ??) sage yajnavalkya
> is not a highest level jnAni (not varishTa in jani's gradation).  So, as
> per this work, there is a room to think he needs another Ashrama to
> establish himself in the 'known' svarUpa jnana.
>
> Your humble servant
> 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
>