[Advaita-l] Shankara's opinion about Sannyasa for a Kshatriya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Bhaskar Prabhu ji,

1. //BTW, justification like this cannot be said in the case of
vyAkhyAnakAra-s works  as they have differed drastically from mUla
bhAshya.// ☺️ Are you sure ? What appears as "drastic difference" to you in
the case of vyakhyanakara may be mere "elaboration" of the crisp mula in
view of others.

2. The basic problem is the fitting in of vidvat-sanyasa in the sequence
mentioned in Gita Bhashya 5.12. Even jnana-nishtha is pre-Moksha.
Sarva-karma-sanyasa is even prior to jnana-nishtha. Bhashykara clearly
mentions the Yajnavalkya episode as akhyayika and not history. In any case,
if we were to take vidvat-sanyasa as sarva-karma-sanyasa, then it will be
pre-Moksha and only Brahmana-male will be eligible therefor.

3. Moksha would result into natural renunciation of karma. Since everyone
is eligible to Moksha, everyone will be eligible for this type of
renunciation. Based on this logic, I used the term post-Moksha-sanyasa
though the term is never used by Bhashyakara in this fashion.

Sudhanshu



On Tue 4 Jun, 2019, 10:33 Bhaskar YR, <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Sudhanshu Shekhar prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> Indeed you have summarized very well if I have understood exactly what you
> actually meant. Vartika is definitely differing with bhashya
>
>
>
>    - I read somewhere one of the lakshaNa-s of vArtika is ‘durukta
>    chiNtA’  that which is not clearly and categorically  explained in mUla
>    which will be elaborated and explained in accordance with the intentions of
>    mUla graNthakAra.  Instead of concluding sUreshwara differed from
>    bhagavatpAda, it would be appropriate to say he elaborated the topic which
>    is crisply said in mUla.  BTW, justification like this cannot be said in
>    the case of vyAkhyAnakAra-s works  as they have differed drastically from
>    mUla bhAshya.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am not sure what vidvat-sanyasa actually signifies. Bhashyakara has not
> explained it. But it is neither sanyasa-with-linga not karma-sanyasa..
>
>
>
> Ø     Yes there is no clear explanation about vidvat sannyasa in shankara
> bhAshya.  But traditionally accepted example for this type of sannyasa is
> that of yAjnAvalkya in bruhadAraNyaka.  yAjnAvalkyO vijahAra, whether he
> went with linga or without linga (with yajnOpaveeta without yajnOpaveeta
> etc. ) is not clear in this episode.  But according to some, all jnAni-s
> subject to their respective prArabdha karma phala and they would act
> accordingly.  Here yAjnAvalkya due to his prArabdha gone away from his
> samsara (wife) though he is jnana nishTa / brahma jnAni.
>
>
>
> It can be either sarva-karma-sanyasa or sanyasa-post-Moksha
>
>
>
>    - Post mOksha sannyasa or sannyasa – post – mOksha needs some
>    elaboration.  Does this mean sannyasa (without any particular
>    vidhi-didhAna) that needs to be followed after the mOksha (post mOksha??)
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> Bhaskar
>
>
>
>
>