Karma and Sanyasa

[Sankaran Jayanarayanan]

Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM> wrote:

> Sankaran Jayanarayanan wrote:

[..]

> > Here's what you had to say:
> > -------------
> > Suresvaracarya is very emphatic that one who dons the Sanyasi's
robes
> > alone can give up Karma in his bR^ihadAraNyaka Up. bhAshhya
vArttika.
> > -------------
>
> Yes, I'm sure. The original question of Ravi had to do with
performance
> of pUjA. He paraphrased the priest's words which could be easily
> (mis)construed as permission for not following vidhi or rules. So, I
> wrote why the rules or vidhis have to be followed. After that there
were
> some posts which went something like: "karma is useless to gain GYAna
> according to sha.nkara, it can be done in any way" etc etc etc. Please
> note that the original question of Ravi was on how to DO pUjA and not
> how to renounce it. When the EXTRANEOUS point "karma cannot lead to
> moxa" was brought up I was FORCED to mention the view of shrI
sureshvara
> on sannyAsa, because his statements on physical sannyAsa does not gel
> with what was suggested: "Renounce karma (as in ritual) and still get
> fat pay checks (the latter being implied of course)" etc, etc. If
> everyone had stuck to the thread it would have been OBVIOUS that Ravi
> was asking about pUjA from the point of view of chitta shuddhi. In
which
> case the point that karma cannot lead to moxa (which everyone here
knows
> anyways) would not have been raised in the first place.

I should thank you for taking the trouble to explain. Actually, I didn't
quite understand why you were very "fundamentalistic" about samnyaasa. I
really thought you were preaching that
1) everyone ought to take up samnyAsa, or
2) since most of us are incapable of taking up samnyaasa, moksha is
impossible for us.

At least, reading your article made me believe so. Perhaps Maadhavan was
also thinking along the same lines.

[..]

> Please read the pa.nchadashI 7.130. There he says:
>
> janakAdeH kathaM rAjyamiti cheddR^iDhabodhataH |
> tahA tavApi chettarkaM paTha yadvA kR^ishhiM kuru ||
>
>
> I am quite surprised that you of all people are asking this doubt.
> Hasn't this been answered about 25,625 times by Anand, Vidya and Giri?

Yes. But they always qualified their statements with "of course, for
people like Janaka, physical samnyaasa was not necessary." (I think Giri
always explicitly said so.)

[..]

> Rama.
>
> PS: Is it your intention to waste my time or were you serious in
asking
> these questions? I still can't believe that you are asking these
> questions

I'm sorry, but I got confused. Maybe you should qualify your statements
a little more, though it takes more time to type.

-Kartik

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com