Differences between Vedantic schools

[Shrisha Rao]

On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Shrisha Rao wrote:
>
> > Why not, exactly?  After all, the karma-s for all individuals are not
> > prescribed identically; the sages have recognized that all humanity
> > cannot be performing the same physical actions -- diversity is
> > required for social functioning.  By your logic, even non-travarNika-s
> > and women must perform Vedic nityakarma-s.
> >
>
> Non-dwijas are required to do various acts according to different
> dharmashastras but that's beside the point.  For those who are qualified,
> the requirement to wear yagnopavit, do Sandhyavandan etc. is binding.

Quite; `kurvanneveha karmANi', etc.  But this brings up the question of
how anyone at all can afford to give up karma wholesale and still stay
within the pale of scriptural injunction.

> To give them up there better be a good reason.  To say the sannyasi
> follows a different path you will have to explain what about him is so
> different.

Need you ask?  For one thing, let's turn the board around and look at
things from your angle.  If you say that sannyAsI-s don't have to perform
karma because they're into j~nAna, then is the j~nAna merely a function of
their having taken the vows and the robes of sannyAsa?  If so, then we
would have the absurd situation of suggesting that many renowned Advaitins
of the past were not j~nAnI-s simply because they did not undertake the
Ashrama, and conversely, that certain individuals who do little justice to
the robe and class are nonetheless j~nAnI-s.  In fact, the karma-mArga and
krama-mukti would be mere chimera, for all anyone would have to do would
be to undertake the Ashrama, and bingo, that would give jIvan-mukti.

If that absurdity be disallowed, then it becomes necessary to accept that
some sannyAsI-s at least are not j~nAnI-s, and thus, the exception you're
claiming for j~nAna cannot hold in their case.  So why don't they wear the
yaj~nopavIta and perform sandhyA, etc.?  The only rational explanation is
that it is the Ashrama, rather than the personal qualification for j~nAna,
which determines that such action is not required.

I must add at this point that I have seen no evidence to suggest that
anything you've said in this matter is actually Advaita *as taught by Sri
Shankara*.  Perhaps it is your understanding of what you've heard or read
somewhere, but I'd much rather prefer to stick to cold, hard quotes and
explanations by Shankara and go from there.  In fact, I don't seem to find
much real Advaita here except for occasional material from Anand H. and
Vidyasankar.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

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

-- 
To leave the list send a message to listserv at advaita-vedanta.org with
"unsubscribe advaita-l" in the body.  If you need help with list options 
send a message to listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Sun Aug 29 15:27:14 1999
Message-Id: <SUN.29.AUG.1999.152714.0000.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 15:27:14 +0000
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: "Anand V. Hudli" <anandhudli at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Note on Vedic shAkhAs

On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:36:54 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:


>I bow to the superior knowledge of the Pandits of Kanchi.  No doubt they
>have gone into this much more thoroughly than I have, but it seems to me
>there is an obligation to study the Vedas.  (Svadhyayam na pramaditavyam
>as T.U. says)  Perhaps the person in this unfortunate position should just
>learn the Gayatri, purusha sukta etc. which occur in all shakhas?  This
>still leaves the question of learning the correct pronounciation.
>
>If you get a chance to ask them again in more detail, I'd be interested to
>know the answer.

 Regarding the performance of certain homas and other karmas that
 are done only for purification of mind/body, there is a quote from
 kAtyAyana smR^iti - so I have heard, :

  Atmatantreshhu yannoktaM tatkuryAt.h paratantrataH |

  That which is not recommended in one's own discipline (shAkhA), should
  be done according to another discipline (shAkhA).

  For example, some homas such gaNa homa, kUshhmANDa homa, etc. may not
  be prescribed in the smR^itis of R^ig Vedic shAkhAs. But R^ig Vedins
  may perform these homas without any fear of breaking any rule. The
  justification is that these are done for purification only.

  Anand

-- 
To leave the list send a message to listserv at advaita-vedanta.org with
"unsubscribe advaita-l" in the body.  If you need help with list options 
send a message to listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org