Jnana and Bhakti

[Ravisankar Mayavaram]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 05:18:38 -0800, S. V. Subrahmanian
<svsubrahmanian at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>> 4) adhikaari for nivRtti maarga is a sannyaasin.
>
>Can you quote any teacher or text that says the above point.  I can
understand
>that a sanyasi is an adhikAri for nivR^tti, but should every adhikAri be a
>sanyAsi.  I understand that it is the stand of this list, but is it
possible to
>quote some text where it clearly states so (other than "tyAgainEkEna
amR^tatva
>mAnasuH - mahAnArAyaNa Up - which I don't interpret as above).  I am
asking for
>my own informed decision making.

Since I am not a well read person and quite an illiterate on these matters,
I would like to deflect this question to knowledgeable members such as,
Vidyasankar and Ramakrishnan.

Probably the following quote from iishavaasyopanishhad bhaashhya of
shankara may be of some help. I just grabbed this of the sanskrit site, I
should  admit that I have very cursorily read the translation of the
bhaashhya and not the original. Following is what shankara says after
commenting on the first verse and before starting the second.

evamAtmavidaH putrAdyeshhaNAtrayasa.nnyAsenA.a.atmaj~nAnanishhThatayA.a.atmA
raxitavya ityeshha vedArthaH |
athetarasyAnAtmaj~natayA.a.atmagrahaNAyAshaktasya
idamupadishati mantraH  kurvanneva iti |


Second verse is for those who cannot meet the qualification of the first.
The principal qualification for the practise of the first verse is "putrAdi
eshhaNA-traya sa.nnyasa".

--
This should even follow from pure logic. If sannyAsa is not adopted one's
integrity would be under question. After all there cannot be so much gap
between what one says and what one does. This is my 2c.

Please do correct me.

Ravi

namaH shivAbhyAm

(even though I am saying these things, I should admit that I realize that I
am an hypocrite and one who lacks integrity, besides sharaNaagati to shiva-
dampati I see no way out for me).