some dharmic questions

[M. S. Ravisankar]

>  > >
> > I saw a similar reading for akriyaH in  a shriivaishhNava
> bhaashya (which
> > condenses the views of both raamanjua and vedanta deshika ).
> >
>
> They do not admit that one can give up the nitya and mnaimittika karmas at
> least.
>
Jaldhar

Thanks for posting the viewpoints from various different commentaries. I
hope you were able to get hold of aanandagiri's commentary from the super
site.  To address your above observation:


The text I have (Tamil) is an essence of both ramanuja and v. deshika's
works. It says "When one is absorbed in the aatma saaxatkaaram, there is no
need to come out of that higher state and do karma-s. Otherwise, one has to
do it."  To me, it is a very logical position to take. It is a special case
and karma-s are abandoned for a higher purpose. It is probably not like a
carte blanche permission.

Yoga is union, for one who has ascended the peak of yoga and  is absorbed in
samaadhi. It is logical not to see a  need for him to do karma. It will be
like someone in a deep meditation, getting out of it to attend a meditation
class. OTOH, if  a  person (or the same person) is watching evening news on
TV, then that is no excuse for skipping his nitya karma. I am not sure of
the validity of "of the same person" in () in the above sentence. That is my
reading (between lines) out of that translation.  If someone is kind enough
to post a translation of vedanta deshika's commentary on this verse from the
gita supersite, it will be nice.  I think he was far more critical of our
religion than raamanuja himself.


It also tells another thing, if a sannyAsi, who has renounced worldly things
to attain realization, does not do that and instead engages himself in other
worldly activities, then he technically has lost the basic reason/premise on
which which he abandoned karma. Probably, that is why bhagavan says
"yogaaruuDha" and not a sannyAsi.

Corrections and comments are welcome.

Ravi