[Advaita-l] Dharma

[S Jayanarayanan]

--- "Kiran B.R." <kiran.br at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > The ultimate goal of karma is to transcend the need for karma.
> > > > Thus a sannyasi who is shrotriya and brahmanishta is the
> highest role
> > > > model for the karmayogi as well.
> > >
> > > Wrong conclusion.
> 
> > So you say.  Can you back it up?
> 
> (1)
> anAshritaH karmaphalaM kAryaM karma karOti yaH |
> sa saMnyAsI cha yOgI cha na niragnirna chAkriyaH ||


It is EXTREMELY unwise - to put it mildly - to simply quote a stray
verse from the GItA and imagine that it is to be taken independent of
all other texts on VedAnta. 

Shankara's commentary on BG 6.1 contradicts what you have said before
("The true karmayOgi cannot be distinguished from the true sannyAsi.").
In a nutshell, here is the distinction between a karmayogI and a
samnyAsI:

karmayogI  - performs works (such as agnihotra).
saMnyAsI - does not perform works (such as agnohotra).

Here is Shankara's commentary along with Warrier's translation:

"ityena karmiNaH eva saMnyaasitvaM yogitvaM cha uktaM, pratishhiddhaM
cha niragneH akR^iyasya cha saMnyAsitvaM yogitvaM cha iti chet.h - na,
dhyAnayogaM prati bahirangasya sataH karmaNaH
phalaakaaMkshaasaMnyaasastutiparatvaat.h . na kevalaM niragniH akriyaH
eva saMnyaasI yogI cha . kiM tarhi? - karmI api, karmaphalaasangaM
saMnyasya karmayogaM anutishhThan.h ... "

"UNSOUND IS THE ARGUMENT that 6.1 refers with its expression 'not
depending on the fruits of works' refers to a householder who also
renounces and meditates. Renunciation and meditation (dhyAna yoga) have
been ruled out for one who does not maintain the household fires and
who does not work, BECAUSE 6.1 JUST COMMENDS THE RENUNCIATION OF
CRAVINGS FOR THE FRUIT OF WORKS THAT CONSTITUTES AN EXTERNAL MEANS TO
THE YOGA OF MEDITATION. The sense is: Not he alone, who has renounced
the household fires and works is a renouncer and meditator, but also he
who works without attachment to the fruits of work - i.e., who performs
Karmayoga IN ORDER TO PURIFY HIS MIND. VERSE 6.1 IS JUST A COMMENDATION
OF SUCH AN AGENT. ONE AND THE SAME SENTENCE CANNOT BOTH PRAISE
RENUNCIATION OF ATTACHMENT TO THE FRUIT OF WORKS, AND ALSO REPUDIATE
THE FOURTH STATION OF LIFE. The Lord does not thereby repudiate the
status of being a real renouncer and Yogin to the man who has rejected
the household fires and works. FOR, SUCH A STATUS HAS BEEN RECOGNISED
BY SHRUTI, SMRITI, PURANAS, ITIHASAS AND THE AUTHORITATIVE TEXTS ON
YOGA."

A Karma yogI and samnyAsI can EASILY be distinguished. The former
PERFORMS WORKS such as agnihotra with detachment to its fruits, while
the latter DOES NOT PERFORM WORKS such as agnihotra. This is such a
FUNDAMENTAL distinction that it makes no sense to interpret it as you
have done: "The true karmayOgi cannot be distinguished from the true
sannyAsi."

As I mentioned in a previous email, it would be great if someone writes
up a few pages on the differences between karma, karma yoga, sannyasa,
GYAna, mukti, etc. as "practical VedAnta", since most people don't care
to distinguish between any of these vital concepts.

-Kartik

> (2)
> na mE pArthAsti kartavyaM triShu lOkEShu kiMchana |
> nAnavAptamavAptavyaM varta Eva cha karmaNi ||
> (3)
> yadyadAcharati shrEShTastattadEvEtarO janaH |
> sa yatpramANaM kurutE lOkastadanuvartatE ||
> (4)
> na mAM karmANi liMpaMti na mE karmaphalE spRuhA |
> iti mAM yO&bhijAnAti karmabhirna sa badhyatE ||
> (5)
> naiva tasya kRutEnArthO nAkRutEnEha kaSchana |
> na chAsya sarvabhUtEShu kaSchidarthavyapAshrayaH ||
> (..........)
> 
> > > The true karmayOgi cannot be distinguished from the
> > > true sannyAsi. When you see karma in the akarma of the sannyAsi
> and
> > > akarma in the karma of the karmayOgi,
> >
> > This doesn't even make any sense.
> 
> When this does:
> 
> karmaNyakarma yaH paSyEdakarmaNi cha karma yaH |
> sa buddhimAn manuShyEShu sa yuktaH kRutsnakarmakRut ||,
> 
> that will.
> 
> > > The worst thing that has ever happened to our country is this
> wrong
> > > conclusion above. It has made us worship the lazy, the weak, the
> > > unclean, the industryless. Never, never was this taught by the
> Wise.
> > > It was only learnt by the unwise.
> > 
> > Again, this makes for a nice speech but it is not borne out by any
> kind of
> > historical fact.  Apply some industry to your study of Vedanta and
> you'll
> > see I'm right.
> 
> This is not a historical fact which happened on a particular day and
> captured on TV. It's right before your eyes in India. the laziness,
> the weakness, the lack of cleanliness and industry when it comes to
> anything this-worldy is a basic trait of our country.
> 
> And thanks, I'm done with applying industry to Vedanta. It's time you
> start applying Vedanta to industry.
> 
> Cheers
> Kiran
> 
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> achchakannaDigara baLaga!
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kannaDakannaDi
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 





		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com