[Advaita-l] Knowledge, renunciation and varNASrama rules

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Hari OM, Bhaskarji,


On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> No I dont think there is any explicit  quote in shankara bhAshya to say
> for brAhmaNa, saNyAsa Ashrama  is not a must to attain mOksha..Ofcourse I
> do agree that there is special & repeated emphasization on saNyAsa & its
> importance in brahma jignAsa  by shankara but at the same time  I dont
> think he would deny the mOksha for brAhmaNa-s for not taking 'formal'
> saNyAsa.  There is no explicit quote for this view point either.


Thanks for the clarification that Acharya doesn't say it one way or the
other
explicitly anywhere. If you could please indulge me further...


> Because
> we have the examples of nachiketa, mArkandeya, rishi vAma deva etc. on
> hand, who are history says not formal saNyAsi-s.


I'm curious to know which persons are historical examples
pre-Shankaracharya/
Gaudapadacharya period who have taken to formal saMnyAsa?


> To attain mOksha or to
> realize sva-svarUpa, for any varNAshrami 'sAdhana chatushtaya' is an
> indispensable requisite NOT saNyAsa as an ashrama perse.


The qualities acquired via sAdhana cAtuShTaya are seen in the case of
Nachiketa,
etc, to be eligible for Vedanta teaching, not moksha to be precise. So is it
fair to
say that after the teaching giving rise to brahmajnAna, we do not know
whether
they continued their lives as earlier or took to saMnyAsa? I'd like to know
if you
know or believe its one way or the other about such example figures. In most

cases, I understand the story ends with the teaching and the adhikAri
realizing
his true Self.



> If we say out of
> chAturvarNa, for the brAhmaNa varNa saNyAsa is the must, then mOksha would
> become AshramAdheena for brAhmaNa-s.
>

I mentioned brAhmaNa or dvija earlier, as in those who were eligible for
agni kArya.
And the idea behind such mention was that brahmaj~nAna, to my limited
knowledge,
is rare in case of a non-saMnyAsi, so much so, that I remember that
Bhagavatpada
does mention that karma & jn~Ana cannot go hand-in-hand. I submit I'm not
qualified
enough to quote where in prasthAna trayA this occurs; you may agree if you
recall.
So, my understanding is that except in rare cases of dvijA attaining
brahmajn~Ana,
others have to renounce for brahmajn~Ana. In this case, moksha doesn't
become
AshramAdheena, but qualifying just like sAdhana cAtuShTaya. While even in
the
case of a vidvat saMnyAsi, it may be for other reasons such as be an example
for
others to folloow (for vividishA saMnyAsa), etc.

shrIgurupAdukArpaNamastu,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */