[Advaita-l] Primacy of atmajnana

[V Subrahmanian]

These instructions of Bhagavan Veda VyAsa and Lord Krishna are the final
word in Vedanta:

*एतान्यपि तु कर्माणि* सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा फलानि च ।
*कर्तव्यानीति मे पार्थ निश्चितं मतमुत्तमम् *॥१८- ६॥
नियतस्य तु संन्यासः कर्मणो नोपपद्यते ।
मोहात्तस्य परित्यागस्तामसः परिकीर्तितः ॥१८- ७॥

Shankaracharya is also very firm on this.  In the Bh.Gita 4.20 Shankara
comments:

तेन एवंभूतेन स्वप्रयोजनाभावात् ससाधनं कर्म परित्यक्तव्यमेव इति प्राप्ते, ततः
निर्गमासंभवात् लोकसंग्रहचिकीर्षया शिष्टविगर्हणापरिजिहीर्षया वा पूर्ववत्
कर्मणि अभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि निष्क्रियात्मदर्शनसंपन्नत्वात् नैव किञ्चित् करोति
सः।।

//This being so, api, even though; he remains abhi-pravrttah, engaged as
before; karmani, in actions-getting out of those (actions) being
impossible-, either with the intention of preventing people from going
astray or with a view to avoiding the censure of the wise people; sah, he;
eva, really; na karoti, does not do; kincit, anything, because he is endued
with the realization of the actionless Self. //

The real purport of the quoted Manu smRti can be understood only by
examining the context in which the verse occurs.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v


2011/9/26 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com>

> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*
>
>
>
> 2011/9/26 D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ <dvnsarma at gmail.com>
>
> > I want the members of the group to consider this sloka from Manusmriti.
> >
> > यथोक्तान्यपि कर्माणि परिहाय द्विजोत्तमः।
> > आत्मज्ञाने शमे च स्याद्वेदाभ्यासे च यत्नवान्।।
> >
> > This is not meant for a sanyasi because he does not have any
> > rituals enjoined on him.  This appears to be directed to grihasthas.
> >
>
> Correct.
> This is not for saMnyAsI for provided reason.
> But, it is not for a person who wants to stick to gR^ihastha-Ashrama too.
> The word parihAya shows that it saMnyAsa must occur before AtmaGYAnam.
> Shunning karma is not accepted without shunning Ashrama connected with it.
>
> I've not explained it according to any commentary, etc. I'm just following
> your line.
>
>