[Advaita-l] Samit Pani, do we really have to stretch this ??

[Srirudra]

Dear Sri Venkatesh Murthy
As you had an answer for your question,then you could have avoided posing question.You could have shared your thoughts and asked the forum as to whether your thinking was correct.R.Krishnamoorthy.


Sent from my iPad

> On 28-Oct-2013, at 8:49 pm, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Namaste
> 
> Important point is to consider the Advaita Parampara given in
> http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html
> 
> By this we can come to this logical conclusion on 'Samit Pani'.
> 
> In Advaita Parampara we can see Rishis like Vasishtha, Sakti, Parashara,
> Vyasa and Suka. Those Rishis were householders living with wives and
> children. They were doing Yajnas regularly. But they were Brahma Jnanis. No
> one can deny that.
> 
> In Upanishad period all Brahma Jnanis were householders only. There were no
> Sanyasis. All disciples with Brahma Jijnasa were going to the Brahma Jnani
> Rishis with Samit in hands to give them for Yajna purpose. The Rishis were
> using the Samits for Yajnas.
> 
> In Upanishad period the Advaita was followed was different. It was like
> Mandana Mishra's Advaita like mixing Jnana and Karma. A Brahma Jijnasu was
> doing Yajnas and studying Upanishads also at the same time. It was Jnana
> Karma Samuccaya Vada of Mandana Mishra. Mandana Mishra has praised Vaidika
> Karmas are important for Brahma Jnana.
> 
> But when Kali Yuga started the people's minds became corrupted. There was
> distraction by Yajnas. The disciple's minds became disturbed because Guru
> was living with wife and children but those disciples were living alone
> like Brahmacharis.  Adi Sankara brought the Sanyasa order to avoid all the
> problems . He made a rule only Sanyasis can be Brahma Jnanis. Brahma
> Jijnasu also has to become Sanyasi only. Adi Sankara argued very much
> against Mandana Mishra's Advaita. He said no person can practice Karma
> Kanda and Jnana Kanda at the same time. Give up Karma if you want Jnana.
> 
> The 'Samit Pani' is not relevant today. If you go to Sringeri Swamiji with
> Samits in hand all the people will laugh at you. It was only for Upanishad
> Age of Mandana Mishra. Not now.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>> 
>> As far as I am aware of, Upanishads say that, he who wishes to take
>> Sanyasa
>> and practice Moksha-Sadhana, he must take samidha to the Guru. The Sticks
>> represent the Karmas of the Student. The Guru will burn the stick, their
>> by
>> burning all the blocking Karmas of the Student. The ritual denotes that
>> Guru by burning the blocking Karmas of a student, now takes him along the
>> path to Moksha.
>> 
>> praNAms
>> Hare Krishna
>> 
>> It is a good esoteric explanation indeed.  But I am really wondering do we
>> really need symbolical explanations like this for each and every utterance
>> of shruti?  I dont think so!!   we dont  have to read too much into 'samit
>> pANi' issue, when 'vishaya' in this shruti statement is something else.
>> This maNtra saying how important it is to have  a brahma nishTa guru in
>> brahma jignAsa and indispensability of the shrOtreeya / brahmanIshTa guru
>> in brahma jignAsa.  Here vishaya vAkya is not about : 'what  shishya
>> should hold in his  hand or what he should  wear when approaching a guru,
>> but here insistence and importance is all about having a brahma nishTa
>> guru by a shishya in brahma jignAsa.  If I can give a loukika example,  if
>> I say to someone : "yesterday I had been to Ashram with fruits to have the
>> darshan & AshirvAdam of swamiji...nobody would in turn ask, why 'fruits'
>> why not sweets/flower etc.   Because it is evident here in this statement
>> that, 'yesterday',  'with fruits' in my hand etc. are 'gaUNa' vivaraNa and
>> mukhya 'vishaya' is 'darshana of the guru'.  .  If the samit in the hand
>> is the must for the shishya for brahma jignAsa, shruti would have insisted
>> that invariably in other instances also like in taitireeya 'varuNam
>> pitaramupasasAra' etc.  Hence, I think this 'samit pAni' is just a passing
>> explanation by shruti and digging deep on this issue with a 'samit' in the
>> pANi is not required :-))
>> 
>> Just my few thoughts on this and open for correction.
>> 
>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>> bhaskar
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> 
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> 
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards
> 
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org