[Advaita-l] Shortest Sentence in English is a Mahaa Vaakya?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Sri Jaldhar,
>
> >>sa gurumevAbhigachchhetsamitpANiH
>
> What is the purpose of going to a guru with "samitpANiH"?
>
> If sanYAsA was a necessary condition for a mumukshu sishyA to qualify to
> receive brahmavidyA, then presumably the shrotriyam brahmaniShtham guru
> would also necessarily be a sanyAsI, and given up agni kAryA as a result.
> Of what use is samit to such a guru?
>


For that bhāṣya Mundaka 1.2.12, Anandagiri in his gloss says:

समित्पाणिरिति विनयोपलक्षणम् । [The word 'samitpāṇiḥ' is indicative of
vinaya, humility, on the part of the disciple.]  The Editor says in the
footnote: Samit would be useful to the householder jnanins to whom a
disciple carries it.  The examples are: Janaka, Yājñvalkya, Angiraḥ...



>
> Btw, I'm not disputing the requirement for sAdhana chatushtayam or
> sanyAsA's utility in perfecting those qualifications, merely querying why
> samitpANih is used here. I don't think the upaniShad would use a term
> superfluously in general or merely use it as a proxy to denote respect in
> this particular instance.
>
> Did Shvetaketu take up sanyAsA to qualify for the teaching, or for that
> matter, UddAlaka aruNi?
>

The position of Advaitins is that if not in this birth, in an earlier birth
sannyasa would have been taken by those householders whom we see now to be
jnanis.

>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 23 Mar 2015 06:58, "Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, sreenivasa murthy via Advaita-l wrote:
> >
> >  Is mahavakya upadesha has to be given only to sanyasins? Why ?
> >>
> >
> > Something which often gets lost in this discussions is that there are two
> > basic kinds of sannyasis.  Those who have taken it up a spiritual
> > discipline with a view to preparing to achieve jnana and those who have
> > already achieved jnana and therefore are in sannyasa by default because
> > there is nothing left in this samsara for them to desire.  Both of them
> > will respond to the mahavakya in a different way.
> >
> >  Are not the
> >> householders entitled for Atmajnana?
> >>
> >
> > As part of a brahmachari's vedadhyayana he also learns the words of the
> > upanishads and as a grhastha it will be part of his svadhyaya but at this
> > point it is book-knowledge.  Only by the threefold process of shravana,
> > manana, and nidhidhyasana can that be turned into jnana.  By that time he
> > will no longer have any use for samsara.
> >
> >  The Vedic Rishis were not sanyasins.
> >> Yajnavlkya Of Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad was a gRuhasta
> >>
> >
> > And as Maitreyibrahmana shows, he settled all his vast wealth on his
> wives
> > and left grhasthashrama.
> >
> >  and he taught
> >> Brahmavidya to Janaka who was a  a King. Ajatashatru who taught
> >> Brahmavidya
> >> to Balaki was a king.
> >>
> >
> > Shankaracharya discusses Janaka in the bhashya on Gita 3.20.  Such people
> > only engage in "play-acting" so that their subjects who lack proper
> > understanding might not unthinkingly imitate the vairagya of a jnani and
> be
> > led astray.
> >
> >  Saunaka who was a gruhasta was taught paravidya by Angiras. The very
> >> first mantra of Mundaka Upanishad states : "sa brahmavidyAM
> >> sarvavidyApratiShThAm jyEShThaputrAya prAha ||"
> >>
> >>
> > The jyeShTaputra mentioned is atharva who is a mind-born son of brahma
> > (i.e. prajApati not brahman.) and is not a grhastha.  He taught it to
> Angih
> > who taught SatyavAha BhAradvaja who taught a~Ngirasa.  It was he who
> taught
> > the great householder (mahAshAlin) shaunaka.
> >
> >  So  the Upanishadic tradition is that The Guru imparts Brahmavidya to a
> >> shishya who approaches Guru with humility.
> >>
> >
> > What the upanishad says is that shaunaka vidhivadupasanna "approached him
> > [a~Ngirasa] according to ceremony or in the proper manner."  What is that
> > ceremony or manner (vidhi)?  Why sannyasa of course!  If shaunakas prior
> > state had been acceptable, there would be no need for a "proper manner".
> > Interestingly Shankaracharya implies that there was no standard vidhi in
> > ancient times and it is shaunaka who has formalized it. Be that as it may
> > shaunaka despite his wealth and power chose to give it up for the sake of
> > moksha.  That is the point of that story.
> >
> >  That is the true and genuine
> >> tradition. Brahmavidya is not the monopoly of sanyasins . Any man who
> has
> >> that intense desire for mukti is entitled for Atmajnana.
> >>
> >
> > He is entitled to desire it but the upanishad goes on to say (1.2.12)
> >
> > parikShya lokAnkarmachitAnbrAhmaNo nirvedamAyannAstyakR^itaH kR^itena |
> > tadviGYAnArthe sa gurumevAbhigachchhetsamitpANiH shrotriyaM brahmaniShTam
> > ||
> >
> > "Having examined the worlds won by karma, let a brAhmaNa be free of
> desire
> > and think "there is nothing eternal produced by karma" and with that in
> > mind approach with samidh in hand, a guru who is learned and immersed in
> > brahman."
> >
> > By "free of desire" it doesn't mean "free of most desires except an
> iPhone
> > and a fancy car." and when it says to approach a guru who is brahmaniShTa
> > "immersed in brahman" it doesn't mean "mostly immersed in brahman except
> > when making a powerpoint presentation in the weekly sales meeting."!
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, sreenivasa murthy via Advaita-l wrote:
> >
> >  When Sri Shankara  wrote commentary to Bhagavadgita , he wrote certain
> >> teachings to suit the needs of the persons of that time. The> same may
> not
> >> hold any water in the present times.
> >>
> >
> > And what time would that be?
> >
> >  What was possible during the times of Upanishads is also possible during
> >> the present times.
> >>
> >
> > Exactly.  Sannyasa is just as possible in "present times" as ever :-)
> >
> >    The social conditions, living conditions etc. have changed.
> >>
> >
> > And so?  Vedanta is asking the mumukshu to give up "social conditions"
> Are
> > you implying this can't be done now?
> >
> >  It is absolutely necessary that the method of conveying the fundamental
> >> metaphysical truths should change  to suit the needs of the present day
> >> mumukshus.
> >>
> >
> > Any "fundamental truth" which is subject to the vagaries of fashion can't
> > be very fundamental.  The needs of the mumukshus of today -- to withdraw
> > from maya and seek satya -- are no different than they ever were so the
> > method of Vedanta is also no different."
> >
> >  It is a matter of deep regret that the clinging to redundant
> >> ideologies and obsolete sampradayas.
> >>
> >
> > Ha! You regret it so much you joined a group of people learning about
> > Shankaracharya and his "obsolete" sampradaya.  That sampradaya which if
> it
> > had not cling to redundant ideology, today Suleiman Murthy would be
> > discussing the fine points of the koran on Islam-l.  If as you say
> humility
> > is the entry-point to Brahmavidya, you have just disqualified yourself.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>