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

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Venkatraghavan S wrote:

> >>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?

You might be interested in some previous discussion we've had on this 
subject starting here:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2013-October/035593.html

> 
> 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.
>

I have a theory.  As per the mimamsa shastra, all acts -- even seemingly 
unrelated laukika ones -- can be reduced to yajna.  All yajnas can be 
reduced to the archtypical act of offering samidh into agni.  Therefore 
samidh is the essence of the essence of karma.  Thus by entrusting samidh 
to the guru, one is showing respect and humility by entrusting all ones 
prior acts.  Consider that a brahmachari also approaches his acharya at 
the time of upanayana with samidh.  Because there it is the acharyas job 
to provide the brahmachari with the means to perform future karma.

dakshina whether of money or goods does not have the same conceptual 
effect because it is a transfer from the producer to the consumer

> Did Shvetaketu take up sanyAsA to qualify for the teaching, or for that
> matter, UddAlaka aruNi?

No but eventually they must have taken it or they would have remained 
mired in samsara.  As has been pointed out earlier, one can become a 
sannyasi as vividisha or vidvan.



-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>