[Advaita-l] Samnyasa and Sankara's position?

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

This was discussed before and you will find it in archives of old messages.
Sureshwara and Adi Sankara have different opinions in this matter.


On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 6:25 PM Akilesh Ayyar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Surely someone on this list has an opinion? :-)
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 8:30 AM Akilesh Ayyar <ayyar at akilesh.com> wrote:
>
> > Namaste,
> >
> > I am wondering what Sankara's position on the necessity of samnyasa for
> > seekers and/or jnanis.
> >
> > My impression is that the traditional understanding is that he does
> > require it at least of seekers.
> >
> > However, I have read that he suggests that grihasthas and other
> > non-samnyasins can achieve moksha, which contradicts that idea.
> >
> > And apparently there is a scholarly book, "Freedom through Inner
> > Renunciation," that I have not read, that specifically argues that the
> > traditional understanding is incorrect and that a close reading of the
> > texts suggests that the only kind of renunciation Sankara requires is
> inner
> > renunciation, a psychological renunciation.
> >
> > Now I am unfortunately far from well-versed enough in the bhashya to have
> > a strong opinion on this.
> >
> > I just read some of Sankara's introduction to the Aitareya Upanishad. In
> > it, he seems to require samnyasa both for the seeker and to suggest that
> > for the jnani it happens automatically. The below quotes are from the
> > GambhIrAnanda translation of Ai. Up.
> >
> > "Objection: Therefore, if the supreme knowledge of Brahman dawns in
> > domestic life, the inactive [footnote: one who does not engage anymore in
> > scriptural rituals] man may continue in that state, and there need be no
> > moving away from it.
> >
> > Answer: No, since domestic life is induced by desire... Renunciation is
> > defined as the mere absence of well-established relationship with sons
> > etc., arising from desire, and not as the mere moving away form that
> > domestic life. And so the inactive man of realization cannot continue in
> > that domestic life itself.
> >
> > Objection: Inasmuch as a mendicant, desirous merely of maintaining his
> > body, is seen to subject himself to regulations about begging, there can
> be
> > continuance in the domestic life even for that householder who has become
> > freed from both kinds of desires...
> >
> > Answer: Not so... the constant habit of resorting to any particular house
> > of one's own is prompted by desire. When there is no clinging to any
> > particular house of one's own, there follows begging alone, as a matter
> of
> > course...
> > ....
> >
> > Answer: From the fact that a fresh injunction of renunciation, despite
> its
> > emergence as a matter of course (as in the case of a man of
> illumination),
> > is met with [footnote: In Br. Up. III v. I. etc. -- 'Knowing this very
> > Self, the Brahmanas renounce...and lead a mendicant life."] ,it becomes
> > evident that it is obligatory for the man of illumination. And
> monasticism
> > is obligatory even for the unillumined soul that hankers after
> > emancipation. ... Besides, such means for the realization of the Self as
> > physical and mental control etc. are incompatible with other stages of
> > life."
> >
> > It goes on, but I think this is enough to illustrate the point.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>


-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh