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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

The sequence to Moksha is very well enshrined in Gita Bhashya 5.12 as
karma-yoga--sattva-shuddhi--jnana-prapti---sarva-karma-sanyasa---jnana-nishtha---Moksha.
Further, sarva-karma-sanyasa is an injunction for Mumukshu. Without it, one
can never attain Moksha. However, if one is already situated in
jnana-nishtha and he dies, then in next birth, he is not required to repeat
the sequence. Therefore, it may appear that even a grihstha has attained
Moksha without sks. However, as Acharya has pointed in Aitreya, Moksha for
grihastha is impossible, it is to be understood that he is talking of a
grihastha without sattva-shuddhi. The sequence of 5.12 is inviolable.
However, it spans across several births. Thus, there is no contradiction
imho.

Regards.
Sudhanshu.

On Mon 8 Apr, 2019, 18:31 Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>