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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 6:36 PM Akilesh Ayyar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskarji,
>
> May I ask how you would interpret the Aitareya introduction excerpts that I
> posted? I would be quite interested to know. Particularly these quotes:
>
> *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...*
>
> and
>
> *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.


The shruti passage quoted above has been interpreted differently by two
authorities:

In the Jivanmukti viveka, Sri Vidyaranya takes this passage as authority
for vidvat sannyasa.  In the gloss to the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya for this
passage, Sri Anandagiri says 'this is a reference to paroksha jnana.'  I
had pointed out this remark by Anandagiri ( I think in two places) to
renowned scholars some years back. Members here may please verify the above
and give their opinion.

regards
subrahmanian.v





> 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 seems that Sankara is saying that both jnanis and seekers -- the jnanis
> because they lack desire and it will be automatic; the second because
> physical/mental control are not otherwise possible -- must undertake
> sannyasa. No?
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:11 AM Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
>