[Advaita-l] Shankara's opinion about Sannyasa for a Kshatriya
sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com
Mon Jun 3 08:24:14 EDT 2019
Hari Om V Subramanian ji,
Indeed you have summarized very well if I have understood exactly what you
actually meant. Vartika is definitely differing with bhashya as clearly
mentioned by Anandagiri also by using the words -- भाष्य-अभिप्रायम् उक्त्वा
In bhashya, we see the following. (i) Sanyasa with linga such as
yajnopavita etc. for attainment of Brahma-loka etc (ii) VividishA SanyAsa
or karma-sanyasa of Gita Bhashya 5.2 or
anAtma-vit-kartrik-sanyAsa.[Bhashyakara has not used the term
vividisha-sanyasa, hence imho it is always safer to restrict to the usage
of karma-sanyasa] (iii) sarva-karma-sanyasa of Gita Bhashya 5.12. (iv)
sanyasa-post-Moksha (we need to infer it actually. Not stated explicitly as
There is a sequence mentioned in Gita 5.12.
The alternative of karma-yoga is karma-sanyasa of 5.2. Now the question
arises as to whether sarva-karma-sanyasa, which is precursor to
jnana-nishtha, is vidvat-sanyasa OR the natural state of a person
post-Moksha is vidvat sanyAsa for e.g. the state of jada Bharata. The
precursor to jnana-nishtha, sarv-karma-sanyasa, is a vidhi because
pre-Moksha, vidhi operates. It is stated by Bhashyakara, मुमुक्षो:
In this background, as per my understanding of bhAshya vAkyas:-
(1) Sanyasa with linga ---- karma-sanyasa --- sarva-karma-sanyasa are all
for Brahmana-male alone. These are all vidhi and are for Brahmana-male
alone as evident by Bhashya.
(2) Sanyasa-post-Moksha is for one and all because Moksha is for one and
all and hence sanyasa-post-Moksha is for one and all. There is no vidhi
here. There is no vidhana here.
I am not sure what vidvat-sanyasa actually signifies. Bhashyakara has not
explained it. But it is neither sanyasa-with-linga not karma-sanyasa. It
can be either sarva-karma-sanyasa or sanyasa-post-Moksha.
If one takes sarva-karma-sanyasa as vidvat-sanyasa then I am of the view
that only Brahmana-male is eligible therefor. If one takes
sanyasa-post-Moksha as vidvat-sanyasa then it is for one and all.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:12 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> This shloka-Bhashya of the Bhagavadgita 4.20 seems to give a solution to
> the apparent difficulty in understanding the various statements of Bhagavan
> Bhashyakara in the prasthana traya bhashyas:
> यस्तु अकर्मादिदर्शी, सः अकर्मादिदर्शनादेव निष्कर्मा संन्यासी
> जीवनमात्रार्थचेष्टः सन् कर्मणि न प्रवर्तते, यद्यपि प्राक् विवेकतः
> प्रवृत्तः । यस्तु प्रारब्धकर्मा सन् उत्तरकालमुत्पन्नात्मसम्यग्दर्शनः स्यात्
> , *सः सर्वकर्मणि प्रयोजनमपश्यन् ससाधनं कर्म परित्यजत्येव । सः कुतश्चित्
> निमित्तात् कर्मपरित्यागासम्भवे *सति कर्मणि तत्फले च सङ्गरहिततया
> स्वप्रयोजनाभावात् लोकसङ्ग्रहार्थं पूर्ववत् कर्मणि प्रवृत्तोऽपि नैव किञ्चित्
> करोति, ज्ञानाग्निदग्धकर्मत्वात् तदीयं कर्म अकर्मैव सम्पद्यते इत्येतमर्थं
> दर्शयिष्यन् आह —
> त्यक्त्वा कर्मफलासङ्गं नित्यतृप्तो निराश्रयः ।
> कर्मण्यभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि नैव किञ्चित्करोति सः ॥ २० ॥
> त्यक्त्वा कर्मसु अभिमानं फलासङ्गं च यथोक्तेन ज्ञानेन नित्यतृप्तः
> निराकाङ्क्षो विषयेषु इत्यर्थः । निराश्रयः आश्रयरहितः, आश्रयो नाम यत्
> आश्रित्य पुरुषार्थं सिसाधयिषति, दृष्टादृष्टेष्टफलसाधनाश्रयरहित इत्यर्थः ।
> विदुषा क्रियमाणं कर्म परमार्थतोऽकर्मैव, तस्य
> निष्क्रियात्मदर्शनसम्पन्नत्वात् । *तेन एवंभूतेन स्वप्रयोजनाभावात् ससाधनं
> कर्म परित्यक्तव्यमेव इति प्राप्ते, ततः निर्गमासम्भवात् लोकसङ्ग्रहचिकीर्षया *शिष्टविगर्हणापरिजिहीर्षया
> वा पूर्ववत् कर्मणि अभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि निष्क्रियात्मदर्शनसम्पन्नत्वात् नैव
> किञ्चित् करोति सः ॥ २० ॥
> In the above bhashya we see:
> 1. In the introduction to the verse Shankara says: a Jnani naturally
> becomes disinclined to action.
> 2. For some reason he is not able to give up action...he will continue
> to perform them without attachment, as a model for the world, lokasangraha,
> as before.
> 3. His such performance is really non-action, not binding.
> 4. In the bhashya to the shloka again Shankara says 1 and 2 and 3.
> 5. From the usage of the word kutashcit nimittaat karma parityaaga
> asambhave....for some reason he is unable to give up action....and nirgama
> asambhavaat,...we can conclude that Shankara has in mind (1) that grihastha
> who has become a jnani but is prohibited by the shaastra to give up karma,
> that is, take to renunciation, sannyasa. (2) There is no
> shaastra-prohibition but some other reason holds him in the same aashrama.
> 6. That one cannot/should not simply remain without performing his
> aasrama-ordained duties even if he is a jnani is brought out in the above
> 7. Such a person, if he is a non-brahmana, will remain in the same
> aasrama and continue doing action without attachment.
> 8. Even if he is a brahmana, unable to take to sannyasa due to some
> genuine reason, like, for example, health, or he has to take care of an
> ailing parent/wife, etc. he can remain at home and engage in karma without
> 9. One another reason why he will continue to do action is: to avoid
> other sishthas who might deride him for sitting idle without doing his
> ordained duty.
> From this bhashya I think that Shankara is quite clear that even in the
> case of vidvat sannyasa only a Brahmana can take sannyasa aasrama. Others,
> even if Jnanis, cannot; they continue in their aasrama doing their aasrama
> karma. Surewshwaracharya's stated view could be aligned to this inasmuch as
> for a jnani 'karma sannyasa is praapta.' OR, going by the definition of a
> vaartika, he can differ from the Bhashya and have his own view. This is
> hinted by Anandagiri in the vaartika teekaa as someone has already cited.
> warm regards
Joint Commissioner of Income-tax,
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list