[Advaita-l] Sri Nochur Swami - Be - A profound message in Tamil, just 3 minutes
ventzu at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Apr 16 11:45:03 EDT 2021
In the intro to BUB 2.4, Sankara writes:
"What is the goal of knowledge, and what of rites? I wish to be enlightened on this. So please instruct me. These two (it seems) are mutually contradictory and run counter to each other', Vyasa replied, thereby showing the contradiction, 'Men are bound by rites and freed by knowledge. Hence sages who have known the truth never perform rites’ and so on. Therefore the knowledge of Brahman leads to the highest goal for man not with, but without the help of any auxiliary means, for otherwise there would be contradiction all round. It is to show this that renunciation of the world, which consists in giving up all means, is sought to be enjoined as a subsidiary step. For at the end of the fourth chapter it has been 'asserted, 'This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear'; and we have also a sign for inference (about this) in the fact that Yajnavalkya, who was a ritualist, renounced the world.”
I think that is self-explanatory. For Sankara renunciation was an inevitable corollary to jnana, which is the abandonment of identification with the body-mind.
Suresvara at the end of his vartika on BUB4.5 writes:
Then, in order to reaffirm that the knowledge which has been mentioned becomes the means to all, after having set aside all action, he renounced immediately, after this conversation, not thinking / hesitating. Since not only is this knowledge non-expectant of all action and means but there is the expectation of abandonment of entire action also; therefore the sage, though he had accomplished the objects of desire on account of having well understood the nature of that reality, hurriedly himself gave up all action which has speech, manas and body as means.
Sri Chandrasekha Bharati of Sringeri would seem to be following Vidyaranya on the ‘levels’ of enlightenment. Ramanamaharishi articulated similarly.
SSSS does not admit to levels of enlightenment. In his commentary to BUB 3.5.1, he write of panditya, balaya and mouna:
“In truth, the purport of the sruti statement is - ‘only if the seeker attains this Mouna, he can be said to have become a Brahma Nishtha”.
He goes on later:
“Even if we imagine or surmise that there are differences or grades in jnana, we may do so in dividing them only into paroaksha and aparoaksha; but that which is aparoaksha anubhuti superior to all else, that alone will be fit to be called Jnana, and not anything else.”
Finally he writes:
“The sannyasa which the jnanis observe because of the reason that there is no more purpose or benefit whatsoever to accrue from any kind of karma, is called by the present day Vedantins ‘Vidvat sannyasa’”
He basically say what Suresvara says - renunciation is an inevitable consequence of knowledge, Mouna. Not that there is something more to be achieved beyond knowledge, through renunciation.
> On 16 Apr 2021, at 13:08, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Venkat,
> Since you have cited Sri Swami Suresvaracharya, I presume you are comfortable with his views. In his vArtika verse BUBV 2-4-22, he describes Sage Yajnavalkya as one possessed of unsurpassable jnAna ( nirastAtishayajnAnah). The sanyAsa he undertakes is vidvat sanyAsa which is sanyAsa taken post jnAna. Sri SSS refers to this type of sanyAsa at footnote 2 on page 127 covering BU 3-5-1. It is here the term Brahmana you have referred to also figures. Reference is to vidvat sanyAsa.
> If you are comfortable with the views of Jagadguru Sri HH Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswaminah of Sringeri Peetha, you can refer to his vyAkhyAna on Vivekachudamani, verse 454 wherein he terms Yajnavalkya as a jnAni, brahmavit.
> The above is just for information and not for discussion. Such issues I believe are a matter of personal preferences in understanding and nothing useful may be gained through debates. My understanding follows the above views.
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 12:52 AM Ven Balakrishnan <ventzu at yahoo.co.uk <mailto:ventzu at yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
> He is recounting an episode where presumably an advanced person approached Ramanamaharishi for advice. I guess it needs to be considered in the context of his full lecture.
> As an aside . . . Since self-knowledge / liberation is the highest goal of existence, and Brhad Up says that a Brahmana in the primary sense is one who has this self-knowledge and has inevitably renounced (because self-knowledge destroys all desires and factors of action) . . . the implication of the Yajnavalkya - Maitreyi dialogue is that Y. Is not a jnani, and hence his intention to renounce, having fully understood the import of sruti. Sankara, Gaudapada and Suresvara do not make a distinction between a jnani and a jivanmukta. That seems to have arisen with Vidyaranya’s Jivanmukta-viveka.
>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ <https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita <http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l <https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org <mailto:listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list