Dear Mr KRN :
Thank you once again for taking time to provide a detailed reply.
Somethings do not make sense to me.
Query 1. If Vairagyam sets in one should go on Sannyasam? What does go on Sannyasam mean? I cant imagine someone overcoming desires is told to immediately wear orange robe and roam around the world. For what purpose? If Sannyasam is a state of mind they dont need to do anything.
Reply : You need to see this topic in context. The reference 'yadahareva virajet tadahareva pravrajet' occurs in a Sannyasa Upanishad, and is a direct response to a query on Sannyasam in the text. You can refer the links I provided in my discussion with TBT ji.
Sannyasam can be external or internal. One can continue to live in as a Sannyasi while performing worldly duties, but mentally giving up all desires and attachment to results. But this can be very difficult to many. Without some amount of external Sannyasam, one is often deluded into thinking that one doesn't have desires.
However, when it comes to Kasi Yatra (where we started with), the idea is external Sannyasa, which is about giving up the home as well as all related attachments, and starting on the Sannyasa path. For details on Sannyasa path, kindly refer the Sannyasa upanishads (which are in a group of their own) and the passage in Brihadaranyaka Up 4.4.22 that I have quoted from earlier.
Query 2. If dharma shatras (per reference provided by Renuka Madam) or upanishads say as a rule one must do Sharaddham that does not lead to any clarity as to why one should do them. I have a hard time accepting Sankaracharya actually talked about son doing Shraddha karmam to prevent Pithrus from obstruction. These are all beliefs as you said and I have a hard time accepting Sankaracharya writing Bhashya on beliefs. Is there a reference where the Acharya wrote the way you have described?
Reply : Dharmasastras as Smriti, can be accepted and followed when they elaborate on a point that is cursorily adressed to by the Upanishads.
As I mentioned earlier, the Acharya while commenting on one of the passages in the Brih Up, clearly mentions this "son doing Shraddha karmam to prevent Pithrus from obstruction". I have no doubt about it, as while reading it, I found it interesting since that Upanishadic passage is one of the earliest references to the pithru karma. You may refer the Bhashyam to Brih Up for further details, especially at the place where it treats with various Vidyas. At present I don't have the Bhashyam with me now. So for now, it's upto you to take my word on it or not
One can take these as beliefs, but for most Hindus, Sankaracharya is a revered authority. That too,someone who distinguishedly fought the mimamsakas throughout his life! Despite that, if a person of his stature supports the performance of pithru karma, with substantiating reasons, that should satisfy most practising Hindus, I feel.
Query 3. There are harmful beliefs and harmless beliefs. If someone believe there is a heaven or hell that is a harmless belief. But if they believe that someone not believing their God is an infedel and can be killed that is a harmful belief. Believing that there is curse of Pitrus is a harmful beliefs. So I am against it.
Reply: To kill someone (infidel) not agreeing with your pet beliefs, is a harmful belief. But here the injunction is to do certain (pithru) karma, which does not have elements harmful to others. It has many beneficial elements, like feeding the learned people, which is worth encouraging. I am not going into the various positive aspects in the Shraadha karma, now. (Of course, in practice, some negative features could have crept over centuries.) But I don't agree with the idea that Shraadham is a harmful belief. And it is supported by authorities (of all sects) in Hinduism.
Last edited: