Swami Vishwananda when you come online. Namaste ji, requesting you to read the entire answer. If there is something objectionable please put a comment to discuss and DO NOT DOWNVOTE. If you have already downvoted before reading this comment, requesting you to scroll up and UNDOWNVOTE. First we’ll discuss, then if you are yet not satisfied please feel free to exercise the downvote. Namaste ji

If our questioning is leading us to ask if Adi Shankara could be anti-vedic, then perhaps its time to re-evaluate our assumptions. For if Adi Shankara is anti-vedic, then only God knows who is vedic.

Most consider sringeri as authentic mutt and not kanchi. If he wore thread then why not other pontiffs of the mutt. You can refer sanyasa upanishads

@RakeshJoshi both are authentic mutts. Sringeri is among the 4 he established. Kanchi is the one where he himself sat as per Kamakoti site. For sannyas Upanishads you can see Rickross’ answer it quotes that even ekadandi sannyasi must wear the janeu hence the whole confusion.... there are others which say they must give up but here Rickorss’ answer is very explici

@zero not Adi Shankara, but the conduct of sannyasis established by him removing their janeu. If it weren’t for him one can imagine what India would’ve been.

@Archit Adi Shankara quotes a sentence from Mahabharata (in his Brihadaranyaka bhashya) which states that a knower of brahman wears no signs. He also quotes an upanishad called kathasruti upanishad which mentions a monk giving up sacred thread. wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/…

I know a verse from Upanishads (Sanyasa) which authorizes a Sanyasin to give up Thread. But that can answer only one part of your question

@SethuSrivatsaKoduru they’re not from principle Upanishads. They’re from the others which many consider as interpolation.

@zero , many consider those interpolations since they’re not regularly recited like the principle Upanishads. If a sannyasi doesn’t wear signs then there’s Rickross’ answer saying that they wear signs. If no signs, Why carry even a staff then? Why give up something which authorises to study the veda? Why can’t they chant the aranyakas like Vanaprasthis do? How can you know you’re self realised and don’t require ritual performance. Then what’s the difference between buddha giving up rituals and is removing the Janeu. Vaishnavas don’t remove janeu so why should anyone else? Do sannyas with Janeu

@Archit Normally, I would have accepted the "interpolation" argument. But, I believe Adi Shankara has very high credibility. IMO, if he quotes something, it should be authentic. As far as signs are concerned, please note the idea is that there is no compulsion

@zero can’t the shishyas quote? Especially his Manusmriti quotes seem dubious and a case of European meddling. Only the Upanishad bhashyas seem the most genuine. [Not Shankaracharya and the current mutt Shankaracharya] but couldn’t there have been some Buddhists or pro-Buddhist shishyas who ruined the thing? The reason that led people to believe Adi shankara himself is disguised bauddha (not the shishyas).

@Archit I am sorry to say that the possibilities that you proposed appear very unlikely. By the way, I have quoted an upanishad bhAshya of Shankara - Its the brihadaranyaka upanishad bhAshya, which is probably among the most genuine of his works.

@zero hmmmm well let’s see. I still can’t digest the logic in Rakesh Joshi’s answer that why give up janeu and the Vaishnava sannyasis still have it. Why give up Agni worship and rituals. As in these rituals wouldn’t be prescribed in the first place if one could abandon them immediately after Brahmacharya or even later. These too help one know Brahman. Chal let’s see we’ll wait for an answer

@Archit They do shraadha of themselves at the time of initiation, Generally this shraadha happens after death of somebody. So this means they need to renounce everything, even the sacred thread, agni, this worldly life etc. And I don't see anywhere Vedas say to to offer shraadha of any person before their death.

@TheLittleNaruto jeeva shraddha is prescribed in Grihya sutras. So that’s not an issue but one can’t give up janeu. Leave janeu on your shoulder, recite aranyaka and live Shanti se no issues.

@Archit Giving up desires for wife and children is mentioned in brihadaranyaka upanishad (moola slokas, not commentaries). Katha upanishad is based on the importance of renunciation, where Nachiketha resists the temptations of wealth from Yama. The upanishads and gita, definitely place the karma kanda on a lower pedestal.

@zero Dharmasutra prescribes one can take sannyas either directly after brahmacharya or only after wife dies. You can’t leave and go. Please understand I’m not questioning validity of sannyas. I’m asking one simple question- why abandon the Janeu. If no sign then why carry the stick? If sannyas doesn’t have a sign, why do Vaishnavas sannyasis countinue with janeu and performing rituals? There’s a difference between giving up desire for fruits from rituals vs giving up duty and rituals altogether. Gita 18.66 commentary explains this to us. Explain the abandonment of the Veda and I’ll agree.

@Archit I do not know about Vaishnava sannyasins reasoning, but there is no compulsion in having any signs, including yagnopavita, as mentioned by Adi Shankara (He quotes from 3 different sources, in case you read the link)

@Archit Please note that in the Gita, Krishna also talks of paths where all rituals themselves are given up.

@zero then why initiate a person in the first place? Why do Shankar’s sannyasis bother carrying stick if there’s no sign? Where does Gita say that?

यस्त्वात्मरतिरेव स्यादात्मतृप्तश्च मानवः। आत्मन्येव च सन्तुष्टस्तस्य कार्यं न विद्यते।।Gita 3.17।। But for that man who rejoices only in the Self, who is satisfied with the Self and who is content in the Self alone, verily there is nothing to do.

@,Archit For people like Adi Shankara, there is really nothing for them to do. By getting formally initiated into sannyasa and writing bhAshyas, they are merely doing us a favor. It doesnt make an iota of difference for them if they dont carry a stick.

@Archit न मे पार्थास्ति कर्तव्यं त्रिषु लोकेषु किञ्चन। नानवाप्तमवाप्तव्यं वर्त एव च कर्मणि।।Gita 3.22।। There is nothing in the three worlds, O Arjuna, that should be done by Me, nor is there anything unattained that should be attained; yet I engage Myself in action.

@zero this is a misinterpretation. Sannyasa doesn’t mean one is liberated. It’s a means to achieve liberation. They’re talking of one liberated as Ramanujacharya very clearly says in 3.18. You can’t cut the thread before you’ve attained Aatma Jnana. And once you’ve attained aatma jnana and there’s nothing more left to do, one just goes. One doesn’t stick on around earth for very much longer. All sadhanas are directed towards realising the self. I partially agree with you. Let’s leave the discussion here.

@Archit The above is in response to this - If he happened to remove it (in effect killing his dvijatva or second birth), it would mean he has become an ekajati. How can an ekajati have authority to study the Vedas and write bhashyas? It is very necessary not to forego rituals like pindadana etc.

@Archit wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/… The Brāhmaṇas seek to know It through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, and austerity consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects. Knowing It alone one becomes a sage. Desiring this world (the Self) alone monks renounce their homes. This is (the reason for it): The ancient sages, it is said, did not desire children (thinking), ‘What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result).’ 1/2

@Archit They, it is said, renounced their desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lived a mendicant life. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds, for both these are but desires. 2/2

@Archit So the verse is talking about 1. People who already know brahman 2. People who desire to know brahman

@zero your verse is only talking of renouncing homes. Please understand the point! A sannyasi has to do something after renunciation to attain Brahman be it tapa, karma etc. There’s no karma only for a self realised person. Even if a sannyasi doesn’t do karma, he can’t give up his janeu until he’s liberated (gotten freedom from 3 debts) everyone will give up their janeu and take Sannyasa if they see they don’t have to do regular shraadha for ancestors. If Adi S removed fine he became self realised. But on what basis do other Shankara’s do? Why then did he allot a Veda to each mutt?

It’s not as simple as yours portraying it and you’re going on talking of Sannyasa when I’m not questioning it’s validity, except janeu. Please again note Vaishnava Sannyasis have janeu despite Sannyasa (only meditating on god). You can’t decide you’re self realised and chop of everything. I’m not replying to any further messages sleeping it’s very late

@Archit Alright, lets continue the conversation later

@Archit - you may be interested to know, the current maTadhipathi of ahobila mutt (sri vaishnava sampradaya) was encouraged to continue his Vedic studies by Kanchi Kamakoti Maha Periyavar (advaita smartha sampradaya). In one of their meetings, this same question was discussed, for which, where periyavar asked "what does vaishnava shastras say about what one should do when meeting a sanyasi without upavaeetam or shikha?", to which the mutt jeeyar (in his purvashram) replied "one should take a bath with same clothes upon seeing such a person".

@zero shishyas of periyavar were naturally shocked/angry. But he was not. He said "he is quoting his shastras exactly as he was taught. that is very good". The video is there in youtube

@mar very interesting incident. Thanks

@Archit Please note that if you actually read the quotations given by Adi Shankara, you will see that it (removing yagnopavita) applies even to people desiring to know brahman.