Teaching the ‘Existence’ of Brahman – the purpose of many Taittirīya passages

In the Taittirīyopaniṣat bhāṣya, Bhagavatpāda is intent upon pointing out that several passages of this Upaniṣad are aimed at teaching the aspirant the ‘existence’ of Brahman. This is because, when the Upanishad wants the aspirant to realize Brahman and also that when such Brahman is not an object of our daily cognition, owing to its attributeless nature, the aspirant will be at a loss to proceed in his goal of inquiry into Brahman.

Here is a list of those passages, only from the Taittiriya (while there are others in other Upanishads too), for our own mananam:

The Upanishat teaches: तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत् [Brahman created the world and entered it]. Shankara initiates a very detailed discussion on the meaning of ‘praveśa’ and finally says that this teaching is only to draw the attention of the seeker to his own cognitive / thinking functions that can happen only with Consciousness, Brahman, being there. It is Brahman alone that is as though thinking, seeing, hearing, etc. in every body. And since Brahman is taught as the kāraṇam and since a kāraṇam invariably ‘exists’, one should know Brahman to ‘exist’:
स एव तस्य प्रवेशः ; तस्मादस्ति तत्कारणं ब्रह्म । अतः अस्तित्वादस्तीत्येवोपलब्धव्यं तत् ।

 यथा पूर्वेष्वन्नमयाद्यात्मप्रकाशकाः पञ्चस्वपि, एवं सर्वान्तरतमात्मास्तित्वप्रकाशकोऽपि मन्त्रः कार्यद्वारेण भवति ॥
At the end of the pancha kosha discussion, the Upanishads concludes: ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा – Brahman is the ‘tail’ that is the ultimate support. Shankara concludes that this is also a teaching of Brahman’s existence; the support of all the concocted dvaita is Brahman, that exists:
स्ति तदेकमविद्याकल्पितस्य द्वैतस्यावसानभूतमद्वैतं ब्रह्म प्रतिष्ठा पुच्छम् । [This passage of Shankara is also a proof for the concept that the dṛṣṭi of the prapancha by the jīva is the very sṛṣṭi of it, that is, perception or cognition is creation. That is why Shankara uses the expression: the cognized dvaita is only concocted by / due to avidyā.]
The following passage is an elaboration of what was stated earlier: the cause has to be existing. If the world had originated from non-existence, asat, the effect, the world, being without any stuff, would be unavailable for experience; but it is experienced, hence Brahman, the Sat, exists:  Here Shankara is using logic.
 यस्माच्च जायते किञ्चित् , तदस्तीति दृष्टं लोके, यथा घटाङ्कुरादिकारणं मृद्बीजादि ; तस्मादाकाशादिकारणत्वादस्ति ब्रह्म । न चासतो जातं किञ्चिद्गृह्यते लोके कार्यम् । असतश्चेन्नामरूपादि कार्यम् , निरात्मकत्वान्नोपलभ्येत ; उपलभ्यते तु ; तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म । असतश्चेत्कार्यं गृह्यमाणमपि असदन्वितमेव स्यात् ; न चैवम् ; तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म ।
The Upanishad says: यद्वै तत्सुकृतं….[That which is the accomplisher of all auspiciousness…] Shankara says such a cause cannot be an inert entity and hence Brahman exists:
 यदि पुण्यं यदि वा अन्यत् सा प्रसिद्धिः नित्ये चेतनकारणे सति उपपद्यते, तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म, सुकृतप्रसिद्धेरिति ।
For this reason too Brahman exists: The Upanishad says Brahman to be ‘Rasa’ which is the cause of satiation. Such a thing has to exist. Shankara makes an interesting observation: One can see knowers of Brahman brimming with ānanda, bliss, without resorting to any external objects but by drawing from their own Self. This ānanda hetu has to exist.
इतश्चास्ति ; कुतः ? रसत्वात् । कुतो रसत्वप्रसिद्धिर्ब्रह्मण इत्यत आह – यद्वै तत्सुकृतं रसो वै सः । रसो नाम तृप्तिहेतुः आनन्दकरो मधुराम्लादिः प्रसिद्धो लोके । रसमेव हि अयं लब्ध्वा प्राप्य आनन्दी सुखी भवति । नासत आनन्दहेतुत्वं दृष्टं लोके । बाह्यानन्दसाधनरहिता अपि अनीहा निरेषणा ब्राह्मणा बाह्यरसलाभादिव सानन्दा दृश्यन्ते विद्वांसः ; नूनं ब्रह्मैव रसस्तेषाम् । तस्मादस्ति तत्तेषामानन्दकारणं रसवद्ब्रह्म । इतश्चास्ति ; कुतः ? प्राणनादिक्रियादर्शनात् । अयमपि हि पिण्डो जीवतः प्राणेन प्राणिति अपानेन अपानिति । एवं वायवीया ऐन्द्रियकाश्च चेष्टाः संहतैः कार्यकरणैर्निर्वर्त्यमाना दृश्यन्ते । तच्चैकार्थवृत्तित्वेन संहननं नान्तरेण चेतनमसंहतं सम्भवति, अन्यत्रादर्शनात् । तदाह – यत् यदि एषः आकाशे परमे व्योम्नि गुहायां निहित आनन्दो न स्यात् न भवेत् , को ह्मेव लोके अन्यात् अपानचेष्टां कुर्यादित्यर्थः । कः प्राण्यात् प्राणनं वा कुर्यात् ; तस्मादस्ति तद्ब्रह्म, यदर्थाः कार्यकरणप्राणनादिचेष्टाः ; तत्कृत एव च आनन्दो लोकस्य । कुतः ? एष ह्येव पर आत्मा आनन्दयाति आनन्दयति सुखयति लोकं धर्मानुरूपम् । स एवात्मा आनन्दरूपोऽविद्यया परिच्छिन्नो विभाव्यते प्राणिभिरित्यर्थः ।
The Upanishad says: भीषास्माद्वातः पवते……[Out of fear of ‘X’, the wind blows, the sun rises, etc. without disturbing the order.]  Such a cause of fear to all these cosmic giants has to exist:
 भयाभयहेतुत्वाद्विद्वदविदुषोरस्ति तद्ब्रह्म । ….. तस्माज्जगतो भयदर्शनाद्गम्यते – नूनं तदस्ति भयकारणमुच्छेदहेतुरनुच्छेद्यात्मकम् , यतो जगद्बिभेतीति ।
वातादयो हि महार्हाः स्वयमीश्वराः सन्तः पवनादिकार्येष्वायासबहुलेषु नियताः प्रवर्तन्ते ; तद्युक्तं प्रशास्तरि सति ; यस्मात् नियमेन तेषां प्रवर्तनम् , तस्मादस्ति भयकारणं तेषां प्रशास्तृ ब्रह्म
Thus, the teaching of Brahman as the cause of fear is not to be literally taken but as the Upanishad’s way of instructing the ‘existence’ of Brahman. Throughout one can see how Shankara sees logic in those statements of the Upanishad. For Shankara the Shruti is never divorced from reasoning.
At the very beginning of the Brahma sūtra bhāṣya Shankara has said that everyone experiences one’s own existence; no one denies it.  सर्वो ह्यात्मास्तित्वं प्रत्येति, न ‘नाहमस्मि’ इति । यदि हि नात्मास्तित्वप्रसिद्धिः स्यात् , सर्वो लोकः ‘नाहमस्मि’ इति प्रतीयात् । आत्मा च ब्रह्म  – If only there was not the well-knownness with regard to the Atman’s existence, everyone would be experiencing ‘I do not exist’. But such is not the case. Atman is Brahman. [Shankara makes this remark in the context of ‘brahma jijñāsā’. If Brahman is being asked to be enquired into, it should be known, in some way at least for the aspirant to proceed. No one can proceed to know something that is totally unknown. The other extreme is that if something is well known, there is no  need to enquire about it. So, here is a situation where the Atman is known but not known in its true nature, free of doubt and non-comprehension.
So, the Taittiriya passages are designed to free the aspirant from the paricchinnatva bhrama, the delusion that one is finite. By overcoming this delusion, his parokṣatva bhrama, that ‘Brahman is different from me’ is also tackled. In fact Shankara has taken all this into consideration while introducing the pancha kosha discussion by alluding to the ‘you are the tenth man’ (दशमस्त्वमसि) analogy.
Om Tat Sat
Advertisements
Posted by: adbhutam | October 17, 2017

10th Soundarya lahari Maha samarpan – Bengaluru

The 10th commemorative Soundarya lahari pārāyaṇa samarpana in a mega program: 1) Date of Stotra Samarpana of Dashamaha Soundaryalahari Parayanotsava for School and college students is now fixed as SATURDAY 28th October 2017 from 1 pm to 4 pm.
(Change from 30th is to suit Chief Guest Hon. Upa Rastrapathi Sri. Venkaiah Naidu Ji).
2) There is no change in the date 29th October Sunday 1pm to 4pm for full Samarpana by Ladies and Gentlemen. Hon Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi Ji has confirmed to attend & address as Chief Guest.
Please attend and spread this message to others. See here a documentary of the program held ten years ago: https://youtu.be/YFAur_yTISU
Even if you have no familiarity with Soundarya lahari, do come to the venue, Bangalore Palace grounds that day. It could be a good start for you to a great spiritual journey.
Regards

Posted by: adbhutam | October 16, 2017

SHANKARA ON TURĪYA ŚIVA

Shankara on Turīya Śiva

Here is an article on the above topic:

regards
Posted by: adbhutam | October 12, 2017

SYNONYMS FOR ‘SAGUṆA BRAHMAN’

Synonyms for Saguṇa Brahman

In the Brahmasūtra bhāṣya Shankara has given a crisp definition of saguṇa brahman:

4.3.7
तत्र कार्यमेव सगुणमपरं ब्रह्म एनान्गमयत्यमानवः पुरुष इति बादरिराचार्यो मन्यते । कुतः ? अस्य गत्युपपत्तेः — अस्य हि कार्यब्रह्मणो गन्तव्यत्वमुपपद्यते, प्रदेशवत्त्वात् ; न तु परस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि गन्तृत्वं गन्तव्यत्वं गतिर्वा अवकल्पते, सर्वगतत्वात्प्रत्यगात्मत्वाच्च गन्तॄणाम् ॥ ७ ॥
The superhuman being leads these (upāsaka-s) to the effected, saguṇa, inferior, Brahman alone – so opines Bādari Āchārya. Why? It is reasonable that this kārya brahman (effected Brahman) is a destination, as it is a geographical location. With reference to Para Brahman (as opposed to apara Brahman) there is no way one can be a traveler nor It can be a destination nor a travel, since Para Brahman is All-pervading, the very innermost Self of the ‘travelers’.
In this passage Shankara makes a clear distinction between the Para and apara Brahman. The former is the Absolute Reality, the Nirguṇa Tattva, Advaita, and the latter the opposite of all that. Shankara uses three words to denote the opposite of para brahman: kārya (effected), saguṇa (attributed) and apara (inferior). In the sequel is given a sample of passages from the bhāṣya-s where these very words are used by Shankara along with the identity of such ‘apara brahman.’
The term ‘Apara Brahman’, either as a compound or as distinct words:
 
Aitareya Up.3.5.3:
 
ब्रह्म अपरं सर्वशरीरस्थः प्राणः प्रज्ञात्मा अन्तःकरणोपाधिष्वनुप्रविष्टो जलभेदगतसूर्यप्रतिबिम्बवत् हिरण्यगर्भः प्राणः प्रज्ञात्मा ।
Apara Brahma is the ‘Prāṇa’ in all bodies and the one present in all minds in the cosmos and is Hiraṇyagarbha, prāṇa, prajñātmā.
Kaṭhopaniṣat 1.2.16:
परमपरं वा तस्य तत् भवति । परं चेत् ज्ञातव्यम् , अपरं चेत् प्राप्तव्यम् ॥
If the goal is Para (brahman), then it is to be realized (as oneself); if it is apara, then it is something to be attained, reached, by travelling.
Praśnopaniṣat 5.2:
 एतत् ब्रह्म वै परं च अपरं च ब्रह्म परं सत्यमक्षरं पुरुषाख्यम् अपरं च प्राणाख्यं प्रथमजं 
 
Para brahman is Satyam, Akṣaram, Puruṣam. Apara brahman is the First-born (Hiraṇyagarbha) known by the name ‘Prāṇa’.
 
BSB 4.3.14
 
तस्य च अपरब्रह्मोपासनस्य तत्सन्निधौ श्रूयमाणम् ‘स यदि पितृलोककामो भवति’ 
Regarding the upāsana pertaining to apara brahman is the Shruti passage: ‘If he is desirous of the world of manes…’
Bṛ.up.B.1.4.10:
 
न परस्य ब्रह्मणो नाप्यपरस्य प्रजापतेः ; अतो द्वैतैकत्वापरब्रह्मविद्यया कर्मसहितया अपरब्रह्मभावमुपसम्पन्नो 
Apara Brahman is Prajāpati, characterized by dvaita alone, endowed with karma, attaining to the state of apara brahman.
Br.up.B 4.4.22:
 ‘ब्रह्म तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो ब्रह्म वेद’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । ६) ‘सर्वं तं परादात् —’ इति अपरब्रह्मदर्शनमपि अपवदत्येव, अपरब्रह्मणोऽपि सर्वमध्यान्तर्भावात् ;
‘Brāhmaṇa caste abandons him who knows the brāhmaṇa caste to be different from Brahman’….Everything will abandon him who knows everything to be different from Brahman (his own self). Thus, even the knowledge of apara brahman too is abandoned of the apara brahman too.
Kaṭhopaniṣad bhāṣyam 2.6.1:  अपरब्रह्मविज्ञानक्रियाशक्तिद्वयात्मकहिरण्यगर्भाङ्कुरः [Apara brahman ……….is Hiranyagarbha]
Saguṇa brahman:  The term ‘saguṇa brahman’ in the bhāṣya: 
 
BSB 1.2.2:
‘अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः’ इति श्रुतिः शुद्धब्रह्मविषया, इयं तु श्रुतिः ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ इति सगुणब्रह्मविषयेति विशेषः । 
‘Bereft of prāṇa, mind, pure,..’ such Śruti is about the Pure (para) Brahman, while ‘endowed with mind, prāṇa as the body’ is about the saguṇa brahman.
BSB 3.3.1 prelude:
सगुणब्रह्मविषया प्राणादिविषया च इयं विज्ञानभेदाभेदचिन्तेत्यदोषः
It is the saguṇa  brahman and prāṇa, etc. that are the object of meditation…
BSB 4.4.17:
ये सगुणब्रह्मोपासनात् सहैव मनसा ईश्वरसायुज्यं व्रजन्ति, किं तेषां निरवग्रहमैश्वर्यं भवति, आहोस्वित्सावग्रहमिति संशयः ।
Those who attain to Iśvara along with their mind-apparatus, due to saguṇa brahma upāsana, is their lordliness unimpeded or limited?
Kāryabrahma: BSB 1.3.15  The term ‘kāryabrahma’ used in several passages:
 
 न ह्यहरहरिमाः प्रजाः कार्यब्रह्मलोकं सत्यलोकाख्यं गच्छन्तीति शक्यं कल्पयितुम् ॥ १५ ॥
One cannot conjecture that all the beings attain to the abode of the kāryabrahma, known as ‘satya loka’, every day (during sleep).
BSB 4.3.7
अस्य हि कार्यब्रह्मणो गन्तव्यत्वमुपपद्यते, प्रदेशवत्त्वात् ; न तु परस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि गन्तृत्वं गन्तव्यत्वं गतिर्वा………
 It is reasonable that this kārya brahman (effected Brahman) is a destination, as it is a geographical location.
BSB 3.3.10:
कार्यब्रह्मलोकप्रलयप्रत्युपस्थाने सति तत्रैव उत्पन्नसम्यग्दर्शनाः सन्तः, तदध्यक्षेण हिरण्यगर्भेण सह अतः परं परिशुद्धं विष्णोः परमं पदं प्रतिपद्यन्ते — इतीत्थं क्रममुक्तिः अनावृत्त्यादिश्रुत्यभिधानेभ्योऽभ्युपगन्तव्या । न ह्यञ्जसैव गतिपूर्विका परप्राप्तिः सम्भवतीत्युपपादितम् ॥ १० ॥
When the destruction/dissolution of the abode/world of the kārya brahma, those who have secured the realization of the Supreme Truth in that abode, become fully liberated by becoming one with the All-pervading Consciousness, along with Hiraṇyagarbha, the lord of that kāryabrahma loka. This is called krama mukti, to be understood by the śruti passages such as ‘there is no return to samsāra’. It has been explained earlier that the attainment of the Supreme is any direct traveling.
Taittiriya Bhāṣyam: 1.11:
 ‘स्त्रीभिर्वा यानैर्वा’ (छा. उ. ८ । १२ । ३) इत्यादिश्रुतीनां च कोपः स्यात् इति चेत् , न ; कार्यब्रह्मविषयत्वात्तासाम् । कार्ये हि ब्रह्मणि स्त्र्यादयः स्युः, न कारणे ; ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । १)
There is no contradiction with the passages that say ‘the liberated revel with women, vehicles…’, since this is pertaining to the topic of kārya brahman. Only in the kārya brahman can celestial women, etc. can exist, and not in the Causal, Supreme, Brahman as It is taught as ‘One only without a second of any type.’
Chandogya 8.5.1:
अर्चिरादिना मार्गेण कार्यब्रह्मलोकमभिसम्पद्य यावद्ब्रह्मलोकस्थितिः तावत्तत्रैव तिष्ठति प्राक्ततो नावर्तत इत्यर्थः
By reaching the kāryabrahma loka through the bright path, he remains there till the brahma loka subsists and subsequently does not return. [Here Shankara identifies the brahma loka with that of kārya brahma. In an earlier instance Shankara called it ‘satya loka.’ ]
Īśāvāsya Bhāṣyam 12:
 तमः ते प्रविशन्ति ये उ सम्भूत्यां कार्यब्रह्मणि हिरण्यगर्भाख्ये रताः ॥ ……
Those who are intent upon the kārya brahman called ‘hiranyagarbha’ enter…..
From the above sample we understand that the terms ‘apara brahma, saguṇa brahma and kārya brahma’ refer to a cosmic jīva called Hiraṇyagarbha, Prāṇa. His abode is also stated to be Brahma loka or Satya loka, etc.  Shankara has also stated ‘chaturmukha’ as brahmā, Prajāpati:
ब्रह्माणं चतुर्मुखम् ईशम् ईशितारं प्रजानां कमलासनस्थं in  BGB 11.15 and प्रजापतिः चतुर्मुखः तस्य सभां वेश्म प्रभुविमितं वेश्म प्रपद्ये गच्छेयम् । Chāndogya 8.4.1.
Nowhere Shankara identifies this saguṇa/kārya/apara Brahman with the deity Viṣṇu. If it is held that Shankara holds the deity Viṣṇu (as opposed to the All-pervading Nirguna Brahman called ‘viṣṇu’ etymologically) then such a deity is undoubtedly an effect, kārya, subject to destruction, is a jīva, and certainly apara, infinite, brahman.  When it is said that this brahman is kārya, the abode of this brahman is also such, subject to origination and destruction at pralaya.
The Kenopaniṣat 1.5 bhāṣya also brings into bold relief that any deity, if it is an upāsya, different from the upāsaka, is not the Vedāntic Brahman but a-brahman and anātman. Thus there is no way one can see Shankara specifying any particular deity such as Viṣṇu or Śiva as the ‘saguṇa brahman’, which is a technical term, as seen from a sample of passages from the bhāṣya. Those outside the range of Advaita can never come to a correct understanding of the saguṇa brahman which is unique to Advaita, unless they study the bhāṣya under a competent Achārya. The non-advaitic, non-vedantic idea of ‘viṣṇu or nārāyaṇa paratva’ is only denied wholesale by Shankara. Sureśwara too, in his vārtika, has very clearly said that the upaniṣadic ‘antaryāmin’ can be seen as represented by anyone of the trimūrti-s, the Guru, etc.
Om Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | October 10, 2017

THE PURPORT OF BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAT 1.3.10

In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad we have this mantra:
सा वा एषा देवतैतासां देवतानां पाप्मानं मृत्युमपहत्य यत्रासां दिशामन्तस्तद्गमयाञ्चकार तदासां पाप्मनो विन्यदधात्तस्मान्न जनमियान्नान्तमियान्नेत्पाप्मानं मृत्युमन्ववायानीति ॥ १० ॥
10. This deity took away death, the evil of these gods, and carried it to where these quarters end. There it left their evils. Therefore one should not approach a person (of that region), nor go to that region beyond the border, lest one imbibe that evil, death.
Shankara’s commentary to the mantra:
सा वा एषा देवतेत्युक्तार्थम् । एतासां वागादीनां देवतानाम् , पाप्मानं मृत्युम् — स्वाभाविकाज्ञानप्रयुक्तेन्द्रियविषयसंसर्गासङ्गजनितेन हि पाप्मना सर्वो म्रियते, स ह्यतो मृत्युः — तम् , प्राणात्माभिमानरूपाभ्यो देवताभ्यः, अपच्छिद्य अपहत्य, — प्राणात्माभिमानमात्रतयैव प्राणोऽपहन्तेत्युच्यते ; विरोधादेव तु पाप्मैवंविदो दूरं गतो भवति ; किं पुनश्चकार देवतानां पाप्मानं मृत्युमपहत्येत्युच्यते — यत्र यस्मिन् , आसां प्राच्यादीनां दिशाम् , अन्तः अवसानम् , तत् तत्र गमयाञ्चकार गमनं कृतवानित्येतत् । ननु नास्ति दिशामन्तः, कथमन्तं गमितवानिति ; उच्यते — श्रौतविज्ञानवज्जनावधिनिमित्तकल्पितत्वाद्दिशां तद्विरोधिजनाध्युषित एव देशो दिशामन्तः, देशान्तोऽरण्यमिति यद्वत् ; इत्यदोषः । तत्तत्र गमयित्वा, आसां देवतानाम् , पाप्मन इति द्वितीयाबहुवचनम् , विन्यदधात् विविधं न्यग्भावेनादधात्स्थापितवती, प्राणदेवता ; प्राणात्माभिमानशून्येष्वन्त्यजनेष्विति सामर्थ्यात् ; इन्द्रियसंसर्गजो हि स इति प्राण्याश्रयतावगम्यते । तस्मात्तमन्त्यं जनम् , नेयात् न गच्छेत् सम्भाषणदर्शनादिभिर्न संसृजेत् ; तत्संसर्गे पाप्मना संसर्गः कृतः स्यात् ; पाप्माश्रयो हि सः ; तज्जननिवासं चान्तं दिगन्तशब्दवाच्यम् , नेयात् — जनशून्यमपि, जनमपि तद्देशवियुक्तम् , इत्यभिप्रायः । नेदिति परिभयार्थे निपातः ; इत्थं जनसंसर्गे, पाप्मानं मृत्युम् , अन्ववायानीति — अनु अव अयानीति अनुगच्छेयमिति ; एवं भीतो न जनमन्तं चेयादिति पूर्वेण सम्बन्धः ॥
The translation of the commentary of Shankara by Swami Mādhavānanda is:
This deity-already explained-took away death, the evil of these gods such as the god of speech, identified with the vital force. Everybody dies because of the evil due to the attachment of the organs to contact with the sense-objects, prompted by his natural ignorance. Hence this evil is death. The vital force is here spoken of as taking it away from the gods, simply because they identified themselves with the vital force. As a matter of fact, evil keeps away from this knower just because it is out of place there. What did the
vital force do after taking away death, the evil of the gods? It carried it to where these quarters, east and so forth, end. One may question how this was done, since the quarters have no end. The answer is that it is all right, for the quarters are here conceived as being that stretch of territory which is inhabited by people possessing Vedic knowledge ; hence ‘the end of the quarters’ means the country inhabited by people who hold opposite views, as a forest is spoken of as the end of the country.  Carrying them, there it, the deity, vital force, left their evils, the evils of these gods.The word ‘Pāpmanah’ is accusative plural.-‘Left,’ lit. placed in various humiliating ways, and, as is understood from the sense of the passage, among the inhabitants of that region beyond the border who do not identify themselves with the vital force. That evil is due to the contact of the senses (with their objects) ; hence it must reside in some living being. Therefore one should not approach, i.e. associate with by addressing or seeing, a person of the region beyond the border.
Association with him would involve contact with evil, for it dwells in him. Nor go to that region beyond the border, where such people live, called ‘the end of the quarters,’ although it may be deserted; and the implication is, nor to any man out of that land. Lest one imbibe that evil, death, by coming into contact with such people. Out of this fear one should neither approach these people nor go to that region. ‘Ned’ (lest) is a particle denoting apprehension.
When the above commentary is studied, one is invariably reminded of the Bhāgavatam instance where the evil called ‘kali’ begs of the righteous ruler Parīkṣit to assign it ‘places’ where it could survive, thrive.
//Sūta said:

Petitioned thus, Parīkṣit gave Kali: places of gambling and contest, places of drinking, places of sexual promiscuity, and slaughterhouses.

Begging for a little more, the Master gave him a fifth place: wherever money accumulates. In such places there is always cheating, maddening desire, passion, and enmity.

40

The Son of Uttarā gave Kali to the order to live only in those five places, through which Kali could certainly encourage immorality. 

41

Therefore a person who desires his own well-being must never, ever go to such places. Especially not those who protect morality: kings, leaders, and teachers.

No one who wishes to truly improve their lives should become a fan of making money, competing with others, getting drunk, trying to have sex, and eating meat. Do not become intimate or close with anyone who seriously values any of these things!//

Now one can easily see that the Br.Up and bhashya accords well with the Bhagavatam.

The Gita says:
BGB 13.10:

मयि चानन्ययोगेन भक्तिरव्यभिचारिणी।

विविक्तदेशसेवित्वमरतिर्जनसंसदि।।13.11।।

13.11 And unwavering devotion to Me with single-minded concentration; inclination to repair into a clean place; lack of delight in a crowd of people.
Shankara says:
Vivikta-desa-sevitvam, inclination to repair into a clean place-a place (desa) naturally free (vivikta) or made free from impurity etc. and snakes, tigers, etc.; or, place made solitary (vivikta) by being situated in a forest, on a bank of a river, or in a temple; one who is inclined to seek such a place is vivikta-desa-sevi, and the abstract form of that is vivikta-desa-sevitvam. Since the mind becomes calm in places that are indeed pure (or solitary), therefore meditation on the Self etc. occurs in pure (or solitary) places. Hence the inclination to retire into clean (or solitary) places is called Knowledge. Aratih, lack of delight, not being happy; jana-samadi, in crowd of people-an assemblage, a multitude of people without culture, lacking in purity and immodest-, (but) not (so) in a gathering of pure and modest persons since that is conducive to Knowledge. Hence, lack of delight in an assembly of common people is knowledge since it leads to Knowledge.
Thus reading all the above three texts we conclude that the purport of the scripture is in seeing the aspirant after Truth does not give room to anything that pollutes his mind. The ‘going to an ‘alien’ land is thus figurative, for such ‘alien’ can very well be even next door and not necessarily in a far off continent.
And the essence of the Vedic culture can be anywhere and not necessarily in only one geographical area. A person living abroad can very well contact that centre and be insulated from adverse effects that country might have on him. Such centres are there everywhere and most importantly one has to create it within oneself.
Thus what matters most is not the geographical land where one resides but the company he keeps. That is the purport of the Br. Up. cited above.
On Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | October 9, 2017

THE KADAMBA ORIGIN – SHIVA-SUPREME FOR VAIDIKA-S

The Kadamba origin – Shiva-Supreme for Vaidika-s

The Tālagunda pillar inscription is an epigraphic record in Sanskrit giving an account of the Kadamba dynasty. It was set up in the time of the Kadamba king Śāntivarma (c. 455-60).

This famous inscription, carved vertically on the shaft of the pillar, opens with praise to Sthāṇu i.e. Śiva and recounts the foundation of Kadamba power by Mayūraśarma. This family of Brāhmaṇas, who belonged to Mānavyagotra, are said to have acquired the name Kadamba from a Kadamba tree near their home. Mayūraśarma went to Pallavendrapurī (i.e. Kāñcī) with his teacher Vīraśarma to complete his studies. Because of a quarrel at the time of a horse-sacrifice (aśvamedha) orangised for the Pallava king where the Brāhmaṇas were not treated with proper respect by the Kṣatriyas, Mayūraśarma became enraged and, taking up the sword, took refuge in Śrīparvata.From there harassed the Pallava frontier and levied tribute from Bṛhat Bāṇa and others. The Pallavas eventually acknowledged him as the king of the country between Aparārṇava (the Western Ocean) and Preharā. Mayūraśarma’s son was Kaṅgavarma, described in the record as “famous in battle.” His son Bhagīratha was the father of Raghu who was a poet and a scholar. Raghu’s brother was Kākusthavarma (c. 435-55) who “was like the sun and by means of rays (daughters) caused the lotuses of Gupta and other royal families to bloom in friendless, eagerness and love.” He came to Sthānakundūru on a hunting expedition and near the temple of Mahādeva who had been worshipped by Śātakarṇi and others previously, caused a big tank to be excavated. His son who had three crowns was Śāntivarma. Śāntivarma caused this inscription to be made. It was composed by the poet Kubja.

//Talagunda was earlier known as Sthanagundur and it was an agrahara (a place of learning).[2] This is the earliest known agraharafound in Karnataka.[3] An inscription found at Talagunda indicates that 32 Brahmins were relocated from a place called Ahichchhatrato Sthanagundur by Mukanna (or Trinetra), thereby creating an agrahara.[2][3] Mukanna was an ancestor of Mayurasharma, the founder of the Kadamba Dynasty//
//Education was imparted at Talagunda for eight centuries and the subjects that were taught included vedasvedanta, grammar and philosophy. The Kannada language was taught at primary level and clothing and food was provided to the students and teachers.[3//
 
//A temple dedicated to Pranaveshwara (Hindu God Shiva) is located in Talagunda. Next to it is located a stone slab containing inscriptions. In front of it is a pillar containing inscriptions in SanskritThe pillar inscriptions were written in the mid 5th century CE during the reign of Śāntivarman (a descendant of Mayurasharma).[5] The author of this inscription was Kubja, the court-poet of Śāntivarman.[6] He engraved the inscriptions himself to prevent any other engraver from committing mistakes.//
//The inscriptions indicate that Mayurasharma, native of Talagunda,[8] was accomplished in vaidika and went to the Pallava capital, Kanchipuram to study scriptures, accompanied by his guru and grandfather Veerasharama. There, having been humiliated by a Pallava guard (horseman), in a rage Mayurasharma gave up his Brahminic studies and took to the sword to avenge his insult.[9] The inscription vividly describes the event thus:
That the hand dextrous in grasping the kusha grass, fuel and stones, ladle, melted butter and the oblation vessel, unsheathed a flaming sword, eager to conquer the earth[10][11]

The inscriptions thus describe Kadambas as Brahmins turned conquerors and praise Brahmins as “Gods on earth, and speakers of SamaRigand Yajur Vedas.[12] The Kadamba lineage is described as descending from a three-sage line in the Hariti pravara and belonging to the Manavya gothra.[12]//

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talagunda_pillar_inscription

//The Tālagunda pillar inscription is an epigraphic record in Sanskrit giving an account of the Kadamba dynasty. It was set up in the time of the Kadamba king Śāntivarma (c. 455-60).//

// Description and Contents[edit]

This famous inscription, carved vertically on the shaft of the pillar, opens with praise to Sthāṇu i.e. Śiva and recounts the foundation of Kadamba power by Mayūraśarma (for this personality see Mayurasharma). This family of Brāhmaṇas, who belonged to Mānavyagotra, are said to have acquired the name Kadamba from a Kadamba tree near their home. Mayūraśarma went to Pallavendrapurī (i.e. Kāñcī) with his teacher Vīraśarma to complete his studies. Because of a quarrel at the time of a horse-sacrifice (aśvamedha) orangised for the Pallava king where the Brāhmaṇas were not treated with proper respect by the Kṣatriyas, Mayūraśarma became enraged and, taking up the sword, took refuge in Śrīparvata.[6]//

The verses:

//1 siddham [||] namaś-Śivāya || Jayati viśvadе[va]-sa[m˙]ghāta-nichit-aikamūrttis-sanātanaḥ Sthānu(ṇu)r-indu-raśmi-vichchhurita-dyutimaj-jaṭābhāra-maṇḍanaḥ || [1*] Tam=anu bhūsurā dvija-pravarās=sāma-rg-yajur-vvеda-vаdinaḥ yat-prasādas=trāyatе nityaṃ bhuvana-trayam pāpmanо bhayāt || [2*] //

Rendered in Devanāgari, the above reads:

सिद्धम् । नमः शिवाय । जयति विश्वदेवसंघातनिचितैकमूर्तिः सनातनः स्थाणुरिन्दुरश्मिविच्छुरित-द्युतिमज्ज;त्;अभ्;अरमण्डनः ।

तमनु भूसुराः द्विजप्रवराः सामऋग्यजुर्वेदवादिनः यत्प्रसादस्त्रायते नित्यं भुवनत्रयम् पाप्मनो भयात् ॥

[Accomplished. Obeisance to Shiva. Glorious shines the One Ancient Sthāṇuḥ (Śiva) splendor with the moon on his locks of hair. Following him the foremost of brāhmaṇa-s are experts in the lore of the Rg, Yajus and Sāma veda-s and by whose grace the three worlds are always protected from the fear of sin.]

At the end are these lines:

//.[32*] Say=iha bhagavatо Bhavaśy=ādi-dеvasya siddhy-ālaye siddha-gā(ga)ndharvva-rakṣо-gaṇais=sеvitе-vividha-niyama-hоma-dīkṣā-parair=brāh[m]aṇai snātakai stūyamānе sadā mantra-vādaiś=śubhaiḥ 14 sukṛtibhir=avanīśvarair=ātma-niśśrеyasaṃ prеpsubhis=Sātakarṇy-ādibhiś śraddhay=ābhyarchchitе//

स इह भगवतो भवस्यादिदेवस्य सिद्धालये सिद्धगन्दर्वरक्षोगणैः सेविते विविध नियमहोमदीक्षापरैः ब्राह्मणैः स्नातकैः स्तूयमाने सदा मन्त्रवादैशुभैः ।

सुकृतिभिः अवनीश्वरैः आत्मनिःश्रेयसं प्रेप्सुभिः सातकर्ण्यादिभिः श्रद्धयाभ्यर्चिते….

In the temple of the Ādideva Bhava (Śiva), who is worshiped by celestials by the means of several sacirficial rituals by committed brāhmaṇa-s versed in the Veda-s by incessant auspicious chanting, and by the kings of good conduct and virtuous deeds who pray for self-liberation, as exemplified by the devout worship by Sātakarṇi, etc.

Here ends the excerpted part of the inscription in the form of a poetic text composed by Kubja, a poet. See also: http://asibengalurucircle.in/inscribed-pillar-talagunda

The following points emerge from the above historical evidences:

  • Lord Shiva was worshiped by the brāhmaṇa-s, vaidika-s, several centuries prior to Shankaracharya
  • There were temples dedicated to Lord Shiva as early as the BC period
  • It is noteworthy that Sureshvaracharya in his vārtika refers to Shankara as ‘bhavanāmabhṛt’, one who bears the name of ‘Bhava’.
  • Vācaspati Misra in his invocation to the Bhāmatī pays obeisance to the eternal Bhava  
Om Tat Sat
One more evidence in Shankara Bhaṣya for ‘no non-advaitic vedantic schools prior to Shankara’
Apart from the references already cited therein, we have another passage, in the Kenopaniṣat 1.5 bhāṣya, which also goes to strengthen the above conclusion:
कथं न्वात्मा ब्रह्म । आत्मा हि नामाधिकृतः कर्मण्युपासने च संसारी कर्मोपासनं वा साधनमनुष्ठाय ब्रह्मादिदेवान्स्वर्गं वा प्राप्तुमिच्छति ।
How indeed can the Ātman be Brahman? For, Ātman is one who is eligible to engage in action or upāsana (meditation), he is a samsārin, who intends, by resorting to action or upāsana, to attain to the gods such as Brahmā or reach the worlds such as heaven.
 तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति, न त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात् ।
Hence the upāsya, the entity meditated upon or the object of meditation, such as Viṣṇu, Īśwara, Indra, or Prāṇa could be Brahman, but the Ātman can never be Brahman as it is contrary to what is held in the world.
So far Shankara implies that as long as the jīva is engaged in action or meditation, not knowing his true nature of being Brahman, there will continue the samsāritva, underscored by ignorance-born difference (between the actor and fruit, meditator and meditated). Shankara says, such a situation is no different from:
यथान्ये तार्किकाईश्वरादन्य आत्मेत्याचक्षते, तथा कर्मिणोऽमुं यजामुं यजेत्यन्या एव देवता उपासते ।
Just as the others, tārkika-s, who hold the Ātman (jīva) to be different from Īśvara, and also those given to action hold themselves to be different from the deity they seek to propitiate by performing the various karma-s enjoined in the Veda.
The implication is: For Shankara, even though the domain of the devatā-upāsanā-upāsaka, etc. pertain to the Veda, so long as the jīva is ignorant of his true nature, he will continue to be a samsārin. However, the ‘others’ that are the tārkika-s (those schools which base their doctrine chiefly on tarka) have the firm doctrine that the jīva is different from Iśvara. It is not the case with them that the jīva-Īśvara bheda is due to ignorance and one should strive to dispel it through knowledge. So is the case with the pūrva-mīmāmsaka-s who consider the one engaging in rituals to be different from the deity that is propitiated through the ritual. Thus, in the Aupaniṣadic doctrine, the jīva-Īśvara bheda is due to avidyā; the truth being that the jīva is verily Brahman. It is only the ‘others’ who are not Aupaniṣada-s who hold the jīva-Brahma bheda to be the very basis for their doctrine.  Thus, in this discourse Shankara clearly distinguishes the Aupaniṣada-s from ‘others’ on the basis of the difference or non-difference between the jīva and Īśvara. For Shankara, if they are Aupaniṣada-s, as exemplified by this very mantra for which he is commenting, the Kena 1.5, there is no jiva-Brahma bheda. And conversely, if some school is subscribing to the real difference between the jiva and Brahman, they are not Aupaniṣadas; they are tārkika-s, etc.
Shankara has maintained this stand steadily across the prasthānatraya bhāṣya. Cases from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, the Taittiriya and the Māṇḍūkya bhāṣya-s have been cited already in the article referred to in the foregoing. The Kenopaniṣad bhāṣya reference is what is highlighted in this post, though it was alluded to in the passing in an earlier article.  Shankara has, at the beginning of the Taittiriya Bhāṣya paid homage to the pūrvāchārya-s who have expounded the Upaniṣads on the traditional method of drawing from the disciplines of vyākaraṇa, tarka and pūrva-mīmāmsā:

यैरिमे गुरुभिः पूर्वं पदवाक्यप्रमाणतः ।

व्याख्याताः सर्ववेदान्तास्तान्नित्यं प्रणतोऽस्म्यहम् ॥ २ ॥
Apart from this, in several places Shankara has referred to earlier Vedāntins as as ‘sampradāyavit’ while citing, for instance, the ‘adhyāropa-apavāda’ nyāya in the Gitā Bhāṣya, or Gauḍapādāchārya’s kārikā-s in the Brahmasūtra bhāṣya. Those Vedantins whom he takes up for refutation are, as he has declared, Aupaniṣada-s  who hold the jīva-Brahman identity though they have differences on other doctrinal issues. For Shankara, dvaitin-s are of non-vedantic schools.
Om Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | October 4, 2017

WHO IS ‘BHINNA DEVATĀ’ IN SHANKARA’S BHĀṢYA?

Who is ‘bhinna-devatā’ in Shankara’s bhāṣya?

In the Bhagavadgītā 4.12 commentary Shankara says:

यदि तव ईश्वरस्य रागादिदोषाभावात् सर्वप्राणिषु अनुजिघृक्षायां तुल्यायां सर्वफलप्रदानसमर्थे च त्वयि सति ‘वासुदेवः सर्वम्’ इति ज्ञानेनैव मुमुक्षवः सन्तः कस्मात् त्वामेव सर्वे न प्रतिपद्यन्ते इति ? शृणु तत्र कारणम् —

काङ्क्षन्तः कर्मणां सिद्धिं यजन्त इह देवताः ।
क्षिप्रं हि मानुषे लोके सिद्धिर्भवति कर्मजा ॥ १२ ॥

काङ्क्षन्तः अभीप्सन्तः कर्मणां सिद्धिं फलनिष्पत्तिं प्रार्थयन्तः यजन्ते इह अस्मिन् लोके देवताः इन्द्राग्न्याद्याः ; ‘अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्ते अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम्’ (बृ. उ. १ । ४ । १०) इति श्रुतेः । तेषां हि भिन्नदेवतायाजिनां फलाकाङ्क्षिणां क्षिप्रं शीघ्रं हि यस्मात् मानुषे लोके, मनुष्यलोके हि शास्त्राधिकारः । ‘क्षिप्रं हि मानुषे लोके’ इति विशेषणात् अन्येष्वपि कर्मफलसिद्धिं दर्शयति भगवान् । मानुषे लोके वर्णाश्रमादिकर्माणि इति विशेषः, तेषां च वर्णाश्रमाद्यधिकारिकर्मणां फलसिद्धिः क्षिप्रं भवति । कर्मजा कर्मणो जाता ॥ १२ ॥
4.12 Kānkṣantah, longing for, praying for; siddhim, fruition, fructification of the results; karmanām, of actions; yajante, they worship; iha, here, in this world; devatah, the gods, Indra, Fire and others- which accords with the Upanisadic text, ‘While he who worships another god thinking, “He is one, and I am another,” does not know. He is like an animal to the gods’ (Br. 1.4.10). [This text points out that the reason for adoring other deities is the ignorance of the Self, which gives rise to the ideas of difference between the worshipped and the worshipper.]
Why do people not seek to identify with Brahman by aiming at Brahman-knowledge in the form of ‘everything is Vāsudeva alone? The reply the Lord gives is: owing to ingnorance of the Self, people seek ephemeral fruits and their accomplishment by propitiating gods that are different from oneself. Shankara cites the famous, oft-cited, Bṛhadāraṇyaka passage: he who worships a god that is different from himself with the idea ‘He is one and I am another’, is ignorant (of the real nature of oneself.)  The term ‘bhinna-devatā’ Shankara uses is interesting. In order to ascertain what is meant by the term devatā, Shankara contrasts it by citing the Br.passage which contains the word ‘anya-devatā’. So, that deity which an ignorant one seeks to propitiate is anātmā, not-self. Thus, the true ‘devatā’ is oneself. Shankara has brought out the essence of this very Br.Up. passage in a crisp manner in yet another instance: the commentary to the Kenopaniṣat 1.5:
तथा कर्मिणोऽमुं यजामुं यजेत्यन्या एव देवता उपासते ।    Just as those given to action, upon the injunction ‘propitiate him, propitiate him’, worship ‘anya devatā’ alone. In the Kenopanishat the context is: The Upanishad wants the aspirant to know, realize, that alone to be Brahman which is not any entity that is other than the very self of the aspirant. It explicitly says: not that which is worshiped/meditated upon as ‘this.’  Shankara cites the case of worshiping/meditating upon Viṣṇu, Iśvara, Indra, etc. where the upāsya-upāsaka bheda is inevitable. So, this, in Shankara’s view, a case of the Bṛ.up. passage cited above: whoever worships another deity, that is, someone who is other than oneself, with the ignorant idea: he is one and I am another’ does not know the Truth. Thus, according to Shankara, the ‘bhinna-devatā’ of the BGB 4.12 is a deity that is different from oneself, Brahman. The Upanishad itself articulates that difference and impḷicitly rules out the idea: ‘the anya-devatā is some deity other than Viṣṇu who has a specific form/abode, etc.’
Shankara cites this Br.Up.1.4.10 passage in that very section along with several other passages that bring out the Atman-Brahman identity:
This passage occurs in the Bṛ.Up.1.4.10 where the mahāvākya ‘aham brahma asmi’ is taught. And in order to emphatically say that it is identity that is the purport of the Upaniṣad, the very Veda demonstrates that ‘he who worships ‘another deity’ with the idea ‘he is one and I am another’, does not know. So, the Upanishad itself rules out the possibility of the ‘devatāntara’ is not any or all deities other than the formed/named Viṣṇu. On the contrary, all devatā-s, including the deity Viṣṇu, is devatāntara according to the Br. Upaniṣad, the Kena, and the Bhāṣya. An interesting comparison of two Bhāṣya passages:
BGB 9.25: येऽपि अन्यदेवताभक्तिमत्त्वेन अविधिपूर्वकं यजन्तेतेषामपि यागफलं अवश्यंभावि । कथम् ? —

यान्ति देवव्रता देवान्पितॄन्यान्ति पितृव्रताः ।
भूतानि यान्ति भूतेज्या यान्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम् ॥ २५ ॥

यान्ति गच्छन्ति देवव्रताः देवेषु व्रतं नियमो भक्तिश्च येषां ते देवव्रताः देवान् यान्ति । पितॄन् अग्निष्वात्तादीन् यान्ति पितृव्रताः श्राद्धादिक्रियापराः पितृभक्ताः । भूतानि विनायकमातृगणचतुर्भगिन्यादीनि यान्ति भूतेज्याः भूतानां पूजकाः । यान्ति मद्याजिनः मद्यजनशीलाः वैष्णवाः मामेव यान्ति । समाने अपि आयासे मामेव न भजन्ते अज्ञानात् , तेन ते अल्पफलभाजः भवन्ति इत्यर्थः ॥ २५ ॥
Here Shankara says: even those who are devoted to ‘anya devatā-s’ are actually worshiping Brahman alone, but without knowing the truth. And goes on to say: those devoted to deva-s attain to deva-s.  Those devoted to pitṛ-s attain to them, etc. …..Those who propitiate Me, the vaiṣṇava-s attain to Me.
Now in the Kenopanishat 1.5 bhashyam we have the elucidation of the ‘those devoted to deva-s attain to deva-s.’ statement above. In the passage below, Shankara says:
Kenopanishat1.5: कथं न्वात्मा ब्रह्म । आत्मा हि नामाधिकृतः कर्मण्युपासने च संसारी कर्मोपासनं वा साधनमनुष्ठाय ब्रह्मादिदेवान्स्वर्गं वा प्राप्तुमिच्छति । तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति, न त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात् । यथान्ये तार्किका ईश्वरादन्य आत्मेत्याचक्षते, तथा कर्मिणोऽमुं यजामुं यजेत्यन्या एव देवता उपासते । तस्माद्युक्तं यद्विदितमुपास्यं तद्ब्रह्म भवेत् , ततोऽन्य उपासक इति ।
Shankara raises an objection: How can Atman be Brahman? Atman is the one who is qualified to perform action or engage in upsana, a samsārin, intends to employ the means and attain the ‘deva-s’ such as Brahmā or reach svarga. Hence, the upāsya that are Viṣṇu, Iśvara, Indra, or Prāṇa, who are all ‘anya’, different from the Atma (jīva), could be Brahman. These deities cannot be Atman, as none can admit the identity of Atman-Brahman since the difference between the upāsya and the upāsaka is so patent. Also others that are tārkika-s hold the Atma to be different from Ishwara, and the karmin-s too replicate this as they honor the injunctions: propitiate this or another deity by action/yañna. Hence the upāsya is Brahman and the upāsaka is Atma.
Shankara sees this mantra 1.5 of the Kena as the reply this objection: Know / realize that alone to be Brahman that is not something that is meditated upon as ‘another’. And thereby, Brahman is none other than the Atman, the aspirant. Shankara concludes that bhāṣya by implying that as per the mantra, that which is meditated upon as ‘anya’ is abrahma, anātmā. Thus, according to Shankara, the terms ‘anyadevatā, devatāntara, bhinnadevatā’ all are synonyms and mean only those entities who are distinct from the Atman, the nirguna Brahman. Clearly, the deities Vishnu, etc. are all anyadevata-s, devatantara-s and bhinnadevata-s. It also follows that the term ‘vaiṣṇava-s’ of the BGB 9.25 refers to those committed to realize the Nirguṇa Brahman and not to those who are devoted to a deity ‘Viṣṇu.’
Not having grasped these subtle points of Advaita, a scholar of the Ramanuja following, who went on to author a Tamil book: Shankararum Vaiṇavamum, has completely misrepresented Advaita/Shankara and ended up misguiding his gullible readers. On p.7-8 of that Tamil book that can be downloaded from here: http://acharya.org/bk/pb/misc/SankararumVainavamum.pdf  he cites the Shankara commentary for BG 9.25 and concludes that ‘Shankara holds only Viṣṇu as the saguṇa brahman and all deities other than Vishnu to be jiva-s’.  He did not know that for Shankara ‘saguṇa is an effect and inferior.’ So, Shankara is upholding only the antithesis of what this author is ignorantly holding as Shankara’s view. Those who have taken this author as the authority on Shankara/Advaita have propagated that misconception to their gullible readers in turn.
Om Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | September 27, 2017

RUDRA AS THE EIGHT-FOLD UNIVERSAL FORM

Rudra as the Eight-fold Universal Form

An article on the above topic is available here for download:

Om
Posted by: adbhutam | September 22, 2017

AN UPANISHADIC ADVAITIC ETYMOLOGY FOR ‘NRSIMHA’

An Upanishadic Advaitic Etymology for ‘Nr-simha’

The NrsimhaTāpinyupaniṣat has given an etymology to the terms ‘Nr-simha’. Shankara has brought out the purport of this etymology, which occurs as part of the famous Nrsimha Mantra Rāja:
ॐ उग्रं वीरं महाविष्णुं ज्वलन्तं सर्वतोमुखम्।
नृसिंहं भीषणं भद्रं मृत्युमृत्युं नमाम्यहम् ॥

An article that brings out all this and also several other aspects important to Advaita, such as māyā-avidyā identity, is available here for download:

Older Posts »

Categories