Posted by: adbhutam | April 17, 2015

SHANKARACHARYA WAS NOT A VAISHNAVA

Śankarācārya was not a ‘vaiṣṇava’

At the end of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya vārtika, Sri Sureśwarācārya pays obeisance to Shakara, His Guru:

यत्प्रज्ञोदधियुक्तिशब्दनखजश्रद्धैकसन्नेत्रक –
स्थैर्य्यस्तम्भमुमुक्षुदुःखितकृपायत्नोत्थबोधामृतम् ।
पीत्वा जन्ममृतिप्रवाहविधुरा मोक्षं ययुर्मोक्षिणः
तं वन्देऽत्रिकुलप्रसूतममलं वेधोऽभिधं मद्गुरुम् ॥

The translation of the last line, which alone is relevant for the present purpose is:

//I bow to my Guru who is pure, born in the Atri lineage bearing the name of Vedha (the Lord).//

Ānandagiri says on the word ‘vedho’bhidam’: विदधाति इति वेधः तस्याभिधा शंकराख्या यस्य तं वेधोऽभिधं मद्गुरुम्….

[He who creates is ‘vedhaḥ’, his name ‘Śankara’ whose name my Guru bears….]

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?page=1

That name appears in the Śivasahasranāma of the Śivapurāṇa:

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_trial/fortransfer/shivasahasranAmastotrashivapurANa_sa.html

वेधा विधाता धाता च स्रष्टा हर्ता चतुर्मुखः ।

कैलासशिखरावासी सर्वावासी सदागतिः ॥

The name occurs in the Viśṇu sahasra nāma too and Śankara comments it as ‘vidhātā’: The one who creates.

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%83&trans=Translate&direction=AU

There also occurs the name ‘vidhātā’ both in the Shiva as well as the VS. In any case the name has the meaning denoting one or the other function related to creation, sustenance, etc.

At the end of the Taittiriya Upaniṣad Bhāṣya vārtika, Sri Sureśwarācārya pays obeisance to Shakara, His Guru:

…..मस्करीन्द्रप्रणीतस्य भाश्यस्यैतद्विवेचनम् ।

मुमुक्षुसार्थवाहस्य भवनामभृतो यतेः । शिष्यश्चकारतद्भक्त्या सुरेशाख्यो महार्थवित् ॥ ४८,४९ ॥

//This exposition, of the Bhāṣya composed by the foremost among ascetics who takes upon Himself the responsibility of the aspirants, who bears the name of Bhava, is accomplished by his disciple, out of devotion, by name Sureśa, who is a knower of the entire meaning. //

Ānandagiri, commenting on these lines says:

..भगवन्भाष्यकारः तस्य यतीनामग्रेसरस्य भवस्य भगवतो महादेवस्य नाम शंकराख्यं बिभ्रतः तेनैव नाम्ना सर्वत्र प्रख्यातस्य सुरेश्वरसज्ञया लोके विख्यातोऽभूत् ।

[Bhagavān Bhāṣyakāraḥ, who is the foremost among sannyāsins, who bears the name of Bhava, Bhagavān Mahādeva, which is ‘Śankara’, who is well-known everywhere by that name (Śankara), (this disciple) by name Sureśvara, became famous.

From the above two references by Śrī Sureśwarācārya and the gloss of Ānandagiri thereon it is clear that:

  1. The name Śankara’ that the Advaita Bhāṣyakāra bears is decidedly the name of Lord Śiva alone and none else’s. By resorting to etymology one cannot conclude that this is a common name to mean: the one who confers good/auspiciousness/happiness is shankara: śam karoti iti śankaraḥ.
  2. For Sureśwara, the world-creator is Śiva.
  3. Both the names ‘Vedhāḥ (vedhas)’ and ‘Bhava’ occur in the Śivasahasranāma (of the Śivapurāṇa and the Mahābhārata respectively)

In the following blog is an article:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html

 

that says:

//Thus, it is established that Narasimha is the primary form of BhagavAn glorified by the vedas. His names in the veda include (and not limited to) – Narasimha, Manyu, Rudra, Soma, Nilalohita, PinAkI, Sarva, Umapati/Ambikapati, HiranyabAhu, Shankara, Shiva, Shambhu , Ishana, Tryambaka, Kapardin, Pashupati, Ugra and Bhima.

One might wonder that most of these are the names of pArvati pati. Such a doubt need not be entertained. Because pArvati pati has a birth (eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma, nEshana). And he is mentioned to be constantly meditating in the third stage of bhakti yoga, presided by Sankarshana. Since Narasimha avatara is an amsam of Sankarshana and Narasimha perumAl has the balam and jnAna gunams seen in this vyUha mUrthy, it follows that Shiva is always meditating on Narasimha, as evidenced in the case of Ahirbudhnya. And hence, Shiva, being a parama bhakta, bears some of the names of Narasimha only and not vice versa. In the vedas, these names belong to bhagavAn only.//

 

Even though all names are denoting Vishnu for the vaiṣṇavas, they themselves do not bear the names related to Lord Śiva (there is a very specific, explicit, strong prohibition among the followers of Sri Rāmānuja that the masculine and feminine names should not be related to devatāntara, deities other than Viṣṇu and Lakṣmī). Among vaiṣṇavas one cannot see names such as Umāpati, Rudran, Mahādevan, Somasundaram, Nīlakanṭhan, Śambhu, Sāmbaśivan, Subrahmanya, Murugan, Kumaran, Ganapati, Ganesha, Vinayaka, Pārvati, etc. that are immediately recognizable as that of / related to Lord Śiva. They are strongly against the thought of Shiva being invoked by the name they keep to their children and call them. They vehemently claim Shiva’s names to be of Lord Vishnu/Narasimha but abhor those names like an untouchable. Such is their bigotry.

Their avowed aim is to be reminded of the Lord Viṣṇu alone and none else when a name is invoked. நாரணன் தம் அன்னை நரகம் புகாள்! [The mother who names her child after Nārāyaṇa and calls him by that name several times during their life, will never go to hell!) When such is their commitment, how indeed will an ancient, vaidika, vaiṣṇava bear the name ‘Śankara’? They might accept Lord Śiva to be a great vaiṣṇava. But to bear and utter that name is taboo. It is another matter that the Srimadbhāgavatam, Dakṣayajna section, extols the name of the two-letter name: śiva. That section, since is a Śiva stuti, ought not to be a part of the bhāgavatam and therefore has to be banished as an interpolation, just like these people’s futile attempts to do so with the Mahabhārata contents of Shiva stuti and sahasranāma.

Thus, going by this reasoning, the person Bhāṣyakāra, not the Lord Śiva, who bears the name ‘Śankara’ can by no means be a vaiṣṇava. Both the Āzhwars and Sri Vedānta Deśika have written on this very topic: of not taking/keeping names other than Viṣṇu/Lakṣmi. A well-known scholar of the Ramanuja tradition told me this. He cited one exceptional name ‘Iśvara Bhattar’ which too does not amount to the Lord Śiva’s name. Paradoxically this very Sri Vedanta Deśika included Śankara among many others as a vaiṣṇava when he himself has tabooed that name to a vaiṣṇava.

The case of Madhvas is different. Among them one can see names like ‘Manjunatha’, ‘Śiva’, etc. since they hold Śiva to be manaḥkāraka and worship Him for pure devotion to Lord Viṣṇu.

In any case, it is beyond debate and doubt that since Śankara, the Advaita Bhāṣyakāra, bears the name of Lord Śiva, by no means can one conclude that he was a Vaiṣṇava, in the sense the bloggers are making it out. For these bloggers, all ancient vaidikas were vaiṣṇavas by default and subscribed to vaiṣṇavism. They have roped in Shankaracharya into this group to bolster their ill-conceived idea that vaiṣṇavism is the supreme vedic position. That such a proposition is baseless and crumbles in the face of the above facts is what is brought out by this article.

Om Tat Sat

 

Posted by: adbhutam | April 14, 2015

UPANISHAD ARTICLE SERIES – APRIL 2015

The URLs for the latest parts of the article series are –

Prasnopanishat – http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-Prashnopanishat—Part-6.ashx

Mundakopanishat – http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-muNDakopaniShat—Part-16.ashx

Posted by: adbhutam | April 11, 2015

‘SRI VIDYARANYA VIJAYA DUNDUBHI’ – KANNADA

A new Kannada book with the title ‘Sri Vidyāraṇya Vijaya Dundubhi’  has been published recently.  This book, authored by Sri.G.R.Patil, Dharwad, Karnataka, is a third in the line of books on the topic of a supposed debate between the Madhva pontiff Sri Akshobhya Tirtha and Sri Vidyaranya.  The author has strongly denied the very event.  The first book ‘Akshobhya Vijaya Vibhrama’ evoked a lot of reactions and was followed by ‘Sri Vidyāraṇya viṣayaka ākṣepa nirāsa’ and the present book is the third.

The present book is primarily a rejoinder to Sri Raghuvijaya Tirtha of Sri Kudali Arya Akshobhya Tirtha Maṭha, repudiating the objections raised by him on the first book.  It also rejects the views of, and answers the doubts raised by, Sri Viśvanandana Tirtha of Hanosoge Maṭha.  The views of another Madhva are also reviewed and discrepancies thereof disclosed in this new book.

The book of 450 pages in good print is priced at Rs.250 per copy.  Enquiries may be made to: Sri Venkatesh – ph

9036572651, Bangalore.  One may contact this email id too: srinivasan.rbi@gmail.com

I have uploaded two samples from the book: 1. A page titled ‘Bhīmabala’ and 2. The contents page here:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/5o27639fp1itg59/Bheema+Bala.pdf

http://www.mediafire.com/download/djttnth033i9bf8/Dundubhi+contents.pdf

A particular section of the book contains invaluable citations from the shruti, smriti and purāṇas on the topic of ‘nirguṇa, niṣkriya, nirākāra’, etc. Brahman.
Posted by: adbhutam | April 9, 2015

A SHORT VERSE ON SHANKARACHARYA’S LIFE

आर्याम्बाजठरे जनिर्द्विजसतीदारिद्र्यनिर्मूलनं

संन्यासाश्रयणं गुरूपसदनं श्रीमण्डनादेर्जयः ।

शिष्यौघग्रहणं सुभाष्यरचनं सर्वज्ञपीठाश्रयः

पीठानां रचनेति सङ्ग्रहमयी सैषा कथा शांकरी ॥

Here is a condensed rendering of Shankaracharya’s life.

  1. Birth in the womb of Mother Āryāmbā
  2. Removal of the poverty of the noble brahmin housewife (kanakadhārā)
  3. embracing up Sannyāsa
  4. Resorting to the Guru (Govindapāda)
  5. Defeating in debate Sri Mandanamiśra, etc.
  6. Accepting a group of disciples
  7. Composing the eminent commentaries
  8. Ascending the ‘Sarvajñapīṭham’
  9. Establishing the various Āmnāya pīṭhams

The above verse was recited by Br.Sri. Nochur Venkataraman in a talk.

Posted by: adbhutam | April 6, 2015

ŚRĪDHARA SWĀMIN MISREPRESENTED

Śrīdhara Swāmin Misrepresented

Veda Vyāsa, the greatest champion of Hari-Hara abheda and Trimūrti aikya, has upheld this position throughout the purāṇas and the Mahabhārata. All non-vaiṣṇava Achāryas headed by Shankara have followed this sampradāya alone
However the bloggers have been campaigning to distort the message of Veda Vyasa by their machnations:
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html?showComment=1428140161684#c3242663994773118927
//KuTarka vAdi says: From time immemorial, this debate of Shiva or Vishnu is going on. The very truth that there is and there has been debate on this subject shows that people have not understood the grand scheme created by Veda Vyasa for appealing to all type of people to follow the path of Dharma (where Dharma = God).

Well, my dear maharishi, since you understand “the grand scheme” as opposed to us lesser mortals, I suppose that means you are the avatara of some rishi and a cut above us, huh?

firstly, there has been no debate from time immemorial. Yamuna muni clearly states that all vaidikas admitted vishNu alone as Parabrahman. This fact is further reteirated by vedAnta Desika who declares that adi Shankara was a vaishnava. Yes, the same vedanta desikan who also declared that advaita is Buddhism in disguise.//
Response:
The above claim of the blogger is contradicted by Veda Vyasa. Says he in the Sūtasamhitā 4 yajñavaibhavakhaṇḍa, sūtagītā 2nd chapter:
http://www.transliteral.org/pages/z140113230508/view
अस्ति रुद्रस्य विप्रेन्द्रा अन्तःसत्त्वं बहिस्तमः
विष्णोरन्तस्तमः सत्त्वं बहिरस्ति रजोगुणः
[For Rudra it is sattva internal and tamas external. For Viṣṇu it is tamas internal and sattva external.]
अन्तर्बहिश्च विप्रेन्द्रा अस्ति तस्य प्रजापतेः
[For Brahmā it is rajas both internal and external]
अतोऽपेक्ष्य गुणं सत्त्वं मनुष्या विवदन्ति च
हरिः श्रेष्ठो हरः श्रेष्ठ इत्यहो मोहवैभवम्
सत्त्वाभावात्प्रजानाथं वरिष्ठं नैव मन्वते (40 -42)
[Therefore people dispute whether Hari or Hara is greater since they have sattvam. Since Brahma is devoid of sattvam he is not party to the dispute!!]
The above cited last verse says: On the basis of ‘sattva’ of Hari and Hara, deluded people dispute whether Hari or Hara that is superior.

So the debate on Hari-Hara superiority is time immemorial. The idea of purāṇas being composed later is not admissible to the traditionalists; only academicians hold such unorthodox views. The Vaishnava acharyas cited by the blogger are not to be considered authority here since they are known for their bigotry.

Incidentally the above section of the Sūta samhitā is what has likely inspired Sridhara swamin who also says at the end of those verses cited as a ‘challenge’ by the bloggers:
5. // The following padya-section occurs in Sridhara’s commentary on Shlokas 3-8 in the same chapter as a summary of the tattvam (truth) and abhiprayam (learned opinion) of the Rishis:

“guṇāḥ sattvādayaḥ śānta-ghora-mūḍhāḥ svabhāvataḥ
viṣṇu-brahma-śivānāḿ ca guṇa-yantṛ-svarūpiṇām

nāti-bhedo bhaved bhedo guṇa-dharmair ihāḿśataḥ
sattvasya śāntyā no jātu viṣṇor vikṣepa-mūḍhate

rajas-tamo-guṇābhyāḿ tu bhavetāḿ brahma-rudrayoḥ
guṇopamardato bhūyas tad-amśānāḿ ca bhinnatā

ataḥ samagra-sattvasya viṣṇor mokṣa-karī matiḥ
aḿśato bhūti-hetuś ca tathānanda-mayī svataḥ

aḿśatas tāratamyena brahma-rudrādi-sevinām
vibhūtayo bhavanty eva śanair mokṣo’py anaḿśataḥ”

In essence, it says that the trimUrtis are associated with sattvam, rajas, and tamas. From the pAramArthika point of view, these are like reflections of the same reality (vastu) on mAyA (this explanation is as per the tenets of the ‘bimba-pratibimba-vAda’ branch of advaita-matam). Though Vishnu is saguNa and is associated with Sattva, He is in essence the very parabrahman. Hence, He does not display the characteristics of restlessness (rajas) and delusion (tamas). However, the same can not be said of Brahma and Rudra, who are re-reflections of the shuddha-chaitanyam on rajas and tamas, and hence are affected by triguNas. Therefore, one should focus their mind entirely on Lord Vishnu, who is the embodiment of sattva, leading one to liberation. This brings material comfort too as a by-product. Worshipping Brahma or Rudra on the other hand, one only obtains material wealth quickly. They may become moksha-adhikaris only very slowly. Note that this padyam of Sridhara Swami shows clearly what modern-day neo-advaitins have distorted and hidden.//

Response

There is a commentary by Vamśidhara (included in that multi-thousand page book containing several commentaries and available for download too) who has elucidated what Sridhara Swamin says in those verses. He gives the vedantic view of the verses and says that there is no absolute bheda between the trimurtis as they are only associated with guṇas and only on the basis of guṇas there is a difference. Viṣṇu too, by association of rajas and tamas is Brahma and Shiva alone and Shiva too by association with sattva is Vishnu alone and so on. And those who meditate upon Rudra and Brahma as endowed with shuddhasattva forms, they get liberated. And according to Sridhara, says Vamshidhara, it is by taking into consideration that all the three are actually samagra sattva forms that here and there we see statements like: All the three of us are one and the same and those who perceived difference between us will not get peace, etc. And Sridhara says at the end of that set of verses/commentary:

तत्तद्भक्तानां तु कलहो मोहमात्रम् इति SB 10.88.5-7
[‘the disputes between the devotees of trimūrtis, however, is mere delusion.] And Vamṣidhara explains this line as: between devotees of Hari and Hara in the form of: one is superior and the other is inferior – is just ignorance, ajñānam.

The bloggers, while accusing the ‘modern-day neo-advaitins’ of hiding Sridhara’s verses, have themselves dishonestly hidden this crucial ending line of Sridhara which says: the dispute among the bhaktas is mere delusion. This one line completely changes the perception of Sridhara’s verses, elucidated clearly by Vamśidhara. Any reader, by seeing also that last comment of Sridhara will get the correct purport of the verses, not as distorted by the bloggers to make those verses appear disfavoring Rudra and Brahma. While the neo-advaitins’ alleged ‘hiding’ of these verses of Srīdhara does no damage to the Vedāntic and therefore Vedavyāsa’s position of Hari-Hara abheda and Trimurti aikya, it is the cunning hiding of the crucial ending comment of Sridhara Swamin: तत्तद्भक्तानां तु कलहो मोहमात्रम् इति SB 10.88.5-7 [‘the disputes between the devotees of trimūrtis, however, is mere delusion.] is the real damage to the ideal perception one has to have about Sanātana Dharma and the gods thereof.

Also, Veda Vyāsa himself is censuring the bigots such as these bloggers by saying that the dispute between who is superior is mere delusion. Thus Veda Vyasa puts in the dock all the vaishnava Acharyas who held the saguṇa deity Vishnu alone to be supreme as they are ignorant of the purport of the shāstra. Only Shankara has steered clear of such petty thinking and bigotry. None can succeed in proving that Shankara’s usage of names such as Nārayana, Vishnu, Vāsudeva, etc. in the prasthanatraya refers to this deity who is identified and restricted by the vaishnavas as Lakshmipati. Sridhara swamin’s true intentions having been revealed now, the bloggers can never claim his support for their bigotry. In the Mandukya Kārikā bhāshya of Shankara 4.1 we have:

// ज्ञानस्यैव पुनर्विशेषणम् — ज्ञेयैर्धर्मैरात्मभिरभिन्नम् अग्न्युष्णवत् सवितृप्रकाशवच्च यत् ज्ञानम्, तेन ज्ञेयाभिन्नेन ज्ञानेन आकाशकल्पेन ज्ञेयात्मस्वरूपाव्यतिरिक्तेन, गगनोपमान्धर्मान्यः संबुद्धः संबुद्धवान्नित्यमेव ईश्वरो यो नारायणाख्यः, तं वन्दे अभिवादये । द्विपदां वरं द्विपदोपलक्षितानां पुरुषाणां वरं प्रधानम्, पुरुषोत्तममित्यभिप्रायः । उपदेष्टृनमस्कारमुखेन ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वदर्शनमिह प्रकरणे प्रतिपिपादयिषितं प्रतिपक्षप्रतिषेधद्वारेण प्रतिज्ञातं भवति ॥//

Only those who have studied the Advaita darśana under traditional Acharyas can recognize that the Nirguna tattvam is what is being spoken of in the above passage. For Shankara ‘Nārayana’ is the Purushottama tattvam, none other than the Guru tattvam, upadeṣṭṛ. It is the Dakshināmūrti tattvam of Advaita.

Further, Veda Vyasa says in the sūta samhita that the trimurtis are not within the jīvavyūha and are not under ignorance. Sridhara’s verse too says that by the word: guṇa-yantṛ-svarūpiṇām – which means: the three are the masters of their guṇas and not victims. Vamśīdhara too endorses the above view of Veda Vyasa that Rudra is not a jīva.

[Meaning of the word ‘yantṛ’ of the verse विष्णु-ब्रह्म-शिवानां च गुण-यन्तृ-स्वरूपिणाम् of Sridhari for 10.88.5-7 http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=yantR&direction=SE&link=yes&choice=yes ]

The bloggers go about saying that Rudra and Brahma are subject to those gunas. Veda Vyasa contradicts that. Vamśidhara, in the commentary to the Bhāgavatam First canto, 2.23 gives a very long description of the vedantic position by citing several passages from the shruti and smrits to show how there is mention of all the three being born of each other, etc. and what is the purpose behind such contradictory statements in the scripture. There are both shruti and smriti passages to show that Rudra is the source from whom Vishnu and Brahma were born, Brahma is the progenitor of Rudra and Vishnu and Vishnu is the one who brought forth Rudra and Brahma. In fact there is one claim that Rudra was born of Narayana’s wrath (how can Narayana be wrathful, being an embodiment of sattva according to bigots?). There is another mention elsewhere that Rudra is a product of Brahma’s wrath. And then the Praṣnopanishat and bhashya teach that Prajapati (Brahma) is the one appearing in the form of Rudra and Vishnu. Thus there is no finality at all about the so-called ‘birth’ of Rudra, which itself shows that such statements are not to be taken on their face value. Those who have not had traditional teaching of the Vedanta but depend on academic scholars and translations arrive at such faulty conclusions which are no way supported by Veda vyasa.

Thus, form the statements of Veda Vyasa and those who have correctly understood him, there is absolutely no case for the ill-founded, ignorance-based, view that some portions like the Shiva Sahasranama and shiva stutis are interpolations in the MB. It is only a laughable proposition of those outside the vedic sampradaya and wallow in such bigotry. The academic scholars who also dabble in such matters are clearly ignorant of the Vedantic purport, not having had traditional learning, and hence their views are to be rejected as ‘those of a fool’ as Shankara has said in the BGB: asampradāyavit mūrkhavadeva upekṣaṇīyaḥ. They cannot succeed in giving even a single reason that will stand scrutiny for their ‘conclusions’ as to why SS and Shiva stuti cannot and should not be in the MB. The Andhra Bharata (11 – 14 CE) (endorsed as an authentic and dependable work by the author of the Tamil book ‘Shankararum Vaiṇavamum’) and the Bhāratamanjarī (11 CE) amply contain these sections. The Madhvas too admit of the genuineness of this. None can succeed in proving their interpolation in the MB for they will never be able to produce the ‘original’ version of the MB to act as the base reference document. One such scholar said: The MB has been overhauled so many times that it is impossible to say which was the original one that Veda Vyasa wrote. All their reasoning is completely faulty and holds no water in the face of Veda vyasa’s purport captured only by the non-vaishnava commentators that uphold Hari-Hara abheda and Trimūrti aikya. In fact Sridhara swamin’s and Vamśidhara’s comments only eminently endorse Shankara’s commentary on the VS for the names: bhūtakṛt, etc.

Also there is little reasoning in the frivolous argument:
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html

// For your kind information the great Shankara whom you tend claim as Shaiva/Advaitin and what not, has not even bothered to write a commentary on the spurious Siva Sahasranama. Had it really been part of original Mahabharata, why did Shankara choose Vishnu sahasranama and not the Siva Sahasranama (it appears just after Vishnu Sahasranama in the interpolated Mahabharata) This itself is sufficient to prove that your claim is absolutely dubious (BTW, venkat G claims that he knows the mission of Vyasa, WOW. Vyasa and Adi Shankara might be laughing his heart out looking at these pseudo advaitins)//

Let’s see who is being laughed at. First, there is no niyama that Shankara should comment on all the sahasranamas, whether in the MB or elsewhere. None can impose such a rule on any commentator. Secondly, Shankara sees the VS as a document that brings out the nirguna and saguna aspects of Brahman. The deity involved is of little value for the advaitin that Shankara is. That is why he cited verses from Bhavishyottara to show Trimurti aikya (in the introduction to VSB) and from Shivapurana to establish Hari-Hara abheda (for the name Rudra 114). That is the purpose of an advaitin: to establish abheda at every available opportunity. If the VS satisfied this condition, there is no need for Shankara to go about commenting on other lists like the SS. Someone might ask: Why did not Shankara comment on the Lalitāsahasranama, which is also extremely popular? By the same logic of these people one can object and conclude: since Shankara has not commented on several other Upanishads like Maitrāyaṇi, Kaivalyopanishat and dozens of the 108 which advaitins admit, all these un-commented Upanishads are bogus, compositions of some scholars. There is no end to such foolishness. There is an ‘aśokavanikā nyāya’ to demonstrate this myopic vision: Rāvaṇa imprisoned Sītā in a particular garden which is named Aśokavanam. Someone asked: when there were so many gardens at his disposal, why did he place here in that garden?
http://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=a%C5%9Bo&lang=sans&iencoding=deva&action=

अशोकवनिकान्याय
m. the rule of the grove of aśoka – trees (applied to cases in which a preference of any particular thing among many cannot be accounted for, just as rāvaṇa – kept sītā – in an aśoka – grove, but might equally well have kept her in a grove of other trees),

So, Veda Vyasa and Shankara will be laughing at these foolish suggestions. When they had no bheda buddhi between Shiva and Vishnu, the bigots are trying their best to superimpose on them the bheda buddhi and mislead their gullible readers.

The Sūta samhitā verses which have undoubtedly inspired Sridhara Swamin are:

हरिब्रह्मादिदेवान् ये पूजयन्ति यथालम्
अचिरान्न परप्राप्तिेस्तेषामस्ति क्रमेण हि
[Those who worship Hari, Brahma, etc. as dictated by their own ability, will not attain the Supreme (liberation) quickly, but only gradually.]
(Compare this with the last verse cited above from Sridhara Swamin. There Sridhara replaces Hari (above) with Rudra.)
रुद्रं ये वेदविच्छ्रेष्ठाः पूजयन्ति यथाबलम्
तेषामस्ति परप्राप्तिरचिरान्न क्रमेण तु
[Those who worship Rudra as dictated by their own ability, will quickly attain the Supreme (liberation) quickly and not gradually.]
(Compare this with the penultimate verse cited above from Sridhara Swamin. There Sridhara replaces Rudra (above) with Hari.)

The above concept, keeping aside the deity glorified, stands demonstrated in the BG. There the Lord says four types of people seek Him: those seeking relief from distress, those seeking wealth, those after knowledge and those who have realized the Truth. Clearly, the first two categories are not concerned about the Liberation-giving capacity of the Lord; they set their goal to limited ends and approach the Lord to satisfy them. It is not the fault of the Lord that He grants only what they seek on the maxim: ye yathā mām prapadyante tān tathaiva bhajāmyaham [As they seek so they get]

Vamśīdhara has explained that such statements apparently glorifying one deity and denigrating the other are directed at increasing the bhakti of those bhaktas of that deity that is glorified and no more. He calls this by the famous ‘nahi nindā’ maxim where the denigrating of A is not to really put him down but to extol the greatness of B that is being exhorted/enjoined in the text to be worshiped/followed, etc. Hence there is no real difference at all between the trimurtis. This is the view of Vaidikas such as Shankara. Clearly such view is rejected by vaishnava acharyas who are bigots. The very foundation on which they weaved their systems is such bigotry. These views of abheda /aikya are anathema to the bigots and hence they hide those from their gullible readers, hoodwinking them permanently. Since the idea behind such apparently contradictory verses is explained in the above manner (nahi nindā nyāya), all sentences/verses of Sridhara swamin or any other commentator, or Veda Vyasa or anyone anywhere has to be read with this rider / rule that is specified above. Only then the correct understanding of those specific passages will come about. If this ‘nahi nindā’ maxim is not kept in mind while reading those statements, one will be denying himself the right understanding and end up in bigoted views.

I have uploaded some images from Vamśīdhara’s commentary on these URLs:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/y8xxoaenccaw5gv/Vamshidhara+1.2.23.docx
In the above, in Sanskrit, one can read the explanation Vamśidhara has given for the SB 1.2.23, culminating on Trimūrty aikya.

The following three images constitute one document, (Vamśidhara on Sridhara Swamin’s SB 10.88 own verses/commentary) :

http://www.mediafire.com/download/bj45r5k7v2dsssk/Vam%C5%9B%C4%ABdhara+1+SB10%2C88.docx

http://www.mediafire.com/download/vkez3iivlrvhu0k/Vamshidhara+2+SB10.88.docx

http://www.mediafire.com/download/b9mzro4s1gkj8wz/Vamshidhara+3+SB10.88.docx

The blogger also dishonestly tries to portray his school as innocent:
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html

// This interpretation of bhagavad rAmAnuja is why our acharyas, despite insisting Vishishtadvaita as the ultimate truth and refuting other philosophies, never personally attacked Shankara, Madhva, Gaudiyas, etc and had respect for them as Vaishnavas. And we wish to preserve this great trait of sri vaishnava siddhAntha on this blog.//

What a blatant lie!! Ramanujā’s notoriety in personally badmouthing Shankara is there for everyone to see and is only next to unprintable comments of Madhva:
See what badmouthing Ramanuja in his ‘Śrībhāṣyam’ indulged in against Shankara extending to Sureshwara and Sarvajnātman:

//तदिदमौपनिषदपरमपुरुषवरणीयताहेुतुगुणविशेषविरहिणां अनादिपापवासनादूषिताशेषशेमुषीकाणां अनधिगतपदवाक्यस्वरूपतदर्थयाथात्म्यप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमाणवृत्त-तदितिकर्तव्यतारूपसमीचीनन्यायमार्गाणां विकल्पासहविविधकुतर्ककल्ककल्पितमिति न्यायानुगृहीतप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमणवृत्तयाथात्म्यविद्भिः अनादरणीयम् ।//
(as quoted by MM Śrī S.Subrahmaṇya Śāstri in his foreword to the book ‘Upaniṣad bhāṣyam’ published by the Mahesh Research Institute, Varanasi) Ramanuja accuses Shankara (and Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman):

1. As those devoid of appreciation for the auspicious attributes of the Lord (‘kapyāsam’ episode) and hence unfit to be commentators of the Upanishads, etc.
2. As those soaked in immense, beginningless, sinful tendencies
3. As those who are ignorant of fundamentals of epistemology and its application
4. As those who engage in intolerant fallacious argumentation
5. And therefore all right-knowing/thinking people should reject them (Shankara, Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman).

The blogger’s word: bhagavattattvAsahiShNavaH is only a rephrasing of Ramanuja’s: तदिदमौपनिषदपरमपुरुषवरणीयताहेुतुगुणविशेषविरहिणां अनादिपापवासनादूषिताशेषशेमुषीकाणां (aupaniṣada-paramapuruṣa-varaṇīyatāhetuguṇaviśeṣavirahiṇām anādipāpavāsanādūṣitaśemuṣīkāṇām)

Both the blogger and Ramanuja agree that Advaitins starting from Shankara, Sureshwara and Sarvajnātman, up to the present Acharyas, owing to their ‘beginningless sinful tendencies’, are ‘intolerant of the true nature of the Lord’.

Such being the case, the bloggers, in blatant defiance to their Founding Acharya, are putting up Shankara, Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman and others as their brand ambassadors, having realized well that Ramanuja is a failed champion of Vaishnavism. So much for their ‘staunch’ following of their school. They spend a lot of time ‘researching’ advaitic works and write nonsense in the name of ‘authentic’ blogs.

Dishonesty, hiding uncomfortable portions, etc. is the norm of these bloggers. Veda Vyasa, Sridhara Swamin, etc. have clearly revealed these bloggers’ true colors. All those who laud their dishonest and misinterpreted blogs without having the capacity to detect the misinformation and distortions therein, are also grouped under ‘deluded/ignorant’ by Veda Vyasa and Sridhara Swamin. In my earlier articles I have demonstrated how Shankara has cited from a tāmasa purana (a concept which vaidikas do not approve of), the Shiva purana, to establish Hari-Hara abheda in the VSB. Now, it is the turn of Sridhara swamin who brings out the purport of the Sūta Samhita (Skandapurana, also ‘tāmasa’) to establish Hari-Hara abheda and Trimūrti aikya. The pronouncement of both Veda Vyasa and Sridhara Swamin, and by extension, Vamshidhara, that fighting to show this or that deity as supreme is sheer ignorance, immaturity, is very significant. Like anādi avidyā-driven samsāra, the Hari-Hara supremacy dispute is also anādi. Otherwise Veda Vyasa would not include this remark in the Skanda purana and Sridhara swamin would not endorse it. Now, of course, it is one more reason to treat the Skanda purana as ‘tāmasa’ since it openly disallows Vishnu-supremacy!! And now, lo, Sridhara Swāmin has joined that elite club of ‘tāmasa’. Veda Vyasa and Sridhara Swamin have dealt a direct blow to the very mischievous, ill-conceived, ignorance-based, concept: ‘Defending Vaishnavism as the Supreme Vedic position’ as unvedic and void ab intio and therefore untenable.

With this crucial explicit message [तत्तद्भक्तानां तु कलहो मोहमात्रम् इति SB 10.88.5-7] deliberately blocked out, the damage done to the audience of their blogs goes undetected. It is only when pointed out and put in public domain that people will stand warned about such miscreants masquerading as custodians of dharma. That alone is the purpose of this article.

Om Tat Sat

The Keśī sūktam commentary – A travesty of Vedanta

An Etymology for the word ‘Rudra’ – 3

On March 24, 2015, 8.55PM, the blogger resolved firmly, so he thought:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html?showComment=1427346896134#c56213039469556052

//This really is the last one. As I said before, readers can contact us for questions, though I doubt any true neutral has objections.//

Now, after I replied them left and right, not able to stand the rapid fall of their blogs, he hurried to make a response, breaking his earlier resolve, not being able to resist his temptation. In this attempt too he is making such swear-sentences: This shall be our last communication with him. ‘

Says he:

//Also you would notice that there is not *one* place in his refutation where he addresses the keshi sUkta, but again long winding passages of shankara, advaita, etc. //

Response: It is actually the idiotic vyākhyāna on the Kesi sukta that prompted me to reply. Since the authoritative Sayana bhashya is already there, there is no need for me to refute their childish meanderings that they call a ‘vyākhyāna’. Since it is only a vilification of Shiva in the garb of a blog, that I responded by posing uncomfortable questions to them. They have no way of defending those foolish utterings made by them there except indulging in cheap name-calling. That is the way of non-advaitins. All that I have said is about their stupid conclusions on the Kesi sukta and not having the IQ to even understand that, they come out with gibberish.

In my very first response to their mockery of Vedanta in the name of a ‘commentary’ to the Keśī sūktam I had raised the issues. I am making them even more pronounced here:

  • Their premise is that Śiva, who is a sinner, and wept at birth, does not have the capacity to drink the poison and therefore it was Viśṇu who drank, through this sinner, who is a vibhūti, as a vessel, the poison. Thereby Śiva was earning puṇyam and getting his sinful karmas reduced.
  • The above premise has several contradictions from the Vedanta and the facts of the amṛta mathanam episode as reported in the Bhāgavatam.
  • In the Bhāgavatam, Shiva is shown as giving the liberating knowledge to sages who are seekers of liberation, while the devas, with none to protect them from the onslaught of the hālahala poison sought his refuge and protection. Thus Śiva is the Jagadguru, according to the Bhāgavatam itself in the dakṣayajña episode.
  • If Śiva is presented as a teacher of liberating knowledge, he himself must be a knower of that Jnānam.
  • The very dawn of Jnānam, according to the BG 4.19 and 4.37 which explicitly teach that all karmas are burnt: यस्य सर्वे समारम्भाः कामसङ्कल्पवर्जिताः । ज्ञानाग्निदग्धकर्माणं तमाहुः पण्डितं बुधाः ॥ १९ ॥ and यथैधांसि समिद्धोऽग्निर्भस्मसात्कुरुतेऽर्जुन । ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकर्माणि भस्मसात्कुरुते तथा ॥ ३७ ॥
  • The Brahmasutra ‘तदधिगम उत्तरपूर्वाघयोरश्लेषविनाशौ तद्व्यपदेशात् 1.13 says: upon realizing the Highest Truth, there is no contact with future actions and with regard to past actions, they have been destroyed, since there is the teaching to this effect.’ So, when Shiva is a vedantic jnani, there is no karma left for him to cleansed. Since the sutra teaches that his future actions do not affect him, that is, add to his karma, the claim of the bloggers that the drinking of the poison earns him puṇya is also falsified by the Vedanta sutra. Further, the bloggers could not realize the illogical consequence of their claim. When it was really Viṣṇu who drank the poison, there is no way Śiva can earn puṇya. This defect is apart from the fundamental Vedantic bar on such earning of puṇya. This defect is called asambhava doṣa, the very suggestion that a Jnāni earns puṇya is impossible according to the Vedanta.
  • The Taittiriya Upaniṣad teaches that the Jnāni will not have the regret : किमहं साधु नाकरवम्, किमहं पापमकरवमिति… [Why did I not perform good deeds, why did I engage in sinful deeds?] since he sees all actions as no different from the Atman itself:

So, even by the Taittiriya teaching, Śiva has no karma left to be cleansed or even the urge to cleanse. So, if Viśṇu desired that Śiva earn puṇyam and get cleansed by drinking the poison which really he did not, then Viśṇu is acting as someone who is ignorant of Vedanta. He is contradicting his own words: Vedāntakṛt vedavideva chāham of the BG (I am the initiator of the system of disseminating the Vedantic knowledge and am the knower of the Veda).

Thus by all the pramāṇas of the prasthāna traya, the premise of the blogger is contradicted and therefore does not stand scrutiny by knowers of the Vedanta. They have provided a fine example by that ‘Commentary’ to what Ramanuja said while badmouthing Shankaracharya in his Śrībhāṣyam:

अनधिगतपदवाक्यस्वरूपतदर्थयाथात्म्यप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमाणवृत्त-तदितिकर्तव्यतारूपसमीचीनन्यायमार्गाणां विकल्पासहविविधकुतर्ककल्ककल्पितमिति न्यायानुगृहीतप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमणवृत्तयाथात्म्यविद्भिः अनादरणीयम्

[Those who are ignorant of fundamentals of epistemology and its application, those who engage in intolerant fallacious argumentation – And therefore all right-knowing/thinking people should reject them ]

A beautiful tribute indeed the bloggers have paid to their Acharya by composing that dirty document on the Rg.vedic Keśi sūktam.

I had both explicitly and implicitly made all the above contradictions in my very first response. Not having the brains to understand that, since they gloated on the thought that they had achieved something great by writing that ‘commentary’, they say that I have not raised a ‘single’ objection to their commentary.

Here are some more responses to their comments:

//Answer: As usual, twist what is written. The antaryAmin in advaita is iSvara who is nirguNa brahman in essence. Here, Shankara identifies vishNu as “rudrAtmaNa” because tamas is a quality possessed by Vishnu *as the inner self* of Rudra. Thus, it shows he does not possess tamas directly, rather it is Rudra who possesses tamas and hence by virtue of antaryAmitvam, it is referred to Vishnu. Similarly for rajas, Shankara uses “virincarUpEna” which clearly means vishNu has rajas through the form of Brahma. Again, it is Brahma who creates through rajas. Vishnu through the form of Brahma also implies antaryAmitva but here “rUpena” is used as opposed to “AtmaNa” since creation is literally a transformation of brahma’s body. //

Response: The bloggers must be cursing their fate now. Their first folly, they did not realize it then, was to promote the idea that the VS bhaṣya is genuinely that of Shankara. And they followed it by citing from it hoping that it will help their ulterior motive of projecting Shiva as a tāmasa devatā, purely driven by their own tamoguṇa which is overflowing all over their blogs. Now let me address the issue here, only hoping that they grow even a little bit of brain by succeeding to understand this:

  1. रजोगुणं समाश्रित्य विरिञ्चिरूपेण…
  2. तमोगुणम् आस्थाय स रुद्रात्मना..
  3. सत्त्वगुणम् अधिष्ठाय भूतानि

Now notice the three lyabanta avyayas Shankara has used that I have underlined: All the three words mean the same: 1. By resorting to, 2. By standing in it, literally, or ‘firmly taking up’ and 3. By keeping it as the basis. And in all the three cases, the lyabanta applies, relates, to Viṣṇu only, ekakartṛkatvam. It denotes that A, upon doing xxxx, does yyyy. Viṣṇu, by resorting to the three gunas is engaging in the three acts. None can break the above grammar rule and show any other anvaya to those sentences. And he does this not by using Rudra and Brahma as instruments (‘vessel’?), as the blogger mistakenly thinks, but as themselves. This tṛtīyā vibhakti is called ‘itthambhāve’. One example where Shankara uses this form of the instrumental case is the Taittiriya bhāṣya for the upanishadic words: ‘brahmaṇā vipaściteti’. The context and meaning there is: The Atmajnāni, in Advaita, is Brahman itself. The Upanishad says: सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह, ब्रह्मणा विपश्चितेति. While this sentence can mean: that jnani will enjoy all bhogas along with Brahman (brahmaṇā saha), in advaita there are no two entities in mokṣa. So, Shankara uses that instrumental case in which Brahman is used in the sentence as: As Brahman, that is, being non-different from Brahman, he enjoys all bhogas. For the how and what ‘enjoyment’ here means, one can look into the bhashya. The point that is made here, in this VS context is: Vishnu as Rudra and as Brahmā engages in the respective acts. As for himself, there is no need to mention as it is popular that Vishnu is one among the trimurtis, and hence Shankara does not use the tṛtīyā. The pronoun ‘sa’used by the bhāṣhyam only in respect of Rudra, is to be applied in the other two cases too. It is for any intelligent reader, which definitely the blogger is not, to supply it along with the tṛtīyā ṭhere and understand the bhāṣyam. Thus, the one Brahman, as the trimurtis, engages in those acts, with the necessary guṇas. Shankara nowhere says here ‘as the inner self’. Rudrātmanā does not mean ‘as the inner self of Rudra’ but ‘as Rudra’ as I have explained above. There is a famous verse we recite everyday: namaḥ savitre jagadekachakṣuṣe jagatprasūti-sthiti-nāśahetave. trayīmayāya triguṇatmadhāriṇe, virinchi-nārāyaṇa-shankarātmane, which too gives the same meaning explained above.

Here are just two more instances from Shankara for the usage of the ‘itthambhāve tṛtīyā’: अविकृतस्यैव ब्रह्मणो जीवात्मनावस्थानं ब्रह्मात्मना चेति ; न चैवंरूपस्योत्पत्तिरुपपद्यते [The existence of Brahman, without undergoing any transformation, as the jīvātman and brahmātman; and it would be unreasonable that such an entity is created/born.] BSB 2.3.17 and Shankara cites several passages in support of this. One can read the bhāṣyam for all details. What is shown in this citation is: Brahman exists as the jivātman (not as the inner self of the jiva) and as Brahman itself, and not as the inner self of Brahman.

तत्प्रवेशाच्च; ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ (तै. उ. २-६-१) इति च तस्यैव जीवरूपेण शरीरप्रवेशं दर्शयति । [Tai.up.bhāṣyam 2.1.1]. [Since Brahman has ‘entered’ ‘having created It entered that which has been created. Tai.up.2.6.1) Here too Shankara uses the jīvarūpeṇa in the itthambhāve tṛtīyā, as verily the jiva, not as the inner self. In advaita, Brahman itself, owing to ignorance of Its own nature, appears to be a samsārin and owing to self-knowledge appears to be liberated.

I provided these usages just to show that Shankara has done exactly that in the above VS bhāṣyam: Brahman itself, as Rudra, as Brahmā and as Viṣṇu, engages in the creation, etc. acts, assuming those guṇas. Thus, it is sheer ignorance, bigotry and mischief on the part of the bloggers to draw Shankara into their game of vilification of Shiva.

//Whereas, for protection, Shankara says “sattva prathishtaya” showing vishnu is verily saguna brahman. There is no “vishNu rupEna” or “visNorAtmana”. //

Response: I had already addressed this in an earlier blog. Yet, let me offer them solace: In the Praśnopaniṣad bhāṣya 2.9 gloss, Anandagiri, which the blogger happily cited as authority, says: ‘viṣṇvādirūpeṇa’. In that bhāṣya too Shankara employs this itthambhāve tṛtīya only:

किंच, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, तेजसा वीर्येण रुद्रोऽसि संहरन् जगत् । स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः सौम्येन रूपेण. The construct of the mantra itself is such, in the case of rudra it says tejasā. ‘You, O Prāna, are Rudra, destroying the worlds.’ Shankara follows exactly the construct and applies it to the rakṣaṇa act too even though the mantra just said: परिरक्षिता without even specifying ‘as whom/what’. ‘You alone are the protector/preserver of the world as the benign-form (ed Viṣṇu).’ It is not meant or said by the mantra that Prāṇa is a different entity and Rudra and the unnamed Viṣṇu are different entities.

So, there is nothing special in Shankara, in the VS, not adding that suffix for viṣṇu. And there is not a little bit of a suggestion by Shankara that Vishnu is the saguṇa Brahman because of his doing his act with sattva upādhi. In fact, the blogger’s suggestion is detrimental to himself: the sagunabrahman in advaita is the one that is responsible for all the acts, and not just preservation. So the three gunas equally apply to the saguna Brahman, as upādhis with which it functions. Let the blogger hide his face somewhere for not getting any relief from their much-touted Shankara. Their much hoped for ‘protection’ does not come from Shankara. It is just their ‘āśāmodaka’ (a sweetmeat that just remains in one’s imagination, a castle in the air). Here is what Shankara says in the BGB:

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । सप्तमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १२

ये चैव सात्त्विका भावा राजसास्तमसाश्च ये ।
मत्त एवेति तान्विद्धि न त्वहं तेषु ते मयि ॥ १२ ॥

ये चैव सात्त्विकाः सत्त्वनिर्वृत्ताः भावाः पदार्थाः, राजसाः रजोनिर्वृत्ताः, तामसाः तमोनिर्वृत्ताश्च, ये केचित् प्राणिनां स्वकर्मवशात् जायन्ते भावाः, तान् मत्त एव जायमानान् इति एवं विद्धि सर्वान् समस्तानेव । यद्यपि ते मत्तः जायन्ते, तथापि न तु अहं तेषु तदधीनः तद्वशः, यथा संसारिणः । ते पुनः मयि मद्वशाः मदधीनाः ॥

7.12 Ye bhāvāh, those things; sāttvikāḥ eva, that indeed are made of (the quality of) sattva; and ye rajasah, those that are made (of the quality) of rajas; and tāmasāḥ, those that are made of (the quality of) tamas-whatever things are made (of sattva, rajas and tamas) according to the creatures’s own actions: viddhi, know; tān, them, all without exception; mattah eva iti, to have sprung from Me alone when they come into being. Although they originate from Me, still, tu, however; aham, I; am na tesu, not in them-I am not subject to them, not under their control, as are the transmigrating bengs. Te, they, again; mayi, are in Me, subject to Me, under My control.

When the lord has categorically said the above, there is now way one can say that ‘as rudrātmā the lord is subject to tamas, as brahmā the lord is subject to rajas, etc.’

So, none of the three gunas, including the sattva, is attributable to Brahman, even when it is shown as the source of the creation.

Not having an answer for my question:

//The queer logic of the bloggers gets exposed here too. They want all heroic acts like drinking the poison to be attributed to Vishnu but do not want the ‘tāmasa’ attribute to go to him. If Shiva is a vibhuti of Vishnu, as the bloggers claim, in drinking the poison, why and how does the same Shiva cease to be a vibhuti, that too when it is Vishnu, according to Shankara, that bears the tamoguna while engaging in destruction or while weeping?//

the blogger utters some ‘blah blah blah’.

//He can never succeed in showing just one, let alone plenty, reference in support of ‘Rudra was weeping’ during the amrtha mathanam.’ Quite contrary to the claims of the bloggers, the very Bhagavatam describes the state of Shiva when the devas, finding themselves

ANSWER: Ignoramus, we never said rudra was crying during the samudra mathanam. The significance of the rk using the name “rudra” as opposed to Shiva or girisha is to show that Shiva is an entity with papa karmas as he cried *during birth*. And hence, swallowing the poison is something that accrues merit for him, something that he cannot do independently. The rk simply points out that the same being who cried during birth due to karmas has now been elevated.//

Same case, blah, blah, blah. They do not have an answer to my objection that the divine names given to Rudra to cleanse him have not been useful at all. Also, the Atmajnāni that Rudra is, is beyond any karma that requires cleansing or acquiring merit. They simply do not have any answers to these. So, they just glossed over those portions. All this only proves that their fundamental thesis of the Kesi suktam blog, vilifying Rudra as one who weeps, is ab initio void; it is contradicted by the Brahmasutra and the Taittiriya Upanishad I have cited regarding the status of the Vedantic Jnāni’s punya-papa.

//So, you are sad no true advaitin has written a commentary on keshi sukta?//

You have no definition of a ‘true advaitin’. Your ‘true advaitin’ (who also has to be a vaishnava) Shankara has been badmouthed by Ramanuja as a sinner. And that very ‘vaishnava’ Shankara has established Trimurti aikya and hari-hara abheda in the VSB, much to your consternation and ditched you. Disappointed, after I exposed these, you are caught like a rabbit in a trap, launching into an irrelevant rambling. And now are trying to take a by-lane route to Sridhara swamin, who is only commenting there, before, and not after, the swallowing of the poison. Even Shuka never said anything about Vishnu’s ‘grace’ in Shiva’s swallowing. There is absolutely no proof for you from any quarter of advaitins, of whatever period, to support your theory of the keśi suktam.

//For, you forget Sridhara’s statement in the bhagavata purana in the commentary for verse 8.7.21 where the devas begin their prayer to the antaryAmin of shiva:

“nirguNa saguna caiva siva hariparAkramaih
stuvantastu prajesAnA nAmayantAntaram tayoH”

Shiva is praised with the parAkrama of Hari. This is the clear statement of Sridhara who elsewhere also clarifies rudra is a vishnu bhakta who is under tam guNa upAdhIs. //

The correct form of the verse cited above is:

Nirguṇam saguṇam chaiva shivam hariparākramaiḥ

Stuvantastu prajeśānā na amanyanta antaram tayoḥ

What it means is: By doing the stuti of Śiva who is both nirguṇa and saguṇa, through the exploits of Hari, the devas are expressing that they do not see any difference between the two: Śiva and Hari.

The blogger has no brains to understand this and is claiming the support of Sridhara who is actually dealing a death-blow to the bloggers. Sridhara is bringing out the purport of Vyāsa/Śuka’s hari-hara abheda through the hymns of the devas. The praising of Śiva with the exploits of Hari only means, reiterates, the MB verse I had cited earlier:

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्। 12.350.27 a लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। “ b It is one Truth that treads the world in the twin-form of Rudra and Narayana….

So, like what the bloggers are imminent of doing: discard Shankara from their list of supporters, now it is Sridharaswamin’s turn to be checked out. None of the Advaitins, of whichever period, can be expected by the bloggers to support their foolish ideas.

In the very next verse of the Bhāgavatam there, according to Sridhara swamin too, the trimurti aikya is what is brought out. The non-advaitic ideas of identity, which is only a dilution, as per Shankara in the VS introduction, have no place in the Vedanta.

//You can rant or twist their words but truth will always prevail.//

You can try to fool your readers. But the truth that those authors were true Advaitins and not bigots will always prevail.

//Unfortunately for you, that “shiva” term specified as paramakaranam is also a common noun and applicable to narayana only. So Shankara used it directly to denote Hari. Makes all the more sense since he was commenting on Vishnu sahasranama. Ancient advaitins have several times taken shiva as a common noun.//

Unfortunately for you, it need not apply to ‘narayana’ only. The Paramakāranam is not any deity. Shankara used it to denote the entity of the VS only because for Shankara all deities, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are non-different. He has already established this in a long discussion at the introduction to the VSB itself. Show me the instances of ancient advaitins taking ‘Shiva’ as a common noun. I have myself shown several instances where Shankara uses the word ‘shivam/shiva/shivā’ to denote something auspicious, blissful, etc. as it happens in the Mandukya 7th mantra and other bhāsyas. And Sridhara swamin too, in the verse cited in the foregoing says that the devas did not approve of the difference between Hari and Hara. So, you have nothing to say against the Shivapuranam’s shiva-specfic eight names with there.

//The reason is because the rk reminds us that rudra wept as he had papa karmas and hence shows – 1) he is not paramatma, 2) he thus does not have the power to do things independently, 3) He requires the help of keSi, ie, vishNu to swallow the poison, 4) He gained punya from the incident, ie such deeds of rudra give him merit.//

These are not reasons but only hetvābhāsas. 1. The bhāgavatam shows that Rudra is paramātmā and the devas do not approve of any difference between Hari and Hara (8.7.21) according to Sridhari. 2. From no.1 it follows that he has the power to do all things independently. 3. Not at all. Vishnu offered no help to Shiva to swallow the poison. It is only your imagination. 4. A Jnani who is imparting liberating knowledge while the devas took refuge under him, has no need to gain any punya. Do not blurt out unvedantic ideas here. Read the Brahmasutra and the Taittiriya I had cited for this. You are only making a fool of yourself by such cheap, bigoted ideas.

//Answer: Because 1) Shankara gives that etymology for Vishnu and the bhAShya is for vishNu sahasranAma, 2) Rudra is a created being who was given this name as he cried due to birth, 3) Rudra cannot grant moksha.//

1)For Shankara, the entity of the VS is not necessarily Vishnu, one of the trimurtis. For him both Vishnu and Shiva are the same paramakāraṇam 2) But that name, as the etymology goes, is the name of Vishnu. The name(s), you have claimed, are those of Bhagavan: //Of course, these are also bhagavad nAmAs. He has named himself out of devotion for Narasimha who possesses these names.// http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/interpretation-of-brahmanas-not-easy.html Thus, the etymology ‘because he cried’, applies to Bhagavan primarily. You cannot change the etymology of the same word when applying to Bhagavan and Rudra. See how that etymology ‘because he wept’ fits perfectly fine to Bhagavan as Rāma (cited from Valmiki who uses the same root to form the word ‘rudan’, see below).

You say // What I meant here is that though the slokas are nestled in a section of the shiva purana which has a tAmasa context, the actual meaning of the sloka, which is nothing but a general etymology of names, is sAttvika and hence can be used in the right vaidika manner. “sAttvika” is defined as that which imparts right knowledge and defining the term “rudra” as destroyer of misery is quite correct.//

Shiva, Rudra, did destroy the misery that the devas faced, by containing the poison. Why does not the etymology apply here? After all Shankara has given this etymology. How does this etymology not become a ‘right vaidika manner’ when applied to Shiva containing the poison? Instead of ‘remembering’ Rudra’s crying, why not remember this act in the so-called Kesi suktam commentary and use the above etymology ?

3) When the Mundaka Upanishad 3.2.1 teaches that even a Jnani can be worshiped for moksa why not Rudra? Sridhara Swamin has shown in 8.7.21 that the devas did not approve of difference between Hari and Hara. It is jnanam that results in mokṣa and it is not ‘granted’ by anyone. When one has the necessary means for it, jnanam arises liberating the jnani. So, the childish, bigoted, ideas that ‘one alone and not any other can ‘grant’ moksha’ is to be discarded as unvedic. Sridhara swamin raises a question in 8.7.23 and answers: 8.7.23:

ननु एवंभूतो विष्णुरिति प्रसिद्धं तत्राहुः, गुणमय्येति. अस्य जगतो यदा सर्गादीन्धत्से तदा हे भूमन्, स्व-दृक्स्वतःसिद्धज्ञानः त्वं ब्रह्मादिसंज्ञां धत्से.

[Is it not that the one that is the cause of bondage and liberation popularly known to be Viśṇu? In answer to this the verse says: When engaged in the creation, etc. of the world, then, You, O Infinite One, the Omniscient one, bear the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva.] Thereby Sridhara is suggesting that the stuti applies to Shiva directly: you, as Viṣṇu, are bandha-mokṣa kartā. This verse also brings out the fact that One entity, nirguna, it has no name, and that is what is praised here, takes the three names. For, there will be nothing special in this verse if Viṣṇu is the one praised and he ‘taking’ the names of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, through māyā which is shown by the word ‘guṇamayyā’ in the verse. So, this is a fine example of the Advaita prakriyā that Sridhara is bringing out by his own verse in the preceding commentary, ’saguṇam, nirguṇam chaiva shivam …’ where nirguna Brahman, in association with māyā, becoming Iśwara, bears the three names. This is what is done by Shankara for the bhūtakṛt, etc. words of the VS.

So, Scripture denounces the idea that ‘Rudra cannot grant mokṣa. Why would anyone listen to you or your Acharyas leaving out the unbigoted scriptural works of others? The bhāgavatam shows Shiva as imparting the liberating knowledge when the devas approach him and take refuge and engage in stuti.

//That etymology is used for vishNu in Vishnu Sahasranama. Foolish to even claim vishnu sahasranAma which starts with kim ekam daivataM. is nirguNa Brahman//

The ‘Rudra’ etymology is manifold and Shankara gives several of them in 114. And since he has no bheda between Hari and Hara he gives the etymology from the Shivapuranam as paramakāranam. Read Shankara’s bhashya for ‘kim ekam daivataM’ verse and get the joy of Shankara ditching you doubly: 1. The entity in that verse is Nirguna Brahman and 2. And that none needs to ‘grant’ mokṣa: yasya vijṇāna mātreṇa ānandalakṣaṇo mokṣaḥ prāpyate – ‘By just gaining the direct knowledge of that Nirguna Brahman the liberation characterized by bliss is attained’. In the BSB too Shankara has said: tadanugraha-hetukenaiva hi jnānena mokṣa siddhir bhavitumarhati: by the knowledge that can arise only by the grace of Ishwara does liberation takes place. And it is common knowledge that ‘grace’ is available only to him who has the necessary means and not other. In any case, for Shankara, mokṣa is not ‘granted’ by any deity.

// Shiva crying due to karmas is an indication of his knowledge of his true nature. It is actually a praise of his ability to recognise the truth.//

Exactly like Rāma did as taught by Valmiki. He cried, ‘rudan’, says Valmiki, acknowledging Rāma’s knowledge of his true nature. . It is actually a praise of his ability to recognise the truth. While Rudra realized his true nature soon upon birth, Rāma did that much later. (do not think you alone can play tricks)

See those verses here:

Aranya Kandam sarga 63:

स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः।
उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।

विपुले शोके in intense grief, निमग्नः plunged, सः that, रामः Rama, सशोकम् with sorrow, रुदन् crying, शोकवशाभिपन्नम् who was caught in sorrow, लक्ष्मणम् Lakshmana, उष्णम् hot, विनिश्वस्य sighing, व्यसनानुरूपम् in his grief, वाक्यम् these words, उवाच said.

[Here is where the blogger’s (corrected) etymology for the word ‘Rudra’ perfectly fits Rāma, who as Viṣṇu has a name ‘Rudra’ in the VS.]

Plunged in deep grief, Rama heaved hot sighs and said these words to griefstricken Lakshmana, weeping:

न मद्विधो दुष्कृतकर्मकारी मन्ये द्वितीयोऽस्ति वसुन्धरायाम्।
शोकेन शोको हि परम्पराया मा मेति भिन्दन्हृदयं मनश्च।।3.63.3।।

वसुन्धरायाम् on earth, मद्विधः like me, दुष्कृतकर्मकारी who undertakes forbidden acts, द्वितीयः second person, नास्ति not, मन्ये I think, शोकेन grief, शोकः grief, परम्परायाः continuously, हृदयम् heart, मनश्च mind also, भिन्दन् shattered, माम् my, एति हि is befalling.

I think there is none on earth like me who has performed such forbidden acts. One grief after the other is successively piercing my heart and my mind.

पूर्वं मया नूनमभीप्सितानि पापानि कर्माण्यसकृत्कृतानि।
तत्रायमद्यापतितो विपाको दुःखेन दुःखं यदहं विशामि।।3.63.4।।

मया by me, पूर्वम् in the past, नूनम् certainly, अभीप्सितानि dear to me, पापानि कर्माणि sinful deeds, असकृत् often, कृतानि done, तत्र there, अद्य now, विपाकः consequence of that, आपतितः has descended, यत् since, अहम् I, दुःखेन by sorrow, दुःखम् sorrow, विशामि I am entering.

In the past I had certainly done some sinful deeds I often liked the consequences of which have descended on me now as I am experiencing one sorrow after another. [Here is where the ‘anapahatapāpmatvam’ (lack of freedom from sins) of Rāma is brought out by Himself. The blogger’s tirade on Shiva in the śatapathabrāhmaṇa is replayed, and returned with compliments by Vālmiki, with some changes though, in this episode of the Rāmāyaṇa.]

राज्यप्रणाशस्स्वजनैर्वियोगः पितुर्विनाशो जननीवियोगः।
सर्वाणि मे लक्ष्मण शोकवेगमापूरयन्ति प्रविचिन्तितानि।।3.63.5।।

लक्ष्मण Lakshmana, राज्यप्रणाशः loss of kingdom, स्वजनैः kith and kin, वियोगः separation from, पितुः father, विनाशः death, जननीवियोगः separation from mother, सर्वाणि all, प्रविचिन्तितानि thinking over, मे I, शोकवेगम् fast increase sorrow, आपूरयन्ति greater measure.

O Lakshmana, loss of kingdom, separation from kith and kin, death of father, separation from mother–all these thoughts augment my sorrow faster and in greater measure.

If Nārāyaṇa can enact the poison-drinking to merely make Śiva gain popularity and applause, so too Śiva can enact the weeping and thereby give credit and fame to Nārāyaṇa’s names that Śiva ‘allowed’ to ‘cleanse’ him. After all, the two are non-different. They love, respect, and glorify each other.

// We didn’t think you were that stupid enough to think we claimed rudra was still crying!//

That is what you have eminently, subtly, done in your commentary. That is the fundamental premise of your thesis. If not the physical crying, the cause of it, the pāpa karma, continues during the churning episode and that pāpi is giving out the liberating knowledge to mumukṣus. Therefore, the mumukṣupūjya Jnāni (mundakopanishat) is a pāpi in your tāmasic eyes. Only because you realized your stupidity you went all over to make an extra comment recalling those words and trying to give a ‘clarification’. You are well exposed now. Only bigots and avaidikas will enjoy reading the stuff you churn out and applaud them. Others will quickly point out the blunders there and inform the world at large about them.

//Additionally let us clarify one thing. Sayana/Vidyaranya and Appayya were of the same ilk. By their time shaiva philosophy had penetrated into advaita. So their commentaries hold no water and are not a pramANa to justify practices of ancient advaitins.//

Why leave out Madhusudana? Is he not of the same ilk by his commentary to the Shivamahimnastotra and declaring Hari-Hara abheda at the end by specific verses on abedha/aikya? And he says in a verse, at the end of the 15th ch. of his Gita commentary:

शैवाः सौराश्च गाणेशा वैष्णवाः शक्तिपूजकाः। भवन्ति यन्मयाः सर्वे सोहमस्मि परः शिवः ||

[The free translation of the above verse is: I am that Supreme Brahman, Para Shiva, that is what all the worshipers of Shiva, Surya, Ganesha, Vishnu and Shakti become finally as a result of their worship.]

MS is including vaishnava as just one of the many. So, he too joins the above ‘ilk’, just like Shankara did by citing those uncomfortable verses from the ‘wrong’ sources in the VSB. There is no way you can find out the practices of ‘ancient’ advaitins. If ‘ancient’ advaitins practices which were characterized by worshiping the Śhaṇmata devatas’ were not ‘avaidika’, in the eyes Ramanuja, he would not have found the need to rebel against it. Actually the Bhāmati, itself has paid obeisance to Shiva and Subrahmanya, Ganapati, Surya in his invocatory verse. He also says that all these are worshiped by the ‘whole world’ – viśvavandyān.  So, at the time of Bhagavatpada these deities have been worshiped and were acceptable. Just because of this verse you would not accept the author of the Bhāmati as an advaitin (you have no business to comment on his writing on other shāstras apart from Vedānta) but that does not affect the advaitins, of all times. For you all these, Vidyaranya / Sayana who wrote the Veda bhāṣya, Appayya Dikshita and Madhusudana and Vācaspati misra and every other advaitin who expressed devotion to any deity other than Vishnu, are all avaidikas, along with Shankara who criticized the pāncarātra as veda nindā in the BSB and rejected it in the Daśaślok too, is also avaidika. And Madhusudana is avaidika on this extra count: he wrote the siddhāntabindu on the Daśaśloki, acknowledging it as that of Shankara. Thus all these are also tāmasa-s for they praised tāmasa devatās. Fanatics alone are saattvikas. What heights of bigotry!!

//Answer: haha. Now who denies that the context of a tAmasa purana is a tAmasa devata?//

That devatā to which Krishna prayed for progeny by worshiping through the thousand names? The campaign to dub this incident as an interpolation in the MB holds no water.

Also, how can the ‘tāmasa devatā’ have ‘sattva’ names? And those names given to that devatā in that context will not suddenly gain a different color when removed from the ‘context’ and planted elsewhere. No one but bigots like you will resort to such foolish practices and call it ‘vaidika’. Shankara never did that.

// Vaidikas are least bothered about context in a tamasa purana.What we meant is the select bunch of slokas talking about etymology are also quoted by srI vaishnava acharyas as they contain general meanings.//

What an irresponsible slur on ‘vaidikas’ from someone whose school has been refuted as ‘vedanindā’ by Shankara in the Brahmasutra!! No vaidika worth his salt will throw to the winds the context, prakaraṇam. And the concept of tāmasa purāṇa itself is avaidika to which Shankara does not subscribe. The criterion for a tāmasa purana is: ‘it holds someone other than Vishnu to be the supreme.’ Clearly only avaidikas who are bigots, adhere to that criterion and never Shankara.

Where does this verse, for example, there: शिवतत्त्वादिभूम्यन्तं शरीरादि घटादि च। व्याप्याधितिष्ठति शिवस्तस्माद्विष्णुरुदाहृतः . contain a ‘general meaning’? It is so very clear to anyone that it is about Shiva who is called Vishnu by that etymology. If any Acharya has discarded rules like context and prāyapāṭha (the other similar verses along with which the one picked out is also placed there), he is doing it out of ignorance of the methods. And it is again ignorance to give the go by to rūḍhi. Here, the verses are all applied to Shiva whose eight names, who by rūḍhi, prasiddhi, refers to parvatipati, and the Pāśupata yoga that is taught there. Not just that, there is upabṛhmaṇam of important vedic passages too. Ignoring these is sheer ignorance. Shankara has not done that. For, he has already declared the aikyam of Shiva and Vishnu, as the Bhagavatam has done, on the lines of the MB, and hence the entity of the VS is paramakāraṇam called by the name ‘Rudra’. And Shankara cites the Shivapuranam for, the Rudra nāma is prasiddha only as Parvatipati. So, it is wrong to cover up the mistake of the erring acharyas by taking the name of Shankara.

// Whereas, Shankara does not quote tales of lingodbhava, sharabha, pasupata aradhana etc precisely because those stories cannot be interpreted any other way; they are tamas.//

Why not? Shankara in several verses in the Śivānandalahari has alluded to the story of Brahmā and Viṣṇu competing to find out the svarūpa of Śiva, just as Veda Vyasa has done. Just because you, for this very obvious reason, do not hold this text to be of Shankara, and thereby use Shankara, despite his being a sinner for Ramanuja, for piggyback on, why would the followers of Shankara take your word? You hoped that just the VSB of Shankara is supporting you. Now that it is exposed that even the VSB has only ditched you, along with Sridhara swamin, you are left with no friend in your opponent’s camp to support your bigotry.

// What I meant here is that though the slokas are nestled in a section of the shiva purana which has a tAmasa context,//

You can never prove the above, for that very section has enough verses to show that the sādhana and yoga taught there are not in any way avaidika. Those are not in any way different from the practices of any puja, dhyanam, japam, etc. Shankara in the Br.up. bhāṣya has clearly enumerated them: तद्यथेहैव तावत् — अथ यः कश्चिदब्रह्मवित्, अन्यामात्मनो व्यतिरिक्तां यां काञ्चिद्देवताम्, उपास्ते स्तुतिनमस्कारयागबल्युपहारप्रणिधानध्यानादिना उप आस्ते तस्या गुणभावमुपगम्य आस्ते and तस्मात्पुष्पोदकाञ्जलिस्तुतिनमस्कारबल्युपहारस्वाध्यायध्यानयोगादिभिः आरिराधयिषेत

Even though in the above passages it is the prima facie view that is presented, yet, the final view does not reject the methods stated above. Also, in the Mundakopanishad bhaāṣyam 3.4.10:

तस्माद्विदुषः सत्यसङ्कल्पत्वादात्मज्ञमात्मज्ञानेन विशुद्धान्तःकरणं ह्यर्चयेत्पूजयेत्पादप्रक्षालनशुश्रूषानमस्कारादिभिः भूतिकामः विभूतिमिच्छुः । ततः पूजार्ह एवासौ ॥

Here, the upanishadic injunction and Shankara’s comment is: The Atmavit, knower of Atman, is to be worshiped by archana, washing of feet, service, namaskāra, etc. Since Shiva is Brahmavit, Jagadguru, who imparts the liberating knowledge, is definitely mandatorily to be worshiped by these methods. The very next mantra too says this about the Atmavit who is to be worshiped for mokṣa too. This is brought out by the Bhāgavatam too:

8.7.20

vilokya taḿ devavaraḿ trilokyā

bhavāya devyābhimataḿ munīnām

āsīnam adrāv apavarga-hetos

tapo juṣāṇaḿ stutibhiḥ praṇemuḥ

SYNONYMS

vilokya — observing; tam — him; devavaram — the best of the demigods; trilokyāḥ — of the three worlds; bhavāya — for the flourishing; devyā — with his wife, Bhavānī; abhimatam — accepted by; munīnām — great saintly persons; āsīnam — sitting together; adrau — from the top of Kailāsa Hill; apavargahetoḥ — desiring liberation; tapaḥin austerity; juṣāṇam — being served by them; stutibhiḥ — by prayers; praṇemuḥ — offered their respectful obeisances.

It is this same Shiva pūjā involving various practices that has been prescribed in that section of the Shivapurāṇam. Only he who is himself a tāmasabuddhi will call this portion that is eminently sanctioned by the Veda and the Bhāgavatam (maybe to wriggle out of the situation, these bigots will come up with this silly argument: Even the bhāgavatam, though a sāttvika purāṇa, those pockets where Shiva is praised, are tāmasa) as tāmasa.

Take the name of ‘veerashaiva’ innumerable times and obtain punya by that upāsana, japa. For, that name too is that of Nārāyana,   the greatest devotee of Shiva, the Veerashaiva, who even plucked out one of his eyes to offer in obeisance to his upāsya devatā.

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्। 12.350.27 a लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। “ b

It is one Truth that treads the world in the twin-form of Rudra and Narayana…. That is confirmed by Sridhara Swamin by his commentary on the Bh.8.7.21.

Om Tat Sat

Posted by: adbhutam | March 25, 2015

AN ETYMOLOGY FOR ‘RUDRA’? – 2

 

The bloggers have responded to my article on their Keshi suktam blog. It only shows that my blog has caused much perturbation to them and brought disrepute to their blog.

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html?showComment=1427264114473#c8792151493780056503

My responses, to show that theirs are only products of desperation, are in between { } What they say is shown in between // – //

// Now, when according to the blogger, Lord Śiva is a jñāni (which the blogger accepts), where is the need to ‘cleanse’ the karmas? The Mundakopanishat 2.2.9 says: भिद्यते–हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते–सर्वसंशयाः। क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे ॥ ९ ॥ [Upon obtaining the direct realization of the Supreme, all karma-s are destroyed…(excepting prārabdha karmas, which, however, have to be expended only by experiencing).]

ANSWER: Maybe you haven’t noticed, but we use “jnAni” in vishishtadvaitic terms. In vishishtadvaita, a jnAni is someone who realises he has karmas because he has understood his miserable plight. It is not the same as advaitic definition of jnAni. Basically, shiva is a jnAni who cried when he realised he had karmas and hence was cleansed of those karmas obstructing experience of Brahman.

As far as advaita goes, Sridhara clarifies in his vishNu purAna vyAkhyAna that shiva has the supreme knowledge of vishNu (paramEsvara) and his crying therefore is a play to obey his father Brahma (during the naming) since jnAnis do not cry. Note however, that Sridhara only says Shiva’s crying was a play; he does not deny that shiva has prarabdha and also places shiva here as one who has vishNu jnAna and hence lower to vishNu.//

{ That ‘viṣnu jnana’ is not of any saguna entity called ‘vishnu’. On the other hand it is the Vedantic Brahman which is infinite, all-pervading, ananta. Advaitins never teach that securing the jnana about the resident of vaikunta and consort of Lakshmi as liberating knowledge. The pseudo vaishnava does not even understand what I mean by ‘Jñāni’. They have accepted that Shiva had Vishnu-knowledge (which is liberating knowledge), which they brag as ‘Vishnu jnānam’ and is a Jagadguru, imparting the ultimate knowledge. So, the above ‘answer’ is no answer. And Sridhara has only given the pseudo vaishnavas a slap on their face by saying Shiva’s crying was only a play. Even Sayana, in that shatapathabrahmana bhashya says: it is an ākhyāyikā, a story, in praise of a vedic injunction. And the ‘jnani’ of Sridhara is completely different from the jnani of the pseudo vaishnavas. So, the whole episode of ‘crying’ is shorn of the punch the pseudo vaishnavas attempted to give to the story by projecting Shiva as someone miserable. Now that they have put this information on their own pages, they only admit their mistake.}

//when Śiiva has no karma to be ‘cleansed’ where is the question of the ‘drinking’ of the poison ‘cleansing’ him and his ‘acquiring’ merit?

At birth, Shiva acquired names to cleanse himself of karmas obstructing his knowledge of Brahman. He became a yogi, but just like Vishvamitra, he is still prone to tamas (as evidenced by incidents when he fought vishNu, etc) and hence performs acts like swallowing poison and getting vishNu pAda teertha on his head to cleanse himself of karmas. As old karmas are cleansed, new actions often result in new karmas.//

{ All this kind of stuff will not hold water with an Advaitin. There is absolutely no reasoning involved in the above. When Shiva has paramātma jnana, where is the need for cleansing karma, no karma ever remainss to be washed off. They are only offering comedy to their readers by doling out stuff as the above: Shiva performing the swallowing to cleanse himself of karma!! And a paramātma Jnani’s actions do not give rise to ‘new karmas’. That defeats the very purpose of Atma jnanam.}

 

//”sinner” does not mean Shiva is a bad person, merely that he, like everyone, has papa karmas too. The idea is that he is more elevated than the other devas and acts as a guru.//

{ Revealing ignorance of basic Vedanta. For an Atmajnani, there is no such concept as papa karmas. The BS ‘तदधिगम उत्तरपूर्वाघयोरश्लेषविनाशौ तद्व्यपदेशात् 4.1.13 says: upon realizing the Highest Truth, there is no contact with future actions and with regard to past actions, they have been destroyed, since there is the teaching to this effect.’ So, when Shiva is a vedantic jnani, there is no karma left for him to cleanse. The pseudo vaishnavas have no fundamental knowledge of even Vedanta, let alone their system or advaita. Further, in the Taittiriya Upanishad, Brahmanandavalli, 1, there occurs a sentence: किमहं साधु नाकरवम्, किमहं पापमकरवमिति… [Why did I not perform good deeds, why did I engage in sinful deeds?] – Such a feeling of regret does not arise in a Jnani. Shankara says there: कथं पुनः साध्वकरणं पापक्रिया च न तपतीति, उच्यते – किं कस्मात् साधु शोभनं कर्म नाकरवं न कृतवानस्मि इति पश्चात्संतापो भवति आसन्ने मरणकाले ; तथा किं कस्मात् पापं प्रतिषिद्धं कर्म अकरवं कृतवानस्मि इति च नरकपतनादिदुःखभयात् तापो भवति । ते एते साध्वकरणपापक्रिये एवमेनं न तपतः, यथा अविद्वांसं तपतः । कस्मात्पुनर्विद्वांसं न तपत इति, उच्यते – स य एवंविद्वान् एते साध्वसाधुनी तापहेतू इति आत्मानं स्पृणुते प्रीणाति बलयति वा, परमात्मभावेन उभे पश्यतीत्यर्थः । उभे पुण्यपापे हि यस्मात् एवम् एष विद्वान् एते आत्मानात्मरूपेणैव पुण्यपापे स्वेन विशेषरूपेण शून्ये कृत्वा आत्मानं स्पृणुत एव । कः? य एवं वेद यथोक्तमद्वैतमानन्दं ब्रह्म वेद, तस्य आत्मभावेन दृष्टे पुण्यपापे निर्वीर्ये अतापके जन्मान्तरारंभके न भवतः । Such a thought of regret that normally arises in an ignorant person towards death but the Jnani does not feel regret. Why? He sees all actions as non-different from Atman, as per the above bhāṣya of Shankara.

So, the argument of the pseudo vaishnavas, only to vilify Shiva, has no support whatsoever in the Vedanta. They have no answer to the question: Was Shiva a self-realized one or not at the time of the amrutha mathanam? If not, then the stuti of the devas addressed to a sinner is unjustifiable. The whole episode would be a laughing stock. They say the devas are jnanis and see Brahman everywhere. If Shiva is not a jnani and does not see Brahman everywhere, how does the stuti even come about? Also, if he was not an paramatma jnani then, how would the Bhagavatam depict him to be the one giving out liberating knowledge? }

 

//You still ignore Shankara’s opinion of Rudra as a tAmasa devata in “bhUta krt”. The prasnOpanishad bhAshya is only an elaboration of vibhUtis for the sake of upAsana. Already explained and not dwelling on it further.//

{ Where has Shankara said that? It is only to hoodwink the readers that the bloggers misrepresent Shankara. What Shankara says there is: तमोगुणमास्थाय रुद्रात्मना भूतानि कृन्तति कृणोति हिनस्तीति भूतकृत् [(that very Pure Consciousness called Viśṇu) as Rudra, assuming Tamoguṇa, destroys all beings. Hence He is called ‘bhūtakṛt’.] Shankara is saying this not of Shiva but of Vishnu. The word ‘sa’ pronoun only refers to Vishnu and not Shiva. So, Shankara nowhere ‘opines’ that Rudra is a tāmasa devatā. In fact what Shankara says there, amounts to saying that Vishnu is the tāmasa devatā as Rudra.

The queer logic of the bloggers gets exposed here too. They want all heroic acts like drinking the poison to be attributed to Vishnu but do not want the ‘tāmasa’ attribute to go to him. If Shiva is a vibhuti of Vishnu, as the bloggers claim, in drinking the poison, why and how does the same Shiva cease to be a vibhuti, that too when it is Vishnu, according to Shankara, that bears the tamoguna while engaging in destruction or while weeping?

Also, the bloggers have a fundamental misunderstanding with the concept of sattva, rajas and tamas. They do not understand that these three gunas are required, by default, to perform these acts of creation, sustenance and dissolution. So, the word ‘tamoguṇa’ is no way used by Shankara as a derogatory one. In fact it is this guna that is at play in the BG 11th chapter where the Lord says ‘Kāloṣmi lokakṣayakṛt’. So, the blogger’s accusation only boomerangs on them.

And there is no upāsana in the Prashnopanishat according to Shankara’s bhāṣyam when the name Rudra occurs. It is a praise of Prāṇa (prajāpati) by the other entities like the sense organs. }

Unable to answer my question, the pseudo vaishnava, in desperation, makes a comment:

// there is no reference in the Bhagavatam or any other puranas where the Amṛtamathanam event is alluded to that ‘Rudra was weeping because of his karmas’ when the churning took place.

Answer: For a dull headed person like you, there is no reference. For everyone else who reads this blog and your diatribes, the references are plenty.//

He can never succeed in showing just one, let alone plenty, reference in support of ‘Rudra was weeping’ during the amrtha mathanam.’ Quite contrary to the claims of the bloggers, the very Bhagavatam describes the state of Shiva when the devas, finding themselves unprotected by anyone, approached him:

8.7.20

vilokya taḿ devavaraḿ trilokyā

bhavāya devyābhimataḿ munīnām

āsīnam adrāv apavarga-hetos

tapo juṣāṇaḿ stutibhiḥ praṇemuḥ

SYNONYMS

vilokya — observing; tam — him; devavaram — the best of the demigods; trilokyāḥ — of the three worlds; bhavāya — for the flourishing; devyā — with his wife, Bhavānī; abhimatam — accepted by; munīnām — great saintly persons; āsīnam — sitting together; adrau — from the top of Kailāsa Hill; apavargahetoḥ — desiring liberation; tapaḥin austerity; juṣāṇam — being served by them; stutibhiḥ — by prayers; praṇemuḥ — offered their respectful obeisances.

TRANSLATION

The demigods observed Lord Śiva sitting on the summit of Kailāsa Hill with his wife, Bhavānī, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The demigods offered him their obeisances and prayers with great respect.

Surely, a person who is worshiped by mumukṣus cannot be a someone miserably ‘weeping because of karmas’. There cannot be a better joke than the blogger is making. How can one who himself is not free from papa karmas be in a position to give the liberating knowledge to others? When the blogger himself is a dull head, he is trying to include Veda Vyasa and Shuka also to his club. }

// Quoting Ganguly and you call us ignorant of sanskrit grammar!//

{ I do not even know where Ganguly’s translation is available. As usual, making wrong guesses, the blogger gives a completely wrong twist to the MB verse not knowing that the ‘antaryāmi’ stuff does not hold water with Advaitins. Let them keep such stuff with themselves and not explain away explicitly clear verses of Hari-Hara abheda of the MB to suit their theories. }

// Answer: That is an argument between us, Madhvas and true Advaitins who are vaishnavas.//

{There is no advaitin who has commented on the Keshi suktam except Sayana who never takes it as related to the amrtha mathanam. So, bringing in advaitins of any color here is irrelevant. Also, it is only the bloggers’ pet theory that advaitins are vaishnavas. There is absolutely no evidence to that.}

// This etymology is only applied for vishNu here.

Not so. It is an etymology of the Sivapuranam to refer to Shiva as the Paramakāraṇam and not Vishnu. So, Shankara’s citing it here is undoubtedly only to establish Hari-Hara abheda. Shankara would not cite an etymology that clearly applies to Shiva of the Shivapuranam in the VS unless he sees the abheda, and that too, not of the non-advaitin type of desperately adding that ‘as antaryāmi….shareera-Atma bhāva’ etc.

Shankara cites two seminal verses from the Bhaviṣyottara purāṇa in the introduction to the VS:

Maheśvara (Śiva) says:

विष्णोरन्यं तु पश्यन्ति ये मां ब्रह्माणमेव वा ।

कुतर्कमतयो मूढाः पच्यन्ते नरकेष्वधः ॥

[Those fools who, devoid of proper thinking, consider Me and Brahmā as different from Viṣṇu will be baked in the lowly hells.]

ये च मूढा दुरात्मानो भिन्नं पश्यन्ति मां हरेः ।

ब्रह्माणं च ततस्तस्माद् ब्रह्महत्यासमं त्वघम् ॥

[Those fools, wicked ones, by seeing Me and Brahmā as different from Hari are committing the heinous sin of brahmahatyā.]

Surely, Shankara, while citing these two, coming from Shiva, is not acknowledging the ‘antaryāmi type’ oneness. How do we know that? That section of the VS bhāṣya is a fine discussion where Shankara establishes the Advaitic identity and not the vishishtadvaitic ‘sharira-atma bhāva’. He gives a provisional conclusion after citing several puranic verses saying: ityādivākyāni ekatvapratipādakāni (these verses are establishing identity, oneness). And he continues, api cha and gives several shruti passages like tattvamasi and again raises a question: ‘All this is for upāsana like viṣṇu buddhi in a pratimā.’ And says ‘that is not the case since the above advaitic passages (of both the puranas and shruti) will then be diluted and distorted and clearly shows where such upāsana passages occur and in what manner. And says all these passages teach ‘abhedapratipatti’ and further concludes: such innumerable passages refute the vision of difference. Further concludes Shankara: iti advaitātmajñānam samyagdarśanam ityuktam bhagavatāpi and gives the ultimate purport of what the VS introductory verses teach: Therefore set the mind firm in the Atmā that is Ishwara. Thus for Shankara the VS is not any deity-specific but the Advaitic Nirguna Brahman-specific. In Advaita the Atman is none other than Ishwara (not saguṇa Brahman, but the Ishwara of the Ishavāsyopanishad bhāṣya).
//Shankara himself clarifies rudra is under tamas and has an antarAtma in the same bhAshya for bhUta brt.//

Shankara never ‘clarifies’ that ‘rudra’ in under tamas; if any it is Vishnu who is under tamas ‘as’ Rudra. Also, it is not for bhūtabhṛt but for bhūtakṛt. The bloggers are repeatedly demonstrating that their blogs will not survive unless they piggyback on Shankara. And they do it so hopelessly that even a casual reader is able to see their desperation in promoting their funny theories by taking Shankara’s support knowing that Shankara alone has the reputation that their own Acharyas do not have.}

// These acts are due to their austerity and hence the ultimate glory is for narayana only.//

{Only the pseudo vaishnavas have to claim such ‘ultimate’ glory to Narayana. Narayana is not desperate to claim such glories for himself and that too from others’ acts. Nārāyaṇa is not a fanatic as these so-called followers of Nārāyaṇa want him to be. If any, for Advaitins, even the so-called ‘glories’ of Narayana are not his but of Maya. Without maya there is no glory of any kind to anyone whatsoever. In the BSB 1.4.3 Shankara says ‘without that latent power the Brahman of Vedanta cannot even engage in creation.’ Which ‘Vaishnava’ would openly acknowledge that ‘Ishwara is dependent on Maya for creation, etc.’? So, taking Shankara’s support is only proving detrimental to the bloggers.}

// Case in point – he thinks the worship of antaryAmin is indirect and unnecessary when vishNu is already present. Does the sukta not indicate that the devas are “munis” who have a direct sakshatkara and can see the antaryAmin as well as viShNu beside them? They did not see Shiva there, they had tattva darshana and saw vishNu. And they eulogised that form which they knew would drink the poison – corroborated by the rk using different names “keSi” and “vAyu”.//

{ There is no case in any point there. If the devas are munis and had tattva darshana, they would not be running to Shiva’s abode, feeling no protection even in the presence of Vishnu. The Upanishad declares ‘abhayam vai janaka prāpto’si’. A tattva darshi is beyond fear. The episode in the purana will have no purpose at all if the devas are tattva darshins. The devas went to the abode of Shiva, not to see him really there but to see Vishnu!! If they wanted to see Vishnu, he was available right in front of them. Why travel to some other place to see him and that too in someone who is not he? There will be no takers for such nonsense as these bloggers are doling out. The Bhāgavata clearly says: arakṣyamāṇāḥ śaraṇaḿ sadāśivam A tattva darshi need not take refuge in anyone. He transcends all needs.

The devas felt that no one protected them and took shelter under Sadasiva. Not able to bear the ‘insult’ the vaishnavas twist the verse and give a pathetic explanation which the Iskcon people have added on that page from Madhva. }

// The answer is that he is still known by that name as Brahma gave it to him. The rk calls him rudra specifically to remind that he was the one who cried at birth but now has become mahAdeva and was used as a vessel by narayana to drink the poison, thus showing how he has attained a venerable state by bhagavad krupa. I think we clarified that pretty well.//

{ Is this any explanation? Why should the Rk remind anyone about Rudra’s weeping, which is after all a play according to Sridhara? Also, why should one rely on that meaning for the name Rudra, while Shankara has cited from the Shivapuranam where the element: rur duḥkham duḥkhahetum vā tad drāvayati [He who eliminates the misery or the cause of misery is Rudra] not be taken?. After all the poison and the prospect of it destroying the devas did cause misery to them and Shiva by drinking it freed them of that misery. Even if the shivapuranam etymology is not taken, Shankara gives the meaning: samhārakāle prajāḥ samharan rodayati iti rudraḥ. [He who torments beings during the dissolution] The sadistic mindset of the bloggers is what is revealed in trying to give that etymology: ‘because he wept’ while it is not at all called for in the Keshi suktam.

Pricked by his own conscience, and realizing his blog is a disaster, upon reading my exposure of the completely wrong information contained in their blog,   the blogger makes a weak defence, hoping that his readers are fools just as he is:

// “As Shiva cried due to his “anapahatapApmatva”, bhagavAn made him the instrument to drink the poison and hence enabled Shiva to cleanse his karmas (as he has acted in favour of bhagavAn). What pleases bhagavAn is puNya, what displeases him is pApa karma. Shiva thus acquired merit in this incident.”

What we meant here is that shiva cried during his birth and not that he cried during the samudra mathanam. At that time of his birth itself, he wanted to become great and renowned. He became known as rudra since then. The rk signifies that the same being who cried during his birth was made as a vessel by bhagavan and thus became exalted — thus highlighting how bhagavan by his grace fulfills the desires of all.   //

{ What a pity!! Would someone want to become renowned and great by that negative epithet of Rudra with the ‘crying’ etymology? Whom do the bloggers want to deceive? No one who knows even a little bit of English will mistake what he has written. That sentence in his quotes unambiguously relates the crying with the bhagavan making him an instrument. And the above ‘clarification’ contradicts what the blogger himself claimed in another comment:

// Veerashaiva says: there is no reference in the Bhagavatam or any other puranas where the Amṛtamathanam event is alluded to that ‘Rudra was weeping because of his karmas’ when the churning took place.
Answer: For a dull headed person like you, there is no reference. For everyone else who reads this blog and your diatribes, the references are plenty.//

His deranged mind does not even remember what it said, just a few lines before and thereby he coronates himself with the epithet: ‘dull headed’. Let us condone such shortcomings of the blogger, for that is the norm of their blogs. Why should bhagavan try to make Shiva ‘exalted’ and that too require Shiva to ‘cleanse’ his karmas? I have already shown the scriptural proof of an Atma jnani not having any karma to ‘cleanse’. Also, an Atma jnani does not have any desire. He is beyond punya and papa. The Brahma sutra I have cited says that the ‘agha’ (literally pāpa, but taken as including puṇya) of the pre-jnana and post-jnana period of the Jnani will not affect him/are destroyed. So, there is no way Shiva can be shown as needing any cleansing of any karmas by doing punya karma and his requiring to become ‘exalted’. A Jnani is a kṛtakṛtya, not needing any additions or deletions from his personality which he has discarded as unreal. Those who know a little bit of Vedanta will easily see the ulterior motives of these bloggers and their ignorance.

The blogger does not even know who really a ‘Virashaiva’ is. He is definitely not someone who will establish, from scriptural proof, the Hari-Hara abheda. Without even this fundamental awareness he is naming me a ‘Vīrashaiva’. And no advaitin is a vaishnava either, for a vaishnava will never declare the world to be mithyā and Ishwara’s attributes as avidyā kalpita and hold the vaikuntha to be subject to pralaya. If advaitins were vaishnavas, there was no need for the sprouting of schools under the garb of ‘vedanta’ post-Shankara. Only because Ramanuja found Shankara to be devoid of appreciation for the attributes of Vishnu (the ‘kapyāsam’ of Chandogya) and finding Shankara to be a sinner, propounded a new school which Shankara dubbed, even before, as a product of ‘Veda nindā’ in the BSB (pāncharātra). No vaishnava would hold the pāncharātra to be veda nindā. So, pop goes the bloggers’ theory that there are advaitin-vaishnavas or Shankara was a vaishnava. And above all no vaishnava will establish advaitic aikya across the trimurtis and abheda between Hari and Hara as Shankara has done unmistakably in the VS bhāṣya both in the introduction and in the nāma-commentary. }

A note on the Shivapurāṇam etymology cited by Shankara:

That verse with the names ‘Rudra and Shiva’ is available in this page of the Shivapuranam:

http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/~tjun/data/gicas/sivap7.html

The set of verses giving the etymology of select eight names of Shiva, which Shiva himself has selected, with which Shiva is to be worshiped. All the eight names are of Shiva only as specifically made clear in the verses themselves. To take them as ‘neutral’ is only pitiable. The particular section is about the ‘Pāśupata yoga’ which the purana says is based on the Shruti and is liberating in nature. This sādhana is ‘śreṣṭham’ says the purana. The eight names are ‘shiva pratipādakam’ as clearly says the purana (see line 24ab below)and not vishnupratipādakam. So, contrary to the blogger’s misinformation, the names are not neutral. They are explicitly shiva-specific. The verses 50 onwards below clearly teach the method of applying the eight selected names of Shiva (and not Lakshmipati Vishnu) for meditation/worship. It is ardhanārīśwara who is to be worshiped here with those eight names for which etymology are given. All are decidedly Shiva-specific and never neutral as the blogger wants his gullible readers to believe. And this meditation using the eight select names will lead to ‘pāśupata jñānam’ and mokṣa. All this is tāmasic and anathema to vaiśṇavas and just in order that they do not want Shankara citing from this, they indulge in all this circus. Who knows, to save their skin they will give ‘vaiṣnava’ meanings to ardhanāriśwara, pāśupata, etc. and convert the entire Shiva purana to a ‘saattivika’ one !!

And thus, this section clearly falls under the ‘tamasa’ nature which the entire Shiva purana is. This section is not saattvik portion as the blogger desperately tries to misinform his gullible readers and thereby save his loss of face from an earlier declaration that Shankara has not cited from the tamasa purana for any purpose other than either Vishnu-specific or general vedantic purpose (as for example the lingapurana verse he cites in the Kathopanishad bhashya for an etymology for the word Atman). The very eight names are taken up with the sole purpose of expounding the pāsupata yoga where Shiva is the upāsya and lakṣya for mokṣa (22ab). It is only because Shankara sees no difference between Hari and Hara that he cites from the shivapuranam for the name ‘rudra’ of the VS. For Shankara, as it is made clear in the introduction to the VS bhāṣya, the purport of the VS is in advaita. He strikes the identity even between the tri murtis, as the cited verses stand testimony. He is nowhere arguing for a antaryāmi/sharīra-ātma type of identity. If that was his genre, Ramanuja would never have raised his head.

तेषु पाशुपतो योगः शिवं प्रत्यक्षयेद्दृढम् ॥ 17cd
तस्माच्छ्रेष्ठमनुष्ठानं योगः पाशुपतो मतः ॥ 18ab
तत्राप्युपायको युक्तो ब्रह्मणा स तु कथ्यते ॥ 18cd
नामाष्टकमयो योगश्शिवेन परिकल्पितः ॥ 19ab
तेन योगेन सहसा शैवी प्रज्ञा प्रजायते ॥ 19cd
प्रज्ञया परमं ज्ञानमचिराल्लभते स्थिरम् ॥ 20ab

प्रसीदति शिवस्तस्य यस्य ज्ञानं प्रतिष्ठितम् ॥ 20cd
प्रसादात्परमो योगो यः शिवं चापरोक्षयेत् ॥ 21ab
शिवापरोक्षात्संसारकारणेन वियुज्यते ॥ 21cd
ततः स्यान्मुक्तसंसारो मुक्तः शिवसमो भवेत् ॥ 22ab
ब्रह्मप्रोक्त इत्युपायः स एव पृथगुच्यते ॥ 22cd
शिवो महेश्वरश्चैव रुद्रो विष्णुः पितामहः ॥ 23ab
संसारवैद्यः सर्वज्ञः परमात्मेति मुख्यतः ॥ 23cd
नामाष्टकमिदं मुख्यं शिवस्य प्रतिपादकम् ॥ 24ab
आद्यन्तु पञ्चकं ज्ञेयं शान्त्यतीताद्यनुक्रमात् ॥ 24cd
संज्ञा सदाशिवादीनां पंचोपाधिपरिग्रहात् ॥ 25ab
उपाधिविनिवृत्तौ तु यथास्वं विनिवर्तते ॥ 25cd
पदमेव हि तन्नित्यमनित्याः पदिनः स्मृताः ॥ 26ab
पदानां प्रतिकृत्तौ तु मुच्यन्ते पदिनो यतः ॥ 26cd
परिवृत्त्यन्तरे भूयस्तत्पदप्राप्तिरुच्यते ॥ 27ab
आत्मान्तराभिधानं स्याद्यदाद्यं नाम पञ्चकम् ॥ 27cd
अन्यत्तु त्रितयं नाम्नामुपादानादियोगतः ॥ 28ab
त्रिविधोपाधिवचनाच्छिव एवानुवर्तते ॥ 28cd
अनादिमलसंश्लेषः प्रागभावात्स्वभावतः ॥ 29ab
अत्यंतं परिशुद्धात्मेत्यतो ऽयं शिव उच्यते ॥ 29cd
अथवाशेषकल्याणगुणैकघन ईश्वरः ॥ 30ab
शिव इत्युच्यते सद्भिश्शिवतत्त्वार्थवादिभिः ॥ 30cd
त्रयोविंशतितत्त्वेभ्यः प्रकृतिर्हि परा मता ॥ 31ab
प्रकृतेस्तु परं प्राहुः पुरुषं पञ्चविंशकम् ॥ 31cd
यं वेदादौ स्वरं प्राहुर्वाच्यवाचकभावतः ॥ 32ab
वेदैकवेद्ययाथात्म्याद्वेदान्ते च प्रतिष्ठितः ॥ 32cd
तस्य प्रकृतिलीनस्य यः परस्स महेश्वरः ॥ 33ab
तदधीनप्रवृत्तित्वात्प्रकृतेः पुरुषस्य च ॥ 33cd
अथवा त्रिगुणं तत्त्वमुपेयमिदमव्ययम् ॥ 34ab
मायान्तु प्रकृतिं विद्यान्मायिनं तु महेश्वरम् ॥ 34cd
मायाविक्षोभको ऽनंतो महेश्वरसमन्वयात् ॥ 35ab
कालात्मा परमात्मादिः स्थूलः सूक्ष्मः प्रकीर्तितः ॥ 35cd
रुद्दुःखं दुःखहेतुर्वा तद्रावयति नः प्रभुः ॥ 36ab
रुद्र इत्युच्यते सद्भिः शिवः परमकारणम् ॥ 36cd
तत्त्वादिभूतपर्यन्तं शरीरादिष्वतन्द्रितः ॥ 37ab
व्याप्याधितिष्ठति शिवस्ततो रुद्र इतस्ततः ॥ 37cd [this line gives the etymology for the name ‘viṣnu’which is a name of Shiva, as all-pervading; there is another pāṭha: शिवतत्त्वादिभूम्यन्तं शरीरादि घटादि च। व्याप्याधितिष्ठति शिवस्तस्माद्विष्णुरुदाहृतः].
जगतः पितृभूतानां शिवो मूर्त्यात्मनामपि ॥ 38ab
पितृभावेन सर्वेषां पितामह उदीरितः ॥ 38cd
निदानज्ञो यथा वैद्यो रोगस्य विनिवर्तकः ॥ 39ab
उपायैर्भेषजैस्तद्वल्लयभोगाधिकारतः ॥ 39cd
संसारस्येश्वरो नित्यं समूलस्य निवर्तकः ॥ 40ab
संसारवैद्य इत्युक्तः सर्वतत्त्वार्थवेदिभिः ॥ 40cd
दशार्थज्ञानसिद्ध्यर्थमिन्द्रियेष्वेषु सत्स्वपि ॥ 41ab
त्रिकालभाविनो भावान्स्थूलान्सूक्ष्मानशेषतः ॥ 41cd
अणवो नैव जानन्ति माययैव मलावृताः ॥ 42ab
असत्स्वपि च सर्वेषु सर्वार्थज्ञानहेतुषु ॥ 42cd
538b
यद्यथावस्थितं वस्तु तत्तथैव सदाशिवः ॥ 43ab
अयत्नेनैव जानाति तस्मात्सर्वज्ञ उच्यते ॥ 43cd
सर्वात्मा परमैरेभिर्गुणैर्नित्यसमन्वयात् ॥ 44ab
स्वस्मात्परात्मविरहात्परमात्मा शिवः स्वयम् ॥ 44cd [Since there is none greater than Him, Shiva Himself is called ‘paramātmā’. Thus, there is no way these eight names are described in a ‘neutral’ way. They are decidedly of the Pārvati pati Shiva only. It is a folly on the part of the vaishnava acharyas to have hijacked one or more of these names and pass it off as applicable to Nārāyaṇa to hoodwink their gullible followers.]
नामाष्टकमिदं चैव लब्ध्वाचार्यप्रसादतः ॥ 45ab
निवृत्त्यादिकलाग्रन्थिं शिवाद्यैः पंचनामभिः ॥ 45cd
यथास्वं क्रमशश्छित्वा शोधयित्वा यथागुणम् ॥ 46ab
गुणितैरेव सोद्धातैरनिरुद्धैरथापि वा ॥ 46cd
हृत्कण्ठतालुभ्रूमध्यब्रह्मरन्ध्रसमन्विताम् ॥ 47ab
छित्त्वा पर्यष्टकाकारं स्वात्मानं च सुषुम्णया ॥ 47cd
द्वादशांतःस्थितस्येन्दोर्नीत्वोपरि शिवौजसि ॥ 48ab
संहृत्यं वदनं पश्चाद्यथासंस्करणं लयात् ॥ 48cd
शाक्तेनामृतवर्षेण संसिक्तायां तनौ पुनः ॥ 49ab
अवतार्य स्वमात्मानममृतात्माकृतिं हृदि ॥ 49cd
द्वादशांतःस्थितस्येन्दोः परस्ताच्छ्वेतपंकजे ॥ 50ab
समासीनं महादेवं शंकरम्भक्तवत्सलम् ॥ 50cd
अर्द्धनारीश्वरं देवं निर्मलं मधुराकृतिम् ॥ 51ab
शुद्धस्फटिकसंकाशं प्रसन्नं शीतलद्युतिम् ॥ 51cd
ध्यात्वा हि मानसे देवं स्वस्थचित्तो ऽथ मानवः ॥ 52ab
शिवनामाष्टकेनैव भावपुष्पैस्समर्चयेत् ॥ 52cd
अभ्यर्च्चनान्ते तु पुनः प्राणानायम्य मानवः ॥ 53ab
सम्यक्चित्तं समाधाय शार्वं नामाष्टकं जपेत् ॥ 53cd
नाभौ चाष्टाहुतीर्हुत्वा पूर्णाहुत्या नमस्ततः ॥ 54ab
अष्टपुष्पप्रदानेन कृत्वाभ्यर्च्चनमंतिमम् ॥ 54cd
निवेदयेत्स्वमात्मानं चुलुकोदकवर्त्मना ॥ 55ab
एवं कृत्वा चिरादेव ज्ञानं पाशुपतं शुभम् ॥ 55cd
लभते तत्प्रतिष्ठां च वृत्तं चानुत्तमं तथा ॥ 56ab
योगं च परमं लब्ध्वा मुच्यते नात्र संशयः ॥ 56cd
इति श्रीशिवमहापुराणे सप्तम्यां वायवीयसंहितायां पूर्वखण्डे श्रेष्ठानुष्ठानवर्णनं नाम द्वात्रिंशो ऽध्यायः ॥ 32 ॥

The text with a slightly alternative reading of the above portions of the Shivapurāṇa is uploaded here as a zip file consisting of images:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/tzrnw9zfy4me4tl/shivapuranam+8+names.zip

Om Tat Sat

Posted by: adbhutam | March 24, 2015

TRIMURTI AIKYA – THE FEMININE VERSION

Trimūrti Aikya, the Feminine Version

It is well known that Veda Vyāsa has taught the Trimūrti aikya, the non-difference between the triad of gods Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Ṁaeśwara in the purāṇas and the Mahābhārata. Many of these quotations can be seen cited in two blogs: Turiyashiva of the Kaivalyopanishad and Double standards of some vaishnavas.

  1. https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/turiya-shiva-of-the-kaivalyopanishat/
  2. https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/double-standards-of-some-vaishnavas/

One can observe that the idea that the consorts of these gods too are manifestations of the same principle. In the skandapurāṇa Veda Vyāsa teaches this in a dialogue between vasiṣṭha and brahmā:

आत्मशक्त्या ससर्जाथ कन्यात्रयमनिन्दितम्

कन्यान्तु रुद्रो जग्राह कृष्णां सर्वाङ्गसुन्दरीम्

Shiva’s Māyāshakti gave birth to three damsels of whom Rudra took for himself the black one.

सा च विष्णुश्चैकभागो भगिनी सा ततो हरेः

She is one part of Vishnu, his sister.

हरिस्तु लोहितां वव्रे कन्यां लक्ष्मीसमाह्वयाम्

सा चाहम्प्येकभागो भगिनी सा ततो मम

अहमप्यजं शुक्लां कन्यां वीणाविनोदिनीम्

सा च रुद्रश्चैकभागो भगिनी शंकरस्य सा

मत्तो जज्ञे जगत्सर्वं पाल्यते हरिणा त्विदम्

काले संहारको रुद्रो पश्चादैक्यं घ्रुवं हि नः ।

Here are a few verses from the varāhapurāṇa that Sri Appayya Dīkṣita has cited in his ‘ratna traya parīkṣā’ that show that all the shaktis are umā’s various forms and are under the bhogya of Shiva:

नवकोट्यस्तु चामुण्डा भेदभिन्ना व्यवस्थिता ।
या रौद्री तामसी शक्तिः सा चामुण्डा प्रकीर्त्तिता ।। ९५.६८ ।।

The Tāmasī shakti is called cāmuṇḍā.

अष्टादश तथा कोट्यो वैष्णव्या भेद उच्यते ।
या सा च राजसी शक्तिः पालनी चैव वैष्णवी ।

Rājasī shakti is called vaiṣṇavi
या ब्रह्मशक्तिः सत्त्वस्था अनन्तास्ताः प्रकीर्त्तिता ।। ९५.६९ ।।

Brahmashakti is sattva.

एतासां सर्वभेदेषु पृथगेकैकशो धरे ।
सर्वासां भगवान् रुद्रः सर्वगश्च पतिर्भवेत् ।। ९५.७० ।।

Rudra is the pati of all the three shaktis

यावन्त्यस्या महाशक्त्यास्तावद् रूपाणि शंकरः ।
कृतवांस्ताश्च भजते पतिरूपेण सर्वदा ।। ९५.७१ ।।

Thus, Vedavyāsa has taught that not only the trimurtis are masculine, but they have a feminine expression too. Since the foundation is trimurti aikya, the talk of one being superior to the other is mere eulogy and not any real.

 

 

 

Posted by: adbhutam | March 21, 2015

A TRIBUTE TO THE AUTHOR(S) OF THE ‘ADVAITASIDDHI’

HH Sringeri Jagadguru Siri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswaminaḥ’s tribute to Sri Madhusudana Saraswati, the author of the Advaita siddhi and its commentator Brahmananda Saraswati for their monumental work in reply to the Nyāyāmṛtam of Sri Vyāsatīrtha:
मधुसूदनसन्मौनिब्रह्मानन्दगुरून् भजे ।

अद्वैतराजमार्गोऽयं याभ्यां निष्कण्टकीकृतः ॥  

[A free translation: Obeisance to the venerable Sannyāsin Sri Madhusudana Saraswati and Sri Brahmananda Saraswati by whom (the two of them) the Royal Path of Advaita has been rendered free of thorns. ]

Posted by: adbhutam | March 17, 2015

AN ETYMOLOGY FOR THE NAME ‘RUDRA’?

An Etymology for the name ‘Rudra’?

The blogger, in this blog http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html
which is written with the sole purpose of vilifying Lord Śiva but pretending to bring out the glory of Lord Viṣṇu, says:
//The term “Rudra” is used to denote Shiva here. “Rudra” means “One who weeps” – rOdayati iti rudra. He got this name because he wept on being born after realising he was “anapahatapApma” or not cleansed of karmas. //

Response:

In his enthusiasm to vilify Śiva, the blogger has exhibited his ignorance of basic Sanskrit grammar. The blessed Lord Viśṇu, whom the Mahabharata describes as the twin of Lord Śiva, could not bear this blogger’s tirade against His very Self, despite the blogger claiming Him to be his Antaryāmin. He did not prevent the blogger from the mistaken expression of the verb in that etymology to caricature Śiva. The Antaryāmin wanted to punish the blogger for his misdemeanor.
The root ‘rud’, when used in the singular present third person (prathama puruṣa) is: ‘roditi’ as shown in the following dictionary:
http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=roditi&trans=Translate&direction=AU
रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb wail

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb bewail

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb howl

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb deplore

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb roar

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb cry

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb lament

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb 2 weep

What the blogger has given, however, is the causative form of the same root, which means ‘to make one weep..’:
http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=rodayati+&trans=Translate&direction=AU
रोदयति { रुद् } rodayati { rud } verb caus. cause to weep or lament

Says the blogger further:
//So, by using this name, the rk asserts two things –
1. As Shiva cried due to his “anapahatapApmatva”, bhagavAn made him the instrument to drink the poison and hence enabled Shiva to cleanse his karmas (as he has acted in favor of bhagavAn). What pleases bhagavAn is puNya, what displeases him is pApa karma. Shiva thus acquired merit in this incident.

Response:

The blogger had claimed in another blog that Rudra cried soon after birth and was cleansed subsequently by the ‘names’ of Viṣṇu:
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/interpretation-of-brahmanas-not-easy.html

Quote// And this clearly shows that pArvati pati, the presiding deity of the mind, was born of karma and cleansed by giving names. The names were linked to the characteristics of the mind. By virtue of his punya karma, his dharma bhUta jnAna (attributive knowledge channelled by the mind) increased each time he was given the name. Since intellect only increases by destruction of pApa karmas, it is clear that these names were given because pArvati pati was not yet cleansed of karma (anapahatapApma).
So this proves, 1) This kumara is pArvati pati, 2) He was not cleansed of pApa karmas,// Unquote

Now, when according to the blogger, Lord Śiva is a jñāni (which the blogger accepts), where is the need to ‘cleanse’ the karmas? The Mundakopanishat 2.2.9 says:
भिद्यते–हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते–सर्वसंशयाः।
क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे ॥ ९ ॥
[Upon obtaining the direct realization of the Supreme, all karma-s are destroyed…(excepting prārabdha karmas, which, however, have to be expended only by experiencing).]

So, when Śiiva has no karma to be ‘cleansed’ where is the question of the ‘drinking’ of the poison ‘cleansing’ him and his ‘acquiring’ merit? The scriptures are very clear that a Jnāni does not earn any puṇya or any pāpa. Moreover, when according to the blogger it is Viṣṇu who actually, really, drank the poison and ‘saved’ the world, only He gets merit because of this puṇya karma of saving the world. The instrument does not get any punya. When a man murders another, it is not the weapon that is punished; but the wielder of the weapon. So too the mere ‘vessel’ that was Śiva will not earn any puṇya when he actually never drank the poison, as per the blogger.

He further says:
//2. Since Shiva is known as “Rudra” – One who wept on being born due to karmas, he is not capable of drinking the poison independently. He only drunk it because the antaryAmin empowered him to. This meaning also comes out in addressing him as Rudra here.//

Response:
The same response above applies here too. How can the devas approach Śiva, who is a sinner, to save them? Why did they not approach Viśṇu or pray to him even when he was present in the scene? In fact they all go, along with Viṣṇu, to Śiva’s abode. The blogger has said in this very blog:

// Shiva was used as a vessel for bhagavAn to drink up the poison. Why didn’t bhagavAn do it directly? Because Shiva, by virtue of his merit, had performed severe austerities to attain the position of the lord of the devas. The mahAbhArata records this as follows –
mahAdEva: sarvamEdhEMahAthmAhuthvaa aathmAnam dEvadEvO BhabhUva visvAn lOkAn vyApya vishtabhya keerthyA virAjathE dhyuthimAn KrutthivAsa: –MahAbhAratha: 20.12
(Meaning): The noble soul known as “mahAdeva” (shiva) performed the sarvamEdha yAga , where He offered Himself as Havis and became the greatest among DevAs. He shines brilliantly in all the worlds with His jnAna, took on eight kinds of radiant forms (ashtamUrthy) and became renowned (keerthimAn ,DhyutimAn virAjathE).
Since Shiva had acquired merit, the gracious bhagavAn fulfilled the fruits of his penances by allowing him to swallow the poison and thus lead the devas as their head. //

Response:
When Śiva has attained the position of ‘Mahādeva’ could he still be a ‘weeping’ baby? If he still did not have the capacity to contain the poison, the ‘names’ of Viśṇu that were given to him and the great austerities he had performed, have not had any effect. What austerity/karma does the scripture prescribe, according to the blogger, to merit/enable the containing of the poison? This is asked because the blogger has given a strange kārya-kāraṇa bhāva in the above cited point no.2:
// Since Shiva is known as “Rudra” – One who wept on being born due to karmas, he is not capable of drinking the poison independently// According to this reasoning which translates to ‘He who wept due to sinful karma is not capable of drinking the poison independently’
Contrary to what the blogger reports, the deva-s praise Śiva as the Cause of creation, etc. Even otherwise, when Śiva is ‘loka samhāra kartā’ as per the VS bhashya of Shankara, and also the Praśnopaniṣat and bhāṣya, where the entire created universe is absorbed, the kālakūṭa containing, which is an infinitesimal part of the entire creation, is no big issue. Sridhara swamin says that ‘Siva pretended to take Umā’s permission before imbibing the poison with the idea that She might not have the complete knowledge of His capabilities.’

Continues the bloger:
//3. In comparison to the devas, Shiva was called “agni” in the first rk – he who leads the devas. That is an indication of Shiva’s glory as the chief of the devas. But here, in comparison to nArAyaNa, he is rudra – one who weeps because he still has karmas – this indicates he is a jivAtma subject to nArAyaNa.//

Response:
This point too, as the earlier two, is devoid of any substance. When the chief of the devas has no capacity to protect the devas, there is no meaning in that position/designation. It is a powerless, sterile, post to attain which Śiva performed austerities according to the blogger. Also, there is no reference in the Bhagavatam or any other puranas where the Amṛtamathanam event is alluded to that ‘Rudra was weeping because of his karmas’ when the churning took place. And if as the blogger says that Śiva was a jīvātmā subject to Nārāyaṇa, Veda Vyasa, in the Mahabharata would not say:

http://tinyurl.com/kvos7pv

वैशंपायनेन जनमेजयंप्रति अर्जुनाय स्वमाहात्म्यख्यापनपूर्वकं श्रीकृष्णकृतनारायणादि-स्वनामनिर्वचनानुवादः।। 1।।
The Chapter 352 of the Original Mahābhārata (OMB) in the above URL is a continuation of the ‘etymology…’ chapter of 350. In this chapter of the Śāntiparva 350 of the OMB Vaiśampāyana addresses Janamejaya and recounts Kṛṣṇa giving the etymology for His names. In that dialogue, Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna about the prayer the former made to Śiva for progeny:

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्। 12.350.27 a
लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। “ b
It is one Truth that treads the world in the twin-form of Rudra and Narayana….

And the Lord Viṣnu Himself in the Bhāgavatam, in the Dakṣa yajna episode would not say:
(IV.7.50 – 54)

(50) Lord Vishnu said: ‘I, Brahmâ and Lord S’iva as well, do not differ in being the supreme cause and Supersoul, the witness and the self-sufficient one of the material manifestation.) Him the Supreme Brahmân that is without a second, is as one Supersoul with both Brahmâ and S’iva, but the living ones who are not conversant with this, think of them as being separate. (53) The way a person sometimes does not make a difference between the head, hands and other parts of his own body, so does My devotee thus make no difference between living beings. (54) He who having the one nature of the three, verily does, of the Supersoul in all beings, not see the separateness, o brahmin, realizes the peace.’

The blogger concludes:
//Thus, this mantra shows that Rudra was used as an instrument, ie, a vibhUti of bhagavAn, and that that it was Rudra’s inner self, namely nArAyaNa, who drank the poison by using the former as his instrument. And this also corroborates the stuti of Shiva in the bhAgavatam being interpreted as pratIkOpAsaNa and Shiva referring to Hari as “sarvAtma” in the same section. //

Response:
The Keṣī sūktam never has anything to do with the amṛta mathanam episode. Yet, the Mādhvas have taken it to be ‘Vāyu’ drinking up the essence of the poison and rendering it harmless for Śiva to ‘safely’ drink and not Visnu as the blogger has it. For Advaitins it is completely a different topic in that sūktam. There was no need for Nārāyaṇa to drink the poison ‘through’ Śiva and ‘give him the credit’. An intelligent reader of the purānas can easily see through such weak excuses. By saying that Nārāyaṇa passed on the credit to Śiva who did not do anything actually amounts to only hoodwink the readers. No one who realizes the stated ‘stage managing’ will ever regard Śiva as anyone great, for, the real greatness lies, then, in Viṣṇu. Hence, the aim of such stage managing fails utterly. While the blogger thinks he is intelligent enough to see through the game of Vśṇu drinking the poison and passing on the credit to Śiva, are not the devas who are much more accomplished than humans capable of seeing thru the game and yet accept Śiva as their ‘leader’ which the blogger wants them to as desired by Nārāyaṇa? If the devas praise really was addressed to Nārāyaṇa, why did they all, along with Viṣṇu who was very much there, approach Śiva in His abode? They could have easily directly prayed to Nārāyaṇa. There is a saying:
अर्के चेन्मधु विंदेत किमर्थं पर्वतं व्रजेत् । – शाबरभाष्य
[If one gets honey in the plant in the backyard, who will climb the mountain to get honey? They will not.] Śābarabhāṣya

Now, since the blogger has labored so hard to vilify Śiva with the etymology for the word ‘Rudra’, here is what Shankara says, as one of the meanings, for the word ‘Rudra’ in the Viṣṇusahasranāma bhāṣyam, citing a Śivapurāṇam (tāmasa purāṇa according to the blogger: http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_9.html) verse:

(114th): रुर्दुःखं दुःखहेतुं वा तद् द्रावयति यः प्रभुः । रुद्र इत्युच्यते तस्माच्छिवः परमकारणम् ॥ (samhitā 6, ch.9, verse 14)
(‘Ruḥ’ means misery or the cause thereof. This is destroyed, melted away, by Rudra. Hence the Supreme Lord, Shiva, who is the Ultimate Cause (of creation, etc.) is called ‘Rudra’).
Shankara is establishing the Hari-Hara abheda by citing the above verse for the name ‘Rudra’ in the VS.

Shankara cites two seminal verses from the Bhaviṣyottara purāṇa in the introduction to the VS:

Maheśvara (Śiva) says:
विष्णोरन्यं तु पश्यन्ति ये मां ब्रह्माणमेव वा । कुतर्कमतयो मूढाः पच्यन्ते नरकेष्वधः ॥
[Those fools. who, devoid of proper thinking, consider Me and Brahmā as different from Viṣṇu will be baked in the lowly hells.]

ये च मूढा दुरात्मानो भिन्नं पश्यन्ति मां हरेः । ब्रह्माणं च ततस्तस्माद् ब्रह्महत्यासमं त्वघम् ॥
[Those fools, wicked ones, by seeing Me and Brahmā as different from Hari are committing the heinous sin of brahmahatyā.]

See for more such references on Shiva-Viṣṇu abheda: https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/shiva-vishnu-abheda-in-the-kaivalyopanishat/

If the blogger thinks he can get away with giving such etymological derivations for ‘Rudra’ and vilify Him, it is equally possible for someone to apply that etymology to Krishna and Rama too:

http://nitaaiveda.com/Compiled_and_Imp_Scriptures/Ananda_Vrindavana_Champu/04_Shakatasura_Trinavarta_Killing.htm
(I am not providing the core texts of the Bhagavatam for these events as the points conveyed are actually there in those texts)
//Yasodanandana, whose beauty defeats beauty personified, started crying due to hunger and a desire to drink Yasoda’s breast milk. But Vrajesvari could not hear Him due to the loud music and singing.// (Shakatasura vadha)

Since Vishnu has a name ‘Rudra’ in the VS, one can give the above explanation, with the blogger’s etymology (in the corrected form).

http://kirtimukha.com/Krishnaswamy/child_ramakien/ramayana37.htm
// Rama: Raama wept and ran hither and thither in the grove round the cottage. The leaves and flowers on the trees had faded. Seeta was nowhere to be seen. He wandered about like one mad. His eyes were bloodshot. He cried, “Alas, have they eaten her up? Have they carried her away. O, how she must have trembled in terror! I cannot bear the thought of it.”

After wandering and weeping in vain for a long time, he fell on the ground moaning, “Ha Lakshmana! Ha Seeta!” He cried like an elephant trapped in a pit. //

The weeping of Rama can easily attract the blogger’s etymology for the word ‘Rudra’, for nothing prevents one from explaining that name of the VS by citing the above episode.

Aranya Kandam sarga 63:
स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः।
उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।
विपुले शोके in intense grief, निमग्नः plunged, सः that, रामः Rama, सशोकम् with sorrow, रुदन् crying, शोकवशाभिपन्नम् who was caught in sorrow, लक्ष्मणम् Lakshmana, उष्णम् hot, विनिश्वस्य sighing, व्यसनानुरूपम् in his grief, वाक्यम् these words, उवाच said.
[Here is where the blogger’s (corrected) etymology for the word ‘Rudra’ perfectly fits Rāma, who as Viṣṇu has a name ‘Rudra’ in the VS.]
Plunged in deep grief, Rama heaved hot sighs and said these words to griefstricken Lakshmana, weeping:
न मद्विधो दुष्कृतकर्मकारी मन्ये द्वितीयोऽस्ति वसुन्धरायाम्।
शोकेन शोको हि परम्पराया मा मेति भिन्दन्हृदयं मनश्च।।3.63.3।।
वसुन्धरायाम् on earth, मद्विधः like me, दुष्कृतकर्मकारी who undertakes forbidden acts, द्वितीयः second person, नास्ति not, मन्ये I think, शोकेन grief, शोकः grief, परम्परायाः continuously, हृदयम् heart, मनश्च mind also, भिन्दन् shattered, माम् my, एति हि is befalling.
I think there is none on earth like me who has performed such forbidden acts. One grief after the other is successively piercing my heart and my mind.
पूर्वं मया नूनमभीप्सितानि पापानि कर्माण्यसकृत्कृतानि।
तत्रायमद्यापतितो विपाको दुःखेन दुःखं यदहं विशामि।।3.63.4।।
मया by me, पूर्वम् in the past, नूनम् certainly, अभीप्सितानि dear to me, पापानि कर्माणि sinful deeds, असकृत् often, कृतानि done, तत्र there, अद्य now, विपाकः consequence of that, आपतितः has descended, यत् since, अहम् I, दुःखेन by sorrow, दुःखम् sorrow, विशामि I am entering.
In the past I had certainly done some sinful deeds I often liked the consequences of which have descended on me now as I am experiencing one sorrow after another. [Here is where the ‘anapahatapāpmatvam’ (lack of freedom from sins) of Rama is brought out by Himself. The blogger’s tirade on the śatapathabrāhmaṇa about Śiva is replayed, with some changes though, in this episode of the Rāmāyaṇa.]

राज्यप्रणाशस्स्वजनैर्वियोगः पितुर्विनाशो जननीवियोगः।
सर्वाणि मे लक्ष्मण शोकवेगमापूरयन्ति प्रविचिन्तितानि।।3.63.5।।
लक्ष्मण Lakshmana, राज्यप्रणाशः loss of kingdom, स्वजनैः kith and kin, वियोगः separation from, पितुः father, विनाशः death, जननीवियोगः separation from mother, सर्वाणि all, प्रविचिन्तितानि thinking over, मे I, शोकवेगम् fast increase sorrow, आपूरयन्ति greater measure.

O Lakshmana, loss of kingdom, separation from kith and kin, death of father, separation from mother–all these thoughts augment my sorrow faster and in greater measure.

If Krishna’s and Rama’s weeping, wailing, crying, are not to be seriously taken to deserve the Rudra-etymology of the blogger, so too does Śiva’s ‘weeping’. If the formers’ weeping has some hidden meaning, so too does the latter’s. If Nārāyaṇa can enact the poison-drinking to merely make Śiva gain popularity and applause, so too Śiva can enact the weeping and thereby give credit and fame to Nārāyaṇa’s names that Śiva ‘allowed’ to ‘cleanse’ him. After all, the two are non-different. They love, respect, and glorify each other.
Says Śuka in reply to Parikṣit’s question on the propriety of the Lord indulging in amorous play with the gopis who are others’ wives:

श्रीशुक उवाच
धर्मव्यतिक्रमो दृष्ट ईश्वराणां च साहसम्
तेजीयसां न दोषाय वह्नेः सर्वभुजो यथा 10.33.29
Sukadeva Gosvami said: The status of powerful controllers is not harmed by any apparently audacious transgression of morality we may see in them, for they are just like fire, which devours everything fed into it and remains unpolluted.
नैतत्समाचरेज्जातु मनसापि ह्यनीश्वरः
विनश्यत्याचरन्मौढ्याद्यथारुद्रोऽब्धिजं विषम् 10.33.30
One who is not a great controller should never imitate the behavior of ruling personalities, even mentally. If out of foolishness an ordinary person does imitate such behavior, he will simply destroy himself, just as a person who is not Rudra would destroy himself if he tried to drink poison emanated from the churning of the ocean.
[Just as we should not imitate this pastime of Śiva’s, we should not imitate Lord Kṛṣṇa’s activities with the gopis.]

Śrīdharaswāmin comments: तर्हि “यद्यद्आचरति श्रेष्ठः”इतिन्यायेनान्योऽपि कुर्यात् इत्याशङ्क्याह, नैतदिति । अनीश्वरो देहादिपरतन्त्रः यथा रुद्रव्यतिरिक्तो विषमाचरन्भक्षयन् । [Then, is it that whatever the Great ones do, that can be imitated/followed by others too? Not so. He who is not a master of his body-mind-senses, that is, one who is other than Rudra (who is a master of his body-mind-senses) were to consume that poison…]

So, in the opinion of Śuka (Veda Vyāsa), Rudra is extraordinary and is held as an example of having accomplished the feat of drinking the poison and not affected by it. If it were a fact that Śiva did not drink the poison but only Viṣṇu drank it, Śuka’s statement above would amount to a lie.
Read also the following in connection with the actual event of amṛta mathanam:
http://vedabase.net/sb/8/7/en

Sridhara swamin says:
8.7.19
अत एवासह्यं विलोक्य भीता अन्येन केनापि अरक्ष्यमाणाः सदाशिवं शरणं दुद्रुवु र्जग्मुः. [Frightened by the terrible poison, not being protected by anyone the devas took refuge in, surrendered to, Sadāśiva.]
[Those not able to stand this straightforward statement of the Bhāgavata using the word ‘Sadāśiva’ to refer to Rudra want to somehow hijack that name to Viṣṇu by saying: it is Viṣṇu who is saḍaśiva, ever-auspicious. One can clearly see the desperation. Why should the devas, along with Viṣṇu make a trip to Sadāśiva’s abode only to end up looking upon Viṣṇu as Sadāśiva there?]
The scenario is that even Lord Viṣṇu was there. Śiva was in His abode at that time. That is where the entourage went.
//O King, when that uncontrollable poison was forcefully spreading up and down in all directions, all the demigods, along with the Lord Himself, approached Lord Śiva [Sadāśiva]. Feeling unsheltered and very much afraid, they sought shelter of him.//
While non-Śrīdhara commentaries somehow struggle to save the situation by giving excuses such as ‘Viṣṇu, though capable of containing the poison, just in order to give credit to Śiva, let this happen.’, one can easily see how artificial and roundabout is such an explanation. अन्येन केनापि अरक्ष्यमाणाः

When Śiva is ‘loka samhāra kartā’ as per the VS bhashya of Shankara, and also the Praśnopaniṣat and bhāṣya, where the entire created universe is absorbed, the kālakūṭa containing, which is an infinitesimal part of the entire creation, is no big issue. Sridhara swamin says that ‘Siva pretended to take Umā’s permission before imbibing the poison with the idea that She might not have the complete knowledge of His capabilities.’

All the references about Śiva ‘taking the names of Viṣṇu before the act’ are comparable to Viṣṇu’s (as Kriṣṇa) praying to Śiva for progeny and worshiping Him with the thousand names. Such incidents only go to show the identity of Hari and Hara as the MB itself has said (see verse cited above): One Principle alone appears in the twin-form of Rudra and Nārāyaṇa.

The blogger says the Sāyaṇa commentary of the Keśī sūkta is not to be followed for he has not done any good work in explaining the Śatarudrīyam’ as no tattvam has been brought out. One can see here what advaitins have to say about the ‘Tattvam’ of the Sri Rudram:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/5ui915s8ftno32k/srirudram+reply+English.doc

Shankaracharya has composed verses involving the poison-containing in the Śivānandalahari which, for obvious reasons, is not admitted by bigoted non-advaitins as an ‘authentic’ work of Shankara. Traditional advaitins are not bothered about such misgivings.
नालं वा परमोपकारकमिदं त्वेकं पशूनां पते
पश्यन् कुक्षिगतांश्चराचरगणान् बाह्यस्थितान् रक्षितुम् ।
सर्वामर्त्यपलायनौषधमतिज्वालाकरं भीकरं
निक्षिप्तं गरलं गले न गिलितं नोद्गीर्णमेव त्वया ॥३१॥

[When the ocean of milk was churned for nectar, from the ocean emerged scorching deadly poison which Lord Shiva imbibed]. The poet devotee says ” O Lord of all beings! Seeing that all movable and immovable life forms were in your belly you neither swallowed the poison nor spat it out to save those outside. Thus you kept in your neck the deadly poison which was frightening and emitting flames causing all devas to run away from it. O Lord! Is not this single act of yours which saved all from extinction enough (to prove your compassion)?

ज्वालोग्रस्सकलामरातिभयदः क्ष्वेल: कथं वा त्वया
दृष्टः किं च करे धृतः करतले किं पक्वजम्बूफलम्
जिह्वायां निहितश्च सिद्धघुटिका वा कण्ठदेशे भृतः
किं ते नीलमणिर्विभूषणमयं शंभो महात्मन् वद ॥३२॥

O Lord ! How did you see the poison which was emitting flames of fire and creating great fear in the minds of the devas? When you took it in the palm of your hand did you see it merely as a ripe jāmun fruit ? When you placed it on your tongue did you think it was a globule of siddha medicine? When you retained it at the neck did you think that it was an ornament made of a precious stones of dark blue colour ? O Shambhu, The great one! Please tell me.

In fact the Śivānandalahari has several verses recounting the purāṇic event of Brahmā and Viṣṇu embarking on a cosmic journey to locate the beginning and end of Śiva who appeared as a mammoth effulgence.

There is no end to such attacks and counter-attacks. It is maturity that is required in all such cases. The Kamakoti blog (http://www.kamakoti.org/kamakoti/articles/Sri%20Kamakoti%20Pradeepam%20-%20The%20Erroneous%20Words%20of%20the%20Misguided.html ) is a result of grave provocation on the part of the srivaishnava article. Advaitins have retaliated to such deity-based fights initiated always by non-advaitins.

In conclusion, I am citing a passage from Shankara’s Brahmasutra bhāṣya to show that the talk of ‘Nārāyaṇa drinking the poison as antaryāmi, while Śiva was incapable of doing so, and thereby saw to it that Śiva got the credit/fame’ has no basis. The bhāṣya says that Ishwara is only a common cause, sādhāraṇam kāraṇam, and the specific causes are the karma, merit or otherwise, of the individuals. So, for all karma of all individuals to take effect, the common cause alone is Ishwara and He does nothing more than being that common cause. It is the individual’s effort that decides what kind of fruit he gets. I gave this general rule that applies to all jivas. So, even granting that Śiva is a jīva as wishfully thought by the blogger, the role of Viṣṇu, if He is the Iṣvara of the jīva Śiva, is not any active one; it is just a passive one of being the manager of the infrastructure. He has no role in the actual drinking of the poison by Śiva which happens by His own capability. For that matter, the role of the Lord is the same in the defeat of the asuras too. This is how advaita looks at the concept of antaryāmi. This rule is no exception even to the BG declaration:

मयैवैते निहताः पूर्वमेव निमित्तमात्रं भव सव्यसाचिन्।।11.33।।
[These adversaries of yours, O Arjuna, have been killed by Me, even before]

Madhusudana Saraswati says: एते च तव शत्रवो मयैव कालात्मना निहताः संहतायुषः त्वदीययुद्धात्पूर्वमेव। केवलं तव यशोलाभाय रथान्न पातिताः। अतस्त्वं निमित्तमात्रं अर्जुनेनैते निर्जिता इति सार्वलौकिकव्यपदेशास्पदं भव। [These enemies of yours have been killed, their lives have been ended, by Me alone as Kāla, Time, before your fighting them. …Therefore be just a mere efficient cause or instrumental cause for the universal fame that you will earn by actually fighting the war: ‘These great warriors have been defeated by Arjuna’.]

Thus, the role of the Lord is clearly stated in the above commentary as the Time, which, as per the destiny of every jīva, will take its toll. Every jīva is bound to die and that is the inescapable law. Yet, the Lord did not ask Arjuna to keep quiet; He goaded him to take up arms and really fight. So too, even if Śiva were to be a jīva, the role of the antaryāmi is to let everything happen as destined and not interfere in the law of nature. Shankara says, for the word ‘anumantā’ of the BG 13.22:
अनुमन्ता च, अनुमोदनम् अनुमननं कुर्वत्सु तत्क्रियासु परितोषः, तत्कर्ता अनुमन्ता च । अथवा, अनुमन्ता, कार्यकरणप्रवृत्तिषु स्वयम् अप्रवृत्तोऽपि प्रवृत्त इव तदनुकूलः विभाव्यते, तेन अनुमन्ता । अथवा, प्रवृत्तान् स्वव्यापारेषु तत्साक्षिभूतः कदाचिदपि न निवारयति इति अनुमन्ता ।
//And He is the anu-mantā, Permitter: Anumananam, approval, means satisfaction with those performers (viz body and organs) as also their perfomances. The agent of that (approval) is the anumantā. Or, He is the anumantā since, even though Himself not engaged in the activities of the body and organs, He appears to be favourably disposed towards and engaged in them. Or, He is the anumanta because, when the body and organs are engaged in their own functions, He remains as a witness and never dissuades them.//

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । द्वितीयः अध्यायः । प्रथमः पादः । वैषम्यनैर्घृण्याधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ३४ – भाष्यम्
वैषम्यनैर्घृण्ये नेश्वरस्य प्रसज्येते । कस्मात् ? सापेक्षत्वात् । यदि हि निरपेक्षः केवल ईश्वरो विषमां सृष्टिं निर्मिमीते, स्यातामेतौ दोषौ — वैषम्यं नैर्घृण्यं च ; न तु निरपेक्षस्य निर्मातृत्वमस्ति ; सापेक्षो हीश्वरो विषमां सृष्टिं निर्मिमीते । किमपेक्षत इति चेत् — धर्माधर्मावपेक्षत इति वदामः ; अतः सृज्यमानप्राणिधर्माधर्मापेक्षा विषमा सृष्टिरिति नायमीश्वरस्यापराधः ; ईश्वरस्तु पर्जन्यवद्द्रष्टव्यः — यथा हि पर्जन्यो व्रीहियवादिसृष्टौ साधारणं कारणं भवति, व्रीहियवादिवैषम्ये तु तत्तद्बीजगतान्येवासाधारणानि सामर्थ्यानि कारणानि भवन्ति, एवमीश्वरो देवमनुष्यादिसृष्टौ साधारणं कारणं भवति, देवमनुष्यादिवैषम्ये तु तत्तज्जीवगतान्येवासाधारणानि कर्माणि कारणानि भवन्ति ; एवमीश्वरः सापेक्षत्वान्न वैषम्यनैर्घृण्याभ्यां दुष्यति । कथं पुनरवगम्यते सापेक्ष ईश्वरो नीचमध्यमोत्तमं संसारं निर्मिमीत इति ? तथा हि दर्शयति श्रुतिः — ‘एष ह्येव साधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्य उन्निनीषत एष उ एवासाधु कर्म कारयति तं यमधो निनीषते’ (कौ. ब्रा. ३-८) इति, ‘पुण्यो वै पुण्येन कर्मणा भवति पापः पापेन’ (बृ. उ. ३-२-१३) इति च ; स्मृतिरपि प्राणिकर्मविशेषापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्यानुग्रहीतृत्वं निग्रहीतृत्वं च दर्शयति — ‘ये यथा मां प्रपद्यन्ते तांस्तथैव भजाम्यहम्’ (भ. गी. ४-११) इत्येवंजातीयका ॥ ३४ ॥
Translation of George Thibaut at http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34173.php:
// The Lord, we reply, cannot be reproached with inequality of dispensation and cruelty, “because he is bound by regards.” If the Lord on his own account, without any extraneous regards, produced this unequal creation, he would expose himself to blame; but the fact is, that in creating he is bound by certain regards, i. e. he has to look to merit and demerit. Hence the circumstance of the creation being unequal is due to the merit and demerit of the living creatures created, and is not a fault for which the Lord is to blame. The position of the Lord is to be looked on as analogous to that of Parjanya, the Giver of rain. For as Parjanya is the common cause of the production of rice, barley, and other plants, while the difference between the various species is due to the various potentialities lying hidden in the respective seeds, so the Lord is the common cause of the creation of gods, men, &c., while the differences between these classes of beings are due to the different merit belonging to the individual souls. Hence the Lord, being bound by regards, cannot be reproached with inequality of dispensation and cruelty.–And if we are asked how we come to know that the Lord, in creating this world with its various conditions, is bound by regards, we reply that Scripture declares that; compare, for instance, the two following passages, ‘For he (the Lord) makes him, whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, do a good deed; and the same makes him, whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds, do a bad deed’ (Kaush. Up. III, 8) 1; and, ‘A man becomes good by good work, bad by bad work’ (Bri. Up. III, 2, 13). Smriti passages also declare the favour of the Lord and its opposite to depend on the different quality of the works of living beings; so, for instance, ‘I serve men in the way in which they approach me’ (Bha. Gî. IV, 11).//
Thus, there is no way the blogger’s theory of ‘Nārāyaṇa the antaryāmi of Śiva actually drinking the poison while Śiva was a mere vessel. ‘svabhāvastu pravartae’ says the Lord in the BG:5.14:
न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः ।
न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ॥ १४ ॥
The translation of the commentary: 5.14 Prabhuh, the Self; na srjati, does not create; lokasya, for anyone; kartrtvam, agentship, by saying ‘Do this'; or even karmani, any objects – such objects as chariot, pot, palace, etc. which are intensely longed for; nor even karma-phala-samyogam, association with the results of actions – association of the creator of a chariot etc. with the result of his work. Objection: If the embodied one does not do anything himself, and does not make others do, then who is it that engages in work by doing and making others do? The answer is: Tu, but; it is svabhāvaḥ, Nature- one’s own (sva) nature (bhāva)-characterized as ignorance, Māyā, which will be spoken of in, ‘Since this divine Maya’ (7.14); pravartate, that acts.
The above is to point out that as per Advaita the Lord, antaryāmi, does not do anything; It is a passive observer, a concept much objected to by non-advaitins. So, even granting that Śiva is a jīva, the containing of the poison is not any act of the antaryāmi, nor any special enabling by the latter. There is no room for Viṣṇu drinking it or Śiva being enabled by taking the former’s name to accomplish the act. Such utterances are no more than arthavādas; the actual situation is stated above in various passages along with the commentary. To take such arthavādas as actual happenings and propagate fanciful theories is the folly of bigots.

Om Tat Sat

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers