Posted by: adbhutam | January 20, 2017

MOKṢA SVARŪPA AS PER VARIOUS SCHOOLS

Mokṣa svarūpa according to various schools

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

https://www.mediafire.com/?ugj1nqqeh75cb8y

Om Tat Sat

 

Posted by: adbhutam | January 16, 2017

MALICIOUS INTERPRETATION OF ATHARVAŚIRĀ UPANIŚAD

An instance of  malicious interpretation of the Atharvaśirā upaniṣad

A short article on the above topic is available here for download:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/l6som2xfpbcjj4t/Wrong_explanation_of_the_Atharvashir%C4%81F.pdf

Om Tat Sat

 

 

Posted by: adbhutam | January 11, 2017

DID SHANKARACHARYA DESTROY BHĀGAVATA DHARMAS?

 

Is there evidence of Shankaracharya having destroyed Bhāgavata dharma/s?
In the post referred to below, some alleged purāṇic references are provided to ‘prove’ that Shankaracharya is the same as the demon called ‘maṇimān born to a brāhmaṇa, destroying and criticizing ‘sat dharma’ / ‘bhāgavata dharmas’ and criticizing ‘sat śāstra-s’:
1. kUrmapurANe shrImuShNamAhAtmye paJNchame.adhyAye |

shrI sUta uvAcha --

purA bhAgIrathItIre niminA pR^iShTavAnmuniH |
naShTA bhAgavatA dharmAH sachChAstrANi kalau yuge ||
iti shrutaM mayA pUrvaM tIrthayAtrAprasaN^gataH |
kathaM naShTA bhaviShyanti punaH sthAsyanti vai katham.h ||
vada vidvanmahAbAho kashchoddhAraM kariShyati |

shrI vAmadeva uvAcha --

chatussahasre dvishate gate saugandhike vane |
nihatA bhImasenena dvAparAnte nR^ipottama |
saugandhikAkhye nihatA ye cha krodhavashAH khalAH |
rudreNa nihatA ye cha traipurAshcha kalau yuge |
chatussahasre.aShTashate maNimantAdayo.asurAH
janiShyanti brahmayonau daityAH saddharmadUShakAH |
mithyAvAdamasachChAstraM kariShyanti kalau yuge |
gopayiShyanti sachChAstraM sachChAstraparipanthinaH |
evaM dharmeShu naShTeShu shAstreShu cha kalau yuge |
devairvij~nApito viShNurvAyumAj~nApayiShyati |
Madhvas also quote purported Garuda purāṇic verses in the same vein as the above:
The complete text of the Garuda purANa is available here:
tena saṃkaranāmāsau bhaviṣyati khageśvara /
dharmānbhāgavatānsarvānvināśayati sarvathā // GarP_3,16.71 //
[Owing to this, sAnkarya karaNam, this person will be known as ‘samkara’, O GaruDa. He will destroy the complete bhAgavata dharma totally.]
On the basis of the above lines of the purāṇa, is there any evidence within Shānkara bhāṣyas or any other sources of the writings of other Acharyas that Shankara:
1. Destroyed Bhāgavata dharmas
2. Sat dharmas
3. Criticized sat śāstra-s.
Also, based on the following verses cited from Garuda purāṇa:
maṇimānnāma daityastu sankarākhyo bhaviṣyati /
sarveṣāṃ saṃkaraṃ yastu kariṣyati na saṃśayaḥ // GarP_3,16.70 //
[A demon named maNimAn will incarnate with the name ‘sankara’.  Undoubtedly he will bring about the samkara, admixture, of ‘all’.  The verse does not say what is meant by ‘all’.  It is reasonable to take, from the popular meaning of the word ‘sAnkaryam’ that castes will get mixed up and there will be varNavyavasthA.  So, this maNimAn will bring about such a situation.  How this happens is not stated in the puraNa.]
Are there evidences in the Shānkara bhāṣyas for Shankara having taught/supported admixture of castes?
BGB introduction:
अनुष्ठातॄणां कामोद्भवात् हीयमानविवेकविज्ञानहेतुकेन अधर्मेण अभिभूयमाने धर्मे, प्रवर्धमाने च अधर्मे, जगतः स्थितिं परिपिपालयिषुः स आदिकर्ता नारायणाख्यो विष्णुः भौमस्य ब्रह्मणो ब्राह्मणत्वस्य रक्षणार्थं देवक्यां वसुदेवादंशेन कृष्णः किल सम्बभूव । ब्राह्मणत्वस्य हि रक्षणे रक्षितः स्याद्वैदिको धर्मः, तदधीनत्वाद्वर्णाश्रमभेदानाम् ॥
Even if ‘sānkarya’ pejoratively means the core Advaitic doctrine of ‘One without any differences of any kind’, does it amount to ‘mixing up of everything?’ Is the Advaita tattva a result of ‘mixing up’ everything in creation to arrive at the ‘One’? Has Shankara taught anywhere that a mixing up is what is to be done to arrive at the One (and not negating the name-forms that are superimposed)?
Also, is there evidence anywhere that there indeed existed an individual by name ‘sankara’ (since the puranic verses and the Mani Manjari say that that person was named so/well known so) who matched the personality details of the well known entity called Shankaracharya?
One can take into consideration this statement, for example, of many, from Shankara’s BSB on the bhāgavata doctrine sūtra:
 
ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । द्वितीयः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । उत्पत्त्यसम्भवाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ४२ – भाष्यम्
तत्र भागवता मन्यते — भगवानेवैको वासुदेवो निरञ्जनज्ञानस्वरूपः परमार्थतत्त्वम् ; स चतुर्धात्मानं प्रविभज्य प्रतिष्ठितः — वासुदेवव्यूहरूपेण, सङ्कर्षणव्यूहरूपेण, प्रद्युम्नव्यूहरूपेण, अनिरुद्धव्यूहरूपेण च ; वासुदेवो नाम परमात्मा उच्यते ; सङ्कर्षणो नाम जीवः ; प्रद्युम्नो नाम मनः ; अनिरुद्धो नाम अहंकारः ; तेषां वासुदेवः परा प्रकृतिः, इतरे सङ्कर्षणादयः कार्यम् ; तमित्थंभूतं परमेश्वरं भगवन्तमभिगमनोपादानेज्यास्वाध्याययोगैर्वर्षशतमिष्ट्वा क्षीणक्लेशो भगवन्तमेव प्रतिपद्यत इति । तत्र यत्तावदुच्यते — योऽसौ नारायणः परोऽव्यक्तात्प्रसिद्धः परमात्मा सर्वात्मा, स आत्मनात्मानमनेकधा व्यूह्यावस्थित इति — तन्न निराक्रियते, ‘स एकधा भवति त्रिधा भवति’ (छा. उ. ७-२६-२) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः परमात्मनोऽनेकधाभावस्याधिगतत्वात् ; यदपि तस्य भगवतोऽभिगमनादिलक्षणमाराधनमजस्रमनन्यचित्ततयाभिप्रेयते, तदपि न प्रतिषिध्यते, श्रुतिस्मृत्योरीश्वरप्रणिधानस्य प्रसिद्धत्वात् ।
  • That Vāsudeva is to be attained by worshiping him by going to temple, contemplating on him continuously with one-pointed devotion, etc. is not refuted/objected to since worship of/ dedicating one’s everything to Ishwara is taught in the scriptures.
  • A noted Madhva scholar Dr.Anandatirtha Vysampayanacharya Nagasampige, Director, Purnaprajna Samshodhana Mandiram, a Bangalore-based premier Madhva research institution run under the patronage of Sri Vishvesha Tirtha SwamigaLu, the seer of the Pejawar Mutt (whose disciple is the author), writes in his popular Kannada book: ‘Mata traya sameekshaa’: //  ಮೂರು ದರ್ಶನಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಮಾನತೆಗಳು:  ಅದ್ವೈತ-ವಿಶಿಷ್ಟಾದ್ವೈತ ಹಾಗೂ ದ್ವೈತ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಥೂಲವಾಗಿ ಕೆಲವು ಸಮಾನತೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಾವು ಕಾಣಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ:  ವಿಷ್ಣು ಪರದೇವತೆ ಎಂಬ ಸಂಗತಿ ಅಚಾರ್ಯತ್ರಯರಿಗೆ ಸಮ್ಮತವಾಗಿದೆ:[The similarities/sameness present in the three systems: In Advaita, Vishishtaadvaita and Dvaita, we can see an explicit similarity: – ]

    And has quoted appropriate passages from the works of the Three Acharyas.  In respect of Shankara, he quotes the following:

    ೧. नारायणः परोऽव्यक्तात् अण्डमव्यक्तसंभवम् ।

    अण्डस्यान्तस्त्विमे लोकाः सप्तद्वीपा च मेदिनी ॥ [Introduction by Shankara to His Gita Bhashya]

    Narayana is beyond the Avyakta; From the Avyakta the Mundane Egg is born; Within the Mundane Egg, verily, are these worlds and the Earth made up of the seven dvipa-s.

    The Madhva scholar goes on to list other ‘commonalities’ across the Three Acharyas:

    1. All the Acharyas agree that the Veda is apauruSheya and is the parama-pramANa. (he quotes appropriate passages from the works of the three Acharyas which substatiate this)

    2. That Bhakti alone is the means for liberation is admissible to all the three Acharyas.  In support of this he quotes Shankara’s statement from the Gitabhashya 18.65:

    एवं भगवतःसत्यप्रतिज्ञत्वं बुद्ध्वा भगवद्भक्तेः अवश्यम्भाविमोक्षपलमवधार्य भगवच्चरणैकपरायणो भवेदिति वाक्यार्थः ।

    //The idea conveyed by the passage is: Having thus understood that the Lord is true in His pormise, and knowing for certain that liberation is the unfailing result of devotion to the Lord, one should have dedication to God as his only supreme goal,//

    3. That karma is subsidiary to Jnana and is the cause for chitta-shuddhi is admissible to all the Three Acharyas. The Shankara-passage given for this is:

    ….अग्निहोत्रादिलक्षणं कर्म ब्रह्मचर्यादिलक्षणं च अनुग्राहकं भवति विद्योत्पत्तये. (Taittiriya Up.Bhashya 1.11)  [for the karmas such as Agnihotra, as also the practices of celibacy, etc., undertaken in the past lives, become helpful to the rise of knolwedge….]

  • Noted Madhva scholar Dr.Bannanje Govindacharya has in several public platforms stated that Shankaracharya upheld Vishnu sarvottamatva 
  • The Pejawar Swamiji, during an address at the PPSM Bangalore, after a 10 day Vivekachudamani workshop, which I attended, said: All the three Acharyas stressed the need for Bhagavad bhakti.
  • Shankara is admitted by even other schools to have authored the Vishnusahasra nāma bhāṣya. Many devotional works such as the Ranganathāṣṭakam, the Viṣṇu ṣaṭpadī, Nrsimha, Jagannātha ashtakam, etc. are admitted to be his by even vaiṣṇavas.
  • List given by Vedantadeshika as follows:   पिशाच – रन्तिदेव – गुप्त  – यादवप्रकाश –  शङ्कर – भास्कर –  नारायणार्य –  यज्ञस्वामि –  प्रभृतिभि:,  does not mention ‘Shankara’ as ‘sankara’.
  • The contemporaries of Shankara, Sureshwara and Padmapada do not seem to have known Shankara as ‘Sankara’. If that was his real name, it would be easily known to the followers too, along with his supposed ill-famed birth. On the other hand Sureshwara says in the Brihadaranyaka bhashya vartika that he belonged to Atrigotra. He also refers to his Guru as the one who bore the name of ‘Bhava’ and ‘Vedhāḥ’, both names known to be of Shiva.There is no name ‘sankara’ that is one of the epithets of Shiva. Padmapada, in his invocatory verse for Panchapadika compares / contrasts Shankaracharya and Shiva and not any Sankara.
  • We can also see that all the advaita Acharyas that followed Shankara, before and after Ramanuja and Madhva, have invoked the blessings of Viṣṇu  in one or the other form.
  • If it is true that Shankara had ‘destroyed bhāgavata dharma-s’, how could those who followed him have displayed devotion to Viṣṇu? Even Vāchaspati Misra, the author of Bhāmatī, has prayed to Veda Vyasa as the shaktyavatāra of ‘Bhagavan’ Viṣṇu.
  • If it is said ‘the writings of Shankara are not to be relied upon for the person Shankara was quite the opposite (demoniacal)’, then such a charge is open to other Acharyas like Ramanuja and Madhva as well.
  • Even a Madhva historian has said that ‘in Sringeri the temples to Shāradā and Janardana have been there since ancient times.’
  • It is also strange that the purported Garuda purana quote is completely silent about Ramanuja:
  • tadā bhūmau vāyudevo bhaviṣyati na saṃśayaḥ /
    yajñārthaiḥ sadṛśo yasya nāsti loke caturdaśe // GarP_3,16.72 //

    [Then in the world vAyudeva will undoubtedly take birth.  He will be unequalled by anyone in matters of yajnArtha (?) in all the fourteen worlds.]

  • Between the four hundred years (that is the meaning of ‘tadā’, ‘then’!!) that passed after Shankara and before Madhva, Ramanuja had come to do the same work Madhva did: of refuting Advaita darshana of Shankara. If Madhva is credited to have established ‘sat śāstra’ by refuting Shankara, there is no way one can deny that credit to Ramanuja too. And the Ramanuja school has thrived these 1000 years producing great quantum of Acharyas and works even as the Madhva school has. Yet, curiously enough the author of the Garuda purana takes no notice of Ramanuja and ignores him completely, who arrived two hundred years after Shankara and before Madhva.
It is quite understandable, and reasonable too, that the Madhvas value the listed purāṇic references for the primary reason that they are corroborated by the real events, names, etc. pertaining to the birth and life and activities/works of Madhva. Similarly, it would be reasonable to value those references the Madhvas think are pertaining to Shankaracharya, too are corroborated by the real events, names, what he did, for example ‘destruction of bhāgavata/sat dharmas and his criticizing sat śāstras’. The ‘śāstras’ Shankara is known to have refuted in the Brahmasutra bhashya are: mainly sānkhya, nyāya vaiśeṣika, chārvāka, purva mimāmasa, pāśupata, bauddha and jaina. Are these ‘sat śāstra-s’? The pāncharātra has been critiqued by him on certain doctrinal grounds, but not by denigrating Vāsudeva. It also doubtful as to whether the pāncharātra that he had referred to there is the same as what is popularly known.
In the above background one can assess the merit of the purāṇic verses pertaining to Shankaracharya cited in the post or elsewhere.
Om Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | January 9, 2017

Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

 

The legal definition of the above maxim is:

http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/suppressio-veri-suggestio-falsi/

Meaning of Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

Suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of what is false. 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 521, 525.

The above maxim is demonstrated in the following ‘reply’ given by the blogger to an unsuspecting questioner:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/a-note-to-our-readers.html

The question:

AnonymousDecember 20, 2016 at 6:58 AM

Dear Swamy,

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namah,

Humble Pramanams to Devareers. Thank you very much for this marvelous blog. adiyen is slowly go through it and learning more.

Just one small question. How does one be both mayavadi in philosophy and at same time be Vaishnava in religious practise ? If we are worshipping Vasudeva as the Supreme meaning we are His Servants and owned by Him and our purpose is to serve Him. Then philosophically, how the parabrahmam, and the jiva be one and the same?

Can Devareers please briefly enlighten adiyen on this small doubt.

Thanking you,
Gautam

 

To this the ‘reply’ from the blogger is as follows:

My observations to this ‘reply’ are given in italics in between [ ]

AaryamaaDecember 21, 2016 at 7:18 AM

We have answered this earlier. Advaita posits the Self as the sole reality only in the pAramArthika sath. However, until such realization occurs, duality exists in the vyAvahArika sath. Within this lower level of reality, every being is distinct from each other and as such, there exists an Ishvara, sriman nArAyaNa, who resides in Sri Vaikunta, who is sarvAntaryAmin and has everyone as his vibhUtIs, who is to be resorted to for attaining the ultimate state.

 

[The above is not true. Advaita as taught by Shankara does not posit Nārāyaṇa as someone residing in Vaikunta. Nor is it true that everyone is his Vibhūti. There is no compulsion that one must resort to Narayana to attain the ultimate state. Shankara has on many occasions in the prasthānatraya bhāṣya taught that an aprokṣajñānin when worshiped can grant the jñāna that results in mokṣa. One instance is the Muṇḍakopaniṣat bhāṣya for the mantra 3.2.1:

 

स वेदैतत्परमं ब्रह्म धाम यत्र विश्वं निहितं भाति शुभ्रम् ।
उपासते पुरुषं ये ह्यकामास्ते शुक्रमेतदतिवर्तन्ति धीराः ॥ १ ॥

भाष्यम्

यस्मात् स वेद जानाति एतत् यथोक्तलक्षणं ब्रह्म परमं प्रकृष्टं धाम सर्वकामानामाश्रयमास्पदम्, यत्र यस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि धाम्नि विश्वं समस्तं जगत् निहितम् अर्पितम्, यच्च स्वेन ज्योतिषा भाति शुभ्रं शुद्धम्, तमप्येवंविधमात्मज्ञं पुरुषं ये हि अकामाः विभूतितृष्णावर्जिता मुमुक्षवः सन्तः उपासते परमिव देवम्, ते शुक्रं नृबीजं यदेतत्प्रसिद्धं शरीरोपादानकारणम् अतिवर्तन्ति अतिगच्छन्ति धीराः बुद्धिमन्तः, न पुनर्योनिं प्रसर्पन्ति । ‘न पुनः क्व रतिं करोति’ (?) इति श्रुतेः । अतस्तं पूजयेदित्यभिप्रायः ॥

He who knows Brahman that is the abode of the entire creation, that which shines by its own splendor, him, this jñānin, too, whoever worships/meditates upon, without the desire for worldly pleasures, as the Supreme Brahman, is freed from rebirth. Therefore one must worship the jñānin.

This idea is stressed in the final mantra of the Praśnopaniṣad too where the disciples of Sage Pippalāda, express their gratitude for having bestowed the liberating knowledge.

Also, the Kenopaniṣad bears proof for this fact. Indra did not worship Viṣṇu in that Upaniṣad episode but adored Umā and from her was bestowed the liberating knowledge. Shankara says: umā is verily brahmavidyā and since she is ever inseparably with the Omniscient Ishvara, she knows (the Truth). 

So, there is no compulsion that one must worship or resort to Nārāyaṇa alone for attaining the supreme knowledge/liberation. This fact has been suppressed by the blogger in this ‘reply’ thereby suggesting a false idea.]

As an analogy, bhakti towards Ishvara in advaita is like a dream. Until you wake up, it is real and thus whatever you do is taken as valid. I know saying it is like a dream is not entirely doing justice to advaita’s concepts of mithya (of which I frankly haven’t delved much into), but as a rough example, it will serve.

Thus, until advaitins attain the “perfect jnAna” by their philosophy, they are vaishnavas who serve vishNu with bhakti just like any other vishishtadvaitin or dvaitin. That vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins criticize them by saying they are inferior does not undermine their vaishnavatva in anyway.

 

[The above idea is also completely false. Advaitins do not consider themselves to be vaiṣṇava-s and are not compelled by Shankaracharya to serve Viṣṇu. Krishna himself says in the BG: tad viddhi…. Paripraśnena sevayā….’ [serve the Jñānin devoutly and he will bestow the knowledge to you]. Further, by the above reply the blogger is undermining the nature of Viṣṇu by making him no different from an ignorant man who is susceptible to partiality. If Advaitins also worship Viṣṇu with bhakti ‘just like any other vishishtadvaitin or dvaitin’, why would Viṣṇu make them ‘inferior’ to vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins? Has not the Lord said in the BG that he is the same with his devotees/beings? Also, the bhakti that the blogger claims that Advaitins are endowed with for Viṣṇnu, is not the ‘just like’ the vishishtadvaitins’ and dvaitins’ for the Advaitin never considers vaikunta as his ultimate abode in liberation. This fact is either unknown to the blogger or he is suppressing it from his gullible questioner and thus suggesting what is false regarding Advaita. Also, he has suppressed from the questioner the fact that Ramanuja has not accorded the ‘vaiṣṇava’ status to Shankara or advaitins. He carefully evades this information from his readers. Thus, the blogger is suggesting a weird ‘gradations among vaiṣṇavas’ theory that is completely inacceptable and illogical.]
Shankara identifies only vishNu as this Ishvara is seen by his commentary on the nAma “kathitaH” in the sahasranAma as follows:

vedAdibhir-ayameka eva paratvena kathita kathita iti kathitaH | sarvairvedaiH kathita iti vA kathitaH | “sarve vedA yatpadamAmananti”, “vedaishca sarvairahameva vedyaH”, “vede rAmAyaNe puNye bhArate bharatarSabhaH! adau madye tathA cAnte viSNuH sarvatra gIyate” iti shruti-smRtyAdi-vacanebhyaH |

Translation: He (Vishnu) is known as kathitaH since He alone is declared as supreme by the Veda and Vedic texts; or He who is described by all the Vedas. The following statements from the shruti (Vedas) and smRtis confirm this:

“All the Vedas describe His status.” (Kathopanishad 1.2.15),

“I alone am to be known from all the Vedas” (Bhagavad Gita 15.15),

“Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata!” (Harivamsa, 3.132.95).

“He who has sound intellect as his charioteer and controlled mind as the bridle, reaches the end of the road, which is the highest place/state of vishNu (katOpanishad, 3.9).
[The above is another falsehood coming from the blogger to deceive the gullible questioner. Read the true purport of Shankara’s commentary on the word ‘kathitaḥ’ here:

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/bnv2x1qgji3dd5u/Kathitah_F.pdf   ]
Note that Shankara even quotes the katOpanishad’s “paramaM padaM” with reference to vishNu as saguNa ishvara, identifying both sri vaikunta as an abode and the higher state of pAramArthika.

 

[The above is also false information. There is absolutely no reference to saguṇa Īśvara in that mantra for it is a teaching, adhyātma yoga, to attain the Nirguṇa Brahman. Also, Vaikunta is not the abode Shankara is teaching or even remotely suggesting there as the final destination of the Advaita sādhaka. In fact the word ‘padam’ is not a geographical place. Shankara has clarified what ‘padam’ means in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka bhāṣya, for example, as in several other places:

Br.up.4.4.23 bhashyam:

 

तस्मात् तस्यैव महिम्नः, स्यात् भवेत्, पदवित् पदस्य वेत्ता, पद्यते गम्यते ज्ञायत इति महिम्नः स्वरूपमेव पदम्, तस्य पदस्य वेदिता ।

 

For the word ‘pada-vit’ (knower of the padam) occurring in the above mantra, Shankara says: padam is padyate, gamyate, jñāyate and therefore the word ‘padam’ means verily the ‘svarūpam’ the true essence.  He who has known (jñāyate) this is called pada-vit.  [It should be noted that the Sanskrit root ‘pad’ has the meaning ‘gam’ which has also the meaning ‘know’.] Therefore, according to Shankara, the word ‘padam’ means the very svarupam of Brahman, known by the name ‘Viṣṇu/Vāsudeva’ in the Kaṭha 1.3.9 upaniṣad/bhāṣyam.  The word ‘padam’ and ‘sthānam’, therefore by no means ‘indicate’ any abode or krama mukti.  In fact it is laughable that the blogger is making such a silly suggestion in a completely sadyomukti prakaraṇa.  This is because he is ignorant about the difference between ‘upāsya brahman’ and ‘jñeya brahman’ and their fruits in Advaita.

 

As to a place (like vaikunta) shankara says in the Mundaka bhashya 3.2.6:   देशपरिच्छिन्ना हि गतिः संसारविषयैव, परिच्छिन्नसाधनसाध्यत्वात् । ब्रह्म तु समस्तत्वान्न देशपरिच्छेदेन गन्तव्यम् । यदि हि देशपरिच्छिन्नं ब्रह्म स्यात्, मूर्तद्रव्यवदाद्यन्तवदन्याश्रितं सावयवमनित्यं कृतकं च स्यात् । न त्वेवंविधं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति। अतस्तत्प्राप्तिश्च नैव देशपरिच्छिन्ना भवितुं युक्ता ॥ [going or travelling implies that the destination is limited by space and is clearly within samsāra since the means and the end (a place like vaikunta) are limited. On the other hand Brahman, being the all, is not to be attained as a limited place is attained. If Brahman were to be limited to a place, then like a formed object, it will have a beginning and end, dependent on something else, made of parts and therefore ephemeral and a product. Brahman cannot be of this kind. Therefore it is reasonable that ‘attaining Brahman’ is never attaining a limited place.]   

 

Mundaka 1.2.12:

अतः किं कृतेन कर्मणा आयासबहुलेनानर्थसाधनेन इत्येवं निर्विण्णोऽभयं शिवमकृतं नित्यं पदं यत्, तद्विज्ञानार्थं विशेषेणाधिगमार्थं स निर्विण्णो ब्राह्मणः गुरुमेव आचार्यं शमदमादिसम्पन्नम् अभिगच्छेत् । शास्त्रज्ञोऽपि स्वातन्त्र्येण ब्रह्मज्ञानान्वेषणं न कुर्यादित्येतद्गुरुमेवेत्यवधारणफलम् ।

Here Shankara uses the word ‘padam’ to indicate the Goal, Brahman.  And the aspirant wants to ‘know’ it and not ‘go’ to it.  Vijṇānārtham for which Shankara comments: by specifically, clearly, without doubt, realizing, adhigamanam.  And he adds: even if one is an expert in a discipline, he aught not to embark on brahma jnana anveṣaṇam, enquiry into the knowledge of Brahman, all by himself, without resorting to the Guru.  So, the padam is svarupam, Brahman, and it is to be known, and not to be reached physically by going. Thus, there is no reference to any vaikunta by Shankara even implicitly. It is only the desperate wishful thinking of the blogger in order to force Shankara to incorporate the vaiṣṇava-all-important vaikunṭha somewhere and somehow in the bhāṣyas. One can easily see through such stealthy attempts.]

 

The other important references from the VSN Bhāṣya itself that the blogger has deliberately suppressed from the gullible questioner are:

 

  • The reference by Shankara from the (tāmasa) Śivapurāṇam for the name ‘Rudra’ of the VSN: ‘śivaḥ paramakāraṇam’ – Śiva is the Supreme Cause.
  • The identification of the name ‘soma’ with Umāpati Śiva
  • The Hari-Hara abheda verses Shankara has cited from the Harivamśa, Bhavishyottara, etc. at the beginning of the VSN bhāṣya. One such verse makes all the names of Viṣṇu applicable to Śiva too and the upāsana of the former, that of the latter as well; and hence non-difference between the two.
  • More than anything the verse, unreferenced, Shankara has cited for Hari being subject to delusion (ignorance): स्वमायया स्वमात्मानं मोहयन्द्वैतमायया । गुणाहितं स्वमात्मानं लभते च स्वयं हरिः ॥

[By his own Māyā, deluding himself with the illusion of dvaita, Hari Himself comes to see himself endowed with guṇas.]

In the commentary of Shankaracharya to the Viṣṇu sahasranāma (VSN) the following verses are cited for explaining the verse पवित्राणां पवित्रं यो……

 

सर्पवद्रज्जुखण्दस्तु निशायां वेश्ममध्यगः ।

 

एको हि चन्द्रो द्वौ व्योम्नि तिमिराहतचक्षुषः ॥

 

[Just as a piece of rope appears as snake and just as the single moon appears as two to a diseased eye..]

 

आभाति परमात्मा च सर्वोपाधिषु संस्थितः ।

 

नित्योदितः स्वयंज्योतिः सर्वगः पुरुषः परः ॥

 

अहंकाराविवेकेन कर्ताहमिति मन्यते ।

 

[…so too the Paramātman appears in all the upādhis.  He is truly the ever-emergent, self-luminous, all-pervading, Puruṣa the Supreme, owing to the non-discrimination between the ego and the Self thinks himself to be the doer.]

Which ‘vaiṣṇava’ will tolerate the above?

 

The reference in the Kenopaniṣad bhāṣya to Umāpati as ‘sarvajña Īśvara’ with whom Umā is forever (just as in the above VSN ‘soma’)

 

The blogger knows very well that the above references are inimical to his pet theory. Hence alone, by suppressing crucial references such as the above, the blogger has given a completely falsified picture of Shankara and Advaita to the unsuspecting reader of his blog.  Here is what that poor questioner acknowledges after reading the false information the blogger has handed him:

 

// AnonymousDecember 22, 2016 at 7:47 AM

Thank Aaryamaa Swamy very much for the detailed reply. It was very enlightening. adiyen is slowly going through all blog pages and learning more. Thank you very much creating such a detailed and researched blog by grace of Azhwars and Purvacharyas. //

One can only pity those ‘readers’ who are unable to check things for themselves and have to settle for such lies not realizing that they have been taken for a ride.

Om Tat Sat

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: adbhutam | January 5, 2017

‘ŚATARUDRIYAM’ IN THE MAHĀBHĀRATA

The Śatarudriyam in the Mahābhārata

In the Drona parva of MB the Śatarudriyam is stated to be the vedic listing of Rudra’s innumerous names, thereby proving that Veda Vyasa considers that according to the Veda, the Śatarudriyam is all about Śiva alone and not any other deity.  It is a dialogue between Veda Vyasa and Arjuna:

 

07173079a वेदे चास्य समाम्नातं शतरुद्रीयमुत्तमम्

07173079c नाम्ना चानन्तरुद्रेति उपस्थानं महात्मनः

Again, the identification of the Śatarudriyam with Śiva alone and not any other deity is made clear by Veda Vyasa:

 

07173101c देवदेवस्य ते पार्थ व्याख्यातं शतरुद्रियम्

07173102a सर्वार्थसाधकं पुण्यं सर्वकिल्बिषनाशनम्

07173102c सर्वपापप्रशमनं सर्वदुःखभयापहम्

07173103a चतुर्विधमिदं स्तोत्रं यः शृणोति नरः सदा

07173103c विजित्य सर्वाञ्शत्रून्स रुद्रलोके महीयते

 

 

07173032a महोदरं महाकायं द्वीपिचर्मनिवासिनम्

07173032c लोकेशं वरदं मुण्डं ब्रह्मण्यं ब्राह्मणप्रियम्  [Vyuptakeśa]

07173033a त्रिशूलपाणिं वरदं खड्गचर्मधरं प्रभुम्

07173033c पिनाकिनं खण्डपरशुं लोकानां पतिमीश्वरम्

07173033e प्रपद्ये शरणं देवं शरण्यं चीरवाससम्

 

07173022c हरिकेशाय मुण्डाय कृशायोत्तरणाय च

07173023a भास्कराय सुतीर्थाय देवदेवाय रंहसे

 

07173012a तस्य ते पार्षदा दिव्या रूपैर्नानाविधैः विभोः

07173012c वामना जटिला मुण्डा ह्रस्वग्रीवा महोदराः  [Here the reference is to the Rudra gaṇa-s’ appearance]

 

Here is a bunch of verses from the Drona parvan where a number of names from the śatarudriyam are found, all of them in praise of and in reference to Śiva only and not any other deity. The following portions of the MB are simply a paraphrase of the very Śatarudriyam mantras making it unmistakably clear that no other deity is addressed by this vedic hymn:

07173019a ये भक्ता वरदं देवं शिवं रुद्रमुमापतिम्

07173019c इह लोके सुखं प्राप्य ते यान्ति परमां गतिम्

07173020a नमस्कुरुष्व कौन्तेय तस्मै शान्ताय वै सदा

07173020c रुद्राय शितिकण्ठाय कनिष्ठाय सुवर्चसे

07173021a कपर्दिने करालाय हर्यक्ष्णे वरदाय च

07173021c याम्यायाव्यक्तकेशाय सद्वृत्ते शंकराय च [avyaktakeśa looks like a synonym for ‘vyupta-keśa’ found in the śrīrudram]

07173022a काम्याय हरिनेत्राय स्थाणवे पुरुषाय च

07173022c हरिकेशाय मुण्डाय कृशायोत्तरणाय च

07173023a भास्कराय सुतीर्थाय देवदेवाय रंहसे

07173023c बहुरूपाय शर्वाय प्रियाय प्रियवाससे

07173024a उष्णीषिणे सुवक्त्राय सहस्राक्षाय मीढुषे

07173024c गिरिशाय प्रशान्ताय पतये चीरवाससे

07173025a हिरण्यबाहवे चैव उग्राय पतये दिशाम् [diśām cha pataye]

07173025c पर्जन्यपतये चैव भूतानां पतये नमः

07173026a वृक्षाणां पतये चैव अपां च पतये तथा

07173026c वृक्षैरावृतकायाय सेनान्ये मध्यमाय

07173027a स्रुवहस्ताय देवाय धन्विने भार्गवाय च

07173027c बहुरूपाय विश्वस्य पतये चीरवाससे

07173028a सहस्रशिरसे चैव सहस्रनयनाय च

07173028c सहस्रबाहवे चैव सहस्रचरणाय च

07173029a शरणं प्राप्य कौन्तेय वरदं भुवनेश्वरम्

07173029c उमापतिं विरूपाक्षं दक्षयज्ञनिबर्हणम्

07173029e प्रजानां पतिमव्यग्रं भूतानां पतिमव्ययम्

07173030a कपर्दिनं वृषावर्तं वृषनाभं वृषध्वजम्

07173030c वृषदर्पं वृषपतिं वृषशृङ्गं वृषर्षभम्

07173031a वृषाङ्कं वृषभोदारं वृषभं वृषभेक्षणम्

07173031c वृषायुधं वृषशरं वृषभूतं महेश्वरम्

07173032a महोदरं महाकायं द्वीपिचर्मनिवासिनम्

07173032c लोकेशं वरदं मुण्डं ब्रह्मण्यं ब्राह्मणप्रियम्

07173033a त्रिशूलपाणिं वरदं खड्गचर्मधरं प्रभुम्

07173033c पिनाकिनं खण्डपरशुं लोकानां पतिमीश्वरम्

07173033e प्रपद्ये शरणं देवं शरण्यं चीरवाससम्

07173034a नमस्तस्मै सुरेशाय यस्य वैश्रवणः सखा

07173034c सुवाससे नमो नित्यं सुव्रताय सुधन्विने

07173035a स्रुवहस्ताय देवाय सुखधन्वाय धन्विने

07173035c धन्वन्तराय धनुषे धन्वाचार्याय धन्विने

07173036a उग्रायुधाय देवाय नमः सुरवराय च

07173036c नमोऽस्तु बहुरूपाय नमश्च बहुधन्विने

07173037a नमोऽस्तु स्थाणवे नित्यं सुव्रताय सुधन्विने

07173037c नमोऽस्तु त्रिपुरघ्नाय भगघ्नाय च वै नमः

07173038a वनस्पतीनां पतये नराणां पतये नमः   [vṛkṣāṇām pataye namaḥ]

07173038c अपां च पतये नित्यं यज्ञानां पतये नमः

07173039a पूष्णो दन्तविनाशाय त्र्यक्षाय वरदाय च

07173039c नीलकण्ठाय पिङ्गाय स्वर्णकेशाय वै नमः

07173040a कर्माणि चैव दिव्यानि महादेवस्य धीमतः

07173040c तानि ते कीर्तयिष्यामि यथाप्रज्ञं यथाश्रुतम्

07173041a न सुरा नासुरा लोके न गन्धर्वा न राक्षसाः

07173041c सुखमेधन्ति कुपिते तस्मिन्नपि गुहागताः

07173042a विव्याध कुपितो यज्ञं निर्भयस्तु भवस्तदा

 

Some more Rudra mantra words here:

 

07173095a ऊरुभ्यामर्धमाग्नेयं सोमार्धं च शिवा तनुः

07173095c आत्मनोऽर्धं च तस्याग्निः सोमोऽर्धं पुनरुच्यते

07173096a तैजसी महती दीप्ता देवेभ्यश्च शिवा तनुः

07173096c भास्वती मानुषेष्वस्य तनुर्घोराग्निरुच्यते

07173097a ब्रह्मचर्यं चरत्येष शिवा यास्य तनुस्तया

07173097c यास्य घोरतरा मूर्तिः सर्वानत्ति तयेश्वरः

07173098a यन्निर्दहति यत्तीक्ष्णो यदुग्रो यत्प्रतापवान्

07173098c मांसशोणितमज्जादो यत्ततो रुद्र उच्यते

07173099a एष देवो महादेवो योऽसौ पार्थ तवाग्रतः

07173099c संग्रामे शात्रवान्निघ्नंस्त्वया दृष्टः पिनाकधृक्

07173100a एष वै भगवान्देवः संग्रामे याति तेऽग्रतः

07173100c येन दत्तानि तेऽस्त्राणि यैस्त्वया दानवा हताः

07173101a धन्यं यशस्यमायुष्यं पुण्यं वेदैश्च संज्ञितम्

07173101c देवदेवस्य ते पार्थ व्याख्यातं शतरुद्रियम्

07173102a सर्वार्थसाधकं पुण्यं सर्वकिल्बिषनाशनम्

07173102c सर्वपापप्रशमनं सर्वदुःखभयापहम्

07173103a चतुर्विधमिदं स्तोत्रं यः शृणोति नरः सदा

07173103c विजित्य सर्वाञ्शत्रून्स रुद्रलोके महीयते

07173104a चरितं महात्मनो दिव्यं सांग्रामिकमिदं शुभम्

07173104c पठन्वै शतरुद्रीयं शृण्वंश्च सततोत्थितः

07173105a भक्तो विश्वेश्वरं देवं मानुषेषु तु यः सदा

07173105c वरान्स कामाँल्लभते प्रसन्ने त्र्यम्बके नरः

07173106a गच्छ युध्यस्व कौन्तेय न तवास्ति पराजयः

07173106c यस्य मन्त्री च गोप्ता च पार्श्वतस्ते जनार्दनः

 

Here is Krishna and Arjuna in the Pāśupata weapon episode, praising Rudra with the śatarudriyam:

07057070c तौ नागावुपतस्थाते नमस्यन्तौ वृषध्वजम्

07057071a गृणन्तौ वेदविदुषौ तद्ब्रह्म शतरुद्रियम्

07057071c अप्रमेयं प्रणमन्तौ गत्वा सर्वात्मना भवम्

 

 

In the 13th, Anuśāsanaparvan of the MB are these references:

13014159a सामवेदश्च वेदानां यजुषां शतरुद्रियम्  [Upamanyu says: You are the śatarudriyam among the Yajurvedic portions.]

Deva-s, including Narayana, praising Shiva with distinct portions of the Veda and Indra praises Rudra with the śatarudriyam:

13014146c अस्तुवन्विविधैः स्तोत्रैर्महादेवं सुरास्तदा

13014147a ब्रह्मा भवं तदा स्तुन्वन्रथन्तरमुदीरयन्

13014147c ज्येष्ठसाम्ना च देवेशं जगौ नारायणस्तदा

13014147e गृणञ्शक्रः परं ब्रह्म शतरुद्रीयमुत्तमम्

13014148a ब्रह्मा नारायणश्चैव देवराजश्च कौशिकः

13145003  वासुदेव उवाच

13145003a हन्त ते कथयिष्यामि नमस्कृत्वा कपर्दिने

13145003c यदवाप्तं महाराज श्रेयो यच्चार्जितं यशः

13145004a प्रयतः प्रातरुत्थाय यदधीये विशां पते

13145004c प्राञ्जलिः शतरुद्रीयं तन्मे निगदतः शृणु

 

Vāsudeva continues:

13145020c ततः प्रसादयामासुः शर्वं ते विबुधोत्तमाः

13145021a जेपुश्च शतरुद्रीयं देवाः कृत्वाञ्जलिं ततः  [the devas chanted the śatarudriyam in praise of śiva – a narration of the episode ofdakshya yajna by viṣṇu to yudhiṣṭhira]

 

Vāsudeva says:

13146021a तस्य घोराणि रूपाणि दीप्तानि च बहूनि च

13146021c लोके यान्यस्य पूज्यन्ते विप्रास्तानि विदुर्बुधाः

13146022a नामधेयानि वेदेषु बहून्यस्य यथार्थतः

13146022c निरुच्यन्ते महत्त्वाच्च विभुत्वात्कर्मभिस्तथा

13146023a वेदे चास्य विदुर्विप्राः शतरुद्रीयमुत्तमम्

Thus, we have from this bunch of references from the Mahabharata, in the words of Vedavyāsa himself, Vāsudeva, Krishna, Arjuna and Upamanyu that according to the Veda the śatarudriyam is a hymn addressed to Rudra only and not any other deity.

 

The desperate attempts of vaiṣṇava-s in forcibly converting the Srirudram into a hymn of Narasimha is only laughable.

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_8197.html
The greatest damage to such a forcibly concocted commentary comes not from any non-vaiṣṇava but from its very authors alone. The boycott of the names of this great vedic hymn is clear from the vaiṣṇavas of the Ramanuja following shunning these names like poison, an untouchable, when it comes to naming their children, etc. with these names ‘śiva, śankara, bhava, giriśa, paśupati, nīlagrīva, śarva, rudra, etc.’ which are however found commonly in advaitins, Śankarāchārya’s being the most prominent. They know at the bottom of their hearts that any of the distinct names of Śiva is bound to invoke the memory of Śiva alone and not Narasimha or any form of Vishnu, which is completely unpalatable for them.

 

It is clear from this that their attempts at such commentaries is only bigoted and nothing more and definitely not with a respect or regard to that vedic hymn. In any case, there are innumerable evidences from the Veda, Upaniṣads and the Mahabharata and other puraṇa-s for the unambiguous identification of the śatarudriyam with Śiva only. Therefore such forced commentaries are straightaway veda-smṛti-vedavyāsa and even vāsudevavachana viruddha.

 

Om Tat Sat

 

Posted by: adbhutam | December 28, 2016

POOR ŚRĪHARI !!

 

Poor Śrīhari!!

The Vedāntic Brahman is devoid of any form. Yet, in order to help the aspirants who cannot grasp this ultimate truth, the Veda and purāṇa-s have devised innumerable forms which can be related with by the aspirant through worship, etc. and evolve. In that conception, the Padma purāṇa offers this imagery. As a prelude to this imagery, Sūta says: Of the several forms that Viṣṇu has assumed one is the ‘purāṇa-form’:

In the svarga khaṇḍa (62.2-7) there is this imagery of identifying the various Purāṇa-s with the various body-parts of Viṣṇu:

ब्राह्मं मूर्धा हरेरेव ह्रदयं पद्मसंज्ञकम्॥
वैष्णवं दक्षिणो बाहुः शैवं वामो महेशितुः । ऊरू भागवतं प्रोक्तं नाभिः स्यान्नारदीयकम्॥
मार्कण्डेयं च दक्षांघ्रिर्वामो ह्याग्नेयमुच्यते । भविष्यं दक्षिणो जानुर्विष्णोरेव महात्मन: ॥
ब्रह्मवैवर्तसंज्ञं तु वामजानुरुदाहृतः। लैङ्गं तु गुल्फकं दक्षं वाराहं वामगुल्फकम् ॥
स्कान्दं पुराणं लोमानि त्वगस्य वामनं स्मृतम् । कौर्मं पृष्ठं समाख्यातं मात्स्यं मेदः प्रकीर्तितम् ॥
मज्जा तु गारुडं प्रोक्तं ब्रह्माण्डमस्थि गीयते । एवमेवाभवद्विष्णुः पुराणावयवो हरिः ॥
(- पद्मपुराण, स्वर्गखण्ड , ६२।२-७)

[Brahma Purāṇa is said to be the ‘forehead’ of Śrī Hari, the Padma Purāṇa is said to be the ‘heart’ of Śrī Hari, theViṣṇu Purāṇa is said to be the ‘right arm’ of Śrī Hari. The Śiva Purāṇa is said to be the ‘left arm’ of Śrī Hari. The Śrīmad Bhāgavata is said to be his ‘thigh’, the Nārada Purāṇa is said to be his ‘navel’, The Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa is said to be his ‘right-foot’.
The Agni Purāṇa is said to be his ‘left foot’, the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa is said to be his ‘right-knee’,
the Brahma Vaivrata Purāṇa is said to be his ‘left-knee’. The Liṅga Purāṇa is said to be his ‘right ankle’,
the Varāha Purāṇa is said to be his ‘left ankle’, the Skanda Purāṇa is said to be the hair on the body of Śrī Hari’.  The Vāmana Purāṇa is said to be his ‘skin’. The Kūrma Purāṇa is said to be his ‘back’. The Matsya Purāṇa is said to be his ‘stomach’. The Garuḍa Purāṇa is said to be his ‘bone-marrow’. The Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa is said to be his ‘bone’.

[Padma Purāṇa, svarga khaṇḍa (62.2-7)]

So far the story is trouble-free. However, when one attempts to identify some purāṇa-s in the above imagery as ‘tāmasa’, then the tragic scenario unfolds.When all those body-parts of Śrī Hari that are identified with those particular tāmasa purāṇa-s, then the unfortunate, unpleasant and unavoidable situation of those body-parts being tāmasic arises. While the very purpose of taking up this ‘puraṇa-form’ is to enable an aspirant to worship, contemplate, the Lord as endowed with loveable, adorable, body-parts, the purāṇa classification into sattva, rajas and tamas, plays spoilsport. The damage is not yet over. Since it is admitted by those who subscribe to this tri-classification that even the so-called sattva purāṇa-s are not entirely sattva but have their quota of tamas, there is no way that even a single body-part of Śrī Hari is not ‘cancerous’. The only solace, if at all, is that while some parts that are matched with sattva purāṇa-s are ‘benign’, the rest of the parts are ‘malignant.’ Such is the pitiable state the Lord Śrī Hari stands reduced to by the protagonists of the purāṇa-tri-classification.

Actually the idea of purāṇa-Ṣrīhari-body-parts identification is promoted by the Padmapurāṇa with the idea of inculcating the same devotion one has to the divya mangala svarūpam of ŚrīHari to the purāṇa-s too which are the means to attain Him. Unfortunately this avowed idea is thwarted by the tri-classification of the purāṇa-s.

The classification is also patently Śruti-viruddha. We have a similar body-parts identification with reference to both Nārāyaṇa and Rudra. Here, what is identified with the body-parts is the Vedas and not the purāṇa-s.

http://sarit.indology.info/exist/apps/sarit/works/anu%C5%9B%C4%81sanaparva__adhy%C4%81ya_042.html

अथ दानधर्मपर्व ॥ 1 ॥

ब्रह्मणा देवान्प्रति श्रीनारायणमहिमप्रतिपादकगरुडमुनिगणसंवादानुवादः ॥ 1 ॥

ऋग्यजुःसामवक्त्राय अथर्वशिरसे नमः ।

हृषीकेशाय कृष्णाय द्रुहिणोरुक्रमाय च ॥

It is a stuti of Nārāyaṇa praising Him as one with the Rg, Yajus and Sāma veda-s as the Mouth/Face and the Atharva Veda as the Head.

And in the Mahābhārata itself, in the Śiva sahasra nāma we have:

अथर्वशीर्षः सामास्य ऋक्सहस्रामितेक्षणः।। 13-17-91

यजुःपादभुजो गुह्यः प्रकाशो जंगमस्तथा।  [The atharva veda is  ‘śīrṣa’ meaning ‘head’, the sāma veda being the mouth, the ṛgveda the innumerable limitless eyes and the yajurveda, the hands and feet of the Viśvarūpa Śiva]

Since there is no such classification of the Veda-s as sāttvika, rājasika and tāmasika, the defect of the body-parts of Brahman, whether in the form of Nārāyaṇa or Rudra, being rendered impure does not arise.  However, since the purāṇic classification by default renders the body-parts of Śrīhari diseased, it is unvedic, veda-viruddha.

The condescending explanation to justify the purāṇic classification as, for example, found here:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_9.html

// The significance of these quotes is simple: While Hari is attained directly by the sAttvika purANas, he is attained indirectly by the tAmasika purANas. Because the tAmasika purANAs are for those not eligible for the truth due to karmas. But by adhering to these purANas, they will eventually attain Hari through the grace of those very deities (shiva, Skanda, etc) whom they regard as supreme.

As Hari is the antaryAmin of these deities, even the worship offered to those deities reach him only and thus it can be said he is the subject of the tAmasa purANas. As the intent of the tAmasa purANas is to eventually elevate the unqualified ones to Hari bhakti, it can be said they are also the limbs of Hari along with the other purANas, as they have a valid function.

The vishNu and bhAgavata are the peak of sattva, with sattva decreasing in the other purANas. The Shiva and Linga purANas are the peak of tAmas,//

will not hold water for the very Padmapurāṇa which is alleged to have given the tri-classification also says:

सात्विका मोक्षदाः प्रोक्ताः राजसा सर्वदा अशुभाः ।
तथैव तामसा देवि निरयप्राप्तिहेतवः ।। (Padmapurāṇa uttara khaṇḍa 236.21)

Among these puranas Sāttvika Purāṇas lead one to liberation, Rājasa do not cause good and tāmasa purāṇa-s lead one to hell.

So, how can the so-called ‘tāmasa’ purāṇa-s lead to mokṣa, even in an indirect fashion? We have known from the śāstra-s that heinous crimes lead one to hell. According to the above verse, resorting to the ‘tāmasa’ purāṇa-s lead one to hell, in other words, implying that worshiping of a deity other than Viśṇu as the Supreme is a heinous crime like brahma-hatyā, gurudāra gamanam, etc. There is no pramāṇa that heinous crimes will gradually lead one to mokṣa!

Also there is no truth in the claim // But by adhering to these purANas, they will eventually attain Hari through the grace of those very deities (shiva, Skanda, etc) whom they regard as supreme.// since Ṣrī Madhusudana Saraswati has said:

In his commentary to the BG 15th Chapter, MS writes a benedictory, mangala, verse:

शैवाः सौराश्च गाणेशा वैष्णवाः शक्तिपूजकाः।

भवन्ति यन्मयाः सर्वे सोहमस्मि परः शिवः।।

[Those worshipers/meditators of the deities such as Śiva, Sūrya, Gaṇeśa, Viṣṇu and Śakti ultimately become one with That Supreme Consciousness that verily am I]

The fact that even vaiṣṇava-s are included among the others is noteworthy. So, there is no room for any gradual attainment of viṣṇu bhakti by others and then attaining mokṣa. Such bigoted ideas are completely unvedic and are shunned by vaidika-s.

Apart from the above, it is a fact that there are innumerous vedic portions like sūkta-s and others like the Śrīrudrapaśna (also called the śatarudriyam), and whole upaniṣads such as the Kaivalya, Atharvaśirā, Atharvaśikhā, Jābāla, Śvetāśvatara, Kaṭharudra (which Śrī Viśveśvara Saraswati has cited from in the Yatidharma sangraha) to name only a few, which all hold Śiva as the Supreme Brahman. There is no pramāṇa in the Veda-s that these vedic texts are ‘tāmasic’ in nature and that they ought not to be resorted to for mokṣa.  On the other hand these Vedic texts are lauded as stuti of Rudra and form the means of mokṣa in several Upaniṣads themselves and the Mahābhārata and other purāṇa-s. So, the idea underlying the purāṇic tri-classification, if it is about worshiping Śiva (or any non-viṣṇu deity) as the supreme, is straightaway veda-viruddha.

Thus, on multiple counts the purāṇa classification is against the method upheld by the Veda-s. As a consequence, holding on to this obnoxious idea of purāṇic tri-classification only breeds bigotry, ill-will among the followers of Veda-s and bring about disunity in society in the name of religion. Above all, the immediate and inevitable fallout of this poisonous concept is that the Supreme Brahman, in the body-form of Śrīhari, is rendered full of tāmasic infection that can never be cured. It is only the Advaitins that are free from this malaise of sullying the upāsya mūrti of Brahman. The verses from the so-called ‘tāmasa’ purāṇas that Shankaracharya has cited in the Viṣṇu sahasra nāma bhāṣya (from the Śivapurāṇa to hold Rudra as ‘Śivaḥ parama kāraṇam’, the trimūrti-abheda, Hari-Hara aikya verses from the Bhaviṣyottara and Harivamśa) are not savored by non-advaitins. No non-Advaitin Acharya would cite these verses for the purpose that Shankara has done. They, with great desperation, would only try to give wholly pathetic interpretations to such verses that are only childish and laughable by any standards. It is only in the hands of Advaita Acharyas that Śrīhari gets salvaged from the untold damage that the so-called vaiṣṇava-s have inflicted on the Lord’s purāṇic form, without sparing even a single body-part thereof.

A Mahābhārata verse extols the vaiṣṇava:

अष्टादशपुराणानां श्रवणाद्यत्फलं भवेत् । तत्फलं समवाप्नोति वैष्णवो नात्र संशयः । [MB 18.6.97]

The fruit of listening to the reading of the eighteen purāṇa-s is had by a vaiśṇava.

The above statement nowhere says that a non-vaiṣṇava will not attain that fruit (whatever that might be). Also, by ‘vaiśṇava’ what Veda Vyasa means can be seen from the very Padmapurāṇa extolling the 12th canto of the Bhāgavatam:

भेदं न कुरुते यस्तु दुर्गाविष्णुशिवादिषु । ब्रह्मत्वेनैव जानाति वैष्णवः स परो मतः ॥ ११

He is admitted to be a great vaiṣṇava who does not differentiate between Durgā, Viṣṇu, Śiva, etc. and looks upon all to be Brahman Itself.

In fact Veda Vyāsa also has cautioned what befalls those who are bigoted:

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

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.]

One can recall a similar verse in the Śrīmadbhāgavatam (Dakṣayajña section) as said by Viṣṇu.

Thus nowhere do the purāṇa-s uphold the differentiating of Hari and Hara as the ultimate purport. The above verses themselves are enough to show that the purāṇic tri-classification has no basis in the scriptures. Shankara, the foremost Vaidika Acharya, will not be quoting something that has no sanction in the Veda.

Om Tat Sat
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: adbhutam | December 27, 2016

SŪTA SAMHITĀ UPANISHAT ARTICLES

Here are two articles:

Sūta samhitā Chandogya:
http://advaita-academy.org/sutasamhita-chandogya-upaniṣat-part-18/
Sūta samhitā  Bṛhadāraṇyaka:
http://advaita-academy.org/sutasamhita-bṛhadaraṇyaka-upaniṣat-part-8/
regards
Posted by: adbhutam | December 15, 2016

THE CONCEPT OF ‘KULADEVATĀ’ (FAMILY DEITY)

The concept of Kuladevatā (Family Deity)

In the sanātana dharma there is a very important place for kula devatā worship. However, the vaiṣṇava bloggger, driven purely by bigotry makes this remark:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/on-symbols-and-practices-of-vaishnavism.html

//In addition to all this, concepts such as kula-devatA (which has no sanction in smR^itis) and notions of bad omen arising out of not worshiping this and that deity (mostly shiva, durgA, skanda, and gaNapati — none of them really cares if Vishnu is not preferred for worship) have been thrust upon them to keep them ignorant of the true tradition.//

 

The Advaitin’s response to the above misconceived, mischievous remark:

It is evident that his ulterior motive is to make his gullible readers believe that the worship of any deity other than Viṣṇu has no sanction in the scriptures. However, one can find innumerable proofs for the concept of ‘kula devatā/kula deivam’ prevalent in the scriptural works, the Rāmāyaṇa, the smṛti-s (dharma śāstra) and independent works of famous poets and others of the tradition:

Valmiki Ramayana: Bālakāṇḍa  sarga 70:

विदितं ते महाराज इक्ष्वाकुकुलदैवतम्।।1.70.16।।

स॥ मंत्रिसहितः स उपाध्याय स बांधवः सः वाक्यविदां श्रेष्ठः राजा वैदेहं इदं अब्रवीत् ॥ महाराज वसिष्ठः भगवान् ऋषिःइक्ष्वाकुकुलदैवतं सर्वेषु कृत्येषु वक्ता (इति) विदितं ॥धर्मात्मा वसिष्ठः विश्वामित्राभ्यनुज्ञातः सर्वैः महर्षिभिः सह एष वक्ष्यति मे यथाक्रमम् ॥

पद्मपुराण, Padmapurana:

प्रददौ तस्मै स्वविश्लेषासहिष्णवे।

श्रीरंगशायिनं स्वार्च्यमिक्ष्वाकुकुलदैवतम्।

रङ्गं विमानमादाय लङ्कां प्रायाद् विभीषणः॥

Bhāgavatam: 9.9.43:

na me brahma-kulāt prāṇāḥ

kula-daivān na cātmajāḥ
na śriyo na mahī rājyaṁ
na dārāś cātivallabhāḥ

Veeraraghavacharya accepts kuladeiva concept in the  commentary on the above.

Another verse from the Srimad Bhāgavatam

SB 5.17.2

yatra ha vāva vīra-vrata auttānapādiḥ parama-bhāgavato ’smat-kula-devatā-caraṇāravindodakam iti yām 

 our; kuladevatā — of the family Deity;

Vasiṣṭha dharma shāṣtra:

गृहदेवताभ्यो बलिं हरेत्  [a variant of the term ‘kuladevatā’]

Gautama dharma sutra:

गृहदेवताभ्यः प्रविश्य

Bṛhaspati samhitā of the Garuda purana says:

विधाय पूजां कुलदेवतानां मध्ये ततोऽष्टास्वपि दिक्षुदेयम् ।

Yajnavalkya smriti says:

yasmin deśe ya ācāro vyavahāraḥ kulasthitiḥ /
tathaiva paripālyo ‘sau yadā vaśam upāgataḥ // Yj_1.343 //

The ācāra vyavahāra is to be conducted as per the deśa, kula. This will include the worship of deities too as per one’s kula.

Mahākavi Bhāsa’s ‘Ūrubhangam’: [2BC – 2CE]

कुरुयदुकुलदैवतानां  प्रत्यक्षं प्रवृत्तं….

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/78s     Naishadhīya charitam (12CE):

श्रद्धालुसंकल्पितकल्पनायां कल्पद्रुमस्याथ रथाङ्गपाणेः ।
तदाकुलोऽसौ कुलदैवतस्य स्मृतिं ततान क्षणमेकतानः ॥ १०.६९ ॥

Panchadashi of Vidyaranya  (13CE):

एवमन्ये स्वस्वपक्षाभिमानेनान्यथान्यथा । मन्त्रार्थवादकल्पादीनाश्रित्य प्रतिपेदिरे ॥१२०॥

अन्तर्यामिणमारभ्य स्थावरान्तेशवादिनः । सन्त्यश्वत्थार्कवंशादेः कुलदैवत्वदर्शनात् ॥१२१॥

  1. There are many other sects which try to declare their own favourite deity to be the supreme. They quote hymns from Shruti and alleged traditions in support of their views.121. So every entity from the Inner Ruler to inert objects is considered as Ishvara by someone or other, for we find that even the sacred fig tree, the sun-plant and the bomboo etc., are worshipped by the people as family deities.

http://lokacharyapanchasath.blogspot.in/

यस्यासीत् कुलदैवतं रघुवरॆणाराधितः श्रीसखः ,
कावॆरीसरिदन्तरीपनगरी वासस्थली पुण्यभूः ।
कृष्णॊ मान्यगुरुर्वरॆण्यमहिमा वॆदान्तविद्यानिधिः ,
भ्राता सौम्यवरः स्वयंच भुवनार्यॊऽसि कस्तॆ समः ॥ 50

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_shiva/aTTAlasundarAShTakam.html?lang=sa

कुलशेखरवंशोत्थभूपानां कुलदैवतम् । परिपूर्णं चिदानन्दं कलयेऽट्टालसुन्दरम् ॥ ८॥

http://stotram.lalitaalaalitah.com/2011/09/sristotraratnam-yamunacharyakruta.html

यन्मूर्ध्नि मे श्रुतिशिरस्सु च भाति यस्मिन्

अस्मन्मनोरथपथः सकलं समेति।

स्तोष्यामि नः कुलधनं कुलदैवतं तत्

पादारविन्दमरविन्दविलोचनस्य  ॥६॥

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_shiva/dashashlokIstuti.html?lang=sa

॥ दशश्लोकीस्तुती ॥ साम्बो नः कुलदैवतं पशुपते साम्ब त्वदीया वयं साम्बं स्तौमि सुरासुरोरगगणाः साम्बेन संतारिताः । साम्बायास्तु नमो मया विरचितं साम्बात्परं नो भजे साम्बस्यानुचरोऽस्म्यहं मम रतिः साम्बे परब्रह्मणि ॥ १॥

shrIlaxmInR^isiMha hR^idayastotra ” from ” bhavishhyottara – purANa …

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sathvishayam/…/DJup-blDhZYJ

May 12, 2011 – नृसिंहात्परमं नास्ति नृसिंह कुलदैवतम् । नृसिंह भक्ता ये लोके ते ज्ञानिन इतीरिताः ॥५॥ विरक्ता दयया युक्तास्सर्वभूत समेक्षणाः । न्यस्तसंसारा नृसिंह प्राप्नुवन्ति ते ॥६॥ महात्म्यं यस्य सर्वेऽपि वदन्ति निगमागमाः ।

श्रीमद्‌देवीभागवत महापुराण – षष्ठः स्कन्धः …

satsangdhara.net/devi/devi06-06.htm

पद्मरागमयीं मूर्तिं स्थापयामास वासवः ॥ ६३ ॥ त्रिकालं महतीं पूजां चक्रुः सर्वेऽपि निर्जराः । तदाप्रभृति देवानां श्रीदेवी कुलदैवतम् ॥ ६४ ॥ विष्णुं त्रिभुवनश्रेष्ठं पूजयामास वासवः । ततो हते महावीर्ये वृत्रे देवभयङ्करे ॥ ६५ ॥ प्रववौ च शिवो …

हैमोर्ध्वपुण्ड्रलावण्यलसद्वदनपङ्कजम् । वैखानसैर्महाभागैरर्च्यमानं निरन्तरम् ॥ ३७.१५२ ॥ कृतास्पदं कलियुगे तदीयं कुलदैवतम् । “अरायि काण”इत्याद्यैश्श्रुतिवाक्यैरभिष्टुतम् ॥ ३७.१५३ ॥ “रयिः ककुद्माऽऽनित्याद्यैर्मन्त्रैर्वैखानसैः परैः …

संस्कार-रत्न-माला samskAra-ratna-mAlA: – Google Books Result

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=sbmRCwAAQBAJ – Translate this page

Bhatta Gopinatha Dikshita भट्ट-गोपीनाथ-दीक्षितः

एवमन्नं निवेद्य कुलदेवतां संपूज्य ‘यन्तु नदयः’इति पठित्वा नान्दीमुखाः पितरः मीयन्तामिति वाचयित्वा मीयन्तां नान्दीमुखा: पितर इति तैरुके तान्नमस्कृत्य ब्रह्मार्पर्ण कृत्वा परिविष्टाझेषु सर्पिरासिच्यापोशा(ऽऽपोश)नोदकदानादि …

விண்டாரை வென்றாவி விலங்குண்ண . மெல்லியலார்

கொண்டாடும் மல்லகலம் அழலேற வெஞ்சமத்துக்

கண்டாரை, கடல்மல்லைத் தலசயனத்துறைவாரை

கொண்டாடும் நெஞ்சுடையாரவர்கள் எங்கள் குலதெய்வமே

(பெரிய திருமொழி2.6.4)

In the 8 CE ruled a Pallava King called Nandivarma Pallava. For him Goddess Mūttha devi was the family deity: kuladeivam. 

http://tamilaavanam.blogspot.in/2014/12/blog-post.html#more

//8ம் நூற்றாண்டின் பல்லவர்களின் தாய் தெய்வம். நந்திவர்ம பல்லவனுக்கு குலதெய்வம். வைதீக மரபை ஏற்காத குடவரை கோவில்களில் மூத்த தேவிக்கு சிலை உள்ளது. மூத்த தேவி ஜோஷ்டா தேவி ( வட மொழியில் மூத்தவள் ) என்றும் அழைக்கப்படுகிறாள். சங்க இலக்கியங்களில் இவள் மாமுகடி, தவ்வை, காக்கை கொடியோள், பழையோள், சேட்டை என பல பெயர்களில் அழைக்கப்படுகிறாள். //

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

//A temple for goddess Bhagavati (Durga) was built in Nagercoil by Nandivarman and this shows that the Pallavas reigned supreme in the south during his period. He died in 796.//

Thus we see from the above sample (there are countless instances of the concept of kuladevatā) that while the concept itself is happily admitted, there is also no evidence at all for the compulsion/imposition that only Viṣṇu is to be worshiped.

Om Tat Sat

Posted by: adbhutam | December 12, 2016

OPPORTUNITY FOR MALES TO LEARN SOUNDARYA LAHARI RECITING

A program is being devised to help males learn the Soundarya Lahari reciting. It will be offered through Skype, thrice a week, from 10 to 10.30 PM. This timing will be convenient to those who go to work. Those interested may please write to me to my private email.
OM

The Maṇimañjarī Pramāṇa for Early Advaitins’ Bhasmadhāraṇam

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

Older Posts »

Categories