Here is a comment the blogger ( http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/04/sarvajnatmans-sankshepa-shariraka-lucid.html?showComment=1411093441998#c4323709618934694320 ) has sent to me in response to my article on ‘The names Vishnu, vAsudeva, etc. in the specific instances refer to Nirguna brahman only’. Having no arguments to counter mine, he is using all sorts of abusive language to fill his page. That is what his lot is. My responses are in between [ ]
Good to see you contradicting the Chandrika and openly challenging Sridhara.
[First of all, someone who wants to learn Advaita will not be looking into the commentary for the Naiṣkarmyasiddhi for the invocatory or mangala shlokas or the Śrīmadbhāgavatam. Regarding the Chandrikā, I have only shown how his commentary contradicts Shankara’s commentary on ‘tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam’ of the Kaṭhopaniṣat and that the Chandrikā is not to be relied upon in understanding what Shankara comments on that expression: viṣṇnoḥ paramam padam.]
Fact is, it is impossible to deny that the Chandrikā compares Shiva and Adi Shankara, and openly makes reference to their yoga sAmarthya, so your logic is to simply say you know more than Jnanottama.
[No one has denied that the Chandrika makes that comparison. Even without the Chandrika that is evident from the original verse of Sureshwara. ]
Thanks for that, just what we wanted to prove…that you have no link with ancient advaitins!
[You are only proving your pseudo vaishnavism and fanaticism and nothing more and want to somehow make Shankara your brand ambassador. Stop doing that.]
So, one by one you are discarding Jnanottama Misra, Sridhara, Mahesvara Tirtha and several advaitins in desperation…guess you will soon discard Shankara from your “tradition” as well.
[It is evident that you are replying to my post only in desperation. Maheswara Tirtha and ‘several advaitins’ that you have lined up are only commenting on the Ramayana which is hardly a text someone will look for studying Advaita. Their comments on vaikuntha etc. are only text-specific and do not constitute the authority on the topic in Advaita.]
Your statement: If Vishnu is not Shiva, then Vishnu loses the epithet ‘ananta’ since there will be ‘vastu pariccheda’, limitation due to object, in Vishnu.”
You statement on Ananta – clearly shows your ignorance. In the vyAvahArika sath, “ananta” only refers to him being infinite in the sense of pervading everywhere, at all times and all states.
[You are only proving your ignorance of Advaita. First undertake a thorough study under a qualified Advaita Acharya, if you want to verify if your funny claims about ‘ancient advaitins were vaishnavas’ has any bearing in the bhashyas. Also, know that the ‘ananta’ epithet is a svarupa lakshana of Brahman and is not just a vyāvahārika satya. ]
Identity and lack of existence of two entities is not a prerequisite for anantatvam.
[Who told you? Show me where Shankara says this in the Taittiriya Bhashya for the word ‘anantam’. In the Tai.up. 2.1: आकाशो ह्यनन्त इति प्रसिद्धं देशतः; तस्येदं कारणम् ; तस्मात्सिद्धं देशत आत्मन आनन्त्यम् । न ह्यसर्वगतात्सर्वगतमुत्पद्यमानं लोके किञ्चिद्दृश्यते । अतो निरतिशयमात्मन आनन्त्यं देशतः । तथा अकार्यत्वात्कालतः ; तद्भिन्नवस्त्वन्तराभावाच्च वस्तुतः । अत एव निरतिशयसत्यत्वम् ॥]
Brahman is ananta vastutaḥ because there is no object that is different from It.]
Shiva is not Vishnu, but Shiva’s very existence depends on Vishnu’s pervasion.
[This is the first hand proof of your ignorance of vedanta. And it reveals your non-advaitic origins. For a jiva’s existence there is no need for any dependence on an external entity. Subjects, for example, depend on a King for their survival. Jivas can at best be said to depend on Ishwara for their karma phala bhoga/bhogya vastu. Even this is based on their karma and Ishwara is a mere passive agent here. The BG 5.14 says:
न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः ।
न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ॥ १४ ॥
न कर्तृत्वं स्वतः कुरु इति नापि कर्माणि रथघटप्रासादादीनि ईप्सिततमानि लोकस्य सृजति उत्पादयति प्रभुः आत्मा । नापि रथादि कृतवतः तत्फलेन संयोगं न कर्मफलसंयोगम् । यदि किञ्चिदपि स्वतः न करोति न कारयति च देही, कः तर्हि कुर्वन् कारयंश्च प्रवर्तते इति, उच्यते — स्वभावस्तु स्वो भावः स्वभावः अविद्यालक्षणा प्रकृतिः माया प्रवर्तते ‘दैवी हि’ (भ. गी. ७-१४) इत्यादिना वक्ष्यमाणा ॥
The Atman does not do anything. It is only māyā that does everything. So, there is no dependence on the jiva for anything on Ishwara, excepting the chaitanya sānnidhyam to activate māyā.
Thus, there is no way Shiva is dependent on Vishnu for his very existence. Only a superimposed snake has to depend on the substratum rope for its very existence. On that ground, Vishnu has to depend on the Nirguna Brahman (and māyā) for his very existence. The BG 2nd chapter says:
अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च ।
नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः ॥ २४ ॥
The Atman is all-pervading. All jivas are all-pervading. Shiva and Vishnu are all-pervading. To be all-pervading one need not depend on another. It is one’s svarūpa. Also, one’s all-pervading nature will not grant any existence to anyone. So, put an end to your ‘Shiva dependent on all-pervasive Vishnu’ theory.
‘jagadvyāpine namaḥ, jagadgurave namaḥ, sāttvikāya, shuddhavigrahāya, anantāya, haraye..etc. are just a few names of Shiva in the aṣṭottaram. None of these ‘depend’ on Viṣṇu’s vyāpakatvam. ]
Bheda is upheld in the dependence of one entity on another. A table is not dependent on a stool, but the existence of shiva depends on Vishnu just as a body is ashes without the Atma.
[In the Taittiriyāraṇyaka occurs the mantras ‘sadyojātam…etc.’ among them is ‘jyeṣṭhāya’ for which sāyana comments: sarvajagadutpatteḥ pūrvabhāvitvāt jyeṣthaḥ’ (Because Shiva exists even before the creation of the entire world, He is called jyeṣṭha, the ‘elder’.) ‘Iśvaraḥ sarvabhūtānām – akhilaprāṇinām Iśvaraḥ, niyāmakaḥ’ (Shiva is the Lord/controller of all beings)..’brahmaṇo’dhipatiḥ – Shiva is the Overlord of brahmā’. He has never said that these mantras are about Viṣṇu which the vaiṣṇava would desperately try to twist and impose.
If Shiva has to depend on Vishnu for his existence, Vishnu has to depend on Nirguna Brahman for his very existence. Without that sattā of Nirguna Brahman, Vishnu has no independent sattā. All entities in creation derive their sattā from NB alone. This is the basis for holding the world to be mithyā; svasattāshūnyatvāt. Even ashes have an existence and that sattā is of NB.]
Stop confusing your half baked knowledge of advaita with random trash.
[Stop confusing others with your zero knowledge of advaita with random trash.]
First understand what vastu pariccheda means in vyAvahArika sath of advaita and also in VA and Dvaita traditions.
[Go to an advaita scholar to study this.]
“Parabrahman” in advaita only means that the entity which is nirguNa, the paramArtha tattva,is vAsudeva (saguna brahman) under suddha sattva upAdhIs.
[The paramārtha tattva of Advaita is NB and not any saguṇa deity. In BSB 2.1.14 Shankara has denied all attributes like sarvajnatva, essentially effects of sattva upādhi, as avidyākalpita in the paramārtha tattvam. In BG 2nd chapter Shankara says: ‘I am non-different from Vāsudeva.’
श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । द्वितीयोऽध्यायः । श्लोक ६१ – भाष्यम्
तानि सर्वाणि संयम्य संयमनं वशीकरणं कृत्वा युक्तः समाहितः सन् आसीत मत्परः अहं वासुदेवः सर्वप्रत्यगात्मा परो यस्य सः मत्परः, ‘न अन्योऽहं तस्मात्’ इति आसीत इत्यर्थः ।
A jiva can never identify himself with the shuddha sattvopadhi vāsudeva. The identity in Advaita is only with the shuddha nirupādhika chaitanyam.]
The term “Parabrahman” denotes the dual state of nirguNa brahman and saguNa isvara. When Shankara says “vAsudeva is the paramArtha tattva”, he means that the paramArtha tattva is verily vAsudeva because it is nirguNa brahman under suddha sattva upAdhIs.
[Surely Shankara never confuses his students like the way you are confused. All this is a result of reading the bhāṣya all by oneself, without the guidance of a qualified teacher. The paramārtha tattvam can never be sopādhika brahman. You will never understand this since you can never go beyond sopādhika brahman. That alone is paramārtha for you.]
Madhusudhana clearly establishes that it is the lord of vaikunta. Since the upAdhIs are sattva, there is no scope for ignorance and hence, saguNa brahman is verily the dual state of “dvirUpa paramEsvara” in advaita.
[There is no such a ‘dvirūpa’ parameshwara in advaita. Do not invent weird things from your hotchpotch thinking. If Madhusudana says that he is referring to only māyopādhika brahman and not the NB.]
Similarly, nArAyaNa parO vyaktAt only means that saguNa brahman, nArAyaNa, whose essential nature is nirguNa, is beyond prakrti.
[In advaita, Ishwara and avyakta are non-different. I have already pointed out this in an earlier post comparing BG 10th ch and 8th ch. verses on the Lord saying He is the cause of everything and also that avyakta is the cause of everything. Again, the Mānḍūkya sixth mantra dealing with Ishwara is overruled by the seventh mantra that negates the Iswara status as belonging to the cause-effect duality. Whichever is the seed of creation is within creation and not transcending it. In the bhāṣya for the very opening mantra of the māṇḍūkya, Shankara says, at the end: ओङ्कारविकारशब्दाभिधेयश्च सर्वः प्राणादिरात्मविकल्पः अभिधानव्यतिरेकेण नास्ति ; ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) ……भूतं भवत् भविष्यत् इति कालत्रयपरिच्छेद्यं यत्, तदपि ओङ्कार एव, उक्तन्यायतः । यच्च अन्यत् त्रिकालातीतं कार्याधिगम्यं कालापरिच्छेद्यमव्याकृतादि, तदपि ओङ्कार एव ॥ [All that is a superimposition on Atman is not existent as apart from the word that is used to denote it. That which is beyond time but inferred as a cause through the effect, and which is not delimited by time such as avyākṛta, that too is omkāra alone. That means, Ishwara, who is beyond time, but inferred to be a cause of the world, and is not delimited by time, is also omkara alone. Just before that the bhāṣya says: रज्ज्वादिरिव सर्पादिविकल्पस्यास्पदमद्वय आत्मा परमार्थतः सन्प्राणादिविकल्पस्यास्पदं यथा, तथा सर्वोऽपि वाक्प्रपञ्चः प्राणाद्यात्मविकल्पविषय ओङ्कार एव । स चात्मस्वरूपमेव, तदभिधायकत्वात् । ओङ्कारविकारशब्दाभिधेयश्च सर्वः प्राणादिरात्मविकल्पः अभिधानव्यतिरेकेण नास्ति ; ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) (All that is denoted by words is non existent, as they do not exist apart from the word that denotes them. Thus, avyākṛta, Iśwara, is non-existent apart from the word that denotes it.)
So, the Brahman that is beyond avyakta is decidedly NB, Turiya, in advaita. Do not mix up non-advaitic trash with advaita and pollute advaita. That which is beyond prakrti can be only NB in advaita. Ishwara is inseparably united with prakriti. Even the BG has several verses on this. Without prakrti Iswara can not even create anything. His dependence on prakrti is well established in the BSB 1.4.3 too. There तदधीनत्वादर्थवत् ॥ ३ ॥ Shankara says: we have to admit the pradhāna-like nascent state (seed state also called avyakta). For, otherwise, He says, the Vedantic अत्रोच्यते — यदि वयं स्वतन्त्रां काञ्चित्प्रागवस्थां जगतः कारणत्वेनाभ्युपगच्छेम, प्रसञ्जयेम तदा प्रधानकारणवादम् ; परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, न स्वतन्त्रा । सा चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या ; अर्थवती हि सा ; न हि तया विना परमेश्वरस्य स्रष्टृत्वं सिध्यति, शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः । brahman cannot do anything without it.
So, do not bring in your non-advaitic stuff to salvage Vishnu from the throes of prakrti and sully the advaitic waters.]
“visnor paramam padam” – even sarvajnAtma uses the term “bhagavatO visnoH paramam padam” and “murArEh paramam padam” for which you have no answer to Ramatirtha and Nrsimhasrama’s commentary.
[First improve your fundamental grammar. It is awful to see you repeating endlessly / visnor paramam /. It is visnoḥ paramam.
Let them use it that way. None can deny what Shankara has said in the Kaṭha bhāṣya which I have cited. To know the ultimate meaning of that expression of the Kaṭha shruti, one has to go with the bhāṣyam and not any other contextual references. Viṣṇu and his supreme state are not two different things as per the upaniṣad. ]
They equate Murari with Krishna openly. The subodhini also says “jagatpAlaka vishNu” and uses the “sattva upAdhi” term as well. Hence, “visnor paramam padam” only means, “the supreme (nirguNa) state of the all-pervasive saguNa isvara (vishNu)”. This vishNu is identified as the deity of pAncarAtrikas, ie, nArAyaNa everywhere by Shankara. That is why the Chandrika says that the AdhiSthAna or base of the vyapanashIla jagat kAraNa saguNa brahman (deva vishNu) is nirguNa brahman.
[Let them equate the way they want. That is not the point here. Ignorance (in advaita) is dispelled by Nirguṇ brahma jñānam alone. I have provided the BG quote too. The all-pervasive saguṇa Iswara is also pervaded by NB in Advaita. Shankara has refuted the pāncarātra as the one (Śāṇḍilya) who rejected the veda in the BSB विप्रतिषेधाच्च ॥ ४५ ॥ वेदविप्रतिषेधश्च भवति — चतुर्षु वेदेषु परं श्रेयोऽलब्ध्वा शाण्डिल्य इदं शास्त्रमधिगतवानित्यादिवेदनिन्दादर्शनात् । तस्मात् असङ्गतैषा कल्पनेति सिद्धम् ॥ ४५ ॥
and the only part that is admissible for him is that they hold Vāsudeva is the abhinna nimitta upādāna kāraṇam of the jagat (which only Advaita vedanta holds) and that that is the paramartha tattvam. In advaita the paramārtha tattvam is NB. So, Shankara admits that system, in part, only because their parmārtha tattvam, called ‘Vāsudeva’ is the Vedantic Brahman which is not saguṇa.]
nirguNa brahman does not pervade the deva vishNu, you clumsy moron.
[You dull headed creature, NB is the substratum for the entire creation including deva viṣṇu which is a superimposition on NB.
तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च, न परमार्थतो विद्यया अपास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूपे आत्मनि ईशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यते ; तथा चोक्तम् — ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमा’ (छा. उ. ७-२४-१) इति ; ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५) इत्यादि च ; एवं परमार्थावस्थायां सर्वव्यवहाराभावं वदन्ति वेदान्ताः सर्वे ; तथेश्वरगीतास्वपि — ‘न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः । न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते’ (भ. गी. ५-१४) ॥ ‘नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभुः । अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः’ (भ. गी. ५-१५) इति परमार्थावस्थायामीशित्रीशितव्यादिव्यवहाराभावः प्रदर्श्यते ;
The highlighted part means: Ishwaratvam characterized by omniscience and omnipotence are products of avidyā and its resulting finitizing. Thus, according to Shankara, the Ishwara (whichever deity it might be) if endowed with omnipotence, etc. is a paricchinna entity only of NB. Of course, this finitizing is not real, since it is caused by the ignorance-upādhi. If deva Viṣṇu is Ishwara, he cannot escape being a paricchinna entity as per Shankara. Non-advaitins can never digest this. That is why the founders of those schools severely criticized Shankara for virtually bulldozing all kalyana gunas from Ishwara and declaring an ashabdamasparsham…etc. brahman as the Supreme Reality. ]
That would mean you are admitting two entities (the pervaded deva and the pervading nirguNa brahman) while acknowledging paramAthika sath, which is impossible. Neither can nirguNa brahman pervade for it is all in the sense of being the only one (sarvam).
[This is another standard misconception of non-advaitins. Whenever such expressions as ‘adhiṣṭhāna – āropita, vyāpya – vyāpaka’ type of relations are used in Advaita, it is not any duality but only ādhyāsika sambandha. No one would count the superimposed snake as a second entity after the underlying rope. So too the vyāpya (pervaded) deva Viṣṇu is an adhyasta vastu on the vyāpaka NB. Hence the defect of two entities is never there in Advaita. Any number of āropita objects on the adhiṣthānam NB will not render the latter devoid of its innate advitiya nature. Shankara has said this in the adhyāsa bhāṣya and also in the māṇḍūkya kārikā bhāṣya 2.17 (आत्मा एतेष्वनुगतः, सर्वत्राव्यभिचारात्, यथा सर्पधारादिभेदेषु रज्जुः ।.The Atman, which is only one, is immanent in all creation just as the one rope is immanent in all the various superimpositions possible on a rope like snake, a streak of water, etc. Dunces who do not understand fundamentals of Advaita take up positions to argue. It is time they shut up and mend their brains. ]
Jnanottama clearly attributes vyapanashIlatva to the deva vishNu only.
[If he has not attributed all-pervading nature to Brahman it is his folly. Shankara never commits such a folly. ]
The devas – vishNu, shiva, etc are all nirguNa in essence, but under upAdhIs they are differentiated. Shiva, Brahma, etc are under rajO and tamO guNa upAdhIs. Thus, they are objectionable objects for upAsaNa.
[Just becuase you are full of rajo and tamo guṇas do not superimpose them on Shiva.
Srimad Bhagavatam 4.6.49
Brahmā addresses Shiva:
bhavan — Your Lordship; tu — but; pumsah — of the person; paramasya — the supreme; mayaya — by the material energy; durantaya — of great potency; asprsta — unaffected; matih — intelligence; samasta–drk — seer or knower of everything; taya — by the same illusory energy; hata–atmasu — bewildered at heart; anukarma–cetahsu — whose hearts are attracted by fruitive activities; anugraham — mercy; kartum — to do; iha — in this case; arhasi — desire; prabho — O lord.
My dear lord, you are never bewildered by the formidable influence of the illusory energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore you are omniscient and should be merciful and compassionate toward those who are bewildered by the same illusory energy and are very much attached to fruitive activities.
Here is a fine dhyaṇa shloka on Shiva:
शान्तं पद्मासनस्थं शशधरमुकुटं पञ्चवक्त्रं त्रिनेत्रं
शूलं वज्रं च खड्गं परशुमभयदं दक्षिणांगे वहन्तम्।
नागं पाशं च घण्टां डमरुकसहितां चांकुशं वामभागे
नानालंकारदीप्तं स्फटिकमणिनिभं पार्वतीशं नमामि॥
I prostrate myself before the five-faced Lord of Parvati, who is adorned with various ornaments, who shines like Sphatika jewel, who is seated peacefully in lotus pose, with moon-crested crown, with three eyes, wearing trident, Vajra, sword and axe on the right side, serpent, noose, bell, Damaru and spear on the left side and who gives protection from all fears to His devotees.
‘upāsakānām yadupāsanīyam…’ is a famous hymn on Dakṣiṇāmūrti by Shankara. Just because some fanatics do not know this, the advaitins who know this will not subscribe to your clumsy ideas. ]
Sanātana dharma is full of methods of obtaining the grace of Shiva for a person’s spiritual sādhana.]
VishNu is nirguNa under sattva upAdhIs and hence he alone is free of mAya; he is the mahEsvara who controls mAya and is worthy of upAsaNa.
[No one is free of māyā. Even sattva is within māyā alone. Krishna says in the BG that all three worlds are within the grip of māyā’s three guṇas.
Srimad Bhagavatam 10.48 Summary
After Uddhava had related to Sri Krishna the news of Vraja, the Lord went to the home of Trivakra, which was decorated with diverse ornamentation conducive to sexual enjoyment. Trivakra welcomed Krishna with great respect, giving Him a raised seat and, together with her female companions, worshiping Him. She also offered Uddhava a seat, as befitted his position, but Uddhava simply touched the seat and sat on the floor.
Lord Krishna then reclined on an opulent bed as the maidservant (of Kamsa) Trivakra elaborately washed and decorated herself. Then she approached Him. Krishna invited Trivakra to the bed and began to enjoy with her in various ways. By embracing Lord Krishna, Trivakra freed herself of the torment of lust. She asked Krishna to remain with her for some time, and the considerate Lord promised to fulfill her request in due course. He then returned with Uddhava to His residence. Apart from offering sandal paste to Krishna, Trivakra had never performed any pious acts, yet simply on the strength of the piety of this single act she attained the rare personal association of Sri Krishna.
Krishna’s tricking Vṛnda (Tulasi) and robbing her chastity is another instance.
When Krishna does this, it is ‘shuddha sattvopādhi’. If any other, say, Brahma or Shiva were to do this, it is under the influence of rajas/tamas/ignorance!! Hell with your fanaticism.
As I pointed out above, ‘sāttvikāya namaḥ, shuddhavigrahāya namaḥ, shāśvatāya namaḥ’ etc. are some of the names of Shiva. If all these accrue to Shiva through Viṣṇu as per your fractured logic, then the advaitin will quickly point out that all the gunas of viṣṇu ( if he is the Iswara) too are superimposed by avidyā as per Shankara in the BSB 2.1.14. In any case, Viṣṇu is not the sole agent to ‘give’ all gunas to others. Stop your fanatical utterances which only make you a laughing stock.]
The Chandrika clearly points this out and so do Shankara and Anandagiri, and yet you can only rile against Jnanottama mishra in your ignorance.
[Shankara and Anandagiri never do this. I have studied the Prashnopanishad bhāṣyam. If any, the upaniṣad and the bhashyam only say that ‘one entity (prāṇa), as Rudra engages in the world-dissolution activity and as rakṣitā, in the sustaining activity.
प्रश्नोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । द्वितीयः प्रश्नः । मन्त्रः ९ – भाष्यम्
किंच, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, तेजसा वीर्येण रुद्रोऽसि संहरन् जगत् । स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः सौम्येन रूपेण । त्वम् अन्तरिक्षे अजस्रं चरसि उदयास्तमयाभ्यां सूर्यः त्वमेव च सर्वेषां ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥
The mantra and the bhāṣyam bring out the sāmānādhikaraṇyam among all the entities there: prāṇa, rudra and the pālayitā. This is a fine instance of the Upaniṣadic hari-hara aikya concept.
In the BG 11th chapter, Arjuna, unable to tolerate the terrible form of Krishna, wants Him to revert to the sowmya form. The Lord Himself says that is His ‘ghora’ rŪpam. It is one Lord who showed His terrible form (kālo’ṣmi lokakṣyakakṛt..). It is this very idea in the above bhashyam: One entity as vīrya form for one function and another soumya form for another function. Hence, all murti-s can be meditated upon by discarding the aspect that is not relishable and retaining the one that is pleasant for the upāsaka.]
Shiva is described as the Jagadguru in the Bhāgavatam. The same work also has the Kashyapa prajāpati giving out the glories of Shiva’s vairāgyam to his wife, Diti who sought gratification of her carnal desires in the evening time. Someone who is endowed with so many glories is ‘tama upādhi’ only for you, a tāmasic being. ]
Do not bring in Shiva-Viṣṇu issues while responding. I am least interested in them. I mentioned some instances above only because you raised that topic. There was no provocation on my part in my earlier blogs on this. Limit your responses to mere advaita and Shankara’s bhashya.