Posted by: adbhutam | March 27, 2015


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:

//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.// 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:


vilokya taḿ devavaraḿ trilokyā

bhavāya devyābhimataḿ munīnām

āsīnam adrāv apavarga-hetos

tapo juṣāṇaḿ stutibhiḥ praṇemuḥ


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



  1. The bigots have unalloyed hatred for Parameshwara Rudra and strange love for his Avatara , our beloved Acharyal. This in itself reveals their confused and twisted minds. As you rightly say they are desperately seeking sanction for their avaidika siddantha from Acharyal. Deep in their hearts they do realize the bitter truth of Vaishnava proponents like Ramanuja, Madhva and Desika as utter failures.

    • Thanks Arun for the very forthright impressions you have expressed. They piggyback on Shankara which alone is bringing someone to read what they write, only till they know their ulterior motives.


  2. Very valid observation by Arun.

    After reading these three parts of articles no sane person would ever believe in the cock and bull stories of those blogger(s).

    _/\_ Pranams Subbu-ji!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: