Posted by: adbhutam | January 9, 2017

Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi


The legal definition of the above maxim is:

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:

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,


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 ॥


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:   ]
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







  1. The ‘readers’ like the over eager bloggers are on the path to becoming spiritual Trishankus who are neither full fledged Advaitins nor staunch Vishishtadvaitins.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: