‘Svarūpa nirūpaṇam’ – Shankara’s work authenticated by Vidyaranya

In the Taittiriyopaniṣat dīpikā, Swami Vidyaranya cites a verse as having been cited by Shankara:

….. अहमेको न मे कश्चिन्नाहमन्यस्य ..and says: āchāryaiḥ udāhṛtah (‘cited by the Āchārya’)  and does not give the name of the work. The verse is found in the work ‘Svarūpa-nirūpaṇam’ as the 25th verse, published by the Dakshinamurti Maṭha, Varanasi, in the ’12 prakaraṇa-s’ [‘prakaraṇa dvādaśī, a collection of 12 non-prasthānatraya bhāṣya works with commentaries]. The verse is also found in Subhashita ratna collection and mahabharata sūktayaḥ’  [sayings from the Mahabharata]. On a search initiated by my friend and our member Sri N.E.Venkateswaran, the verse was found in the Mahabharata:
12*0459_01 अहमेको न मे कश्चिन्नाहमन्यस्य कस्यचित्
12*0459_02 न तं पश्यामि यस्याहं तं न पश्यामि यो मम
[I am one and there is none belonging to me. Nor do I belong to anyone. I do not see anyone whose am I; nor do I see anyone who is mine.]
The ‘Svarūpa nirūpaṇam’ is a short work abounding in Vedānta vichāra and sādhana. It has 32 verses, two of which are in prose. It has a commentary by Anandagiri Acharya.
It is heartening to see some of the works of Shankara, Gaudapada, etc. are cited with authority by Swami Vidyaranya.
Om Tat Sat
Advertisements
Posted by: adbhutam | November 3, 2017

DIVISION OF PURĀṆA-S AS ‘SĀTTVIKA’, ETC. IS UNVEDIC

The avaidikatvam of the purāṇic division as sāttvika, etc.

Sri Sureshwaracharya in the Br.Up.Vārtika has said:

यः पृथिव्यामितीशोऽसावन्तर्यामी जगद्गुरुः ।

हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ॥

[The Br.Up. ‘he who, stationed in the pṛthvī devatā impels the mind-body-organs of that devatā….’ who is the antaryāmī, jagadguru, even though one, is variously spoken of as Hari, Brahmā and Pinākī (Śiva).]

Anandagiri: कथं श्रुत्यवष्टम्भेन ईश्वरस्य कारणत्वं, मूर्तित्रयस्य इतिहासादौ सर्गस्थितिलयेषु यथायोगं कर्तृत्वश्रुतेः, अत आह । यः पृथिव्यामिति । प्रकृतो हि ईश्वरः स्वरूपेण एकोऽपि मूर्तित्रयात्मना बहुधा उच्यते पृथिव्यादौ तस्यैव अन्तर्यामित्वेन स्थितिश्रुतेः, न च तद्विरोधे पुराणादिप्रामाण्यं सापेक्षत्वेन दौर्बल्यादिति भावः । स पूर्वेषां गुरुरितिन्यायेन अन्तर्यामी इत्यस्य व्याख्या जगद्गुरुरिति ।

 

Anandagiri says: How is it that while Isvara  is the jagatkāraṇam according to the Shruti,  the itihāsa, etc. say that there is the causehood as appropriately assigned to the trimūrti-s in creation, sustenance and dissolution? [the idea is: while the shruti says Brahman, Ishvara, is the jagatkāraṇam, we find the itihāsa, purāna, etc. distributing that to three different entities functionally?] The above verse of Sureshvara is answering this question: Even though Ishwara is one only, he is spoken of as many, Hari, Brahmā, Pinākī. Why is it that Ishwara is admitted to be one only? Since it is one Ishwara alone (not many) that is taught in the shruti as the antaryāmin. If the purāṇa-s, etc. say something different (three different individuals performing distinct functions), then since these texts are dependent on the Shruti for their prāmāṇya, they do not enjoy the status of the shruti; they are durbala, weak, only when they say something contradictory to the Shruti. Since He, Ishwara, is the Guru of everyone (including devatā-s) this antaryāmin, Ishwara, alone gets the epithet of ‘Jagadguru’.

This statement of Sureshwara and the explanation of Anandagiri tell us clearly that the idea of classification of purāṇa-s as sāttivka, etc. is shruti viruddha and not to be adhered to by Vedantins. This is because, as Sureshwara says, all the three, Hari, Brahmā and Pinākī, are verily one Ishwara, the antaryāmin, the jagatkāraṇam, with only different names, and it is a case of ‘one only, only spoken of as several entities.’  Even the Guru is verily Ishwara, the jagatkāraṇam, antaryāmin.

It is like Vāmana, Trivikrama, Nṛsimha, Mādhava, are different names of only one Viṣṇu, and not that they are distinct individuals.

Shankara is the only Vedāntin that adheres to the Shruti tātparya that Sureshwara has stated above. He says in the BSB janmādi asya yataḥ:

अस्य जगतो नामरूपाभ्यां व्याकृतस्य अनेककर्तृभोक्तृसंयुक्तस्य प्रतिनियतदेशकालनिमित्तक्रियाफलाश्रयस्य मनसाप्यचिन्त्यरचनारूपस्य जन्मस्थितिभङ्गं यतः सर्वज्ञात्सर्वशक्तेः कारणाद्भवति, तद्ब्रह्मेति वाक्यशेषः ।  He specifies only one entity, Brahman,  and not three different entities, as the cause of creation, sustenance and dissolution of the universe. In the Praśnopaniṣat bhāṣya too Shankara says that one Brahman alone performs the functions of creation, etc. as different upādhi-s. He has maintained this stand alone everywhere, even in the Viṣṇu sahasra nāma bhāṣya. The other Advaitin commentator Sridhara Swamin too has clearly explained in the Bhāgavatam that Brahman alone in the three forms, brahma rūpeṇa, viṣṇu rūpeṇa, etc. performs the triad of functions and not three distinct individuals. This Vedic idea is not palatable to non-Advaitins as their very philosophy rests precariously on the absolute distinction of the tri murtis. And hence their penchant for the avaidika classification of puranas as sāttvika, etc.

Quite interestingly, the non-shruti scripture too, sometimes offers the correct position, voicing the Shruti-stand. Shankara cites verses that teach non-difference across the tri-mūrtis and the identity, abheda, of Hari and Hara, by bringing out the criticism of upholding the distinction across the three forms and also by extolling the vision of non-difference. Here is a sample that Shankara cites in the VSN Bhāṣya:

Two seminal verses from the Bhaviṣyottara purāṇa in the introduction to the VSN:

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: such jiva-s will not attain liberation.

Clearly, such verses of the scripture are never a favorite of non-advaitins.

That Hari and Hara are non-different is brought out by the Mahabharata, etc. in many ways: as Hari worshiping Hara and as Hara praising Hari, etc. This inalienable identity is beautifully brought out by Sridhara Swamin in his invocation to his commentary to the Bhagavatam:

माधवोमाधवावीशौ सर्वसिद्धिविधायिनौ। वन्दे परस्परात्मानौ परस्परनुतिप्रियौ॥

I bow to Mādhava and Umādhava (Shiva) who are both ‘Isha-s’ Supreme Lords. They are capable of bestowing all accomplishments (to their devotees). They are both the selves of each other and both love to engage in the stuti of each other.

http://dravidaveda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3044

There is a ‘shankara-nārāyaṇa avatāra’ which has been praised by an Azhwar.

// எம்பெருமான் செய்தருளின பல அவதாரங்களில் சங்கர நாராயணவதார மென்பது மொன்று, இது ஹரிஹராவதாரமென்றும் சொல்லப்படும். பாதிவடிவம் ஸ்ரீமந்நாராயணமூர்த்தி யாகவும் பாதிவடிவம் பரமசிவமூர்த்தியாகவும் கொண்டதாமிது, //

//English Translation

In the streaming-hills venkatam, the Lord my father seems to have both mat hair and crown.  He wields both the axe and the discus, wears, both a snake around his neck and the sacred thread. Two images blended into one, -what a wonder!//

This idea is contained in the Sauptika Parva of the Mahabharata too where Krishna says that the worship of both Hari and Hara leads to the same result. Only Advaitins such as Veda Vyasa, Shankara, Sridhara Swamin, Sureshwara can boldly proclaim the aikya/abheda theme. In fact such verses are easily comprehensible requiring no convoluted explanations and apologies such as ‘Śiva says that as antaryāmi, praises go to the antaryami, śarīra-ātma, etc.’ It is a defect, kalpanā gauravam, in the nyāya śāstra, when something can be explained without resorting to such excuses.

There is the other very well known shruti passage that directly proclaims the identity between Śiva and Viṣṇu where too the concept of ‘vyatihāra’ is present:

http://upanishad.info/upanishads/text/krishna-yajurveda/sanskrit/skanda [Sri Upaniṣad Brahma Yogin, an advaita Acharya, has written the commentary for this Upaniṣad as well along with the entire 108 Upaniṣads.)

शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय शिवरूपाय विष्णवे ।
शिवस्य हृदयं विष्णुः विष्णोश्च हृदयं शिवः ॥८॥
यथा शिवमयो विष्णुरेवं विष्णुमयः शिवः ।
यथान्तरं न पश्यामि तथा मे स्वस्तिरायुषि ॥९॥
यथान्तरं न भेदाः स्युः शिवकेशवयोस्तथा ।[Skandopaniṣat]

[(obeisance to Śiva who is of the form of Viḷṣṇu, and to Viṣṇu of the form of Śiva. Śiva’s heart (self) is Viṣṇu and Viṣṇu’s self is Śiva. Just as Viṣṇu is fully verily Śiva, so too Śiva is fully verily Viṣṇu. As I do not see any difference between them, let me be prosperous and long-lived. Let there be no difference between Śiva and Keśava. In fact the Mahabharata itself contains a similar verse:

शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय विष्णवे शिवरूपिणे ।।

दक्षयज्ञविनाशाय हरिरूपाय ते नमः। 3.39.76 (हरिरुद्राय) [These are the words of Arjuna to Lord Śiva.]

In the Harivamśa, an extension of the Mahabharata, we have Markandeya’s words:

मार्कण्डेय उवाच॥ शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय विष्णवे शिवरूपिणे। अथान्तरं न पश्यामि तेन ते दिशतः शिवम् ।

It is Sri Appayya Dikshitar who has made the unnegatable statement:

// viShNurvA shankaro vA shruti-shikhara-girAmastu tAtparya-bhUmiH
na-asmAkam tatra vAdaH prasarati kimapi spaShTam-advaita-bhAjAm |
kintu-Isha-dveSha-gADhAnala-kalita-hRRidAm durmatInAm duruktIH
bhanktum yatno mama-ayam nahi bhavatu tato viShNu-vidveSha-shankAm ||

The meaning of the above beautiful verse is:

‘I have not the slightest objection, to anyone coming to any conclusion, that the spirit of the Vedas and the Vedantas, declare either Vishnu or Shiva as the First God. I am a follower of the Advaita doctrine. I have no difference between Shiva and VishNu. But if in order to establish Vishnu as the main God, if somebody starts abusing Shiva or hates him, I cannot bear it. (There are as many proofs or pramanas in the Vedas, Vedantas, Puranas and Agamas to establish that Shiva is a mighty God, as there are to prove that Vishnu is a powerful one.) However, I am propagating my religion and indulging in debate and disputation, only to persuade everyone not to hate Shiva. Let no one have the slightest doubt that I either hate or wish to denigrate Lord Vishnu simply because I praise the grace and greatness of Lord Shiva.’

The sublime devotion of Dikshita to Lord Vishnu is fully seen from his great work ‘Varadaraja stava’ where he has sung in ecstatic poetry about Lord Varadaraja of Kanchipuram. Vaishnavas declare that Vishnu is the supreme being and that Shiva has a lower status, being a mere jiva. Sri Dikshita however proves in his ‘Ratna-traya-parIkShA’ that Shiva, Vishnu, Ambika, all the three are the same, viz., the supreme reality,(*) and proves it with the pramanas taken from the puranas, vedas and agamas. //

The above is quoted from the book: ‘Sri Appayya Dikshita’ (p.66,67) by Dr.N.Ramesan, IAS.

And Veda Vyasa in the Mahabharata vouches for the above view of Appayya Dikshita:

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्।

लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। 12-350-27a 12-350-27b.

The Padmapurāṇa, in the section on the Srimadbhāgavatapurāṇa māhātmyam of the 12th canto says that ‘he is the greatest vaiṣṇava who holds Śiva, Viṣṇu and Durga as non-different, Brahman.    Shankara, Sureshwara, etc. alone qualify in this litmus test.

The verses Shankara cites in the VSN bhāṣya, and those of the Mahabharata and Harivamśa do not suffer from such a weakness of the need to appealing to ‘interpolation’, etc. and resorting to any secondary meaning by giving up the primary meaning: yathāśrutārtha.

All the above pramāṇa-s authenticate the shruti-teaching of ‘One Ishwara alone is spoken of in many names’; there are absolutely no three distinct entities. The classification of purāṇa-s as sāttvika, etc. is therefore avaidika according to Shankara, Sureshwara, etc.

Om Tat Sat

 

Posted by: adbhutam | October 31, 2017

THE ENLIGHTENED GURU AS JAGATKĀRAṆAM

The Enlightened Guru as Jagatkāraṇam

The Mundakopanishat, for instance, teaches that the aparokṣajñānin, if worshiped with desire for aishvarya, lordliness, wealth, etc. these will be granted.

यं यं लोकं मनसा संविभाति विशुद्धसत्त्वः कामयते यांश्च कामान् ।
तं तं लोकं जयते तांश्च कामांस्तस्मादात्मज्ञं ह्यर्चयेद्भूतिकामः ॥ १० ॥
10 Whatever world a man of pure understanding envisages in his mind and whatever desires he cherishes, that world he conquers and those desires he obtains, Therefore let everyone who wants prosperity worship the man who knows the Self.
For ‘worship’, Shankara says ह्यर्चयेत्पूजयेत्पादप्रक्षालनशुश्रूषानमस्कारादिभिः  by devout washing of his feet, by serving him and prostrating, etc. to him.
However, if one worships the Jnāni with no desire for any worldly goals, can gain liberation itself:
स वेदैतत्परमं ब्रह्म धाम यत्र विश्वं निहितं भाति शुभ्रम् ।
उपासते पुरुषं ये ह्यकामास्ते शुक्रमेतदतिवर्तन्ति धीराः ॥ १
 
Shankara says:

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 ॥
 
The Jnani is the one who has realized his oneness with the Brahman that is the abode of the entire creation and which is the abode of all desires. So, he is the one who has transcended creation, samsara and is the pūrṇa kāma. Worshiping him also is by the same means as described by Shankara above. The fruit of such worship by such a seeker  is liberation from samsara. 
 
We have in our tradition the famous verse that everyone who is a Vedantin chants: Gurur Brahmā (Guru is Brahmā) Gurur Vishnu: (Guru is Vishnu) Gurur Devo Maheshwarah: (Guru is the Maheshwara i.e. Shiva)  Guru Sakshat Parabrahma (Parbrahma considerd to be supreme god or Bhagwan, So, Guru is that Parbhrahma) Tasmai Shree Gurave namah: (obeisance to that Guru).
Sri Gauḍapāda has cited a smṛti in the Uttaragītā bhāṣya to the same effect as above:
 हंसो विधिः शंकर एव  हंसो हंसश्च विष्णुर्गुरुरेव  हंसः  [Hamsa= Ātman/Brahman. Brahmā is Brahman, Brahman is Śiva, Brahman is Viṣṇu and Guru alone is Brahman].  
We have in our tradition an open declaration of such Ishwara-Guru identity:
 
Swami Vidyaranya (Sāyaṇāchārya) in all the invocations to their works like the Jivanmukti viveka, the Taittiriya, etc. Bhashya, make a prayer thus:  
 
यस्य निश्वसितं वेदाः यो वेदेभ्योऽखिलं जगत् । निर्ममे तमहं वन्दे विद्यातीर्थमहेश्वरम् ॥ 
 
[I bow to Sri Vidyatirtha (1229 – 1333 AD https://www.sringeri.net/jagadgurus/the-early-acharyas), the Maheshvara, whose very breath are the Veda-s and who, from the Veda-s evolved the entire cosmos.]
 
Sri Krishna has said in the BG: jñānī tu ātmaiva mey matam – I consider the aparoksha jnani to be verily My Self. Surely the Mundaka mantra applies here. 
 
In the Uddhava gītā, the Lord says: 
 

आचार्यं मां विजानीयान्नावमन्येत कर्हिचित्। न मर्त्यबुद्ध्यासूयेत सर्वदेवमयो गुरुः।।27।। [11.17.27] Look upon the Acharya to be verily Me, and never belittle him, for he is the abode of all divinities, deva-s.  

 
The Guru, Acharya, in the above exhortation may or may not be an aparoksha jnani, but the instruction is quite telling. 
 
What about the saying: “ज्ञानमिच्छेत् महेश्वरात्; मोक्षमिच्छेत् जनार्दनात्” [Seek to get Knowledge from Śiva and liberation from Viṣṇu]?  In Vedānta, mokṣa is contemporaneous with attaining aparokṣa jñānam. The idea of traveling to some other geographical plane for liberation is not admitted in the Vedanta. They are not two different events. The jiva’s native nature is mokṣa, he is nitya mukta svarupa; only that is not realized by the jiva when under the throes of ignorance. When sādhana results in realization, he comes to know that he is ever liberated, never bound. So, the jñānam is graced by Brahman, Ishvara. Shankara says in the Brahma sutra bhashyam: 2.3.41  तदनुग्रहहेतुकेनैव च विज्ञानेन मोक्षसिद्धिर्भवितुमर्हति । [By the Knowledge caused by the grace of Ishvara alone liberation can be attained] Shankara cites the Antaryāmi passage here too: ‘ य आत्मनि तिष्ठन्नात्मानमन्तरो यमयति’. Ishwara, stationed in the jīva, impels him from inside. Thus the knowledge is caused by Ishwara to happen. Hence the ‘bestower’ of knowledge and the ‘bestower’ of liberation are non-different, only because these two are not two different events. Maheshvara is the Guru, verily Ishwara.
Sureshwara has said in the Mānasollāsa: Ishvaro gururātmeti mūrtibheda-vibhāgine. vyomavad vyāptadehāya dakṣiṇāmūrtaye namaḥ.  Obeisance to Lord Dakshinamurti, the all-pervading Consciousness that alone appears as the Ishwara, the Guru and the Self (jiva).  Here too, Sureshwara is consistently voicing the ‘one only appears as many’ that he has said in the Bṛ.Up.Bhāṣya vārtika.
Krishna asks Arjuna to go to a Jñāni and seek knowledge from him, by serving and initiating enquiry and by that one can get the upadeśa.  Jnānadātā, and therefore, mokṣadātā, is the Guru alone. Says the Praśnopaniṣat in the very last mantra:
ते तमर्चयन्तस्त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकमविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसीति । नमः परमऋषिभ्यो नमः परमऋषिभ्यः ॥ ८ ॥
 The disciples, having received the knowledge and the realization thereof, in their utmost gratitude, addressed the Guru Pippalāda: You are our Father who has ferried us across to the other shore of ignorance. Salutations to the Supreme Preceptors…
Shankara says: ततः ते शिष्या गुरुणानुशिष्टाः तं गुरुं कृतार्थाः सन्तो विद्यानिष्क्रयमन्यदपश्यन्तः किं कृतवन्त इत्युच्यते — अर्चयन्तः पूजयन्तः पादयोः पुष्पाञ्जलिप्रकिरणेन प्रणिपातेन च शिरसा । किमूचुरित्याह — त्वं हि नः अस्माकं पिता ब्रह्मशरीरस्य विद्यया जनयितृत्वान्नित्यस्याजरामरणस्याभयस्य । यः त्वमेव अस्माकम् अविद्यायाः विपरीतज्ञानाज्जन्मजरामरणरोगदुःखादिग्राहादपारादविद्यामहोदधेर्विद्याप्लवेन परम् अपुनरावृत्तिलक्षणं मोक्षाख्यं महोदधेरिव पारं तारयसि अस्मानित्यतः पितृत्वं तवास्मान्प्रत्युपपन्नमितरस्मात् । इतरोऽपि हि पिता शरीरमात्रं जनयति, तथापि स पूज्यतमो लोके ; किमु वक्तव्यमात्यन्तिकाभयदातुरित्यभिप्रायः । नमः परमऋषिभ्यः ब्रह्मविद्यासम्प्रदायकर्तृभ्यः । नमः परमऋषिभ्य इति द्विर्वचनमादरार्थम् ॥
The disciples worshiped the Guru by showering flowers at his feet and prostrating to him. ‘You are our Father since you have given birth to our Brahmaśarīra by imparting knowledge to us. This Brahman-body of ours is eternal, free of old age and death and fear. …You have ferried us to the other shore of the terrible ocean of samsāra beset with all ills and established us in liberation characterized by non-return to samsara. Your fatherhood is even more appropriate to us when compared to the worldly father. The worldly father is the cause of just this body, even then he is supremely worthy of reverence. What to say of you who have bestowed us the ultimate fearlessness! Prostrations to the exalted preceptors again and again.
One can see here that it is the Guru that is shown by the Upanishad and the Bhashya to be the bestower of both knowledge and liberation. Hence the saying  “ज्ञानमिच्छेत् महेश्वरात्; मोक्षमिच्छेत् जनार्दनात्” only results in the identity of the two divinities as demonstrated by this Upanishad.
नमो नमः श्रीगुरुपादुकाभ्याम्
Posted by: adbhutam | October 26, 2017

UTTARA GITA BHASHYA OF GAUDAPADA – TRIMURTI AIKYA

Uttaragita bhashya of Gaudapada – Trimurti aikya

An article on the above topic is available here for download:
Teaching the ‘Existence’ of Brahman – the purpose of many Taittirīya passages

In the Taittirīyopaniṣat bhāṣya, Bhagavatpāda is intent upon pointing out that several passages of this Upaniṣad are aimed at teaching the aspirant the ‘existence’ of Brahman. This is because, when the Upanishad wants the aspirant to realize Brahman and also that when such Brahman is not an object of our daily cognition, owing to its attributeless nature, the aspirant will be at a loss to proceed in his goal of inquiry into Brahman.

Here is a list of those passages, only from the Taittiriya (while there are others in other Upanishads too), for our own mananam:

The Upanishat teaches: तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत् [Brahman created the world and entered it]. Shankara initiates a very detailed discussion on the meaning of ‘praveśa’ and finally says that this teaching is only to draw the attention of the seeker to his own cognitive / thinking functions that can happen only with Consciousness, Brahman, being there. It is Brahman alone that is as though thinking, seeing, hearing, etc. in every body. And since Brahman is taught as the kāraṇam and since a kāraṇam invariably ‘exists’, one should know Brahman to ‘exist’:
स एव तस्य प्रवेशः ; तस्मादस्ति तत्कारणं ब्रह्म । अतः अस्तित्वादस्तीत्येवोपलब्धव्यं तत् ।

 यथा पूर्वेष्वन्नमयाद्यात्मप्रकाशकाः पञ्चस्वपि, एवं सर्वान्तरतमात्मास्तित्वप्रकाशकोऽपि मन्त्रः कार्यद्वारेण भवति ॥
At the end of the pancha kosha discussion, the Upanishads concludes: ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा – Brahman is the ‘tail’ that is the ultimate support. Shankara concludes that this is also a teaching of Brahman’s existence; the support of all the concocted dvaita is Brahman, that exists:
स्ति तदेकमविद्याकल्पितस्य द्वैतस्यावसानभूतमद्वैतं ब्रह्म प्रतिष्ठा पुच्छम् । [This passage of Shankara is also a proof for the concept that the dṛṣṭi of the prapancha by the jīva is the very sṛṣṭi of it, that is, perception or cognition is creation. That is why Shankara uses the expression: the cognized dvaita is only concocted by / due to avidyā.]
The following passage is an elaboration of what was stated earlier: the cause has to be existing. If the world had originated from non-existence, asat, the effect, the world, being without any stuff, would be unavailable for experience; but it is experienced, hence Brahman, the Sat, exists:  Here Shankara is using logic.
 यस्माच्च जायते किञ्चित् , तदस्तीति दृष्टं लोके, यथा घटाङ्कुरादिकारणं मृद्बीजादि ; तस्मादाकाशादिकारणत्वादस्ति ब्रह्म । न चासतो जातं किञ्चिद्गृह्यते लोके कार्यम् । असतश्चेन्नामरूपादि कार्यम् , निरात्मकत्वान्नोपलभ्येत ; उपलभ्यते तु ; तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म । असतश्चेत्कार्यं गृह्यमाणमपि असदन्वितमेव स्यात् ; न चैवम् ; तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म ।
The Upanishad says: यद्वै तत्सुकृतं….[That which is the accomplisher of all auspiciousness…] Shankara says such a cause cannot be an inert entity and hence Brahman exists:
 यदि पुण्यं यदि वा अन्यत् सा प्रसिद्धिः नित्ये चेतनकारणे सति उपपद्यते, तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म, सुकृतप्रसिद्धेरिति ।
For this reason too Brahman exists: The Upanishad says Brahman to be ‘Rasa’ which is the cause of satiation. Such a thing has to exist. Shankara makes an interesting observation: One can see knowers of Brahman brimming with ānanda, bliss, without resorting to any external objects but by drawing from their own Self. This ānanda hetu has to exist.
इतश्चास्ति ; कुतः ? रसत्वात् । कुतो रसत्वप्रसिद्धिर्ब्रह्मण इत्यत आह – यद्वै तत्सुकृतं रसो वै सः । रसो नाम तृप्तिहेतुः आनन्दकरो मधुराम्लादिः प्रसिद्धो लोके । रसमेव हि अयं लब्ध्वा प्राप्य आनन्दी सुखी भवति । नासत आनन्दहेतुत्वं दृष्टं लोके । बाह्यानन्दसाधनरहिता अपि अनीहा निरेषणा ब्राह्मणा बाह्यरसलाभादिव सानन्दा दृश्यन्ते विद्वांसः ; नूनं ब्रह्मैव रसस्तेषाम् । तस्मादस्ति तत्तेषामानन्दकारणं रसवद्ब्रह्म । इतश्चास्ति ; कुतः ? प्राणनादिक्रियादर्शनात् । अयमपि हि पिण्डो जीवतः प्राणेन प्राणिति अपानेन अपानिति । एवं वायवीया ऐन्द्रियकाश्च चेष्टाः संहतैः कार्यकरणैर्निर्वर्त्यमाना दृश्यन्ते । तच्चैकार्थवृत्तित्वेन संहननं नान्तरेण चेतनमसंहतं सम्भवति, अन्यत्रादर्शनात् । तदाह – यत् यदि एषः आकाशे परमे व्योम्नि गुहायां निहित आनन्दो न स्यात् न भवेत् , को ह्मेव लोके अन्यात् अपानचेष्टां कुर्यादित्यर्थः । कः प्राण्यात् प्राणनं वा कुर्यात् ; तस्मादस्ति तद्ब्रह्म, यदर्थाः कार्यकरणप्राणनादिचेष्टाः ; तत्कृत एव च आनन्दो लोकस्य । कुतः ? एष ह्येव पर आत्मा आनन्दयाति आनन्दयति सुखयति लोकं धर्मानुरूपम् । स एवात्मा आनन्दरूपोऽविद्यया परिच्छिन्नो विभाव्यते प्राणिभिरित्यर्थः ।
The Upanishad says: भीषास्माद्वातः पवते……[Out of fear of ‘X’, the wind blows, the sun rises, etc. without disturbing the order.]  Such a cause of fear to all these cosmic giants has to exist:
 भयाभयहेतुत्वाद्विद्वदविदुषोरस्ति तद्ब्रह्म । ….. तस्माज्जगतो भयदर्शनाद्गम्यते – नूनं तदस्ति भयकारणमुच्छेदहेतुरनुच्छेद्यात्मकम् , यतो जगद्बिभेतीति ।
वातादयो हि महार्हाः स्वयमीश्वराः सन्तः पवनादिकार्येष्वायासबहुलेषु नियताः प्रवर्तन्ते ; तद्युक्तं प्रशास्तरि सति ; यस्मात् नियमेन तेषां प्रवर्तनम् , तस्मादस्ति भयकारणं तेषां प्रशास्तृ ब्रह्म
Thus, the teaching of Brahman as the cause of fear is not to be literally taken but as the Upanishad’s way of instructing the ‘existence’ of Brahman. Throughout one can see how Shankara sees logic in those statements of the Upanishad. For Shankara the Shruti is never divorced from reasoning.
At the very beginning of the Brahma sūtra bhāṣya Shankara has said that everyone experiences one’s own existence; no one denies it.  सर्वो ह्यात्मास्तित्वं प्रत्येति, न ‘नाहमस्मि’ इति । यदि हि नात्मास्तित्वप्रसिद्धिः स्यात् , सर्वो लोकः ‘नाहमस्मि’ इति प्रतीयात् । आत्मा च ब्रह्म  – If only there was not the well-knownness with regard to the Atman’s existence, everyone would be experiencing ‘I do not exist’. But such is not the case. Atman is Brahman. [Shankara makes this remark in the context of ‘brahma jijñāsā’. If Brahman is being asked to be enquired into, it should be known, in some way at least for the aspirant to proceed. No one can proceed to know something that is totally unknown. The other extreme is that if something is well known, there is no  need to enquire about it. So, here is a situation where the Atman is known but not known in its true nature, free of doubt and non-comprehension.
So, the Taittiriya passages are designed to free the aspirant from the paricchinnatva bhrama, the delusion that one is finite. By overcoming this delusion, his parokṣatva bhrama, that ‘Brahman is different from me’ is also tackled. In fact Shankara has taken all this into consideration while introducing the pancha kosha discussion by alluding to the ‘you are the tenth man’ (दशमस्त्वमसि) analogy.
Om Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | October 17, 2017

10th Soundarya lahari Maha samarpan – Bengaluru

The 10th commemorative Soundarya lahari pārāyaṇa samarpana in a mega program: 1) Date of Stotra Samarpana of Dashamaha Soundaryalahari Parayanotsava for School and college students is now fixed as SATURDAY 28th October 2017 from 1 pm to 4 pm.
(Change from 30th is to suit Chief Guest Hon. Upa Rastrapathi Sri. Venkaiah Naidu Ji).
2) There is no change in the date 29th October Sunday 1pm to 4pm for full Samarpana by Ladies and Gentlemen. Hon Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi Ji has confirmed to attend & address as Chief Guest.
Please attend and spread this message to others. See here a documentary of the program held ten years ago: https://youtu.be/YFAur_yTISU
Even if you have no familiarity with Soundarya lahari, do come to the venue, Bangalore Palace grounds that day. It could be a good start for you to a great spiritual journey.
Regards

Posted by: adbhutam | October 16, 2017

SHANKARA ON TURĪYA ŚIVA

Shankara on Turīya Śiva

Here is an article on the above topic:

regards
Posted by: adbhutam | October 12, 2017

SYNONYMS FOR ‘SAGUṆA BRAHMAN’

Synonyms for Saguṇa Brahman

In the Brahmasūtra bhāṣya Shankara has given a crisp definition of saguṇa brahman:

4.3.7
तत्र कार्यमेव सगुणमपरं ब्रह्म एनान्गमयत्यमानवः पुरुष इति बादरिराचार्यो मन्यते । कुतः ? अस्य गत्युपपत्तेः — अस्य हि कार्यब्रह्मणो गन्तव्यत्वमुपपद्यते, प्रदेशवत्त्वात् ; न तु परस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि गन्तृत्वं गन्तव्यत्वं गतिर्वा अवकल्पते, सर्वगतत्वात्प्रत्यगात्मत्वाच्च गन्तॄणाम् ॥ ७ ॥
The superhuman being leads these (upāsaka-s) to the effected, saguṇa, inferior, Brahman alone – so opines Bādari Āchārya. Why? It is reasonable that this kārya brahman (effected Brahman) is a destination, as it is a geographical location. With reference to Para Brahman (as opposed to apara Brahman) there is no way one can be a traveler nor It can be a destination nor a travel, since Para Brahman is All-pervading, the very innermost Self of the ‘travelers’.
In this passage Shankara makes a clear distinction between the Para and apara Brahman. The former is the Absolute Reality, the Nirguṇa Tattva, Advaita, and the latter the opposite of all that. Shankara uses three words to denote the opposite of para brahman: kārya (effected), saguṇa (attributed) and apara (inferior). In the sequel is given a sample of passages from the bhāṣya-s where these very words are used by Shankara along with the identity of such ‘apara brahman.’
The term ‘Apara Brahman’, either as a compound or as distinct words:
 
Aitareya Up.3.5.3:
 
ब्रह्म अपरं सर्वशरीरस्थः प्राणः प्रज्ञात्मा अन्तःकरणोपाधिष्वनुप्रविष्टो जलभेदगतसूर्यप्रतिबिम्बवत् हिरण्यगर्भः प्राणः प्रज्ञात्मा ।
Apara Brahma is the ‘Prāṇa’ in all bodies and the one present in all minds in the cosmos and is Hiraṇyagarbha, prāṇa, prajñātmā.
Kaṭhopaniṣat 1.2.16:
परमपरं वा तस्य तत् भवति । परं चेत् ज्ञातव्यम् , अपरं चेत् प्राप्तव्यम् ॥
If the goal is Para (brahman), then it is to be realized (as oneself); if it is apara, then it is something to be attained, reached, by travelling.
Praśnopaniṣat 5.2:
 एतत् ब्रह्म वै परं च अपरं च ब्रह्म परं सत्यमक्षरं पुरुषाख्यम् अपरं च प्राणाख्यं प्रथमजं 
 
Para brahman is Satyam, Akṣaram, Puruṣam. Apara brahman is the First-born (Hiraṇyagarbha) known by the name ‘Prāṇa’.
 
BSB 4.3.14
 
तस्य च अपरब्रह्मोपासनस्य तत्सन्निधौ श्रूयमाणम् ‘स यदि पितृलोककामो भवति’ 
Regarding the upāsana pertaining to apara brahman is the Shruti passage: ‘If he is desirous of the world of manes…’
Bṛ.up.B.1.4.10:
 
न परस्य ब्रह्मणो नाप्यपरस्य प्रजापतेः ; अतो द्वैतैकत्वापरब्रह्मविद्यया कर्मसहितया अपरब्रह्मभावमुपसम्पन्नो 
Apara Brahman is Prajāpati, characterized by dvaita alone, endowed with karma, attaining to the state of apara brahman.
Br.up.B 4.4.22:
 ‘ब्रह्म तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो ब्रह्म वेद’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । ६) ‘सर्वं तं परादात् —’ इति अपरब्रह्मदर्शनमपि अपवदत्येव, अपरब्रह्मणोऽपि सर्वमध्यान्तर्भावात् ;
‘Brāhmaṇa caste abandons him who knows the brāhmaṇa caste to be different from Brahman’….Everything will abandon him who knows everything to be different from Brahman (his own self). Thus, even the knowledge of apara brahman too is abandoned of the apara brahman too.
Kaṭhopaniṣad bhāṣyam 2.6.1:  अपरब्रह्मविज्ञानक्रियाशक्तिद्वयात्मकहिरण्यगर्भाङ्कुरः [Apara brahman ……….is Hiranyagarbha]
Saguṇa brahman:  The term ‘saguṇa brahman’ in the bhāṣya: 
 
BSB 1.2.2:
‘अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः’ इति श्रुतिः शुद्धब्रह्मविषया, इयं तु श्रुतिः ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ इति सगुणब्रह्मविषयेति विशेषः । 
‘Bereft of prāṇa, mind, pure,..’ such Śruti is about the Pure (para) Brahman, while ‘endowed with mind, prāṇa as the body’ is about the saguṇa brahman.
BSB 3.3.1 prelude:
सगुणब्रह्मविषया प्राणादिविषया च इयं विज्ञानभेदाभेदचिन्तेत्यदोषः
It is the saguṇa  brahman and prāṇa, etc. that are the object of meditation…
BSB 4.4.17:
ये सगुणब्रह्मोपासनात् सहैव मनसा ईश्वरसायुज्यं व्रजन्ति, किं तेषां निरवग्रहमैश्वर्यं भवति, आहोस्वित्सावग्रहमिति संशयः ।
Those who attain to Iśvara along with their mind-apparatus, due to saguṇa brahma upāsana, is their lordliness unimpeded or limited?
Kāryabrahma: BSB 1.3.15  The term ‘kāryabrahma’ used in several passages:
 
 न ह्यहरहरिमाः प्रजाः कार्यब्रह्मलोकं सत्यलोकाख्यं गच्छन्तीति शक्यं कल्पयितुम् ॥ १५ ॥
One cannot conjecture that all the beings attain to the abode of the kāryabrahma, known as ‘satya loka’, every day (during sleep).
BSB 4.3.7
अस्य हि कार्यब्रह्मणो गन्तव्यत्वमुपपद्यते, प्रदेशवत्त्वात् ; न तु परस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि गन्तृत्वं गन्तव्यत्वं गतिर्वा………
 It is reasonable that this kārya brahman (effected Brahman) is a destination, as it is a geographical location.
BSB 3.3.10:
कार्यब्रह्मलोकप्रलयप्रत्युपस्थाने सति तत्रैव उत्पन्नसम्यग्दर्शनाः सन्तः, तदध्यक्षेण हिरण्यगर्भेण सह अतः परं परिशुद्धं विष्णोः परमं पदं प्रतिपद्यन्ते — इतीत्थं क्रममुक्तिः अनावृत्त्यादिश्रुत्यभिधानेभ्योऽभ्युपगन्तव्या । न ह्यञ्जसैव गतिपूर्विका परप्राप्तिः सम्भवतीत्युपपादितम् ॥ १० ॥
When the destruction/dissolution of the abode/world of the kārya brahma, those who have secured the realization of the Supreme Truth in that abode, become fully liberated by becoming one with the All-pervading Consciousness, along with Hiraṇyagarbha, the lord of that kāryabrahma loka. This is called krama mukti, to be understood by the śruti passages such as ‘there is no return to samsāra’. It has been explained earlier that the attainment of the Supreme is any direct traveling.
Taittiriya Bhāṣyam: 1.11:
 ‘स्त्रीभिर्वा यानैर्वा’ (छा. उ. ८ । १२ । ३) इत्यादिश्रुतीनां च कोपः स्यात् इति चेत् , न ; कार्यब्रह्मविषयत्वात्तासाम् । कार्ये हि ब्रह्मणि स्त्र्यादयः स्युः, न कारणे ; ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । १)
There is no contradiction with the passages that say ‘the liberated revel with women, vehicles…’, since this is pertaining to the topic of kārya brahman. Only in the kārya brahman can celestial women, etc. can exist, and not in the Causal, Supreme, Brahman as It is taught as ‘One only without a second of any type.’
Chandogya 8.5.1:
अर्चिरादिना मार्गेण कार्यब्रह्मलोकमभिसम्पद्य यावद्ब्रह्मलोकस्थितिः तावत्तत्रैव तिष्ठति प्राक्ततो नावर्तत इत्यर्थः
By reaching the kāryabrahma loka through the bright path, he remains there till the brahma loka subsists and subsequently does not return. [Here Shankara identifies the brahma loka with that of kārya brahma. In an earlier instance Shankara called it ‘satya loka.’ ]
Īśāvāsya Bhāṣyam 12:
 तमः ते प्रविशन्ति ये उ सम्भूत्यां कार्यब्रह्मणि हिरण्यगर्भाख्ये रताः ॥ ……
Those who are intent upon the kārya brahman called ‘hiranyagarbha’ enter…..
From the above sample we understand that the terms ‘apara brahma, saguṇa brahma and kārya brahma’ refer to a cosmic jīva called Hiraṇyagarbha, Prāṇa. His abode is also stated to be Brahma loka or Satya loka, etc.  Shankara has also stated ‘chaturmukha’ as brahmā, Prajāpati:
ब्रह्माणं चतुर्मुखम् ईशम् ईशितारं प्रजानां कमलासनस्थं in  BGB 11.15 and प्रजापतिः चतुर्मुखः तस्य सभां वेश्म प्रभुविमितं वेश्म प्रपद्ये गच्छेयम् । Chāndogya 8.4.1.
Nowhere Shankara identifies this saguṇa/kārya/apara Brahman with the deity Viṣṇu. If it is held that Shankara holds the deity Viṣṇu (as opposed to the All-pervading Nirguna Brahman called ‘viṣṇu’ etymologically) then such a deity is undoubtedly an effect, kārya, subject to destruction, is a jīva, and certainly apara, infinite, brahman.  When it is said that this brahman is kārya, the abode of this brahman is also such, subject to origination and destruction at pralaya.
The Kenopaniṣat 1.5 bhāṣya also brings into bold relief that any deity, if it is an upāsya, different from the upāsaka, is not the Vedāntic Brahman but a-brahman and anātman. Thus there is no way one can see Shankara specifying any particular deity such as Viṣṇu or Śiva as the ‘saguṇa brahman’, which is a technical term, as seen from a sample of passages from the bhāṣya. Those outside the range of Advaita can never come to a correct understanding of the saguṇa brahman which is unique to Advaita, unless they study the bhāṣya under a competent Achārya. The non-advaitic, non-vedantic idea of ‘viṣṇu or nārāyaṇa paratva’ is only denied wholesale by Shankara. Sureśwara too, in his vārtika, has very clearly said that the upaniṣadic ‘antaryāmin’ can be seen as represented by anyone of the trimūrti-s, the Guru, etc.
Om Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | October 10, 2017

THE PURPORT OF BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAT 1.3.10

In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad we have this mantra:
सा वा एषा देवतैतासां देवतानां पाप्मानं मृत्युमपहत्य यत्रासां दिशामन्तस्तद्गमयाञ्चकार तदासां पाप्मनो विन्यदधात्तस्मान्न जनमियान्नान्तमियान्नेत्पाप्मानं मृत्युमन्ववायानीति ॥ १० ॥
10. This deity took away death, the evil of these gods, and carried it to where these quarters end. There it left their evils. Therefore one should not approach a person (of that region), nor go to that region beyond the border, lest one imbibe that evil, death.
Shankara’s commentary to the mantra:
सा वा एषा देवतेत्युक्तार्थम् । एतासां वागादीनां देवतानाम् , पाप्मानं मृत्युम् — स्वाभाविकाज्ञानप्रयुक्तेन्द्रियविषयसंसर्गासङ्गजनितेन हि पाप्मना सर्वो म्रियते, स ह्यतो मृत्युः — तम् , प्राणात्माभिमानरूपाभ्यो देवताभ्यः, अपच्छिद्य अपहत्य, — प्राणात्माभिमानमात्रतयैव प्राणोऽपहन्तेत्युच्यते ; विरोधादेव तु पाप्मैवंविदो दूरं गतो भवति ; किं पुनश्चकार देवतानां पाप्मानं मृत्युमपहत्येत्युच्यते — यत्र यस्मिन् , आसां प्राच्यादीनां दिशाम् , अन्तः अवसानम् , तत् तत्र गमयाञ्चकार गमनं कृतवानित्येतत् । ननु नास्ति दिशामन्तः, कथमन्तं गमितवानिति ; उच्यते — श्रौतविज्ञानवज्जनावधिनिमित्तकल्पितत्वाद्दिशां तद्विरोधिजनाध्युषित एव देशो दिशामन्तः, देशान्तोऽरण्यमिति यद्वत् ; इत्यदोषः । तत्तत्र गमयित्वा, आसां देवतानाम् , पाप्मन इति द्वितीयाबहुवचनम् , विन्यदधात् विविधं न्यग्भावेनादधात्स्थापितवती, प्राणदेवता ; प्राणात्माभिमानशून्येष्वन्त्यजनेष्विति सामर्थ्यात् ; इन्द्रियसंसर्गजो हि स इति प्राण्याश्रयतावगम्यते । तस्मात्तमन्त्यं जनम् , नेयात् न गच्छेत् सम्भाषणदर्शनादिभिर्न संसृजेत् ; तत्संसर्गे पाप्मना संसर्गः कृतः स्यात् ; पाप्माश्रयो हि सः ; तज्जननिवासं चान्तं दिगन्तशब्दवाच्यम् , नेयात् — जनशून्यमपि, जनमपि तद्देशवियुक्तम् , इत्यभिप्रायः । नेदिति परिभयार्थे निपातः ; इत्थं जनसंसर्गे, पाप्मानं मृत्युम् , अन्ववायानीति — अनु अव अयानीति अनुगच्छेयमिति ; एवं भीतो न जनमन्तं चेयादिति पूर्वेण सम्बन्धः ॥
The translation of the commentary of Shankara by Swami Mādhavānanda is:
This deity-already explained-took away death, the evil of these gods such as the god of speech, identified with the vital force. Everybody dies because of the evil due to the attachment of the organs to contact with the sense-objects, prompted by his natural ignorance. Hence this evil is death. The vital force is here spoken of as taking it away from the gods, simply because they identified themselves with the vital force. As a matter of fact, evil keeps away from this knower just because it is out of place there. What did the
vital force do after taking away death, the evil of the gods? It carried it to where these quarters, east and so forth, end. One may question how this was done, since the quarters have no end. The answer is that it is all right, for the quarters are here conceived as being that stretch of territory which is inhabited by people possessing Vedic knowledge ; hence ‘the end of the quarters’ means the country inhabited by people who hold opposite views, as a forest is spoken of as the end of the country.  Carrying them, there it, the deity, vital force, left their evils, the evils of these gods.The word ‘Pāpmanah’ is accusative plural.-‘Left,’ lit. placed in various humiliating ways, and, as is understood from the sense of the passage, among the inhabitants of that region beyond the border who do not identify themselves with the vital force. That evil is due to the contact of the senses (with their objects) ; hence it must reside in some living being. Therefore one should not approach, i.e. associate with by addressing or seeing, a person of the region beyond the border.
Association with him would involve contact with evil, for it dwells in him. Nor go to that region beyond the border, where such people live, called ‘the end of the quarters,’ although it may be deserted; and the implication is, nor to any man out of that land. Lest one imbibe that evil, death, by coming into contact with such people. Out of this fear one should neither approach these people nor go to that region. ‘Ned’ (lest) is a particle denoting apprehension.
When the above commentary is studied, one is invariably reminded of the Bhāgavatam instance where the evil called ‘kali’ begs of the righteous ruler Parīkṣit to assign it ‘places’ where it could survive, thrive.
//Sūta said:

Petitioned thus, Parīkṣit gave Kali: places of gambling and contest, places of drinking, places of sexual promiscuity, and slaughterhouses.

Begging for a little more, the Master gave him a fifth place: wherever money accumulates. In such places there is always cheating, maddening desire, passion, and enmity.

40

The Son of Uttarā gave Kali to the order to live only in those five places, through which Kali could certainly encourage immorality. 

41

Therefore a person who desires his own well-being must never, ever go to such places. Especially not those who protect morality: kings, leaders, and teachers.

No one who wishes to truly improve their lives should become a fan of making money, competing with others, getting drunk, trying to have sex, and eating meat. Do not become intimate or close with anyone who seriously values any of these things!//

Now one can easily see that the Br.Up and bhashya accords well with the Bhagavatam.

The Gita says:
BGB 13.10:

मयि चानन्ययोगेन भक्तिरव्यभिचारिणी।

विविक्तदेशसेवित्वमरतिर्जनसंसदि।।13.11।।

13.11 And unwavering devotion to Me with single-minded concentration; inclination to repair into a clean place; lack of delight in a crowd of people.
Shankara says:
Vivikta-desa-sevitvam, inclination to repair into a clean place-a place (desa) naturally free (vivikta) or made free from impurity etc. and snakes, tigers, etc.; or, place made solitary (vivikta) by being situated in a forest, on a bank of a river, or in a temple; one who is inclined to seek such a place is vivikta-desa-sevi, and the abstract form of that is vivikta-desa-sevitvam. Since the mind becomes calm in places that are indeed pure (or solitary), therefore meditation on the Self etc. occurs in pure (or solitary) places. Hence the inclination to retire into clean (or solitary) places is called Knowledge. Aratih, lack of delight, not being happy; jana-samadi, in crowd of people-an assemblage, a multitude of people without culture, lacking in purity and immodest-, (but) not (so) in a gathering of pure and modest persons since that is conducive to Knowledge. Hence, lack of delight in an assembly of common people is knowledge since it leads to Knowledge.
Thus reading all the above three texts we conclude that the purport of the scripture is in seeing the aspirant after Truth does not give room to anything that pollutes his mind. The ‘going to an ‘alien’ land is thus figurative, for such ‘alien’ can very well be even next door and not necessarily in a far off continent.
And the essence of the Vedic culture can be anywhere and not necessarily in only one geographical area. A person living abroad can very well contact that centre and be insulated from adverse effects that country might have on him. Such centres are there everywhere and most importantly one has to create it within oneself.
Thus what matters most is not the geographical land where one resides but the company he keeps. That is the purport of the Br. Up. cited above.
On Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | October 9, 2017

THE KADAMBA ORIGIN – SHIVA-SUPREME FOR VAIDIKA-S

The Kadamba origin – Shiva-Supreme for Vaidika-s

The Tālagunda pillar inscription is an epigraphic record in Sanskrit giving an account of the Kadamba dynasty. It was set up in the time of the Kadamba king Śāntivarma (c. 455-60).

This famous inscription, carved vertically on the shaft of the pillar, opens with praise to Sthāṇu i.e. Śiva and recounts the foundation of Kadamba power by Mayūraśarma. This family of Brāhmaṇas, who belonged to Mānavyagotra, are said to have acquired the name Kadamba from a Kadamba tree near their home. Mayūraśarma went to Pallavendrapurī (i.e. Kāñcī) with his teacher Vīraśarma to complete his studies. Because of a quarrel at the time of a horse-sacrifice (aśvamedha) orangised for the Pallava king where the Brāhmaṇas were not treated with proper respect by the Kṣatriyas, Mayūraśarma became enraged and, taking up the sword, took refuge in Śrīparvata.From there harassed the Pallava frontier and levied tribute from Bṛhat Bāṇa and others. The Pallavas eventually acknowledged him as the king of the country between Aparārṇava (the Western Ocean) and Preharā. Mayūraśarma’s son was Kaṅgavarma, described in the record as “famous in battle.” His son Bhagīratha was the father of Raghu who was a poet and a scholar. Raghu’s brother was Kākusthavarma (c. 435-55) who “was like the sun and by means of rays (daughters) caused the lotuses of Gupta and other royal families to bloom in friendless, eagerness and love.” He came to Sthānakundūru on a hunting expedition and near the temple of Mahādeva who had been worshipped by Śātakarṇi and others previously, caused a big tank to be excavated. His son who had three crowns was Śāntivarma. Śāntivarma caused this inscription to be made. It was composed by the poet Kubja.

//Talagunda was earlier known as Sthanagundur and it was an agrahara (a place of learning).[2] This is the earliest known agraharafound in Karnataka.[3] An inscription found at Talagunda indicates that 32 Brahmins were relocated from a place called Ahichchhatrato Sthanagundur by Mukanna (or Trinetra), thereby creating an agrahara.[2][3] Mukanna was an ancestor of Mayurasharma, the founder of the Kadamba Dynasty//
//Education was imparted at Talagunda for eight centuries and the subjects that were taught included vedasvedanta, grammar and philosophy. The Kannada language was taught at primary level and clothing and food was provided to the students and teachers.[3//
 
//A temple dedicated to Pranaveshwara (Hindu God Shiva) is located in Talagunda. Next to it is located a stone slab containing inscriptions. In front of it is a pillar containing inscriptions in SanskritThe pillar inscriptions were written in the mid 5th century CE during the reign of Śāntivarman (a descendant of Mayurasharma).[5] The author of this inscription was Kubja, the court-poet of Śāntivarman.[6] He engraved the inscriptions himself to prevent any other engraver from committing mistakes.//
//The inscriptions indicate that Mayurasharma, native of Talagunda,[8] was accomplished in vaidika and went to the Pallava capital, Kanchipuram to study scriptures, accompanied by his guru and grandfather Veerasharama. There, having been humiliated by a Pallava guard (horseman), in a rage Mayurasharma gave up his Brahminic studies and took to the sword to avenge his insult.[9] The inscription vividly describes the event thus:
That the hand dextrous in grasping the kusha grass, fuel and stones, ladle, melted butter and the oblation vessel, unsheathed a flaming sword, eager to conquer the earth[10][11]

The inscriptions thus describe Kadambas as Brahmins turned conquerors and praise Brahmins as “Gods on earth, and speakers of SamaRigand Yajur Vedas.[12] The Kadamba lineage is described as descending from a three-sage line in the Hariti pravara and belonging to the Manavya gothra.[12]//

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

//The Tālagunda pillar inscription is an epigraphic record in Sanskrit giving an account of the Kadamba dynasty. It was set up in the time of the Kadamba king Śāntivarma (c. 455-60).//

// Description and Contents[edit]

This famous inscription, carved vertically on the shaft of the pillar, opens with praise to Sthāṇu i.e. Śiva and recounts the foundation of Kadamba power by Mayūraśarma (for this personality see Mayurasharma). This family of Brāhmaṇas, who belonged to Mānavyagotra, are said to have acquired the name Kadamba from a Kadamba tree near their home. Mayūraśarma went to Pallavendrapurī (i.e. Kāñcī) with his teacher Vīraśarma to complete his studies. Because of a quarrel at the time of a horse-sacrifice (aśvamedha) orangised for the Pallava king where the Brāhmaṇas were not treated with proper respect by the Kṣatriyas, Mayūraśarma became enraged and, taking up the sword, took refuge in Śrīparvata.[6]//

The verses:

//1 siddham [||] namaś-Śivāya || Jayati viśvadе[va]-sa[m˙]ghāta-nichit-aikamūrttis-sanātanaḥ Sthānu(ṇu)r-indu-raśmi-vichchhurita-dyutimaj-jaṭābhāra-maṇḍanaḥ || [1*] Tam=anu bhūsurā dvija-pravarās=sāma-rg-yajur-vvеda-vаdinaḥ yat-prasādas=trāyatе nityaṃ bhuvana-trayam pāpmanо bhayāt || [2*] //

Rendered in Devanāgari, the above reads:

सिद्धम् । नमः शिवाय । जयति विश्वदेवसंघातनिचितैकमूर्तिः सनातनः स्थाणुरिन्दुरश्मिविच्छुरित-द्युतिमज्ज;त्;अभ्;अरमण्डनः ।

तमनु भूसुराः द्विजप्रवराः सामऋग्यजुर्वेदवादिनः यत्प्रसादस्त्रायते नित्यं भुवनत्रयम् पाप्मनो भयात् ॥

[Accomplished. Obeisance to Shiva. Glorious shines the One Ancient Sthāṇuḥ (Śiva) splendor with the moon on his locks of hair. Following him the foremost of brāhmaṇa-s are experts in the lore of the Rg, Yajus and Sāma veda-s and by whose grace the three worlds are always protected from the fear of sin.]

At the end are these lines:

//.[32*] Say=iha bhagavatо Bhavaśy=ādi-dеvasya siddhy-ālaye siddha-gā(ga)ndharvva-rakṣо-gaṇais=sеvitе-vividha-niyama-hоma-dīkṣā-parair=brāh[m]aṇai snātakai stūyamānе sadā mantra-vādaiś=śubhaiḥ 14 sukṛtibhir=avanīśvarair=ātma-niśśrеyasaṃ prеpsubhis=Sātakarṇy-ādibhiś śraddhay=ābhyarchchitе//

स इह भगवतो भवस्यादिदेवस्य सिद्धालये सिद्धगन्दर्वरक्षोगणैः सेविते विविध नियमहोमदीक्षापरैः ब्राह्मणैः स्नातकैः स्तूयमाने सदा मन्त्रवादैशुभैः ।

सुकृतिभिः अवनीश्वरैः आत्मनिःश्रेयसं प्रेप्सुभिः सातकर्ण्यादिभिः श्रद्धयाभ्यर्चिते….

In the temple of the Ādideva Bhava (Śiva), who is worshiped by celestials by the means of several sacirficial rituals by committed brāhmaṇa-s versed in the Veda-s by incessant auspicious chanting, and by the kings of good conduct and virtuous deeds who pray for self-liberation, as exemplified by the devout worship by Sātakarṇi, etc.

Here ends the excerpted part of the inscription in the form of a poetic text composed by Kubja, a poet. See also: http://asibengalurucircle.in/inscribed-pillar-talagunda

The following points emerge from the above historical evidences:

  • Lord Shiva was worshiped by the brāhmaṇa-s, vaidika-s, several centuries prior to Shankaracharya
  • There were temples dedicated to Lord Shiva as early as the BC period
  • It is noteworthy that Sureshvaracharya in his vārtika refers to Shankara as ‘bhavanāmabhṛt’, one who bears the name of ‘Bhava’.
  • Vācaspati Misra in his invocation to the Bhāmatī pays obeisance to the eternal Bhava  
Om Tat Sat

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories