PDA

View Full Version : Adi shankara Posts - Jalpa Thread 2



Ganeshprasad
25 September 2013, 12:04 PM
Prabam Omkara




If you leave aside the controvery about "Vinayaka" for a moment you will notice the unequivocal condemnation of the worship of the matrikas in the same paragraph.
Also, Sri Vaishnava says Shankaracharya has referred to Surya and Rudra as jivas in his upanishad bhashyas.

So there goes the myth that Shankaracharya was a Smarta.

How does this prove Shankaracharya's position? on say so off Sri Vaishnava!!!



After thinking over it a bit, my opinion is- There are pretas in the puranas called vinayakas, matrikas,bhaginis etc and it is possible that Shankarachary is referring to them. On the other hand, there is no evidence that worship of pretas was common in 8th century India, so it would be slightly unlikely that Shankaracharya is using a near-extinct tradition as an example.
Both interpretations of Shankaracharya's words are feasible.

Now that many opinion have been put forward, with pramanas, if i were to draw a conclusion, the general opinion seems to be that Sri Shankracharya in his bhasya on 9.25, as you seem to agree also, that he was not talking off Ganesha, based on that do you still believe Ganesh Bhujangam - Adi Shankaracharya is of later works? after all, all this argument about Sankacharya stemmed from this conversation of ours.
scholars views notwithstanding if i were to trust anyone on this matter it would be its own sampradaya who would convince me of its authenticity, this debate it self proves that there is so much vested interest.

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
25 September 2013, 01:20 PM
based on that do you still believe Ganesh Bhujangam - Adi Shankaracharya is of later works? after all, all this argument about Sankacharya stemmed from this conversation of ours.
scholars views notwithstanding if i were to trust anyone on this matter it would be its own sampradaya who would convince me of its authenticity, this debate it self proves that there is so much vested interest.

Why don't you post this question on the advaita mailing list and ask them what they beleive?

Shankara wrote his first bhashya at the age of 13. He was 32 when he died. If you think that in nineteen years he authored all the hundereds of works attributed to him whike travelling across India on foot....;)

Later advaitins like Vidyaranya have listed out his works, and they consist of prasthanatrayi bhashyas and a few prakarana granthas.

Ganeshprasad
25 September 2013, 04:54 PM
Pranam


Why don't you post this question on the advaita mailing list and ask them what they beleive?

Why are you dodging the question posed to you, it was you who questioned Ganesh Bhujanga based on BG9.25, making a case for it. Based on that discussion you either concede or be adamant, choice is yours.



Shankara wrote his first bhashya at the age of 13. He was 32 when he died. If you think that in nineteen years he authored all the hundereds of works attributed to him whike travelling across India on foot....;)
.

Does this not tell you how extra ordinary this personality is, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for him to author hundreds of works besides he had hundreds of capable disciples who could have scribed his work.

I have no academic interest in such matters nor do I base my understanding solely on his teachings, actually I do not even follow Adwaita, that is not to say those who follow it are wrong. So no I will not be inquiring this on adwaita mailing list.

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
25 September 2013, 06:02 PM
Why are you dodging the question posed to you, it was you who questioned Ganesh Bhujanga based on BG9.25, making a case for it. Based on that discussion you either concede or be adamant, choice is yours.


I did not question the veracity of Shankara's stotras based on his commentary on Gita 9.25. I questioned it based on the fact that it is not considered an authentic work of Shankaracharya by scholars, both Advaitin and non-Advaitin, Hindu and Non-Hindu.

Besides which it contradicts the bhashya on Gita 9.25.

Deva-vratah, votaries of the gods, those whose religious observances [Making offerings and presents, circumambulation bowing down, etc.] and devotion are directed to the gods; yanti reach, go to; devan, the gods. Pitr-vratah, the votaries of the manes, those who are occupied with such rites as obsequies etc. manes, those who are occupied with such rites as obsequies etc. who are devoted to the manes; go pitrn, to the manes such as Agnisvatta and others. Bhutejyah, the Beings such as Vinayaka, the group of Sixteen (divine) Mothers, the Four Sisters, and others. And madyajinah, those who worship Me, those who are given to worshipping Me; reach mam, Me alone Although the effort (involved) is the same, still owing to ingorance they do not worship Me exclusively. Thereby they attain lesser results. This is the meaning.

Even if ascribe another meaning to the word Vinayaka, what do you say about the fact that Shankaracharya says those who worship gods other than Lord Vishnu do so out of ignorance.

brahma jijnasa
26 September 2013, 01:49 AM
I have problems with this logic.
While we say 'Jack is a tall boy' and the attributes of Jack's physical body are applied to the Jiva Jack due to the inseparable relation between soul and the body, 'Jack' is a term that refers to the inseparable combination of the soul and the body. Thus we can say "Jack was born on 12th June 1984" wherein are referring to the body of the composite entity Jack. We can also say that "Jack has existed for all eternity" wherein we are referring to the eternal soul in the composite entity "Jack".

We cannot, however attribute to individual components of "Jack" attributes of each other. We cannot say "Jack's body has existed forever " or "Jack's soul was born on so-and-so date"

Similarly, Brahman abd Jiva are parts of a composite which is as inseparable as the body and the soul. However, we cannot say that Brahman is a being of limited knowledge who transmigrates under the influence of Karma, because we are attributing properties of the other part of the Brahman-Jiva composite to Brahman.

Similarly, we cannot go upto a particular jiva and tell him "You are the supreme lord who creates, sustains and destroys the universe" and then invoke the inseparability of the Antaryamin and Jiva.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that Ganesha is the Supreme Brahman. He is a Jiva.

Paramatma and Jiva soul (Jivatma) are together in the heart of every living being. Paramatma and Jivatma are eternally two separate selves (two separate atmas).
When we describe them by words something refers to one (paramatma) and something to another one (jivatma).

regards

Omkara
26 September 2013, 02:20 AM
Paramatma and Jiva soul (Jivatma) are together in the heart of every living being. Paramatma and Jivatma are eternally two separate selves (two separate atmas).
When we describe them by words something refers to one (paramatma) and something to another one (jivatma).

regards


I never denied that. I merely pointed out that a name, like "Jack" refers to a composite body-soul entity thus the word can be taken as denoting the soul or the body depending on context.

However the words "I" and "You" are refer only to the person being addressed by the speaker.

Just as one cannot say "The parabharahman is atomic in size and bound by karma" even though Brahman and jiva are inseparable nor can we say "The jiva is omnipotent".

Thus this interpretation is not feasible IMO.

brahma jijnasa
26 September 2013, 02:33 AM
Namaste

As Philosoraptor mentioned, I quoted that only for Vedic hymns of various deities like Lord Brahma, Agni etc. as opposed to using (Rajasic)Puranas under heavy interpolation. The Bhagavatam verse talks about worshiping deities alongside with Lord Narayana while you are using it to worship deities installed in a separate temple. Worshiping Lord with His associates and guru is but basic Vaishnavam but you are using it to rationalize worship other deities.

We give a lot of importance to the agamas used to install a deity.

You missed my point.
I am not saying that Vaishnavas should perform a separate worship because it is not common for Vaishnava practice:


In my post on Ganesha I said "Scriptures approve worship of the gods, eternally liberated souls, etc., the only question is what of all that is common for Vaishnava practice."

My point was that Vaishnava should not fear that he will be accused of being worshiper of the demigods even if he performs such a separate worship because we have an example of Radha's eulogy of Ganesha:


So Radha's eulogy of Ganesha is, obviously, addressed not to him but to the paramatma or the supreme Lord situated in his heart. This paramatma is called antaryami or the Supersoul existing in everyone's heart.
That's the point. A Vaishnava should keep in mind when gods (sometimes called "demigods"), eternally liberated souls and other divine beings have been eulogised in this manner, these words are addressed to the Lord. So they are not worshiped as an independent divinities.
...

They do not realize that Sri Radha's worship of Ganesha is not contrary to Vaishnava doctrine if properly understood. Sri Radha was not a demigod worshiper. She did not think "I surrender my life in the hands of Ganesha. He is my Lord, he is Supreme Brahman, etc".
I think I was clear on this matter when I said that the words of Sri Radha's eulogy were not actually addressed to Ganesha but were addressed to the Supreme Lord, Supreme Brahman situated in his heart in the form of paramatma.
So then whom is she worshiped? Ganesha or The Supreme Lord who is Supreme Brahman?
The answer is obvious.

regards

brahma jijnasa
26 September 2013, 02:49 AM
I never denied that. I merely pointed out that a name, like "Jack" refers to a composite body-soul entity thus the word can be taken as denoting the soul or the body depending on context.

However the words "I" and "You" are refer only to the person being addressed by the speaker.

Just as one cannot say "The parabharahman is atomic in size and bound by karma" even though Brahman and jiva are inseparable nor can we say "The jiva is omnipotent".

Thus this interpretation is not feasible IMO.

Still I do not see what is not feasible in that.
If you understand that jivatma and paramatma are two separate souls although they also are connected, then there is no reason why it should not be feasible.

regards

Ganeshprasad
26 September 2013, 04:52 AM
Pranam


I did not question the veracity of Shankara's stotras based on his commentary on Gita 9.25. I questioned it based on the fact that it is not considered an authentic work of Shankaracharya by scholars, both Advaitin and non-Advaitin, Hindu and Non-Hindu. This has been discussed extensively at the addvaita list and no one takes the position that alk works ascribed to Shankara are his.

Please see - http://www.easterntradition.org/sankaracaryas%20original%20works.pdf
for an overview on the issue.

Interesting read thanks but i will pass when we can't even establish 6th or 8th century it is all conjecture.



Besides which it contradicts the bhashya on Gita 9.25.

Deva-vratah, votaries of the gods, those whose religious observances [Making offerings and presents, circumambulation bowing down, etc.] and devotion are directed to the gods; yanti reach, go to; devan, the gods. Pitr-vratah, the votaries of the manes, those who are occupied with such rites as obsequies etc. manes, those who are occupied with such rites as obsequies etc. who are devoted to the manes; go pitrn, to the manes such as Agnisvatta and others. Bhutejyah, the Beings such as Vinayaka, the group of Sixteen (divine) Mothers, the Four Sisters, and others. And madyajinah, those who worship Me, those who are given to worshipping Me; reach mam, Me alone Although the effort (involved) is the same, still owing to ingorance they do not worship Me exclusively. Thereby they attain lesser results. This is the meaning.

Even if ascribe another meaning to the word Vinayaka, what do you say about the fact that Shankaracharya says those who worship gods other than him do so out of ignorance.

nothing new here he his repeating what lord Krishna says in text 23, off course making same effort to attain lesser result would be ignorance but does this mean both krishna and sankara are saying worshiping devas is ignorance? well not in my understanding,far from it why ? because if you look up chapter three verse 11/12 explicit instruction to worship the devas, if it was meant to be ignorance worship surely this instruction of Krishna must be questioned so it becomes incumbent on us to to arrive at correct context for verse 9.25. Not only chapter 3 look at chapter 17.4

yajante sattvika devan
yaksa-raksamsi rajasah
pretan bhuta-ganams canye
yajante tamasa janah

directly in correlation with 9.25

those who in mode of ignorance worship pretan bhuta ganams, you can hardly call deva worship as in ignorance when clearly Lord Krishna says those who are in mode of goodness worship Devas

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
26 September 2013, 05:08 AM
nothing new here he his repeating what lord Krishna says in text 23, off course making same effort to attain lesser result would be ignorance but does this mean both krishna and sankara are saying worshiping devas is ignorance? well not in my understanding,far from it why ? because if you look up chapter three verse 11/12 explicit instruction to worship the devas, if it was meant to be ignorance worship surely this instruction of Krishna must be questioned so it becomes incumbent on us to to arrive at correct context for verse 9.25. Not only chapter 3 look at chapter 17.4

yajante sattvika devan
yaksa-raksamsi rajasah
pretan bhuta-ganams canye
yajante tamasa janah

directly in correlation with 9.25

those who in mode of ignorance worship pretan bhuta ganams, you can hardly call deva worship as in ignorance when clearly Lord Krishna says those who are in mode of goodness worship Devas

Jai Shree Krishna

Both of these are references to the sacrifices in the vedic karma kanda, as yajnas are clearly mentioned these have no relevance to the topic at hand, as Krishna says he is the recepient of all vedic sacrifices.

I will ask again- Why does Shankaracharya say worshipping devas other than Lord Vishnu is done in ignorance?

Amrut
26 September 2013, 05:24 AM
I will ask again- Why does Shankaracharya say worshipping devas other than Lord Vishnu is done in ignorance?

last few verses could shed some light on it.

Here, Ishvara is separated from demi-gods.

In last verse Adi Shankara says, 'me' has to be taken as 'Atman'

Hindi translation by Sri Harikrishandas Goenka (on Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary)

किस प्रकार ( भजन-सेवा करें सो कहा जाता है -- ) तू मन्मना -- मुझमें ही मनवाला हो। मद्भक्त -- मेरा ही भक्त हो। मद्याजी -- मेरा ही पूजन करनेवाला हो और मुझे ही नमस्कार किया कर। इस प्रकार चित्तको मुझमें लगाकर मेरे परायण -- शरण हुआ तू मुझ परमेश्वरको ही प्राप्त हो जायगा। अभिप्राय यह कि मैं ही सब भूतोंका आत्मा और परमगति -- परम स्थान हूँ, ऐसा जो मैं आत्मरूप हूँ उसीको तू प्राप्त हो जायगा। इस प्रकार पहलेके 'माम्' शब्दसे 'आत्मानम्' शब्दका सम्बन्ध है ।।9.34।।

9.34 Manmana bhava, have your mind fixed on Me; Here Ast. adds the word vasudeva.-Tr and also be madbhakah, devoted to Me. Madyaji, sacrifice to Me, be engaged in sacrificing to Me. And namaskuru, bow down; only mam, to Me. Yuktva, by concentrating your mind; and mat-parayanah, by accepting Me as the supreme Goal; esyasi eva, you shall surely attain; mam, Me who am God. You shall attain Me evam atmanam, who am thus the Self: I indeed am the Self of all the beings, and am also the supreme Goal. You shall attain Me who am such. In this way, the word atmanam (Self) is to be connected with the preceding word mam (Me). This is the purport.

Note: This is vaishnava forum. Should this be taken to another forum

Ganeshprasad
26 September 2013, 05:25 AM
pranam


Both of these are references to the sacrifices in the vedic karma kanda, as yajnas are clearly mentioned these have no relevance to the topic at hand, as Krishna says he is the recepient of all vedic sacrifices.
--

rubbish, while 3.10/11 are related to karmakand chapter 17 verse is a clear indication of worship of Devas in the mode off good ness.
how do you propose worship of devas etc to be done in 9.25?

we have hit an impasse here, there is no further benefit of discussion to be had here.

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
26 September 2013, 05:39 AM
In last verse Adi Shankara says, 'me' has to be taken as 'Atman'


No, he equates Narayana to the atman, which he equates to Brahman. He has done this in other texts too.

Atma here means indwelling controller or Antaryamin. Krishna (and Shankaracharya ) are saying that since Lord Vishnu is the indwelling controller of all deities, worshipping tgem is superfluous.




Here, Ishvara is separated from demi-gods


There is no proof Shankaracharya was a Smarta. He has not equated any other deity to Brahman even once in his bhashyas. I have asked again and again- Skanda Purana and Shiva purana identify the Supreme being who humiliated the devas in Kena upanishad as Shiva. Why does Shankaracharya not acknowledge this in his bhashya?

Omkara
26 September 2013, 06:07 AM
pranam

rubbish, while 3.10/11 are related to karmakand chapter 17 verse is a clear indication of worship of Devas in the mode off good ness.
how do you propose worship of devas etc to be done in 9.25?



Nonsense. The word used is yajante.

Have you read even one bhashya by any acharya? What impels you to constany pick up fights on subjects you know nothing about?

Ganeshprasad
26 September 2013, 06:50 AM
Pranam


Nonsense. The word used is yajante.



Oh really tell me something I don't know, why don't you tell us what "Yajnte" means, and while you are at it do let us know what 9.25 suppose to be, you will find the context in 9.24, if it says any different from 17.4 do let me know.



Have you read even one bhashya by any acharya? What impels you to constany pick up fights on subjects you know nothing about?

Grow up, I was not even responding to you, when you brought in this verse and the Bhasya in response to my post,weather I read any Bhasya is irrelevant, what makes you think I am picking fights, let me ask you are you a closet Vaishnava?

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
26 September 2013, 07:21 AM
Oh really tell me something I don't know, why don't you tell us what "Yajnte" means


It means "to perform a yajna" or "to worship by means of a yajna.



and while you are at it do let us know what 9.25 suppose to be, you will find the context in 9.24, if it says any different from 17.4 do let me know.

I have aldready explained in my reply to Amrut-

Atma here means indwelling controller or Antaryamin. Krishna (and Shankaracharya ) are saying that since Lord Vishnu is the indwelling controller of all deities, worshipping them is superfluous.

There is no proof Shankaracharya was a Smarta. He has not equated any other deity to Brahman even once in his bhashyas. I have asked again and again- Skanda Purana and Shiva purana identify the Supreme being who humiliated the devas in Kena upanishad as Shiva. Why does Shankaracharya not acknowledge this in his bhashya?

Please see what Shankaracharya has to say on the subject-

23. Even those who, being devoted to other deities and endowed with faith, worship(them), they also, O son of Kunti, worship Me alone (though) following the wrong method. Api, even; ye, those who; anya-devata-bhaktah, being devoted to tother deities; and anvitah sraddhaya, endowed with faith; yajante, worship (them), te api, they also; O son of Kunti, yajanti, worship; mam, Me; eva, alone; (though) avidhi-purvakam, following the wrong method. Avidhi implies ignorance. So the idea is that they worship (Me) ignorantly.'How it is that they worship (Me) ignorantly?' [i.e. the worshippers of other deities worship them knowingly, and hence, how can the question of their gnorance arise?] This is being answered: Because-

24. I indeed am the enjoyer as also the Lord of all sacrifices; but they do not know Me in reality. Therefore they fall As the Self of the deities (of the sacrifices), aham, I; hi, indeed; am the bhokta enjoyer; ca eva, as also; the prabhuh, Lord; [The Lord: 'I being the indwelling enjoyer; ca eva, as also; the prabhuh, Lord; [The Lord: 'I being the indwelling Ruler of all.'] sarva-yajnanam, of all sacrifices enjoined by the Vedas and the Smrtis. A sacrifice is verily presided over by Me, for it has been said earlier, 'I Smrtis. A sacrifice is verily presided over by Me, for it has been said earlier, 'I Myself am the entity (called Visnu) that exists in the sacrifice in this body' (8.4). Tu, but; na abhi-jananti, they do not know; mam, Me as such; tattvena, in reality. And atah, therefore, by worshipping ignorantly; te, they; cyavanti, fall from the result of the sacrifice. ['Although they perform sacrifices with great diligence, still just because they do not know Me real nature and do not offer the fruits of their sacrifices to Me, they proceed to the worlds of the respective deities through the Southern Path (beginning with smoke; see 8.25). Then, after the exhaustion of the results of those sacrifices and the falling of the respective bodies (assumed in those worlds) they return to the human world for rembodiment.'-M.S. (See also 9.20-1.)] after the exhaustion of the results of those sacrifices and the falling of the after the exhaustion of the results of those sacrifices and the falling of the respective bodies (assumed in those worlds) they return to the human world for rembodiment.'-M.S. (See also 9.20-1.)] respective bodies (assumed in those worlds) they return to the human world respective bodies (assumed in those worlds) they return to the human world for rembodiment.'-M.S. (See also 9.20-1.)] The result of a sacrifice is inevitable even for those who worship ignorantly out of their devotion to other deities. How?

25. Votaries of the gods reach the gods; the votarites of the manes go to the manes the worshippers of the Beings reach the Beings; and those who worship Me reach Me. Deva-vratah, votaries of the gods, those whose religious observances [Making offerings and presents, circumambulation, bowing down, etc.] and devotion are directed to the gods; yanti, reach, go to; devan, the gods. Pitr-vratah, the votaries of the manes, those who are occupied with such rites as obsequies etc., who are devoted to the manes; go pitrn, to the manes such as Agnisvatta and others. Bhutejyah, the Beings such as Vinayaka, the group of Sixteen(divine) Mothers, the Four Sisters, and others. And madyajinah, those who worship Me, those who are given to worshipping Me, the devotees of Visnu; worship Me, those who are given to worshipping Me, the devotees of Visnu; reach mam, Me alone. Although the effort (involved) is the same, still owing to ingorance they do not worship Me exclusively. Thereby they attain lesser results. This is the meaning. reach mam, Me alone. Although the effort (involved) is the same, still owing to ngorance they do not worship Me exclusively. Thereby they attain lesser results. This is the meaning'Not only do My devotees get the everlasting result in the form of non-return(to this world), but My worship also is easy.' How?




let me ask you are you a closet Vaishnava?



I think I have made my views sufficiently clear in the thread "Lord Shiva in the Vedas"

Ganeshprasad
26 September 2013, 08:39 AM
Pranam


Both of these are references to the sacrifices in the vedic karma kanda, as yajnas are clearly mentioned these have no relevance to the topic at hand, as Krishna says he is the recepient of all vedic sacrifices.


i ask again how is this irrelevant bg 9.23-5 yajante
TEXT 23

ye 'py anya-devata-bhakta
yajante sraddhayanvitah
te 'pi mam eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-purvakam

Chapter 17. The Divisions of Faith
TEXT 4

yajante sattvika devan
yaksa-raksamsi rajasah
pretan bhuta-ganams canye
yajante tamasa janah

TEXT 10

saha-yajnah prajah srstva
purovaca prajapatih
anena prasavisyadhvam
esa vo 'stv ista-kama-dhuk

your definition

It means "to perform a yajna" or "to worship by means of a yajna.

so now tell me how is these irrelevant?

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
26 September 2013, 08:54 AM
Now you are deliberately trolling, if you were not before.

Amrut
26 September 2013, 10:50 AM
There is no proof Shankaracharya was a Smarta. He has not equated any other deity to Brahman even once in his bhashyas. I have asked again and again- Skanda Purana and Shiva purana identify the Supreme being who humiliated the devas in Kena upanishad as Shiva. Why does Shankaracharya not acknowledge this in his bhashya?

Namaste,

I am not claiming Adi Shankara was a smarta.

I have checked bhasya of 3.12 ken Up.

In pada bhasya, it is said (in hindi), उमारुपिणि - स्त्रीवेशधारिणी उमारुपा विद्यादेवी further it says, knowledge (vidya) is the most auspicious (शोभायमान), as knowledge is the most auspicious.

In vakya-bhasya, it contains the word हैमवती. there is a statement (in hindi)

वह सर्वदा उस सर्वज्ञ ईश्वरके साथ वर्तमान रहती है; अतः उसे ज्ञानमें समर्थ होगी - ...

It can be concluded that


Uma, Haimavati means Maa Parvati, consort of Lord Shiva
She appears in the form of lady and she is of the form of vidya (vidya-svarupa)
She knows the truth (later she tells the truth that this was brahman who vanished)
To stay with sarvaGYa Ishvara means to be with Lord Shiva --> Knowledge stays with Lord. They both cannot be separated. Jnana-svarupa.
Though Adi Shankara has not used the word 'Shiva' or 'Rudra', he has made reference to Lord Shiva

Again, Since Shiva is Brahman as the context, as I understand is of formless, which is shown here by saying that -- Knowledge appeared in the form of a Lady (Maa Parvati). It was ego which was not allowing Indra to see Ishvara. Since the incident is in dramatic form, hence the word 'seeing' is used. The word darshan, though is taken as 'seeing' can means 'to know' and the word Ishvara in this context of knowledge appearing in form of a lady can be taken as Brahman. Here humiliation means removal of ego, which happened to Indra, Agni and Vayu deva(s)

If this logic is correct, and hopefully no translation error (as I checked the presence of critical sanskrit words), then it means that Vishnu, Shiva and Parvati (Adi Shakti) are one and the same.

I know there is no direct reference of Shiva as Brahman, but knowledge is Brahman.

Publication: Gita Press, Gorakhpur (Hindi).

Namo Narayana

Amrut
26 September 2013, 10:57 AM
Pranams,

Taking this discussion further would mean hijacking this thread (it is already derailed). I will stop here. I will surely read the response of Omkara and others but will remain passive. Digging further would be a time consuming affair for me. This (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=12075) thread is a better option but since it is in jalpa, members may have lost interest in it

Hari OM

Sri Vaishnava
26 September 2013, 12:04 PM
In the kenopanishad bhashya, Shankara is simply referring to Uma, the teacher of the devas, as the wife of Isvara, ie, Shiva, who is sarvagna, ie, all knowing

This doesn't imply he considered either Shiva or Parvati as Brahman. Isvara is a given name for Shiva, which is accepted by all vaishnavas. The sahasranama also says, "Isvara uvAcha- srI rAma rAma rAmEti' . So shiva is known by the name of Isvara. It doesn't imply supremacy from a vaishnava perspective.

Sarvagna is based on pramAnas like "jnAnam icchet sankarAth", ie, shiva provides knowledge of vishnu. So he is celebrated as one who knows all the tattvas. Adi shankara used this term to show that Uma is the wife of the knowledgeable shiva and thus taught the devas.

Many rishis are also called sarvagna but that doesn't mean they are brahman. Shiva is called as sarvatma in the mahabharata in the context of his mind, ie intellect pervading everywhere, ie his knowledge is extended.

Shankara has not identified shiva as brahman there.

To those who accuse Omkara of being vaishnava, that is laughable. He is a staunch shaiva. But he is just quoting facts here. I mean, it would be ridiculous if I said appayya dikshitar was a vaishnava just because I have a prediliction for vaishnavism. Inclinations are one thing, but facts are another.

No more from me on this thread.

Omkara
27 September 2013, 08:56 AM
Pranam


Now you are deliberately trolling, if you were not before.

been called worst in my time, i have a thick skin, so be my guest, mind you could have avoided all this trolling by me! had you not responded to my post, choice was entirely yours.
all the best

Jai Shree Krishna

You barged into a Vaishnava forum discussion to argue against Vaishnava views and made claims about Adi Shankara's beleifs without actually having read his bhashyas. That fits any definition of trolling.


Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals derivative from this 33 originals, Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
The Vedas are clear that worship is to be given to the supreme Brahman alone-

Atharvashika Upanishad
39.Siva alone is to be meditated upon, Siva the Giver of good. Give up all else. Thus, concludes the Atharvasikha.
RV 2.33.4 Let us not anger thee with (imperfect) adorations, Rudra, unworthy praise,or mixed oblations (worship along with worship of other gods) Strong God!

Amrut
27 September 2013, 10:04 AM
SV, Adi Shankara's words should be interpreted the way they should be, not from Sri Vaishnava's POV. As mentioned earlier, this is not the correct section to discuss about Adi Shankara

Sri Vaishnava
27 September 2013, 02:13 PM
And what makes you think my post was from a SV point of view? If you notice, I used the word 'vaishnava' and not 'sri vaishnava' - and this is a word used by shankara himself in a very approving manner in his gita bhAshya.

The explanation I gave is indeed his view-point whereas yours is not even close, considering his statement that shiva is a vibhUti of vishNu in his VS bhAshya itself and the various statements in his prasthna trayI where he openly places the worship of Rudra and other devatas on a lower pedastal as compared to worship of vishnu. As per my knowledgeable friend who is a smArta by birth, ShankarAchArya says that Lord Rudra, Pasupati, was created by Brahman (BrihadAranyaka upanishad bhAshya - 1.4.10-11). He also says in the third chapter of his Brahma Sutra Bhashya (3.3.32) that Rudra received a boon from Sanatkumara, thus implying that Rudra is not Brahman.

I have his kenOpanishad bhAshya. He only interprets Uma Haimavati as the personification of knowledge, that is auspicious and hence the fitting epithet of being adorned with gold, further adding that she has become competent in jnAnA due to her continued association with sarvajna Isvara (shiva, of great knowledge), that the devas learned of Brahman only from her. Never once does he equate the Brahman revealed by Uma with that sarvajna Isvara who Uma is associated with, although he could have easily done so if he had that opinion. Rather, he equates Brahman with nArAyaNa everywhere in his bhAshyas.

Whatever, believe what you must.

Ganeshprasad
27 September 2013, 03:00 PM
Pranam
Betraying my private conversation, I salute your beautiful dharma.
really no harm done, just that I did not want to comment on your abuse so as not to pollute this Vaisnava thread any further, alas it wasn't meant to be.



----and made claims about Adi Shankara's beleifs without actually having read his bhashyas. That fits any definition of trolling.


Nice definition of a troll, well excuse me for not meeting your standard, at this rate I will be a troll every time I quote Bhagvat Gita, do you have an access to Shree Krishna's Bhasya!!

As I said before, reading a Bhasya or not, is irrelevant as far as my discussion goes, and what gives you the authority to decide what is authentic or not, it is all very subjective and going by this conversation on Vinaykas, I believe you have been fairly proven wrong by your own admittance as well.




The Vedas are clear that worship is to be given to the supreme Brahman alone-

Atharvashika Upanishad
39.Siva alone is to be meditated upon, Siva the Giver of good. Give up all else. Thus, concludes the Atharvasikha.
RV 2.33.4 Let us not anger thee with (imperfect) adorations, Rudra, unworthy praise,or mixed oblations (worship along with worship of other gods) Strong God!

Your point is mute, you could have saved your self the bother if you had care to read the last sentence that has always been my signature ever since I joined this forum.

Jai Shree Krishna

philosoraptor
27 September 2013, 04:47 PM
The Vedas are clear that worship is to be given to the supreme Brahman alone-

Atharvashika Upanishad
39. Siva alone is to be meditated upon, Siva the Giver of good. Give up all else. Thus, concludes the Atharvasikha.
RV 2.33.4 Let us not anger thee with (imperfect) adorations, Rudra, unworthy praise,or mixed oblations (worship along with worship of other gods) Strong God!

Notice how Ganesh Prasad did not bother to respond to this point. I predict that GP will continue to argue that Vedas want to us to worship many gods, and will decry any evidence to the contrary. If the Vedas tell us to worship a supreme deity only, then it's not their fault. But the person who brings that up is obviously motivated by sectarian(*) views!

PR

(*) Unless the person who says it is a great scholar like Adi Shankara. In that case, once again, he is not at fault for making the sectarian statement. But, the person who pointed out that he made the sectarian statement will be the one at fault.

P.S. Ganesh Prasad, the word you were looking for is "moot," not "mute." *rolls eyes*

Ganeshprasad
27 September 2013, 06:34 PM
Pranam


------

P.S. Ganesh Prasad, the word you were looking for is "moot," not "mute." *rolls eyes*

Oh how embarrassing, thanks for the correction but no need to roll eyes, might do some damage.

Sorry well past my bed time with stinking cold can not fully respond to rest of your post, in case I give you another opportunity to roll your eyes but I will quote another verse from the Gita, may help

9.15

jnana-yajnena capy anye
yajanto mam upasate
ekatvena prthaktvena
bahudha visvato-mukham

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
27 September 2013, 07:52 PM
As I said before, reading a Bhasya or not, is irrelevant as far as my discussion goes, and


Therefore your position is that one can make wild claims on any topic without actually knowing about it.


what gives you the authority to decide what is authentic or not, it is all very subjective and going by this conversation on Vinaykas, I believe you have been fairly proven wrong by your own admittance as well.

What? Proved wrong? By my own admission? I had known from the start that there was a competing interpretation and had even provided a link to a thread discussing that interpretation. My stand on those verses remains the same.


Your point is mute, you could have saved your self the bother if you had care to read the last sentence that has always been my signature ever since I joined this forum.

Will you stop running around in circles and answer a question for once? And while tou are at it, explain this-

ShankarAchArya says that Lord Rudra, Pasupati, was created by Brahman (BrihadAranyaka upanishad bhAshya - 1.4.10-11). He also says in the third chapter of his Brahma Sutra Bhashya (3.3.32) that Rudra received a boon from Sanatkumara, thus implying that Rudra is not Brahman.


And explain the fact that in his Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya Shankaracharya says that Vishnu is called Keshava because he gives birth to Ka (Brahma) and Isa(Shiva).


1.3.26. Also (beings) above them, (viz. men) (are qualified for the study and practice of the Veda), on account of the possibility (of it), according to Bdaryana. It has been said above that the passage about him who is of the size of a thumb has reference to the human heart, because men are entitled to study and act according to the sstra. This gives us an occasion for the following discussion.--It is true that the sstra entitles men, but, at the same time, there is no exclusive rule entitling men only to the knowledge of Brahman; the teacher, Bdaryana, rather thinks that the sstra entitles those (classes of beings) also which are above men, viz. gods, and so on.--On what account?--On the account of possibility.--For in their cases also the different causes on which the qualification depends, such as viz. gods, and so on.--On what account?--On the account of possibility.--For in their cases also the different causes on which the qualification depends, such as having certain desires, and so on, may exist. In the first place, the gods also may have the desire of final release, caused by the reflection that all effects, objects, and powers are non-permanent. In the second place, they may be capable of it as their corporeality appears from mantras, arthavdas, itihsas, purnas, and ordinary experience. In the third place, there is no prohibition (excluding them like Sdras). experience. In the third place, there is no prohibition (excluding them like Sdras). Nor does, in the fourth place, the scriptural rule about the upanayana-ceremony annul their title; for that ceremony merely subserves the study of the Veda, and to the gods the Veda is manifest of itself (without study). That the gods, moreover, for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, undergo discipleship, and the like, appears from such scriptural passages as 'One hundred and one years Indra lived as a disciple with Pragpati' (Kh. Up. VIII, ii, 3), and 'Bhrigu Vruni went to his father Varuna, saying, "Sir, teach me Brahman"' (Taitt. Up. III, 1).-- And the reasons which have been given above against gods and rishis being entitled to perform religious works (such as sacrifices), viz. the circumstance of there being no other gods (to whom the gods could offer sacrifices), and of there being no other rishis (who could be invoked during the sacrifice), do not apply to the case of branches of whom the gods could offer sacrifices), and of there being no other rishis (who could be invoked during the sacrifice), do not apply to the case of branches of knowledge. For Indra and the other gods, when applying themselves to knowledge, have no acts to perform with a view to Indra, and so on; nor have Bhrigu and other rishis, in the same case, to do anything with the circumstance of their belonging to the same gotra as Bhrigu, &c. What, then, should stand in the way of the gods' and rishis' right to acquire knowledge?--Moreover, the passage about that which is of the size of a thumb remains equally valid, if the right of the gods, &c. is admitted; it has then only to be explained in each particular case by a reference to the particular size of the thumb (of the class of beings spoken of). admitted; it has then only to be explained in each particular case by a reference to the particular size of the thumb (of the class of beings spoken of)

Kena Upanishad Bhashya-

"the subsequent passages clearly show the folly of thinking that that Brahman, who is controller of all in every way even superior to all Devas, Lord over lords, not easily known, the cause of the victory of the Devas and of the defeat of the Asuras does not exist. Or (it is related) for eulogising the knowledge of Brahman. How? By showing that it was, indeed, by the knowledge of the Brahman that Agni, etc. attained pre-eminence among the Devas; and Indra specially more than the rest. Or, it shows how difficult it is to know Brahman, because even Agni, etc with all their great powers, and even Indra, lord of the Devas knew the Brahman only with considerable difficulty. It may be that the whole Upanishad to follow is intended to lay down an injunction (to know the Brahman) or the story may have been intended to show the fallacious nature of the notion of doer, etc., found in all living beings, by contrasting it with the knowledge of the Brahman - fallacious like the notion of the Devas that the victory was theirs. The Brahman already defined won a victory for the benefit of the Devas; i.e. the Brahman in a battle between the Devas and the Asuras defeated the Asuras, the enemies of the world and the violaters of the limitations imposed by the Lord and gave the benefit of the victory to the Devas for the preservation of the world. In this victory of Brahman, the Devas, Agni, etc, attained glory, and not knowing that the victory and glory belonged to the Paramatman, seated in their own Atman, the witness of all perceptions, Lord of the universe, omniscient, the dispenser of the fruits of all Karma, omnipotent, and desirous of securing the safety of the world, looked upon the victgory and the glory, as achieved by themselves - the Atman enclosed with the limitations of their own forms, Agni, etc; that the glory - their being Agni, Vayu, Indra and the like, resulting from the victory - was theirs and that neither the victory nor the glory belonged to the Lord, over all the Atman within them. So they cherished this false notion." them.

philosoraptor
27 September 2013, 11:47 PM
We should give Ganesh Prasad credit where credit is due.

It only *seems* to the uninitiated that he is ignoring questions, talking in circles, and merely prolonging the argument. However, what he is *really* doing is quite cunning. He is trying to spew as much junk onto the thread as possible without saying anything, in the hopes that the moderators will eventually see his spam, conclude that the entire thread is pointless, and move it to the jalpa section.

Because when you preach tolerance, but cannot tolerate some of the ideas that other members discuss, that's how you deal with it.

In all fairness though, it's not as if he is attacking HDF members behind their backs by misrepresenting them and attacking them on other forums. That would be quite cowardly, and GP at least, has standards for his trolling.

ShivaFan
28 September 2013, 02:38 AM
Namaste

This thread is totally nonsensical and seems have turned into again an endless jalpa about Adi Sankara, who is supposed to be a Saiva, considering his parents attended the Vadakkunnathan Shiva Temple, but local tradition is the temple was built by Parasurama Who is Vishnu according to the region, but the same locals say the reason Shiva is the primary Lord here is because Parasurama's teacher or Acharya was Siva Himself and thus He built the Temple to His Teacher.

So is Adi Sankara a Saiva, a Vaishnav, neither but an Advaitan? It is even more confusing to correlate things since no one can even give proof of when he was born as the dates are all over the map and members are saying a number of what is suppose to be his work is forgery of another.

Actually, please don't answer this question, there will be more than 33 answers from the "experts", exceeding the number of Gods in the Veda.

The Vadakkumnathan Temple, where Adi Sankara's esteemed parents would attend, is located in Thrissur district of Kerala. In the center of the four surrounding gopurams of the old Shiva temple is the central shrines of Lord Shiva in form of Vadakkumnathan Linga, Shankaranarayana and Lord Rama. Thus we find Siva, Siva and Vishnu combined, and Vishnu.

Thus it would not surprise me to learn Adi Sankara adored Siva, Devi and Vishnu and others.

Which makes me think perhaps not all of his praises to more than one Deva or Devi are forgery. Whom he calls the Brahman may vary depending on the focus.

Found in this Shiva Temple is also of course the Ganapathi shrine where the offering of Appam to Mahaganapathy is one of the most important offerings at the temple and is a tradition of long standing, perhaps such Appam was taken as prashad by the parents of Adi Sankara when they went to the temple to worship the Lingam covered in ghee to pray for a child. The diversity in Hinduism is amazing.

Continue with jalpa, please be respectful of Ganesha worshipped by millions of Hindus.

Jai Ganapati

Om Namah Sivaya

Omkara
28 September 2013, 03:33 AM
Namaste

This thread is totally nonsensical and seems have turned into again an endless jalpa about Adi Sankara, who is supposed to be a Saiva, considering his parents attended the Vadakkunnathan Shiva Temple

Nobody is denying that Adi Shankara's parents were Shaivas.

Amrut
28 September 2013, 04:16 AM
And what makes you think my post was from a SV point of view? If you notice, I used the word 'vaishnava' and not 'sri vaishnava' - and this is a word used by shankara himself in a very approving manner in his gita bhAshya.

The explanation I gave is indeed his view-point whereas yours is not even close, considering his statement that shiva is a vibhUti of vishNu in his VS bhAshya itself and the various statements in his prasthna trayI where he openly places the worship of Rudra and other devatas on a lower pedastal as compared to worship of vishnu. As per my knowledgeable friend who is a smArta by birth, ShankarAchArya says that Lord Rudra, Pasupati, was created by Brahman (BrihadAranyaka upanishad bhAshya - 1.4.10-11). He also says in the third chapter of his Brahma Sutra Bhashya (3.3.32) that Rudra received a boon from Sanatkumara, thus implying that Rudra is not Brahman.

I have his kenOpanishad bhAshya. He only interprets Uma Haimavati as the personification of knowledge, that is auspicious and hence the fitting epithet of being adorned with gold, further adding that she has become competent in jnAnA due to her continued association with sarvajna Isvara (shiva, of great knowledge), that the devas learned of Brahman only from her. Never once does he equate the Brahman revealed by Uma with that sarvajna Isvara who Uma is associated with, although he could have easily done so if he had that opinion. Rather, he equates Brahman with nArAyaNa everywhere in his bhAshyas.

Whatever, believe what you must.

calm down SV

'Vaishnav' word appears in BG 9.25. Does it appear in Ke. Up. 3.12?

My post was in reply to your post #193

I have no intention to discuss Adi Shankara in this thread.

Ganeshprasad
28 September 2013, 06:14 AM
Pranam



Therefore your position is that one can make wild claims on any topic without actually knowing about it.
-

Actually that was your position all I cited was Ganesh Bhujanga,to prove that he is a Vedic deity, that not even to you but you had to butt in and made a wild claim that actually Sankracharya says Ganesh should not be worshiped. You have shifted your position for that you deny, well let's see your original position,




Shankaracharya has explicitly mentioned in his Gita Bhashya that Vinayaka is not to be worshipped in the commentary to verse 9.23.
And later


After thinking over it a bit, my opinion is- There are pretas in the puranas called vinayakas, matrikas,bhaginis etc and it is possible that Shankarachary is referring to them.

Your Citation was to prove to me that the stotra is not his work( subjective) based on his Bhasya.

Mine was to prove that Ganesh is indeed a Vedic god, for that if you or anyone wants to call me a troll be my guest, I will be gladly accept that title.





And explain the fact that in his Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya Shankaracharya says that Vishnu is called Keshava because he gives birth to Ka (Brahma) and Isa(Shiva).

Will you stop running around in circles and answer a question for once? And while tou are at it, explain this-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sri Vaishnava
ShankarAchArya says that Lord Rudra, Pasupati, was created by Brahman (BrihadAranyaka upanishad bhAshya - 1.4.10-11). He also says in the third chapter of his Brahma Sutra Bhashya (3.3.32) that Rudra received a boon from Sanatkumara, thus implying that Rudra is not Brahman.



Irrelevant

Jai Ganesh
Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
28 September 2013, 06:45 AM
Actually that was your position all I cited was Ganesh Bhujanga,to prove that he is a Vedic deity, that not even to you but you had to butt in and made a wild claim that actually Sankracharya says Ganesh should not be worshiped. You have shifted your position for that you deny, well let's see your original position,


Yes, and I had also linked to the advaita list which expressed the alternate viewpoint. My position is and was that Shankaracharya is refering to Ganesha. Accepting that an alternate view is a reasonable interpretation is not the same as accepting its validity.



Mine was to prove that Ganesh is indeed a Vedic god, for that if you or anyone wants to call me a troll be my guest, I will be gladly
accept that title.


Strawman. I agree that Ganesha is a vedic deity. And nobody called you a troll for saying that Ganesha is a vedic deity.

Ganeshprasad
28 September 2013, 07:54 AM
Pranam



Yes, and I had also linked to the advaita list which expressed the alternate viewpoint. My position is and was that Shankaracharya is refering to Ganesha. Accepting that an alternate view is a reasonable interpretation is not the same as accepting its validity.

You have tendency to beat the drum from both end, either way you win.




Strawman. I agree that Ganesha is a vedic deity. And nobody called you a troll for saying that Ganesha is a vedic deity.

And apart from defending that position, said nothing else accept citing few slokas from scriptures. Worst bit was you betraying my trust and carried on the open forum while my intention was not to pursue that point any more

Have a good day
Jai Shree Krishna

Sri Vaishnava
28 September 2013, 08:24 AM
calm down SV

'Vaishnav' word appears in BG 9.25. Does it appear in Ke. Up. 3.12?

My post was in reply to your post #193

I have no intention to discuss Adi Shankara in this thread.

So you are saying that srI adi shankara wrote Gita with one philosophy in mind and the kenOpanishad with another philosophy in mind? Or perhaps he had a change of heart in between shifting from Gita to kenOpanishad?

My post numbers, all of them, establish that the thread of thought running through all his works is vaishnava in character only. What he says in Gita must be viewed in light of his upanishad bhAshyas and what he says in upanishads must also be viewed in light of his gita bhAshya. And even if you do not want to do that, even viewing ONLY the Gita or ONLY the upanishad bhAshyas also establish that he was a vaishnava who considered nArAyaNa as saguna iswara and no other. In any case, it makes no sense to say he wrote his bhAshyas with different mind-sets each time and quite frankly, no vedAntin has such a methodology.

Omkara
28 September 2013, 08:49 AM
And apart from defending that position, said nothing else accept citing few slokas from scriptures.


You did not have to get into an argument with me on Adi Shankara's views.
I had aldready said that I beleived Ganesha was a Vedic deity.
I was merely pointing out that your example avput Shankaracharya waa wrong. Ganesha Bhujangam is not accepted by any scholar as an authentic work of Shankaracharya. You had no reason to get into a shouting match with me about Shankaracharya, especially since I did not oppose your position that Ganesha was a Vedic deity, merely pointed out a mistake in your argument.
It is a common misconception that Shankaracharya advocated panchopasana, and I was trying to correct that.

Ganeshprasad
28 September 2013, 12:14 PM
Pranam


----
I was merely pointing out that your example avput Shankaracharya waa wrong. Ganesha Bhujangam is not accepted by any scholar as an authentic work of Shankaracharya.
You had no reason to get into a shouting match with me about Shankaracharya, especially since I did not oppose your position that Ganesha was a Vedic deity, merely pointed out a mistake in your argument.


well excuse me to think you quoted Bhasya to prove Ganesh Bhujanga as unauthentic, why would I think otherwise, ask how many adwaita followers here subscribe to your point of view on Sankara, better still since you claim to be expert here on authenticity of scriptures, out of the four mathas established by him, how many believe in all your allegations?

I only responded with Gita slokas to prove Deva worship is not out of ignorance certainly Bhutas worship is, if you call that shouting I apologise profusely. I certainly have never come across plural Bhutas = Devas let alone singular Ganesh.



It is a common misconception that Shankaracharya advocated panchopasana, and I was trying to correct that.

Well thank you, if it was that common I did not know, my source of information on panchopasana, surprise surprise Iskcon, never ceases to amaze me how often they quote him, Bhaja govinda the most common.

Jai Shree Krishna

bhagavatafan
29 September 2013, 08:44 AM
I am posting the following information as per Omkara's request to me by a private msg. Omkara asked me if I could furnish a proof from shankara's bhashyas that he considered surya and rudra as jivas. The proof is as follows (copied from my own blog page. This was given as a response to the mahapashupatastra blog author in a thread in his blog page, but he deleted it for obvious reasons):


Shankara argues clearly in the first Chapter of Brahma sutra that the Saguna Brahman, the Highest Lord paramAtmA cannot be a deity who was created at the beginning of the Kalpam. He specifically rules out the sUrya devatA from the position of the Highest Lord (as an aside: this ruling out of Surya devata means Shankara could not have accepted Saura matham, thus debunking the theory that he was "Shanmata Sthapaka"). In bRhadAraNyaka Upanishad bhAShya, the same Shankara says that Lord Rudra, the Pasupati, was created by Brahman (1.4.10-11). Again the same AchArya says in Brahma Sutra Bhashya third chapter that Rudra is a receiver of a boon from Sanatkumara (3.3.32). Putting this together, Adi Shankara's original matham cannot have taken Rudra for Highest Lord.

Omkara
29 September 2013, 10:43 PM
Thank you bhagavatafan.

hinduism♥krishna
30 September 2013, 02:29 AM
Namaste,

No doubt, adi shankara was a smartian. He was an ideal vedanti. He didn't say only vishnu is bramhan.

If you had asked him who is bramh, then he would have replied with a silent smile " Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti”

:)

Ganeshprasad
30 September 2013, 07:13 AM
Pranam

First I would like to thank Satay for being patience with us, I am sorry to have caused him extra work needlessly, unfortunately I find my self unable to refrain my self when Devas get based about as if we have a right to do it in our own territory, how is that presenting Hinduism in positive light?

This will also gives me an opportunity to pose a question which I was meaning to do anyway, once I gather my thoughts, that will follow.





Putting this together, Adi Shankara's original matham cannot have taken Rudra for Highest Lord.


This is highly contrived position to take, adding two and two and coming up with five. I would be interested if he had said so in so many words otherwise it is all speculation.

Being born in a Shiva tradition it is highly likely he was initiated in shiva dharma. He is for ever seen with tilak of three horizontal lines, one would think, if he was only a Vishnu devotee at least one of his math out of the four established on Vishnu kshetra, his followers would have adopted Vishnu style tilaks but no, to date all four Shankracharya follows the same tradition.
Besides other work on Shiva one off that is Vedasar shiva stava says it all really.

For an acharya who established adwaita it is hard to believe he would go against sruti vakya, "ekam sat vipra"he also does not deny Vayu in his commentary on shanti mantra From Taittiriya Upanishad:

"Om Sham No Mitra Sham Varunah Sham No Bhavatvaryamaa,
Sham Na Indro Brihaspatih Sham No Vishnururukramah,
Namo Brahmane Namaste Vaayo Tvameva Pratyaksham,
Brahmaasi Tvaameva Pratyaksham Brahma Vadishyaami,
Rtam Vadishyaami Satyam Vadishyaami,
Tanmaamavatu Tadvaktaaramavatu Avatu Maam Avatu Vaktaaram,
Om Shantih Shantih Shantih"

Jai Shree Krishna

philosoraptor
30 September 2013, 09:45 AM
If Omkara,'s, bhagavtafan's, and Sri Vaishnava's remarks on this thread are considered "off topic" on the subject of Adi-shankara's views, then I guess the jalpa forum is the place for me to be. So far as I can see, they are the only ones who are presenting coherent, evidence-based arguments.

bhagavatafan
30 September 2013, 07:49 PM
This is highly contrived position to take, adding two and two and coming up with five. I would be interested if he had said so in so many words otherwise it is all speculation.


Being born in a Shiva tradition it is highly likely he was initiated in shiva dharma. He is for ever seen with tilak of three horizontal lines, one would think, if he was only a Vishnu devotee at least one of his math out of the four established on Vishnu kshetra, his followers would have adopted Vishnu style tilaks but no, to date all four Shankracharya follows the same tradition.


It is all highly contrived and speculative to quote from authentic works, but what we see in picture frames printed in 20th/21st centuries and google images is authentic. Wonderful.

Hagiography contained in the later-than-14thC Shankara Vijayam stories and institutions without a critically-examined history before 14thC bear no weight as historical evidence in front of voluminous literary evidence with a clear history based on authentic works that have a tradition of sub-commentaries, sub-sub-commentaries and so on and collected from manuscripts from a wide spectrum of sources.

There is clear evidence from Padmapada's work Panchapadika that Shankara did not wear Shaivite symbols. This has been pointed out by Vidwan Tiruvisanallur Ramasubba Shastri in his work Anubhashya Gambhirya, as follows:

In Panchapadika, Sri Padmapada salutes his guru by composing the following sloka at the beginning of the work (Mangala sloka):

namAmy-abhogi-parivArasampadaM nirasta-bhUtiM anumArddha-vigrahaM
anugraM unmRdita-kAla-lA~ncanaM vinA-vinAyakaM apUrva-sha^nkaraM

The above sanskrit verse is a double entendre. Each word/sentence can be interpreted in two ways:

apUrva shaMkaraM = Salutations to the new Shankara who is different from the commonly known Shankara (Shiva)

namAmy abhogi-parivAra sampadaM = He is surrounded by sages (abogi-s) / he is not surrounded by snakes (bhogi-s)

nirasta bhUtiM = He has got no material wealth (bhUti) -- (as he is a sannyasi) / he is devoid of ashes (bhUti)

anumArdha vigrahaM = He has logic (anumA) as his other half / he does not have Uma as his other half

anugraM = He is not fierce

unmRdita kAla lA~ncanaM = He has surpassed the mark of time (ie., samsara) / he is devoid of the black-mark (on the throat)

vinA vinAyakaM = He is not accompanied by vinAyaka

The commentaries "Ruju Vivarana" (by Vishnu Bhatta) and "Tattva Dipana" (by Akhandananda Muni) conform to this interpretation. Both are 13th century works. The former says "nirasta bhUtiM - bhasma-rahitam, nirasta aishvaryaM vA", and the latter says "sa bhasmAnulipta gAtraH, ayaM tu nirasta aishvaryavAn".



For an acharya who established adwaita it is hard to believe he would go against sruti vakya, "ekam sat vipra"he also does not deny Vayu in his commentary on shanti mantra From Taittiriya Upanishad:
Another lazy explanation that ignores Shankara's or other ancient/medieval advaitins' commentaries.

See Brahma Sutra Bhashyam of Shankara, First Adhyaya, Second Pada, 17th Sutra:

Selfhood cannot be ascribed to the sun, on account of his externality (pargrpatva). Immortality, etc. also cannot be predicated of him, as Scripture speaks of his origin and his dissolution. For the (so-called) deathlessness of the gods only means their (comparatively) long existence. And their lordly power also is based on the highest Lord and does not naturally belong to them; as the mantra declares, 'From terror of it (Brahman) the wind blows, from terror the sun rises; from terror of it Agni and Indra, yea, Death runs as the fifth.''

See Madhusudana Sarasvati's explanation on "ekam sat viprAH bahudhA vadanti":

Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati, in hismagnum-opus "gUDhArthadIpika" (a glorious, independent commentary to the Bhagavad Gita) explains here (15.15) that even though the Vedas contain hymns to Indra and other devas, it is still only Bhagavan vAsudeva alone is to be known from the Vedas as He is the in-dwelling supersoul of all: "vedaishca sarvaih-indrAdi-devatA-prakAshaih-api ahameva vedyaH, sarvAtmatvAt". Sri Sarasvati then explains that Vedic passages such as --


"They call Agni as Indra, Mitra, and Varuna; they also say that He is the divine Garutman of beautiful wings. The sages speak of Him, who is one, in many ways; they call Him Agni, Yama, mAtarishvan."
(Atharva Veda, 9.10.28)



and "... for He is all the devas" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 1.4.6) are to be understood in that way.

Anandagiri, who wrote a Tika on Shankara's Gita Bhashyam says one should renounce "devatAntara bhajanaM" and take refuge under Lord Vasudeva alone, who is the Self of all.

Omkara
01 October 2013, 07:18 PM
he also does not deny Vayu in his commentary on shanti mantra From Taittiriya Upanishad

So your position is that Vayu is Brahman despite Kena Upanishad saying he is not?

Ganeshprasad
02 October 2013, 09:54 AM
Pranam


[COLOR=Black][FONT=Arial]

---, but what we see in picture frames printed in 20th/21st centuries and google images is authentic. Wonderful.

---. This has been pointed out by Vidwan Tiruvisanallur Ramasubba Shastri in his work Anubhashya Gambhirya, as follows:

On one hand we have an authentic work of a Vaishnava! On the other an age old tradition as set up by Adi Shankra himself not just one but all four, in different corner of Bharat. If all four are in unison I really see no need look at picture frames of 20/21 century as alleged.


I see Eakam sat vipra for what it is, do not need to contrive any other meaning out of it. All names as well as forms belong to Eko

Don't need to put 2+2 and coming up with 5.

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
02 October 2013, 09:57 AM
Pranam


So your position is that Vayu is Brahman despite Kena Upanishad saying he is not?

No it is not my claim, this is what Shanti mantra is saying.

Jai Shree Krishna

bhagavatafan
02 October 2013, 09:53 PM
GP,

I did not expect you to agree with me. I would be a fool to expect otherwise.

The sole purpose of my posts was to inform others who are interested.

Omkara
02 October 2013, 10:57 PM
Pranam



No it is not my claim, this is what Shanti mantra is saying.

Jai Shree Krishna

So your position is that the Shanti mantra contradicts Kena Upanishad? That shruti contradicts itself?

Ganeshprasad
03 October 2013, 04:58 AM
Pranam


So your position is that the Shanti mantra contradicts Kena Upanishad? That shruti contradicts itself?

Did say that, did I even mention Kena UP!

"For an acharya who established adwaita it is hard to believe he would go against sruti vakya, "ekam sat vipra"he also does not deny Vayu in his commentary on shanti mantra From Taittiriya Upanishad:"

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
03 October 2013, 07:18 AM
Pranam

Did say that, did I even mention Kena UP!

"For an acharya who established adwaita it is hard to believe he would go against sruti vakya, "ekam sat vipra"he also does not deny Vayu in his commentary on shanti mantra From Taittiriya Upanishad:"

Jai Shree Krishna

I have aldready quoted from Shankaracharya's commentaries on Kena Upanishad,Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras to show that Shankaracharya regarded the devas as different from and inferior to Brahman. You refused to touch that evidence. bhagavatafan has cited a work by an advaitin who lived a few centuries after Shankaracharya confirming that Shankaracharya never wore bhasma. bhagavatafan has also cited Shankaracharya's Bhashyas on Brahma Sutras and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad to prove that Shankaracharya regarded Shiva and Surya as jivas. Both the correct interpretation of the Shanti mantra as well as the actual meaning of Shankaracharya's commentary on it have been explained to you before.

You have not said one word to counter any of this mountain of evidence but keep repeating yourself. Will you try to offer a rebuttal atleast now?

Also according to uou the Shanti Mantra depicts Vayu as the supreme Brahman. But the Kena upanishad clearly depicts Vayu as inferior to and different from Brahman. How is this consistent with your interpretation of Taittriya Upanishad?

bhagavatafan
03 October 2013, 09:22 AM
Dear Omkara,

Padmapada whose work panchapadika I quoted did not live a couple of centuries later as you stated. He was Shankaracharya's direct disciple and hence a contemporary. This makes our argument even stronger.

Ganeshprasad
03 October 2013, 10:24 AM
Pranam


---. bhagavatafan has cited a work by an advaitin who lived a few centuries after Shankaracharya confirming that Shankaracharya never wore bhasma.

Oh really what has been offered is an interpretation of his verse by a Vaishnava, with that highlight entendre says it all, against that we have traditional that has been carried since the inception by four separate maths take you pick, I know what I am choosing.



You have not said one word to counter any of this mountain of evidence but keep repeating yourself. Will you try to offer a rebuttal atleast now?

Also according to uou the Shanti Mantra depicts Vayu as the supreme Brahman. But the Kena upanishad clearly depicts Vayu as inferior to and different from Brahman. How is this consistent with your interpretation of Taittriya Upanishad?

No sooner you say Vayu no other form or deity is invoked, feel the cool breeze, the air that you breath. Be my guest if the shanti mantra is invoking anyone else but Vayu.
I am not given to speculation nor in a habit to interpret in a way that look so absurd as to wonder how is that one who cognise the brahm got it so wrong, that we need to alien all those different deities to our predilection.

All doctrines have engaged in interpretation - as necessary - to produce that homogenous system. Problem is then if the literal reading of the verse aligns with the doctrine, then go with it (also criticize opponents for not being literal). If the literal reading does not quite align, then it is free for all even if at being absurd to the point that Rudram of yajurveda is not Rudra or Vishnu is only a minor deity or Durga is different or Ganesh is not in Vedas or he is different from the Shaiva Ganesh

Can we have Yagya with out Agni, no Agni no Vedas, no Vayu no Prana.

One God with many aspects ~ all equally divine ~ The One true God is known by many Names; and these Names evoke Forms.
And yet, the One true God encompasses and surpasses All Names, and All Forms.

That One God is effectively unimaginable, unnameable, and unable to be given worldly tribute.(Sarbhanga)

Manduka UP
7. He who is neither inward-wise, nor outward-wise, nor both inward- and outward-wise, nor wisdom
self-gathered, nor possessed of wisdom, nor unpossessed of wisdom, He Who is unseen and
incommunicable, unseizable, featureless, unthinkable, and unnameable, Whose essentiality is
awareness of the Self in its single existence, in Whom all phenomena dissolve, Who is Calm,
Who is Good, Who is the One than Whom there is no other, Him they deem the fourth ;
He is the Self, He is the object of Knowledge.


Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
03 October 2013, 10:39 AM
Will you answer as to why Vayu's ego is crushed by Brahman in Kena Upanishad if he is the supreme being?

And also all the other proof about Adi Shankara instead of beating around the bush?

Ganeshprasad
03 October 2013, 11:40 AM
Pranam



Will you answer as to why Vayu's ego is crushed by Brahman in Kena Upanishad if he is the supreme being?

And also all the other proof about Adi Shankara instead of beating around the bush?

I am sorry you do not get to talk to me like that, I am afraid there is no other clarification coming from me to you, I suggest if you are really honest then try any four math, they may be able to help but looking at your portraying or understanding of Sankracharya Bhasya on Vinayakas I very much doubt you will accept their clarifications

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
03 October 2013, 11:49 AM
"Om Sham No Mitra Sham Varunah Sham No Bhavatvaryamaa,
Sham Na Indro Brihaspatih Sham No Vishnururukramah,
Namo Brahmane Namaste Vaayo Tvameva Pratyaksham,
Brahmaasi Tvaameva Pratyaksham Brahma Vadishyaami,
Rtam Vadishyaami Satyam Vadishyaami,
Tanmaamavatu Tadvaktaaramavatu Avatu Maam Avatu Vaktaaram,
Om Shantih Shantih Shantih"

Jai Shree Krishna

How much proof one needs when Samhita louds Vayu thus

Rig Veda Mandala 10 Hymn 186

वात आ वातु भेषजं शम्भु मयोभु नो हर्दे |
पर णायूंषि तारिषत ||
उत वात पितासि न उत भरातोत नः सखा |
स नोजीवातवे कर्धि ||
यददो वात ते गर्हे.अम्र्तस्य निधिर्हितः |
ततो नो देहिजीवसे ||
vāta ā vātu bheṣajaṃ śambhu mayobhu no hṛde |
pra ṇaāyūṃṣi tāriṣat ||
uta vāta pitāsi na uta bhrātota naḥ sakhā |
sa nojīvātave kṛdhi ||
yadado vāta te ghṛhe.amṛtasya nidhirhitaḥ |
tato no dehijīvase ||

1. FILLING our hearts with health and joy, may Vāta breathe his balm on us
May he prolong our days of life.
2 Thou art our Father, Vāta, yea, thou art a Brother and a friend,
So give us strength that we may live.
3 The store of Amṛta laid away yonder, O Vāta, in thine home,
Give us thereof that we may live.

Jai Shree Krishna

Sudas Paijavana
03 October 2013, 12:16 PM
How much proof one needs when Samhita louds Vayu thus

Rig Veda Mandala 10 Hymn 186

वात आ वातु भेषजं शम्भु मयोभु नो हर्दे |
पर णायूंषि तारिषत ||
उत वात पितासि न उत भरातोत नः सखा |
स नोजीवातवे कर्धि ||
यददो वात ते गर्हे.अम्र्तस्य निधिर्हितः |
ततो नो देहिजीवसे ||
vāta ā vātu bheṣajaṃ śambhu mayobhu no hṛde |
pra ṇaāyūṃṣi tāriṣat ||
uta vāta pitāsi na uta bhrātota naḥ sakhā |
sa nojīvātave kṛdhi ||
yadado vāta te ghṛhe.amṛtasya nidhirhitaḥ |
tato no dehijīvase ||

1. FILLING our hearts with health and joy, may Vāta breathe his balm on us
May he prolong our days of life.
2 Thou art our Father, Vāta, yea, thou art a Brother and a friend,
So give us strength that we may live.
3 The store of Amṛta laid away yonder, O Vāta, in thine home,
Give us thereof that we may live.

Jai Shree Krishna

Highest Pranam-s, Ganeshprasad:

It is very important that you mention this verse. From what we know about the Upanishads, the Upanishadic BrahmAn is able to be many things at once. "He" is able to be Deva, life force, atma, brother, sister, father, and mother...amongst numerous other things - at the same time. This is the core concept of the Upanishadic BrahmAn.

What the hymn above reveals to us from the most high and most noble Rig Veda, on the other hand, is that Shri Vayu/Vāta is many things at the same time, just like how the Upanishadic BrahmAn is as well. Shri Vayu is a father, a brother, and a friend. He is the eternal amrita in his supreme abode. To be a part of him, we, as Hindus, ask Shri Vayu to give us some of that eternal amrita in order to be one with him, to be part of Shri Vayu: who is the father, brother, and friend amongst numerous other things.

In other words, this hymn, as per Rig-Vedic theology, is lauding Shri Vayu as supreme in his own right, since many Shri Gods are lauded in the most high and most noble Rig Veda as supreme since neither is younger nor older than the other, and the mentioning of Shri Agni as always young signifies Shri Agni's youth in material form: the fire that is rekindled in front of us and fed with oblations through the ladling of Ghee. But, in the spiritual realms, Shri Agni, like Shri Vayu is not younger nor older than the other Shri 33 Supremes, as per Rig Vedic theology.

This fact is attested in Mandala 1 when the All-Gods are recited as Ekam Sat. They, pluralistically, are given the epithet of being one-truth. In simpler terms, this one-truth is all of them combined, yet we give each of them separate summonings or callings in order to praise them individually through the conduction of the noble Yagyas. They are this one-truth. They are everything. They are one. They are also, as per the most high and most noble Rig Veda, summoned through prayer through Brahmanas Pati (who is Shri Ganesha). It is Shri Ganesha that codifies these prayers for he is the Lord of Prayer. Each Rig-Vedic hymn addresses a Deva as supreme in his/her own right. Meaning, One God At a Time.

Omkara
03 October 2013, 08:44 PM
Dear Omkara,

Padmapada whose work panchapadika I quoted did not live a couple of centuries later as you stated. He was Shankaracharya's direct disciple and hence a contemporary. This makes our argument even stronger.

Oops. Yes, that makes the case stronger.

Omkara
03 October 2013, 08:47 PM
I am sorry you do not get to talk to me like that, I am afraid there is no other clarification coming from me to you, I suggest if you are really honest then try any four math, they may be able to help but looking at your portraying or understanding of Sankracharya Bhasya on Vinayakas I very much doubt you will accept their clarifications


So basically you have no idea how to inretpret Kena Upanishad which contradicts your views. Why do you have to express an opinion when you have no idea how to reconcile it with Shruti?

Omkara
03 October 2013, 08:55 PM
Oh really what has been offered is an interpretation of his verse by a Vaishnava, with that highlight entendre says it all, against that we have traditional that has been carried since the inception by four separate maths take you pick, I know what I am choosing.


You were offered translations of Gita Bhashya by Gambhirananda (an advaitin) and Brahma Sutra Bhashya by George Thibaut (a non Hindu). You did not address those at all. Will you accuse them of bias as well?
For that matter, all other translations of these bhashyas translate the same way. Will you accuse all of them of bias too?

Omkara
03 October 2013, 09:13 PM
They are also, as per the most high and most noble Rig Veda, summoned through prayer through Brahmanas Pati (who is Shri Ganesha). It is Shri Ganesha that codifies these prayers for he is the Lord of Prayer.

brahmaNAM pati iti brahmaNaspatiH is the vyutpatti. Here, brahma is is veda / vAk.brahmaNaspati is the pati (Lord) of veda vAngmaya in the form of chandaas. And thus He is also called kavInAM kaviH.The term Brihaspati is also used for brahmaNaspati because brihati pati iti brihaspati and brihati also means vAk.
Agama defines the cluster of nAda avasthAs ie., parA, pashyanti, madhyama, vaikhari to be the gaNAs. The tattva that controls these 4 nAda avasthAs at mUlAdhAra chakra is obviously called the gaNa-pati.

Jai Shri Ganesha!

Ganeshprasad
04 October 2013, 05:34 AM
Pranam


So basically you have no idea how to inretpret Kena Upanishad which contradicts your views.

I see no need for me to interpret Kena in such a way that likes of you make mockery of Devas, the Devas that are held so high in Samhita.
All differences dissolve in realisation (I have a long way to realise that), yet you would know all that don't you!!!



Why do you have to express an opinion when you have no idea how to reconcile it with Shruti?

1) you don't get to tell me not to express my opinion.
2) thankfully Hindu dharma let alone The Lord himself allows me my freedom of choice.
3) last time I check HDF is hosted by one mr Satay who has his rules, it does not stipulate that I can not have an opinion or that one has to be wise enough to manipulate sruti to reconcile in such a way that we have to change the literal meaning to make an absurd claim in the process we kill or reduce other Devas to a simple Jiva. No sir I am not in that game.

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
04 October 2013, 05:58 AM
Pranam



Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad
Oh really what has been offered is an interpretation of his verse by a Vaishnava, with that highlight entendre says it all, against that we have traditional that has been carried since the inception by four separate maths take you pick, I know what I am choosing.



You were offered translations of Gita Bhashya by Gambhirananda (an advaitin) and Brahma Sutra Bhashya by George Thibaut (a non Hindu). You did not address those at all. Will you accuse them of bias as well?
For that matter, all other translations of these bhashyas translate the same way. Will you accuse all of them of bias too?

A non sequitur, all above you are quoting has nothing to do with Shankracharya's tripund, are you going to come off the fence and let us know who you put your faith in?
a translation of Vaisnava or as I say the tradition carried forward by all four math right from the beginning, beside it makes no difference either way what you and me think, tradition speaks for itself on this matter.

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
09 October 2013, 08:58 AM
all above you are quoting has nothing to do with Shankracharya's tripund

It has everything to do with the topicunder discussion (Adi Shankara's beleifs). It is evident from Shankaracharya's worjs that he was not a Smarta, and consequently he did not wear ashes.

a translation of Vaisnava

There is nothing wrong with quoting a translation by a Vaishnava, or a neo, or even an anti-Hindu as long as it is grammatically correct, which this translation is.

or as I say the tradition carried forward by all four math right from the beginning
And yet, as we have demonstrated, this so-called tradition was a later development and was not the practice of Shankaracharya and his immediate follwers.

Ganeshprasad
09 October 2013, 09:17 AM
Pranam


It has everything to do with the topicunder discussion (Adi Shankara's beleifs). It is evident from Shankaracharya's worjs that he was not a Smarta, and consequently he did not wear ashes.

even if he was not a smarta (and i am not admitting that fact because it is not as evident as you like us to believe) does not prove that he did not wear bhasma.



There is nothing wrong with quoting a translation by a Vaishnava, or a neo, or even an anti-Hindu as long as it is grammatically correct, which this translation is.

i did not say quoting someones translation is wrong per say but when there is a double meaning to a word i would be more inclined to believe someone from the tradition that one belongs to as oppose to an outsider.



And yet, as we have demonstrated, this so-called tradition was a later development and was not the practice of Shankaracharya and his immediate follwers.

you have done nothing of the kind, this would be a contempt of the original wishes of an Acharya in whose name the math is established, if one or two math deviated one could understand but if all four are in unison your demonstration proves nothing.

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
09 October 2013, 09:52 AM
even if he was not a smarta (and i am not admitting that fact because it is not as evident as you like us to believe) does not prove that he did not wear bhasma.

As usual, you are trying to distract from the topic under discussion. You offered Shankara's supposed wearing of ashes as evidence that he did not beleive in Vishnu Sarvottamatva. Then you say that even if Shankaracharya was not a Smarta or Shaiva, he could have worn ashes. In that case, your original argument that Shankaracharya was not a Vaishnava because he wore ashes stands invalidated.


i did not say quoting someones translation is wrong per say but when there is a double meaning to a word i would be more inclined to believe someone from the tradition that one belongs to as oppose to an outsider.


bhagavatafan did not interpret anything. He gave the interpretation of advaitins who have written subcommentaries on that work.

Ganeshprasad
09 October 2013, 02:29 PM
Pranam


As usual, you are trying to distract from the topic under discussion. You offered Shankara's supposed wearing of ashes as evidence that he did not beleive in Vishnu Sarvottamatva.

Now let's see who is distracting who let me remind you of the the response I made to bhagvatfan;



Originally Posted by bhagavatafan;

Putting this together, Adi Shankara's original matham cannot have taken Rudra for Highest Lord.

To that I quoted as below,

"This is highly contrived position to take, adding two and two and coming up with five. I would be interested if he had said so in so many words otherwise it is all speculation.

Being born in a Shiva tradition it is highly likely he was initiated in shiva dharma. He is for ever seen with tilak of three horizontal lines, one would think, if he was only a Vishnu devotee at least one of his math out of the four established on Vishnu kshetra, his followers would have adopted Vishnu style tilaks but no, to date all four Shankracharya follows the same tradition.
Besides other work on Shiva one off that is Vedasar shiva stava says it all really."

Where do I say he is denying Vishnu?



Then you say that even if Shankaracharya was not a Smarta or Shaiva, he could have worn ashes. In that case, your original argument that Shankaracharya was not a Vaishnava because he wore ashes stands invalidated.

Did I mention Shaiva!! Please don't misquote me.
Now if you misunderstood me on smarta let me make it clear, I offered that to say that it did not prove your position that he did not wear Tripunda.




bhagavatafan did not interpret anything. He gave the interpretation of advaitins who have written subcommentaries on that work.

Did I mention bhagavatafan on this, yes I said it was an interpretation of a Vaishnava on advaitin work which he agreed has a double meaning and it does not prove that Shankracharya did not apply bhasma.

Let me reiterate why;

He is born in a Shaiva family
His all four math follow the same tradition.
His guru who he met on the banks of river Narbada, Sri Govinda Bhagavatpaada from Omkareshwar ashram a Saiva
His gurus Guru Shri Saunsthan Gaudapadacharya a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin belief in Smarta.
Both gurus are seen with bhasma, if the sisya don't follow the guru then you can have your way!!
Now if this does not prove his wearing of Tripund nothing will

Jai Shree Krishna

bhagavatafan
09 October 2013, 07:15 PM
This is response of mine is for all those who are genuinely interested in knowing further on this matter.



I would be interested if he had said so in so many words otherwise it is all speculation.


There is no need to reiterate the obvious in so many words. The subject of the prasthAnatrayi bhAShya is not about determining the supreme deity. It is about the nature of nirguna/saguna brahman (Vishnu).



Did I mention bhagavatafan on this, yes I said it was an interpretation of a Vaishnava on advaitin work which he agreed has a double meaning and it does not prove that Shankracharya did not apply bhasma.


What I quoted is not a Vaishnava's (in the sense of Ramanuja/Madhva follower) interpretation on advaitin work. To dismiss someone as a 'Vaishnava' (as if it is a bad word) is sheer lack of will to analyse. The Acharyas who I quoted (Padmapada, Vishnubhatta, Akhandananda) were advaitins.



Let me reiterate why;

He is born in a Shaiva family
His all four math follow the same tradition.
His guru who he met on the banks of river Narbada, Sri Govinda Bhagavatpaada from Omkareshwar ashram a Saiva
His gurus Guru Shri Saunsthan Gaudapadacharya a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin belief in Smarta.
Both gurus are seen with bhasma, if the sisya don't follow the guru then you can have your way!!
Now if this does not prove his wearing of Tripund nothing will


All these are stories concocted after 14th/15th centuries. There is no proof from any authentic work of any of these.

I have asked the so-called "traditional" smArthas about this verse. All of them simply equivocate or they say 'this verse is not important', 'don't rake up issues unnecessarily, accept a guru and follow him' etc.

The authentic works of Shankara displays the following characteristics:

* Unanimously whenever the Supreme Brahman is identified as a deity, Shankara mentions Vishnu/Narayana/Vasudeva.

* Whenever Shankara quotes an example of upAsana, he states "yathA sAlagrAme hariH". Not even in one place in the entire prasthAnatrayi bhAShya you find "yathA linge shivaH"

* Shankara's immediate disciple Sureshvara says even more clearly that Vishnu is Supreme, and Shiva is subordinate, in his work Naishkarmyasiddhi:



"viSNoH pAdAnugAM nikhila-bhava-nudaM sha^nkaro(a)vApa yogAt
sarvaj~naM brahmasaMsthaM muni-gaNa-sahitaM samyagabhyarcya bhaktyA |
vidyAM ga^ngAM-iva-ahaM pravara-guNa-nidheH prApya vedAntadIptAM
kAruNyAt-tAm-avocaM janimRtinivahadhvastaye duHkhitebhyaH ||"
- (Naishkarmya Siddhi, IV.76)



[Having worshipped (Acharya Sri) Sankara -- who is all-knowing, established in (the knowledge of) Brahman, accompanied by a host of sages -- with devotion, I obtained from him who is the treasure of most excellent virtues, knowledge which, like the river Ganga, is illuminated by the Vedanta, that follows the feet of Lord Vishnu, and that, while destroying the sorrow of worldly existence, Sankara had attained through yoga; and from compassion, I have set it forth for sufferers to overcome the cycles of birth and death and obtain liberation.]

* Sureshvara also says the following in his sub-commentary (Vartika) on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya Vartika, as a dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi:


atisnEhApakRShTOmA dEhArdhaM shUlinaH shritA
tvaM tu sarvAtmanA AtmAnaM kRtsnaM mAm-Aptmuicchasi

Translation: Carried away by great love, Uma occupied half of the trident-bearer's (Shiva's) body body. You, however, wish to secure the whole of me, the Self, by your whole self.

Would any wearer of tripundra/rudrAkSha or Shakti upAsaka say such a thing?

* Anandagiri mentions in Mandukya Upanishad Bhashya Tika that Gaudapadacharya gained advaita jnAna by worshiping the Lord of Badarinath.

Now, think about why:

* Shankara does not talk about Shanmata in any of his bhAShyas.

* Shankara does not say that Pancharatrins are narrow-minded in Pancharatra Adhikarana of Brahma Sutra Bhashya. On the contrary, Shankara says that the position of the Pancharatrins regarding Narayana as the only object of worship, and the Pancharatrins' mode of worship are absolutely acceptable.

* Shankara interprets "Ishvara" in Gita where Krishna says "Ishvara" in third person as "IshanasheelaH nArAyaNaH"

* Shankara says that the worshipers of the other deities obtain paltry results such as svarga and return to samsAra, while the Vaishnavas obtain the eternal result of mOkSha even though the effort involved is the same (Gita Bhashya 7.20-23, 9.23-25)

* Neither Shankara nor any early advaitin says that Shankara established four mutts

* Neither Shankara nor any early advaitin has worshiped Chandramouleeshvara (the main deity installed in the four mutts) their invocatory verses.

Omkara
09 October 2013, 09:24 PM
Now let's see who is distracting who let me remind you of the the response I made to bhagvatfan;

This discussion is not about whether Shankaracharya wore bhasma or not, it is about whether he beleived that all gods are the same.
You brought in the argument that he could not have been a Vaishnava as he wore bhasma. It has been amply demonstrated from Padmapada's work, as well as Shankaracharya's own commentaries that he considered only Narayana as the Supreme Brahman.



Did I mention bhagavatafan on this, yes I said it was an interpretation of a Vaishnava on advaitin work which he agreed has a double meaning and it does not prove that Shankracharya did not apply bhasma.

No it is not. Advaitins have commented on this mangala shloka and interpreted it in the same way.

Ganeshprasad
10 October 2013, 05:54 AM
Pranam


This is response of mine is for all those who are genuinely interested in knowing further on this matter.




te:
Let me reiterate why;

He is born in a Shaiva family
His all four math follow the same tradition.
His guru who he met on the banks of river Narbada, Sri Govinda Bhagavatpaada from Omkareshwar ashram a Saiva
His gurus Guru Shri Saunsthan Gaudapadacharya a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin belief in Smarta.
Both gurus are seen with bhasma, if the sisya don't follow the guru then you can have your way!!
Now if this does not prove his wearing of Tripund nothing will





All these are stories concocted after 14th/15th centuries. There is no proof from any authentic work of any of these.

Since we have arbitrary decided on what is authentic it is blatantly obvious you would not consider other genuine works of Sri Adi Shankara there is no point in going any further.

If the evidence stares in our face I need not consider anything else to prove what Shankracharya believed in;


There is no denying that his guru was Govinda he says so in his Vivek chudamani, whose guru was SHREE GAUDAPADACHARYA


http://www.shrikavalemath.org.in
No denying that these are smartas, one expect a sisya to follow in the line of guru parampara if others want to deny this as concocted as 14/15century be my guest, you can come up with your own experts but it is not convincing me.

Jai Shree Krishna


Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
10 October 2013, 06:09 AM
Pranam


This discussion is not about whether Shankaracharya wore bhasma or not, it is about whether he beleived that all gods are the same.
You brought in the argument that he could not have been a Vaishnava as he wore bhasma. It has been amply demonstrated from Padmapada's work, as well as Shankaracharya's own commentaries that he considered only Narayana as the Supreme Brahman.

--.

We are simply going round in circle getting just about no where, you are playing with words, what he says about supreme Brahman is nirvikalpa formless nirguna and here you want us to believe otherwise you deliberately ignore the Saguna part just shows your intentions. You are on record of saying this;

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=94239&highlight=shaiva#post94239

Make your mind up.

Jai Shree Krishna

Omkara
10 October 2013, 06:26 AM
what he says about supreme Brahman is nirvikalpa formless nirguna and here you want us to believe otherwise you deliberately ignore the Saguna part just shows your intentions.

Certainly he regards Lord Vishnu as Saguna Brahman only, supreme at a vyavharika level. No one disputed that.


You are on record of saying this;

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=94239&highlight=shaiva#post94239

Make your mind up.


Some of the opinions I expressed in that thread have undergone revision in light of new evidence.
I was mislead by malicious misinterpretation by some Neo-Advaitins of Shankara's Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya. He has not upheld Shiva=Vishnu in that bhashya.

hinduism♥krishna
10 October 2013, 07:23 AM
He has not upheld Shiva=Vishnu in that bhashya.

Namaste, omkar.

Adi shankara stated shri vishnu is shiva and shiva is vishnu in his vishnu sahasranamam bhashya.

Here are verses from adi shankara's bhashya :

।। " twaya yadabhay datta tat datta makhil maya , matto vibhanatmanan drashtu narhasi shankar , yoham sa twam jagatchedam sadevasuramanusham avidyamohitatman purusha bhinnadarshinaha ।। ( विष्णु पुराणे 5 , 33, 47-48)

★ Lord krishna says to lord shiva: Whatever you give a peace to this world is what i give ! O shivam, do not consider yourself different from me. What i m , The same u and all these devatas asuras, sansar along with manushyas are! The people who are deluded by avidya ( maya) , only those consider a difference between u and me! ★
इति श्री विष्णु पुराणे \

।।Vishnoranya tu pashyanti ye ma bramhananeva va, kutarko matayo mudhaha pachyante naraken vaghah , ye cha mudha duratmano binnam pashyanti mam hare bramhan cha tatah tasmat bramha hatya sama twagham. ।।

★ Lord shiva says: Those people who consider myself and bramha different from vishnu, they evil witted stupid people fall in hell and suffer sorrow.
Similarly, Those who see bramha, vishnu and myself different, they incure a sin same as ' bramhahatya ' ★
इति भविष्योत्तर पुराण ।

Dhanyavad - Ram krishna hari

Ganeshprasad
10 October 2013, 09:20 AM
Pranam


Certainly he regards Lord Vishnu as Saguna Brahman only, supreme at a vyavharika level. No one disputed that.

That is not in dispute, what is on dispute is our integrity of intention, you either omit certain fact or add something that was never there we can go on but it will get us no where.



Some of the opinions I expressed in that thread have undergone revision in light of new evidence.
I was mislead by malicious misinterpretation by some Neo-Advaitins of Shankara's Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya. He has not upheld Shiva=Vishnu in that bhashya.

That is very noble of you to admit, now that we can't reconcile our opinion we will blame the neo -Advaitin or who ever, that is fine one has a right to change opinion, problem is who is to say we want change our opinion in due course of time, we might even admit (but I doubt it) that Bhutas he comments on Gita as Vinayakas is not really Ganesha, the debate or the arguments that stem from, that would be too much to ask, that would put us back on course.

Jai Shree Krishna

bhagavatafan
13 October 2013, 11:30 PM
Namaste, omkar.

Adi shankara stated shri vishnu is shiva and shiva is vishnu in his vishnu sahasranamam bhashya.

Here are verses from adi shankara's bhashya :

।। " twaya yadabhay datta tat datta makhil maya , matto vibhanatmanan drashtu narhasi shankar , yoham sa twam jagatchedam sadevasuramanusham avidyamohitatman purusha bhinnadarshinaha ।। ( विष्णु पुराणे 5 , 33, 47-48)

★ Lord krishna says to lord shiva: Whatever you give a peace to this world is what i give ! O shivam, do not consider yourself different from me. What i m , The same u and all these devatas asuras, sansar along with manushyas are! The people who are deluded by avidya ( maya) , only those consider a difference between u and me! ★
इति श्री विष्णु पुराणे \

।।Vishnoranya tu pashyanti ye ma bramhananeva va, kutarko matayo mudhaha pachyante naraken vaghah , ye cha mudha duratmano binnam pashyanti mam hare bramhan cha tatah tasmat bramha hatya sama twagham. ।।

★ Lord shiva says: Those people who consider myself and bramha different from vishnu, they evil witted stupid people fall in hell and suffer sorrow.
Similarly, Those who see bramha, vishnu and myself different, they incure a sin same as ' bramhahatya ' ★
इति भविष्योत्तर पुराण ।

Dhanyavad - Ram krishna hari

These quotes do occur, but have been taken out of context.

Shankaracharya does not say, "Hence, one should worship Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu equally" after quoting these. The context is that Vishnu is Vishva - the universe, and is non-different from him, in the sense that the Universe is his vibhUti. I hope members who can understand this subtlety will appreciate this.

One needs to think how Shankaracharya quotes one verse that seems to say "Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are equal" and then in many places in Prasthanatrayi-Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashyas he says Brahma is a jIva, subject to transmigration, and obtained the position of Brahma through the grace of the Supreme Lord Narayana.

Garuda
14 May 2015, 03:59 AM
bumping the thread, very interesting thread. Adi Shankara outright rejected the Rudra Upasana and he referred in his Brahma sutra bhasyams, wherever the tattvam needs to be decided, he used only 3 names 'Vishnu' ,'Vasudeva' , 'Narayana' , interestingly in the entire vedic literature, these 3 mantras(with om and namaha) are called vyapaka mantras. In these 3 mantras, the vyapaka mantram, the 'Narayana' mantram is the supreme of all which is called astakshari. One needs to visit Pillai Lokacharya Swamy (Ramanuja Sampradayam Lineage) astadasa rahasyam where he explains the absolute supremeness of Narayana mantram.

Adi Shankara is one of the great Sri Vaishnavite, he was never a saiva, this concept is a spun up concept and he referred the tattvam with Narayana only . Naryana is Sriya:pathi and is husband of our mother Lakshmi devi --i.e : Vishnu.

Krushna is the supreme brahma himself, Kannan clearly explained in Bhagawadgita that other deva worshippers will only get fruits that are limited and will soonly vanish and for those fruits also they depend on the antaryami which is Vishnu/Krushna himself.

Rudra is son of Brahma but he Siva became one of the greatest Sri vaishnavite. In bhagawatham at the end it mentions Siva as the greatest Sri Vaishnavite, Siva also tells to Parvathi devi in Padma Purana that Narayana is supreme.

All gods are not equal. Srimannarayana is the only father as he himself said in Bhagawadgita. Who the hell are anyone to deny this ?

Adiyen Ramanuja Daasa

Believer
15 May 2015, 09:45 PM
Namaste,


All gods are not equal. Srimannarayana is the only father as he himself said in Bhagawadgita. Who the hell are anyone to deny this ?
I am denying it.
There, what are you going to do about that? :)

Pranam

Garuda
16 May 2015, 02:49 AM
Namaste,


I am denying it.
There, what are you going to do about that? :)

Pranam

you just can't maan! It is true, no one can deny the supremeness of nArayaNa.....Even Yama dharma raja said that why the ignorant people are coming to yama loka when if they chant nArayaNa name once, yama kinkaras won't touch the Jiva after the death! The power of astakshari is beyond everything. Pillai Lokacharya swamy in his astadasa rahasyas explained the power of nArayaNa mantram with Ommm and namaha. One will be astonished with the explanation as the word 'nArayaNa' and the meaning that it conveys does not exist in any language and in all the vedic texts.

I think many people are missing the link, Rudra is the son of Brahma, He attained the name Siva after that and he became the greatest Sri Vaishnavites encompassing everyone as mentioned at the last in bhagawatham. respect Siva very much realising he is the greatest vaishnavite.

adiyen Ramanuja Daasa

hinduism♥krishna
17 May 2015, 09:26 AM
Shankaracharya does not say, "Hence, one should worship Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu equally" after quoting these.And neither he says "Only Vishnu should be worshipped, not Shiva" If I'm wrong you may post the references.
The context is that Vishnu is Vishva - the universe, and is non-different from him, in the sense that the Universe is his vibhUti. I hope members who can understand this subtlety will appreciate this.You forgot "Vishnu is Vibhuti" listed in Bhagavad Gita. So when it is said that Vishnu is everything, it's essentially attributed to Brahman, which, of course not different from Vishnu God. When Vishnu is Shiva is already stressed, you still want make a distinction. Amazing!
One needs to think how Shankaracharya quotes one verse that seems to say "Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are equal" and then in many places in Prasthanatrayi-Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashyas he says Brahma is a jIva, subject to transmigration, and obtained the position of Brahma through the grace of the Supreme Lord Narayana.Vishnu god too is included. It's said "From Brahma to lower beings " as Brahma is first born.

Garuda
17 May 2015, 02:51 PM
And neither he says "Only Vishnu should be worshipped, not Shiva" If I'm wrong you may post the references. You forgot "Vishnu is Vibhuti" listed in Bhagavad Gita. So when it is said that Vishnu is everything, it's essentially attributed to Brahman, which, of course not different from Vishnu God. When Vishnu is Shiva is already stressed, you still want make a distinction. Amazing! Vishnu god too is included. It's said "From Brahma to lower beings " as Brahma is first born.

although you were replying to bhagavatafan user, Vishnu is not our self. SRI Krushna clearly said in the 2nd adhyaya of BG that Jiva and Prakriti is different from him and between each Jiva differences are there based on karma not on the suddha Jivas though! if jiva==paramaatma, all jivas are same and the pain experienced by one jiva should be shared by other jivas as well as all jivas would be equal at that point.

hinduism♥krishna
18 May 2015, 11:36 AM
although you were replying to bhagavatafan user, Vishnu is not our self. SRI Krushna clearly said in the 2nd adhyaya of BG that Jiva and Prakriti is different from him and between each Jiva differences are there based on karma not on the suddha Jivas though! if jiva==paramaatma, all jivas are same and the pain experienced by one jiva should be shared by other jivas as well as all jivas would be equal at that point.

I'm not body, I'm not mind, I'm not intellect, I'm not Prana. Thus I'm not Jiva. 'Aham' of Paramatmaa is called as Jeeva. Who am I? I'm Atma which is supreme.

The pain experienced by Jiva is separated by Aham - The reflection of sun may appear in all pots and each pot is unaffected by other pots.

Garuda
19 May 2015, 04:15 AM
I'm not body, I'm not mind, I'm not intellect, I'm not Prana. Thus I'm not Jiva. 'Aham' of Paramatmaa is called as Jeeva. Who am I? I'm Atma which is supreme.

The pain experienced by Jiva is separated by Aham - The reflection of sun may appear in all pots and each pot is unaffected by other pots.

Think you are confused, as the bhagawadgita is irrefutable pramana, Sri Krushna clearly clearly explained that he is different from prakriti and Jiva, Adi Shankaracharya although he is advaitan, his only authentic commentaries are Brahma sutra, vishnu sahasranamam, and BG.

Sri Krushna in the 2nd adhyaya itself said this, you , I and Prakriti are different and he divided people into 4 as mentioned in 7th chapter of BG.
1. Arthaha
2. Jignasa ( the one who desires only atma( the one which contains Jnanam as swaroopam and swabhawam)
3. Artharthi
4. Jnani (Jnani has eka bhakti, they don't desire anything other than bhagawan Krushna, and he said 'sacha mama priyaha' )

this also clearly says that atma and paramaatma are different. who the hell are we to say otherwise. In the end of 7th chapter he again says what upasana has to be done by people who desire their atma and who desire him alone(jnani)

Multiple instances, so dont say jiva and paramaatma are same and again say i accept BG as pramana. Both are contradictory.

He again says in 14th i think , about kshetrajna(jiva) and kshetram belongs to him (Paramaatma)


adiyen Ramanuja Daasa.

Believer
20 May 2015, 09:09 AM
Namaste,


this also clearly says that atma and paramaatma are different. who the hell are we to say otherwise.
Hinduism encompasses a million schools of thought. Whenever a question is posed to 100 Hindus, they all answer differently. If spiritual upliftment is the aim of life, why waste it on fighting other Hindus over the supremacy of one school of thought over another. You cannot change 'made up minds' by intimidation or becoming a debater. The most that will happen is that people will move on and you will think like you won the debate. Is that your aim in the forum? Are you going to spend your life fighting other Hindus? Is that going to elevate you spiritually? Do you think you are doing favors to 'your gods' by fighting on their behalf in the forum? Will that help you to get nirvana? If so, are you fighting for selfish reason - to get nirvana - rather than glorifying your gods? Is this whole game for self promotion instead of serving the gods? Would spending that time in 'your god's' service not be more beneficial than spending it on fighting on his behalf? Is your god so weak that he needs a human being like yourself to protect Him? Do you think you are the god's gift to humanity and must set everything right on his behalf. Would your fighting not take you on a downward spiral, instead of what you might be dreaming as getting nirvana as a reward for fighting on someone's behalf? Are you ever calm and quiet and contemplative to even think about the injury that you are causing to others with your behavior? Do people who attack and injure others, physically or mentally or emotionally worthy of any favors from gods? Just observe maun for few weeks, take a leave from the forum and think about your behavior and where would it lead you. A man of your intelligence should be able to see the futility of your efforts and the waste of precious life on hounding other Hindus!

Pranam.

Garuda
20 May 2015, 10:20 AM
Namaste,


Hinduism encompasses a million schools of thought. Whenever a question is posed to 100 Hindus, they all answer differently. If spiritual upliftment is the aim of life, why waste it on fighting other Hindus over the supremacy of one school of thought over another. You cannot change 'made up minds' by intimidation or becoming a debater. The most that will happen is that people will move on and you will think like you won the debate. Is that your aim in the forum? Are you going to spend your life fighting other Hindus? Is that going to elevate you spiritually? Do you think you are doing favors to 'your gods' by fighting on their behalf in the forum? Will that help you to get nirvana? If so, are you fighting for selfish reason - to get nirvana - rather than glorifying your gods? Is this whole game for self promotion instead of serving the gods? Would spending that time in 'your god's' service not be more beneficial than spending it on fighting on his behalf? Is your god so weak that he needs a human being like yourself to protect Him? Do you think you are the god's gift to humanity and must set everything right on his behalf. Would your fighting not take you on a downward spiral, instead of what you might be dreaming as getting nirvana as a reward for fighting on someone's behalf? Are you ever calm and quiet and contemplative to even think about the injury that you are causing to others with your behavior? Do people who attack and injure others, physically or mentally or emotionally worthy of any favors from gods? Just observe maun for few weeks, take a leave from the forum and think about your behavior and where would it lead you. A man of your intelligence should be able to see the futility of your efforts and the waste of precious life on hounding other Hindus!

Pranam.

you are completely off topic, first off all i would not use the word 'hindu' as this itself is a coined term but that is whole different subject together. The people cannot create gods and when they say Rudra is supreme or atma=paramaatma and say i accept vedas as pramana that cannot be said. Think you have no points to offer. please stay away from the topic if you have nothing worth of to add and am not fighting anyone, it might look like a fight for you as you might have not understood what was written!

Please post some suitable points if you can refute whatever that is said.

This is the cause, the same behavior which created tons of recent made up fake gods like sai baba and ayyappa! There is no your god and my god , god is only one and he is Maha Vishnu

adiyen Ramanuja Daasa