Adi shankara Posts - Jalpa Thread 2

[Omkara]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thank you bhagavatafan.