Adi shankara Posts - Jalpa Thread 2

[Omkara]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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