Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्पर िषत्} Re: Advaita Sharada – Excellent project started today by Sringeri Sharadha Peetam to propagate the teachings of Adi Shankara.

This message is forwarded for the information of members.

subrahmanian.v

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <>
Date: Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:24 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Advaita Sharada – Excellent project started today by Sringeri Sharadha Peetam to propagate the teachings of Adi Shankara.
To: bvparishat@googlegroups.com

Here is a video clipping covering the above occasion:

Shankara Jayanthi 2014 Evening Program and Launch of Advaita Sharada Project

			Shankara Jayanthi 2014 Evening Program and Laun… This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
			View on www.youtube.com	Preview by Yahoo

 

The talks are in Kannada.

Here is the HH Jagadguru’s address on the occasion of the Shankara Jayanti:

Shankara Jayanthi 2014 Anugraha Bhashanam

			Shankara Jayanthi 2014 Anugraha Bhashanam This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.

A complete Carnatic  music program rendered by renowned vocalist Sri R.K.Padmanabha with all numbers constituting compositions of Adishankaracharya is to be presented in Bangalore on Sunday, the 8th June, 2014.

Venue:  Our School, CA 15, 27th Cross,14th Main,  BSK II Stage, Next to Police Station, Bangalore 560070.

Time: 10 AM onwards: Lecture on Shankaracharya’s works, etc. by Sri Pavagada Prakasha Rao.

11.15 AM onwards Music program by Sri R.K.Padmanabha.

Entrance: Free

The Part 6 of the above series is available for reading here:

The article is based on Sri Shankaracharya’s commentary thereon.

subrahmanian.v

The Part 7 of the Article Series on the Kena and Muṇḍaka upaniṣads are available for reading here:

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-muNDakopaniShat—Part-7.ashx

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-kenopaniShat—Part-7.ashx

subrahmanian.v

Here is an article on the reference to Rudra and Āditya in the Bhagavadgītā bhāṣyam 6.47 by Shankaracharya:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/610a95362eprvy3/Reference+to+Rudra+and+%C4%80ditya+in+the+Bh.g.pdf

In the following URL a file is uploaded on the above topic:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/z3kwt9h1kr87fem/Shankara+pref+deity.pdf

Upon a study of the prasthānatraya bhāṣyas of Sri Shankaracharya it is determined that he did not identify any particular deity as saguṇa brahman.

The Part 8 of the two articles on the above two Upaniṣads are available for reading here:

http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/NewSingleArticle.aspx?ContentId=2105

http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/NewSingleArticle.aspx?ContentId=2104

A Playlist containing the various recordings of the proceedings of the Vedanta Chintana goṣṭhī conducted in Bangalore from 16 to 20 of July, 2014 is given below:

The talks cover certain hymnal/vedantic works of Shankaracharya on Sri Dakshinamurti.  More uploads are to be announced.

Viṣṇu’s status as a created deity

The Rg vedic mantra: सोमः पवते जनिता मतीनां जनिता दिवो जनिता पृथिव्या:। जनिताग्नेर्जनिता सूर्यस्य जनितेन्द्रस्य जनितोत विष्णोः 9.5

has been commented upon by Sāyaṇācārya as Soma who is praised is the creator of the intellects, the heavens, the earth. Also he is the originator of sūrya, indra and viṣṇu, the all-pervading.

In the subsequent mantra we have:

ब्रह्मा देवानां पदवीः कवीनामृषिर्विप्राणां महिषो मृगाणाम् . श्येनो गृध्राणाँस्वधितिर्वनानाँसोमः पवित्रमत्येति रेभन् 9.6

In this mantra which continues from the fifth mantra, Sāyaṇācārya says: Soma, of the earlier mantra, is assuming the post of brahmā in a sacrifice. Alternatively, the commentator says: soma is the head, ‘king’, of all the deva-s such as indra, stated in the previous mantra.

Thus, from a study of these two mantras/commentaries we conclude that according to Sāyaṇācārya, viṣṇu is a created deity.

In the Taittiriyopaniṣad shanti mantra bhāṣya, Shankaracharya has said that viṣṇu is the abhimāni devatā, presiding deity, for the limb, leg. Also, Shankara in that bhāṣya has said that vāyu is the one responsible for delivering the fruits of actions to all, thereby placing vāyu above viṣṇu.

At the beginning of the bhashyam for the Prashnopanishat 2nd chapter, Shankara says;

प्राणोऽत्ता प्रजापतिरित्युक्तम् । तस्य प्रजापतित्वमत्तृत्वं चास्मिञ्शरीरेऽवधारयितव्यमित्ययं प्रश्न आरभ्यते ।

Prāṇa the consumer is stated to be the Prajāpati.  This, its being the prajāpati and the consumer, is being demonstrated in this body.

In the 9th mantra of this Chapter we have:

इन्द्रस्त्वं प्राण तेजसा रुद्रोऽसि परिरक्षिता ।

त्वमन्तरिक्षे चरसि सूर्यस्त्वं ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥ ९ ॥

9     Indra thou art, O Prana, and Rudra, too, in prowess. Thou art the Protector. Thou movest in the sky; thou art the sun, the lord of lights.

The bhāṣya says:

किंच, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, तेजसा वीर्येण रुद्रोऽसि संहरन् जगत् । स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः सौम्येन रूपेण । त्वम् अन्तरिक्षे अजस्रं चरसि उदयास्तमयाभ्यां सूर्यः त्वमेव च सर्वेषां ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥

Further, O Prana, you are Indra, the Supreme Lord.  By valour you are Rudra, engaged in destroying the world.  Again, during the time of the existence of the universe, you, in your  benign aspect, are the preserver (of the universe) on every side.  You move for ever in the sky by rising and setting.  You are the sun, the lord of all the luminaries.

For the above highlighted portion, Anandagiri, the authoritative sub-commentator, says: विष्ण्वादिरूपेण इत्यरथः । ( You, through the form of Vishnu, etc.)

Now, this upanishad itself stated that Prana is Prajapati., the Creator.  And in this mantra we have Rdura, another form of prāṇa, being stated as the world-destroyer.  And Vishnu (the benign form, as opposed to the valorous form of Rudra) is the Protector of the world.  Since the Creator, Protector and Destroyer are all said to be the forms of Prana we see that Rudra, named in the mantra itself, Vishnu not named in the mantra as well as the bhashya but named by Anandagiri, on the implication of the word ‘vishnu’ are all ‘created’ ones.

The sequence is thus:  The Puruṣa, Supreme Brahman, creates prāṇa, called Hiraṇyagarbha.  From this Hirānyagarbha, the creator of all the objects, names / forms, both sentient and insentient, the deva-s too are created.  The mantra that we saw above lists these.  Indra, etc. including Rudra, for destruction function and Vishnu for protection function, are all manifestations of this Prana (Hiranyagarbha).  While up to this it is all within the realm of creation, the ONLY entity that transcends creation is the Puruṣa who is the subject matter of the Sixth Praṣna, the final chapter of this upaniṣad.

The point to be noted is: This upaniṣad provides a very interesting instance of Rudra and Vishnu as particular functionaries, with allotted portfolios, along with Indra, etc.

Appayya Dikṣita in his works on portraying Shiva as the Supreme has cited the above Rg. Vedic mantra as authority for the created nature of Viṣṇu and asked, if Rudra has birth, why not Viṣṇu?

The sūta samhitā, which is a part of the skanda purāṇa, too shows Viṣṇu as one of the deities who get instructions from the Supreme Shiva.

Advaitins have no intention to show one or the other deity as superior to another/all others.  For them any deity, deva, which etymologically means ‘the resplendent one’ is no other than the Atman which is jñāna svarūpa.  So are all entities in creation no other than the Atman which is Brahman.  Worshiping any deity as the Supreme Brahman not different from one’s self will confer liberating knowledge.

Om Tat Sat

regards
subrahmanian.v

Part 9 of the Article series on the Kena and the Mundaka Upanishads can be read in the following URLs:

http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/NewSingleArticle.aspx?ContentId=2107

http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/NewSingleArticle.aspx?ContentId=2106

On this blog, in the following URL,

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_9.html

are made some observations to which some responses are given in an article, downloadable here.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/7cu820phv6r40do/Tamasa+puranas+-+response.docx

The names ‘vAsudeva, Vishnu and NArAyana’ in the  specific instances in the ShAnkara bhashya mean only the Nirguna Chaitanyam and not the Saguna entity.

काठकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमोऽध्यायः । तृतीया वल्ली । मन्त्रः ९ – भाष्यम्

किं तत्पदमित्याह — विज्ञानसारथिः यस्तु यो विवेकबुद्धिसारथिः पूर्वोक्तः मनःप्रग्रहवान् प्रगृहीतमनाः समाहितचित्तः सन् शुचिर्नरो विद्वान्, सः अध्वनः संसारगतेः पारं परमेव, अधिगन्तव्यमित्येतत्, आप्नोति, मुच्यते सर्वसंसारबन्धनैः । तत् विष्णोः व्यापनशीलस्य ब्रह्मणः परमात्मनो वासुदेवाख्यस्य परमं प्रकृष्टं पदं स्थानम्, सतत्त्वमित्येतत्, यत् असावाप्नोति विद्वान् ॥

काठकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमोऽध्यायः । तृतीया वल्ली । मन्त्रः ११ – भाष्यम्

महतोऽपि परं सूक्ष्मतरं प्रत्यगात्मभूतं सर्वमहत्तरं च अव्यक्तं सर्वस्य जगतो बीजभूतमव्याकृतनामरूपं सतत्त्वं सर्वकार्यकारणशक्तिसमाहाररूपम् अव्यक्तम् अव्याकृताकाशादिनामवाच्यं परमात्मन्योतप्रोतभावेन समाश्रितं वटकणिकायामिव वटवृक्षशक्तिः । तस्मादव्यक्तात् परः सूक्ष्मतरः सर्वकारणकारणत्वात्प्रत्यगात्मत्वाच्च महांश्च, अत एव पुरुषः सर्वपूरणात् । ततोऽन्यस्य परस्य प्रसङ्गं निवारयन्नाह — पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चिदिति । यस्मान्नास्ति पुरुषाच्चिन्मात्रघनात्परं किञ्चिदपि वस्त्वन्तरम्, तस्मात्सूक्ष्मत्वमहत्त्वप्रत्यगात्मत्वानां सा काष्ठा निष्ठा पर्यवसानम् । अत्र हि इन्द्रियेभ्य आरभ्य सूक्ष्मत्वादि परिसमाप्तम् । अत एव च गन्तॄणां सर्वगतिमतां संसारिणां सा परा प्रकृष्टा गतिः, ‘यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते’ (भ. गी. १५-६) इति स्मृतेः ॥

From the above two bhashyas we conclude:

1.  The knower of Brahman attains to that state of Vishnu.
2. This sentence of the bhashyam तत् विष्णोः व्यापनशीलस्य ब्रह्मणः परमात्मनो वासुदेवाख्यस्य परमं प्रकृष्टं पदं स्थानम्, सतत्त्वमित्येतत्, means ‘vishnu’s state is all pervading supreme..’ It is of the nature of ‘rAhoH shiraH’ where there is no difference between rAhu (who is nothing but head) and ‘head’.
3. That is the state the knower attains to: brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati of the Mundakopanishat.
4. Having said that in the first quoted mantra bhashyam, Shankara says, immediately in the mantra bhashyam occurring soon after the first one in the same Upanishad: This is the Purusha, who is PUrNa, in other words, a restatement of the Vishnu=vyApaniashIla of the earlier mantra/bhashyam which is the destination of the knower. The mantra says: there is none other/greater than this Purusha and this is the ultimate. Shankara adds that this Purusha is characterized by …..being the innermost self of the jiva, pratyagAtmA. This is the ultimate destination of samsarins.
5. Thus, the Vishnu’s state is no other than the Purusha which is non-different from the pratyagAtmA of the jiva/s.
6. There is no room here for the interpretation of the ‘VishnoH paramam padam’ as the ‘supreme/superior state of the deva Vishnu’ as done by the chandrika commentary in the Naishkarmyasiddhi verse. The commentary takes two entities: deva Vishnu and his superior state. This is not in accordance with the Kathopanishad and the Acharya’s bhashya which do not give room for this duality, dichotomy, in the expression ‘tad vishnoH paramam padam’.
7. Since the Advaitic AtmA is nirguna Brahman, as Shankara has stated thrice in the above bhashya ‘pratyagAtmA’, the ‘Vishnu’ of the Kathopanishad and the bhashya ‘vyapanashila’ decidedly refer to the NB alone and not the saguna Brahman.
8. In the first cited Katha mantra, the idea is: the knower reaches the other shore of samsara. What is this other shore? It is ‘the Supreme state of Vishnu’. If the chandirka’s interpretation is to be adhered to, the Katha is unnecessarily talking of an intermediate state, deva Vishnu, and then the superior state of that deva Vishnu, as the final destination, moksha.
9. The other defect of that two-part explanation is: the Vishnu of the first mantra will not be admitted to be the PuruSha of the second mantra. This is because, the Vishnu of the first mantra has been taken as deva whose superior state is the final destination and the second mantra talks of the Purusha beyond whom there is none as the final destination.
10. The non-equating of Vishnu with Purusha is not to the liking of even the vaishnavas. Thus, the chandrika’s convoluted explanation of the ‘vishnoH padAnugAm’ as involving a saguna and nirguna Brahman, so enthusiastically cited by the bloggers, is ending up as detrimental to them when examined in the light of the Kathopanishad and Shankara’s bhashya. In other words, the Vishnu of the first mantra will not be the PUrNa PuruSha of the second mantra, in the light of the Chandrika.
11. To reiterate: ‘Vishnu’ = Purusha = pratyagAtmA = knowledge thereof = final destination/goal / moksha.
12. The chandrika’s ‘vishnu (saguna) = purushottama’ idea is also not in accordance with the Shankara’s interpretation of the BG 15^th Purushottama which is the Mandukya turiya which is the one beyond the akshara (mAyA/Ishwara). The chandrika equates the deva Vishnu to something that transcends the deva Vishnu thereby contradicting his own earlier statement of showing the Supreme as the abode of the deva Vishnu. In other words, the jagakAraNa Vishnu is not the Purushottama of Advaita, but the chandrika says explicitly so. Instead of taking the Shankara bhashya to decide what is meant by ‘Vishnu’, the bloggers committed the folly of dragging the Naishkarmyasiddhi verse with the chandrika and ended up contradicting Shankara. In effect, this misadventure is their forte in trying to ‘explain’ anything.
13. In advaita the moksha is not any saguna Brahman realization/loka attainment.
14. Hence, Vishnu of the Katha and the Naishkarmyasiddhi, as applied to Shankara’s knowledge/realization, is decidedly NB and not saguna. Let it be saguna in the ganga source case, which I have not denied but which the bloggers, incapable of reading and comprehending my words, concluded that I am denying.   A more stupid brain cannot be found anywhere.

Here is some more evidence of their fractured intellect:

While trying to quote me, the pseudo vaishnava, lists the following as my words/statements/thinking :

2) Sureshvara’s sloka does not imply Shiva received Ganga from Vishnu. “visnor pAdanugam” refers to reality of nirguNa brahman.
[I have not even remotely meant the first part of the above sentence]
4) Shiva Mahimna Stotra authored by Madhusudhana Saraswati shows hari-hara abheda.
[The mahimna stotra is the composition of Pushpadanta and Madhusudana has only written a commentary to it with Hari and Hara pakshas. And Madhusudana concludes the work by writing his own verses declaring that ‘kshudra’ intellects aught to realize the abheda, implying that akshudra or uttama buddhis need no teaching about the abheda; it is well known to them.]

The pseudo vaishnava, exhibits his ignorance of Advaita again:

// (nirguNa brahman cannot have attributes such as sarvavyApakatvam and jagatkAraNatvam) //

That the above conclusion he draws from the Chandrika which is in contradiction to Shankara is already shown. Let us take the ‘sarvavyApakatvam’ epithet, leaving out the jagatkAraNatvam, which, in any case, is not referring to Nirguna Brahman.

In the Taittiriyopanishad there occurs the lakshanam ‘satyam, jnanam, anantam brahma’. ‘ananta’ is desha, kAla, vastu pariccheda shUnyam. Brahman, whose svarUpa lakshna (not jagatkAraNatva, which is taTastha lakshana) is anantam, pervades all desha, all kAla and all vastu. Hence the NB is sarvavyApakam. Also in the BGB 13.13 Shankara says:

सर्वत्र सर्वदेहावयवत्वेन गम्यमानाः पाणिपादादयः ज्ञेयशक्तिसद्भावनिमित्तस्वकार्याः इति ज्ञेयसद्भावे लिङ्गानि ‘ज्ञेयस्य’ इति उपचारतः उच्यन्ते । तथा व्याख्येयम् अन्यत् । सर्वतःपाणिपादं तत् ज्ञेयम् । सर्वतोक्षिशिरोमुखं सर्वतः अक्षीणि शिरांसि मुखानि च यस्य तत् सर्वतोक्षिशिरोमुखम्; सर्वतःश्रुतिमत् श्रुतिः श्रवणेन्द्रियम्, तत् यस्य तत् श्रुतिमत्, लोके प्राणिनिकाये, सर्वम् आवृत्य संव्याप्य तिष्ठति स्थितिं लभते ॥ [The Jneyam Brahma (as opposed to upAsyam brahma which is saguna in Advaita) is taught by both the Lord as well as Shankara as ‘pervading everything in creation’. ] This very idea is stated elaborately in the BGB 13.15:

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । त्रयोदशोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १५ – भाष्यम्

बहिः त्वक्पर्यन्तं देहम् आत्मत्वेन अविद्याकल्पितम् अपेक्ष्य तमेव अवधिं कृत्वा बहिः उच्यते । तथा प्रत्यगात्मानमपेक्ष्य देहमेव अवधिं कृत्वा अन्तः उच्यते । ‘बहिरन्तश्च’ इत्युक्ते मध्ये अभावे प्राप्ते, इदमुच्यते — अचरं चरमेव च, यत् चराचरं देहाभासमपि तदेव ज्ञेयं यथा रज्जुसर्पाभासः । यदि अचरं चरमेव च स्यात् व्यवहारविषयं सर्वं ज्ञेयम्, किमर्थम् ‘इदम्’ इति सर्वैः न विज्ञेयम् इति? उच्यते — सत्यं सर्वाभासं तत्; तथापि व्योमवत् सूक्ष्मम् । अतः सूक्ष्मत्वात् स्वेन रूपेण तत् ज्ञेयमपि अविज्ञेयम् अविदुषाम् । विदुषां तु, ‘आत्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (छा. उ. ७-२५-२) ‘ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (?) इत्यादिप्रमाणतः नित्यं विज्ञातम् । अविज्ञाततया दूरस्थं वर्षसहस्रकोट्यापि अविदुषाम् अप्राप्यत्वात् । अन्तिके च तत्, आत्मत्वात् विदुषाम् ॥

In advaita, the sarvayApakatvam of Nirguna Brahman is of the kind of ‘the rope pervading the whole of the snake’. This is the very example Shanakara gives in the above bhashyam for the understanding of Nirguna, Jneya, Brahman pervading everything in creation. In other words, the entire creation is pervaded by NB since it is superimposed in NB. The deva Vishnu is also such a superimposition on NB and hence even though the deva Vishnu pervades the entire creation, NB pervades even the deva Vishnu. For that matter, all jivas in advaita are Brahman and pervade the entire creation. That way alone it is possible for the Advaitin to realize the anantam Brahman as his own self. Thus, the blogger’s misconception regarding NB’s all-pervading nature is above shown and the correct position presented.

The blogger, after failing on the count of ‘anantam’ of Brahman, now attempts to push his theory on the count of Ananda:

// The supreme bliss in advaita is always referred in conjunction with the Shankha-Chakra dhArI viShNu because of his shuddha-sattva nature which made Him the object of worship of ancient advaitin mumukShus. Recall Sridhara Swami’s verse in the bhAgavatam commentary://

1.  First of all, the Sridhari commentary is not a part of Advaitic study anywhere.
2. Nowhere is the supreme bliss is in Advaita is referred in conjunction with the saguna Vishnu.
3. Secondly, the svarUpa Ananda of Advaitic AtmA is not dependent on any external aids like the conch, etc. of Vishnu. It will still be vishayAnanda, a product of avidyA in advaita. Hence, the blogger’s ‘..always referred in conjunction…’ is his own wishful thinking, never in the bhashya. The true expression/source of Advaita ananda is stated by Shankara in the Taittiriya bhashya thus: [तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्भाष्यम्। ब्रह्मानन्दवल्ली । सप्तमोऽनुवाकः । मन्त्रः १ – भाष्यम्] बाह्यानन्दसाधनरहिता अपि अनीहा निरेषणा ब्राह्मणा बाह्यरसलाभादिव सानन्दा दृश्यन्ते विद्वांसः ; नूनं ब्रह्मैव रसस्तेषाम् । [Even though not endowed with any external means, completely desireless, the brAhmaNas, the knowers, are seen to be blissful as though they have contacted some external source of bliss. Certainly Brahman Itself is their bliss.] This idea of the Atman itself being the source of bliss is even more elaborated in the BG 2 and 6^th chapters – ‘AtmatRptashca…AtmanyevAtmanA tuShTaH..etc’ nowhere are the saguna Brahman descriptions found in the bhashya. Thus, Shankara contradicts the idea ‘the supreme bliss is due to conjunction…’ If it comes from any conjunction it will be within the Anandamaya kosha, a vikara of Ananda but not Ananda Itself.

The pseudo vaishnava goes on to say:

// If double meaning was not intended, jnAnottama would never quote the viShNu purAna which says the Ganga flows from the left toe-nail of vishNu. Incidentally, this quashes the stupid claim that nArAyaNa to be known by veda, purAna and Agama as per anandagiri is nirguNa brahman and not saguNa.//

Extremely illogical connection between the two statements above. First, I have never challenged the idea that the Ganga emerged from the Lord’s feet. [It is another matter that this is purely an arthavAda, a stuti, which is evident from Shankara’s commentary to the mundakopanishad

मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । द्वितीयं मुण्डकम् । प्रथमः खण्डः । मन्त्रः ९ - भाष्यम्

अतः पुरुषात् समुद्राः सर्वे क्षाराद्याः । गिरयश्च हिमवदादयः अस्मादेव पुरुषात् सर्वे । स्यन्दन्ते स्रवन्ति गङ्गाद्याः सिन्धवः नद्यः सर्वरूपाः बहुरूपाः।अस्मादेव पुरुषात् सर्वाः ओषधयः व्रीहियवाद्याः।

The Upanishad only says that all creation, all rivers, emerge from the PuruSha, Brahman. There is no separate special status given for Ganga by Shankara. In order to inculcate devotion/shraddhA for the Ganga, one encounters stories in the scripture connecting the river to Vishnu’s feet and Shiva’s head. ]

The Chandrika’s eulogizing the Ganga quoting the purana in no way alters the Advaitic Jneya Brahman. In the Br.up. antaryAmi brahmana, where Shankara takes the name of Narayana, the teaching is the mahAvAkya: एष त आत्मा अन्तर्याम्यमृतः [This antaryAmi the Imperishable is your very Self – (another version of tat tvam asi)]. Surely, the jneya Brahman is not any saguna Brahman in Advaita. The pseudo vaishnava is proving his pseudo knowledge of advaita again and again. And, to top it all, is taking the names of Anandagiri and so many other commentators.

The pseudo vaishnava quotes Shankara’s Gita bhashya intro to ‘prove’ his mistaken idea ‘…also refers to the saguNa-brahman, the deity of the Vaishnavas Lakshmipati only.’:

//Compare with Shankara’s introduction to the bhagavad-gItA:

“sa bhagavAn sR^iShTvedaM jagat… Adi kartA nArAyaNAkhyo viShNuH bhaumasya brAhmaNo brAhmaNatvasya ca abhirakShaNArthaM devakyAM vasudevAd aMshena kR^iShNaH kila sambabhUva”//

Shankara contradicts the above mistaken notion in that very document. The concluding words of the BG introduction:

// इमं द्विप्रकारं धर्मं निःश्रेयसप्रयोजनम्, परमार्थतत्त्वं च वासुदेवाख्यं परं ब्रह्माभिधेयभूतं विशेषतः अभिव्यञ्जयत् विशिष्टप्रयोजनसम्बन्धाभिधेयवद्गीताशास्त्रम् । यतः तदर्थविज्ञाने समस्तपुरुषार्थसिद्धिः, अतः तद्विवरणे यत्नः क्रियते मया ॥//

The underlined parts mean: ‘The paramArthatattvam called ‘VAsudeva’ which  bears the name ‘Parabrahman’, (is specifically revealed by the GitAshAstram)..by realizing which the total summum bonum of life is attained.’

From the above it is concluded that for Shakara:

1. The name ‘Vasudeva’ and ‘Parabrahman’ mean only the ParamArtha tattvam (which the Chandrika explains as the abode of the saguna deva Vishnu).
2. This tattvam is the one that is revealed by the GitAshAstram. For, a shAstram should reveal to us something that is not known to us.
3. By realizing this tattvam alone the complete purushArtha is attained, that is, moksha is attained.
4. That means: in Advaita, the knowledge of the NB as oneself is what results in moksha.
5. So, the names VAsudeva and Parabrahman denote NB alone ultimately.

It is also to be noted that the above is supported, much to the chagarin of the pseudo vaishnava, his own declaration citing the Brahma sutra bhashyam of Shankara:

// “paraM eva hi brahma vishuddhopAdhisaMbandhaM kvacit kaishcid vikAradharmair manomayAdibhir upAsanAya upadishyamAnam aparam iti sthitiH”//

The above bhashya piece lays bare the distinction between para and apara Brahman. In the Gita bhashya introduction we find that the term Vasudeva to be stated along with the other name ‘Parabrahman’ which is the paramArtha tattvam.

The pseudo vaishnava makes some foolish claims about my statements about the term ‘mura’ thus:

// So, while murAri does indeed mean destroyer of ignorance, this particular interpretation is the inner meaning of krishNa’s act of killing the asurA murA. So, saguNa brahman is the destroyer of asura mura and by doing so, he shows that he is the destroyer of ignorance.//

What actually I said is this:

//The subodhini commentary on the Sankshepashariraka invocatory verse says that ‘mura’ represents ignorance and MurAri is the one who dispels that ignorance. So, the story of mura being put down by Vishnu is only an allegorical reference to ignorance being dispelled/destroyed by the realization of the Nirguna Chaitanya jnanam.//

The highlighted part is called ‘the akhanDAkAravRtti’ which has for its content the Pure Consciousness, the nirupAdhika chaitanyam and not any saguna brahma jnanam, the knowledge of the attributed Brahman. No doubt, in advaita, that vRtti that destroys ignorance is in the realm of the vyavaharika. But the content of that vRtti is NB, Pure Consciousness. Thus, in effect, it is the NB knowledge that dispels ignorance. The scriptural support is countless, such as:

ज्ञानेन तु तदज्ञानं येषां नाशितमात्मनः । तेषामादित्यवज्ज्ञानं प्रकाशयति तत्परम् ॥ १६ ॥ BG 5.16

[By Knowledge is indeed ignorance destroyed …]

ज्ञात्वा देवं सर्वपाशापहानिः क्षीणैः क्लेशैः जन्ममृत्युप्रहाणिः । – श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् १-११

[By realizing / knowing the Resplendent One, all misery comes to an end..]

The ‘knowledge’ in the above cases is not any saguna brahma jnanam but the knowledge of the upadhi-free Brahman. So, by giving that clarification the pseudo vaishnava has done nothing but tasting his own ignorance.

Not even able to read and comprehend correctly what I write, the pseudo vaishnava responds to me:

// The best part of this post was desperately trying to translate “visnoH pAdanugam…” as nirguNa brahman and denying the clear reference to Ganga.//

It is only he that is desperately trying to translate those words as saguna Brahman. I have never denied the clear reference to Ganga. To say what the opponent never said or meant is another trick up the sleeve of the pseudo vaishnava which, unfortunately for him, will never work.

The gimmicks the pseudo vaishnava plays have boomeranged on himself. He brags that he has the ‘true’ advaitic knowledge:

// // It is clear Subbu/Adbhutam the Veerashaiva has no knowledge of his own tradition. //

Clarification… By the word “tradition”, I mean the original Vaishnava-advaitic tradition of Shankara and his ancient followers, clearly evident in their authentic works. Not the popular shaivAdvaitic / shAktAdvaitic one that Subbu claims to have been favored by Shankara.//

Not a single sentence of the Shankara bhashya supports the weird claims of the pseudo vaishnava who is doubling up as a pseudo advaita scholar. The ‘support’ he claimed as coming from Shankara bhashya to his ‘original Vaishnava-advaitic tradition of Shankara and his ancient followers’ theory is completely demolished not by anyone else, but ironically, by the Shankara bhashyams themselves. Better they stop their desperate furthering of the dubious cause/claims and be true followers of their Acharyas without dabbling in other’s territory and have to eat their own words.

Another instance of their mistaking what I said:

// These two lines are enough to destroy subbu’s theory that “viShNu” in advaita does not refer to the saguNa-deity possessing four arms etc. but applies strictly only to the nirguNa-caitanyam.//

I have never said or meant anything to that effect. What I have emphasized is ‘the instances where the names ‘Vishnu, narayana, Vasudeva’ are used by Shankara in the upanishad bhashya do not mean the saguna deity at all but in all those instances, only the NB.’ Not being able to comprehend what I am saying, the pseudo vaishnava proves he is a poor grasper of even the original bhashyas. A duller head cannot be seen anywhere!

And he brings death to his own ‘Vishnu’:

// That lord of vaikunTha is indeed called viShNu because it is all-pervading and vAsudeva because it is in everything and everything resides in him. It is only that he is not shiva.//

If Vishnu is not Shiva, then Vishnu loses the epithet ‘ananta’ since there will be ‘vastu pariccheda’, limitation due to object, in Vishnu. A table and a chair being different from each other, limit themselves. If Vishnu is not Shiva, then Vishnu is paricchinna. This defect is unsurmountable in non-advaitic schools. Brahman is sarva-ananyam as Shankara says in the Taittiriya bhashya for the word ananta there.

तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । ब्रह्मानन्दवल्ली । प्रथमोऽनुवाकः । मन्त्रः १ – भाष्यम्

कथं पुनर्वस्तुत आनन्त्यम्? सर्वानन्यत्वात् । भिन्नं हि वस्तु वस्त्वन्तरस्य अन्तो भवति, वस्त्वन्तरबुद्धिर्हि प्रसक्ताद्वस्त्वन्तरान्निवर्तते । यतो यस्य बुद्धेर्निवृत्तिः, स तस्यान्तः । तद्यथा गोत्वबुद्धिरश्वत्वान्निवर्तत इत्यश्वत्वान्तं गोत्वमित्यन्तवदेव भवति । स चान्तो भिन्नेषु वस्तुषु दृष्टः । नैवं ब्रह्मणो भेदः । अतो वस्तुतोऽप्यानन्त्यम् । कथं पुनः सर्वानन्त्यत्वं ब्रह्मण इति, उच्यते – सर्ववस्तुकारणत्वात् । सर्वेषां हि वस्तूनां कालाकाशादीनां कारणं ब्रह्म ।

Shankara says in the above bhashya: Brahman is non-different from everything. ‘Object A brings about the limitation of object B’. Such a limitation is seen in different objects. Never is Brahman different from anything. Thus, even object-wise, Brahman is infinite.

The vaishnavite claim of Vishnu not being Shiva makes their Vishnu a finite entity just like a jar that is not a cloth. In Advaita, ultimate difference is an impossibility. Only insentient objects can appear to be different but never the Consciousness, Brahman. In all non-advaitic systems their Supreme is inevitably finite, insentient. Vishnu might be where Shiva is and Shiva might be ‘within’ Vishnu.  But if Vishnu is not Shiva, then Vishnu is limited by Shiva.  And what is finite is perishable.

In the blog comments available in the URL below, the pseudo vaishnavas concoct a multi-deity advaitic tradition:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/04/sarvajnatmans-sankshepa-shariraka-lucid.html?showComment=1411093441998#c4323709618934694320

They say:

//Clarification… By the word “tradition”, I mean the original Vaishnava-advaitic tradition of Shankara and his ancient followers, clearly evident in their authentic works. Not the popular shaivAdvaitic / shAktAdvaitic one that Subbu claims to have been favored by Shankara.//

Response:

There is no such thing as any ‘original Vaishnava-advaitic’ tradition and nowhere can one see such queer names given in the Shankara- Gaudapada or any later literature.  With the sole ulterior motive of selling their vaishnava-wares they hatched a plan to rope-in the Advaita Acharyas whom their own vaishnava Acharyas have severely condemned to eternal hell.  If the Advaita tradition was Vaishnava, why would the vaishnavas even refute it and start their own ‘vedantic’ schools?

And these people go further to produce other names like shaiva advaita and shAkta advaita and who knows what other names they will come up with?  Let it be known to them that whatever deity they prefix to ‘advaita’, the essential Advaitic character of ‘brahma satyam jagan mithyA, jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH’ will not be absent in any of their combinations.  For, the very nature of Advaita is to transcend all deity-devotee duality.  Not realizing this, they try to create confusion among their gullible readers.

They also propagate their own theory that ‘vaikuntha’ and other lokas as admissible in Advaita as ‘eternal loka-s’.  Shankara has vehemently condemned such ideas of any loka-s existing eternally where liberated beings reside.

In the Mundakopanishad 3.2.6 bhashya Shankara says:

परामृताः परम् अमृतम् अमरणधर्मकं ब्रह्म आत्मभूतं येषां ते परामृता जीवन्त एव ब्रह्मभूताः, परामृताः सन्तः परिमुच्यन्ति परि समन्तात्प्रदीपनिर्वाणवद्भिन्नघटाकाशवच्च निवृत्तिमुपयान्ति परिमुच्यन्ति परि समन्तान्मुच्यन्ते सर्वे, न देशान्तरं गन्तव्यमपेक्षन्ते । ‘शकुनीनामिवाकाशे जले वारिचरस्य वा । पदं यथा न दृश्येत तथा ज्ञानवतां गतिः’ (मो. ध. १८१-९) ‘अनध्वगा अध्वसु पारयिष्णवः’ (?) इति श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्याम् ; देशपरिच्छिन्ना हि गतिः संसारविषयैव, परिच्छिन्नसाधनसाध्यत्वात् । ब्रह्म तु समस्तत्वान्न देशपरिच्छेदेन गन्तव्यम् । यदि हि देशपरिच्छिन्नं ब्रह्म स्यात्, मूर्तद्रव्यवदाद्यन्तवदन्याश्रितं सावयवमनित्यं कृतकं च स्यात् । न त्वेवंविधं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति । अतस्तत्प्राप्तिश्च नैव देशपरिच्छिन्ना भवितुं युक्ता ॥

The liberated do not travel to any other place/loka, for any such travel will imply that the jiva is still in samsara. Since Brahman is infinite, the jnani who has realized his identity with Brahman, also being the Infinite Brahman alone, does not go anywhere upon death.  For, Brahman is not a finite place to be reached/attained.  If Brahman were located in a place then Brahman, being no different from any formed object, will have to have a beginning and end, and be dependent on something else, be made of parts, and ephemeral, and a produced one.  Brahman can never be of this nature.  Thus, the ‘attainment’ of Brahman cannot be involving any locating in some other place.

Thus, there is no need for Shankara to deny any eternal loka be it vaikunTha or any other.  For, anything that is not brahman is bound to dissolution.  Madhusudana Saraswati in the Advaita siddhi has also shown that there is no such thing called ‘aprAkRta’ which is outside the realm of prakRti.  The Laghuchandrika clarifies that what is commonly called ‘aprAkRta’ is still within prakRti but that which is not produced in the pancha bhUta transformation process, but bypasses the process.

All non-advaitic moksha is of the nature of traveling to some other loka and remaining there.  Their Brahman will have to be of the above description involving finitude.

While the bloggers have tried to create an impression among their gullible readers that Advaitins too admit of a loka like themselves, they provide various quotes from Madhusudana Saraswati, Sridhara Swamin, etc. to buttress their claim and draw support to their funny ideas.

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/04/sarvajnatmans-sankshepa-shariraka-lucid.html?showComment=1411093441998#c4323709618934694320

// Three advaitins have accepted the existence of saguNa-brahman, Vishnu, in Vaikuntha. Also, Madhusudana and Sridhara say that Vaikuntha is eternal.//

They have not known that no true Advaitin will contradict the ShAnkaran position stated above.  Madhusudana Sraswati, in the Advaita Siddhi, refuting the claims of the Dvaitin, concludes:

[Pariccheda 2, p.745 of the Edition published by MM Ananthakrishna Shastry]:

//etena bhagavallokaaderapi nityatvam apAstram.  Ma cha ‘ato hi vaiShNavA lokAH nityAste cetanAtmakaaH. matprasAdAt parAm shAntim sthAnam prApsyasi shAshvatam’ ityAdyAgamavirodhaH, tasya avaAntarapralayasthatvaparatvAt. TasmAt nirguNam nirAk
Aram brahma iti siddham.  Iti advaita siddhau brahmaNo nirAkAratva siddhiH//

[Thus (in view of the foregoing arguments), the ‘eternality’ of divine/lordly/worlds too stands negated.  One aught not to raise an objection that the following scriptural passage is contradicted by the above conclusion:  ‘Therefore indeed the VaishNava loka-s are eternal and are sentient in nature.  By My grace you shall attain the state of great and eternal peace.’  The ‘eternality’ stated in this passage has its purport in the ‘avAntara pralaya’, intermediary dissolution.  Thus stands established that Brahman has no form in the work called ‘Advaita siddhi’.]

The ‘LaghuchandrikA’ gloss by GaudabrahmAnanda adds:

‘There is no pramANa for the existence of a VaikunTha loka which is not a product of the pancha bhutas.’ [abhautika-vaikunThaloke mAnAbhAvAt.’

Thus, whatever has been stated by Madhusudana in his commentary to the Bhagavadgita or any other commentator for any other work like the SrimadbhAgavatam, on the topic of ‘eternal loka’, stands overruled by the above statement of the Advaita Siddhi.

In the Kathopanishad bhashya for 2.3.16 Shankara cites a Vishnu purana verse:

तया नाड्या ऊर्ध्वम् उपरि आयन् गच्छन् आदित्यद्वारेण अमृतत्वम् अमरणधर्मत्वमापेक्षिकम्  ‘आभूतसम्प्लवं स्थानममृतत्वं हि भाष्येत’ (वि.पु. २.८.९७) इति स्मृतेः । ब्रह्मणा वा सह कालान्तरेण मुख्यममृतत्वमेति भुक्त्वा भोगाननुपमान्ब्रह्मलोकगतान् । विष्वङ् नानागतयः अन्या नाड्यः उत्क्रमणे उत्क्रमणनिमित्तं भवन्ति संसारप्रतिपत्त्यर्था एव भवन्तीत्यर्थः ॥

which says: ‘Eternality’ means that state/position that will exist till the dissolution takes place.

Thus, the term ‘Eternal’ is not absolute existence but only relative existence.  The ‘eternality’ of all lokas is of this category alone.

There is no change, therefore, in the traditional Advaitic stand that the ‘brahmaloka to which upAsaka-s go after death and get the Advaitic realization there and thereafter become liberated upon the dissolution of that brahma loka stands firm.

OM

VASTU-PARICCHEDA, ETC.

Here is a comment the blogger ( http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/04/sarvajnatmans-sankshepa-shariraka-lucid.html?showComment=1411093441998#c4323709618934694320 )  has sent to me in response to my article on ‘The names Vishnu, vAsudeva, etc. in the specific instances refer to Nirguna brahman only’. Having no arguments to counter mine, he is using all sorts of abusive language to fill his page. That is what his lot is. My responses are in between [ ]

Good to see you contradicting the Chandrika and openly challenging Sridhara.

[First of all, someone who wants to learn Advaita will not be looking into the commentary for the Naiṣkarmyasiddhi for the invocatory or mangala shlokas or the Śrīmadbhāgavatam. Regarding the Chandrikā, I have only shown how his commentary contradicts Shankara’s commentary on ‘tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam’ of the Kaṭhopaniṣat and that the Chandrikā is not to be relied upon in understanding what Shankara comments on that expression: viṣṇnoḥ paramam padam.]

Fact is, it is impossible to deny that the Chandrikā compares Shiva and Adi Shankara, and openly makes reference to their yoga sAmarthya, so your logic is to simply say you know more than Jnanottama.

[No one has denied that the Chandrika makes that comparison. Even without the Chandrika that is evident from the original verse of Sureshwara. ]

Thanks for that, just what we wanted to prove…that you have no link with ancient advaitins!

[You are only proving your pseudo vaishnavism and fanaticism and nothing more and want to somehow make Shankara your brand ambassador. Stop doing that.]

So, one by one you are discarding Jnanottama Misra, Sridhara, Mahesvara Tirtha and several advaitins in desperation…guess you will soon discard Shankara from your “tradition” as well.

[It is evident that you are replying to my post only in desperation. Maheswara Tirtha and ‘several advaitins’ that you have lined up are only commenting on the Ramayana which is hardly a text someone will look for studying Advaita. Their comments on vaikuntha etc. are only text-specific and do not constitute the authority on the topic in Advaita.]

Your statement: If Vishnu is not Shiva, then Vishnu loses the epithet ‘ananta’ since there will be ‘vastu pariccheda’, limitation due to object, in Vishnu.”

You statement on Ananta – clearly shows your ignorance. In the vyAvahArika sath, “ananta” only refers to him being infinite in the sense of pervading everywhere, at all times and all states.

[You are only proving your ignorance of Advaita. First undertake a thorough study under a qualified Advaita Acharya, if you want to verify if your funny claims about ‘ancient advaitins were vaishnavas’ has any bearing in the bhashyas. Also, know that the ‘ananta’ epithet is a svarupa lakshana of Brahman and is not just a vyāvahārika satya. ]

Identity and lack of existence of two entities is not a prerequisite for anantatvam.

[Who told you? Show me where Shankara says this in the Taittiriya Bhashya for the word ‘anantam’. In the Tai.up. 2.1: आकाशो ह्यनन्त इति प्रसिद्धं देशतः; तस्येदं कारणम् ; तस्मात्सिद्धं देशत आत्मन आनन्त्यम् । न ह्यसर्वगतात्सर्वगतमुत्पद्यमानं लोके किञ्चिद्दृश्यते । अतो निरतिशयमात्मन आनन्त्यं देशतः । तथा अकार्यत्वात्कालतः ; तद्भिन्नवस्त्वन्तराभावाच्च वस्तुतः । अत एव निरतिशयसत्यत्वम् ॥]

Brahman is ananta vastutaḥ because there is no object that is different from It.]

Shiva is not Vishnu, but Shiva’s very existence depends on Vishnu’s pervasion.

[This is the first hand proof of your ignorance of vedanta. And it reveals your non-advaitic origins. For a jiva’s existence there is no need for any dependence on an external entity. Subjects, for example, depend on a King for their survival. Jivas can at best be said to depend on Ishwara for their karma phala bhoga/bhogya vastu. Even this is based on their karma and Ishwara is a mere passive agent here. The BG 5.14 says:

न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः ।
न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ॥ १४ ॥

न कर्तृत्वं स्वतः कुरु इति नापि कर्माणि रथघटप्रासादादीनि ईप्सिततमानि लोकस्य सृजति उत्पादयति प्रभुः आत्मा । नापि रथादि कृतवतः तत्फलेन संयोगं न कर्मफलसंयोगम् । यदि किञ्चिदपि स्वतः न करोति न कारयति च देही, कः तर्हि कुर्वन् कारयंश्च प्रवर्तते इति, उच्यते — स्वभावस्तु स्वो भावः स्वभावः अविद्यालक्षणा प्रकृतिः माया प्रवर्तते ‘दैवी हि’ (भ. गी. ७-१४) इत्यादिना वक्ष्यमाणा ॥

The Atman does not do anything. It is only māyā that does everything. So, there is no dependence on the jiva for anything on Ishwara, excepting the chaitanya sānnidhyam to activate māyā.

Thus, there is no way Shiva is dependent on Vishnu for his very existence. Only a superimposed snake has to depend on the substratum rope for its very existence. On that ground, Vishnu has to depend on the Nirguna Brahman (and māyā) for his very existence. The BG 2^nd chapter says:

अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च ।
नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः ॥ २४ ॥

The Atman is all-pervading. All jivas are all-pervading. Shiva and Vishnu are all-pervading. To be all-pervading one need not depend on another. It is one’s svarūpa. Also, one’s all-pervading nature will not grant any existence to anyone. So, put an end to your ‘Shiva dependent on all-pervasive Vishnu’ theory.

‘jagadvyāpine namaḥ, jagadgurave namaḥ, sāttvikāya, shuddhavigrahāya, anantāya, haraye..etc. are just a few names of Shiva in the aṣṭottaram. None of these ‘depend’ on Viṣṇu’s vyāpakatvam. ]

Bheda is upheld in the dependence of one entity on another. A table is not dependent on a stool, but the existence of shiva depends on Vishnu just as a body is ashes without the Atma.

[In the Taittiriyāraṇyaka occurs the mantras ‘sadyojātam…etc.’ among them is ‘jyeṣṭhāya’ for which sāyana comments: sarvajagadutpatteḥ pūrvabhāvitvāt jyeṣthaḥ’ (Because Shiva exists even before the creation of the entire world, He is called jyeṣṭha, the ‘elder’.) ‘Iśvaraḥ sarvabhūtānām – akhilaprāṇinām Iśvaraḥ, niyāmakaḥ’ (Shiva is the Lord/controller of all beings)..’brahmaṇo’dhipatiḥ - Shiva is the Overlord of brahmā’. He has never said that these mantras are about Viṣṇu which the vaiṣṇava would desperately try to twist and impose.

If Shiva has to depend on Vishnu for his existence, Vishnu has to depend on Nirguna Brahman for his very existence. Without that sattā of Nirguna Brahman, Vishnu has no independent sattā. All entities in creation derive their sattā from NB alone. This is the basis for holding the world to be mithyā; svasattāshūnyatvāt. Even ashes have an existence and that sattā is of NB.]

Stop confusing your half baked knowledge of advaita with random trash.

[Stop confusing others with your zero knowledge of advaita with random trash.]

First understand what vastu pariccheda means in vyAvahArika sath of advaita and also in VA and Dvaita traditions.

[Go to an advaita scholar to study this.]

“Parabrahman” in advaita only means that the entity which is nirguNa, the paramArtha tattva,is vAsudeva (saguna brahman) under suddha sattva upAdhIs.

[The paramārtha tattva of Advaita is NB and not any saguṇa deity. In BSB 2.1.14 Shankara has denied all attributes like sarvajnatva, essentially effects of sattva upādhi, as avidyākalpita in the paramārtha tattvam. In BG 2^nd chapter Shankara says: ‘I am non-different from Vāsudeva.’

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । द्वितीयोऽध्यायः । श्लोक ६१ – भाष्यम्

तानि सर्वाणि संयम्य संयमनं वशीकरणं कृत्वा युक्तः समाहितः सन् आसीत मत्परः अहं वासुदेवः सर्वप्रत्यगात्मा परो यस्य सः मत्परः, ‘न अन्योऽहं तस्मात्’ इति आसीत इत्यर्थः ।

A jiva can never identify himself with the shuddha sattvopadhi vāsudeva. The identity in Advaita is only with the shuddha nirupādhika chaitanyam.]

The term “Parabrahman” denotes the dual state of nirguNa brahman and saguNa isvara. When Shankara says “vAsudeva is the paramArtha tattva”, he means that the paramArtha tattva is verily vAsudeva because it is nirguNa brahman under suddha sattva upAdhIs.

[Surely Shankara never confuses his students like the way you are confused. All this is a result of reading the bhāṣya all by oneself, without the guidance of a qualified teacher. The paramārtha tattvam can never be sopādhika brahman. You will never understand this since you can never go beyond sopādhika brahman. That alone is paramārtha for you.]

Madhusudhana clearly establishes that it is the lord of vaikunta. Since the upAdhIs are sattva, there is no scope for ignorance and hence, saguNa brahman is verily the dual state of “dvirUpa paramEsvara” in advaita.

[There is no such a ‘dvirūpa’ parameshwara in advaita. Do not invent weird things from your hotchpotch thinking. If Madhusudana says that he is referring to only māyopādhika brahman and not the NB.]

Similarly, nArAyaNa parO vyaktAt only means that saguNa brahman, nArAyaNa, whose essential nature is nirguNa, is beyond prakrti.

[In advaita, Ishwara and avyakta are non-different. I have already pointed out this in an earlier post comparing BG 10^th ch and 8^th ch. verses on the Lord saying He is the cause of everything and also that avyakta is the cause of everything. Again, the Mānḍūkya sixth mantra dealing with Ishwara is overruled by the seventh mantra that negates the Iswara status as belonging to the cause-effect duality. Whichever is the seed of creation is within creation and not transcending it. In the bhāṣya for the very opening mantra of the māṇḍūkya, Shankara says, at the end: ओङ्कारविकारशब्दाभिधेयश्च सर्वः प्राणादिरात्मविकल्पः अभिधानव्यतिरेकेण नास्ति ; ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) ……भूतं भवत् भविष्यत् इति कालत्रयपरिच्छेद्यं यत्, तदपि ओङ्कार एव, उक्तन्यायतः । यच्च अन्यत् त्रिकालातीतं कार्याधिगम्यं कालापरिच्छेद्यमव्याकृतादि, तदपि ओङ्कार एव ॥ [All that is a superimposition on Atman is not existent as apart from the word that is used to denote it. That which is beyond time but inferred as a cause through the effect, and which is not delimited by time such as avyākṛta, that too is omkāra alone. That means, Ishwara, who is beyond time, but inferred to be a cause of the world, and is not delimited by time, is also omkara alone. Just before that the bhāṣya says: रज्ज्वादिरिव सर्पादिविकल्पस्यास्पदमद्वय आत्मा परमार्थतः सन्प्राणादिविकल्पस्यास्पदं यथा, तथा सर्वोऽपि वाक्प्रपञ्चः प्राणाद्यात्मविकल्पविषय ओङ्कार एव । स चात्मस्वरूपमेव, तदभिधायकत्वात् । ओङ्कारविकारशब्दाभिधेयश्च सर्वः प्राणादिरात्मविकल्पः अभिधानव्यतिरेकेण नास्ति ; ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) (All that is denoted by words is non existent, as they do not exist apart from the word that denotes them. Thus, avyākṛta, Iśwara, is non-existent apart from the word that denotes it.)

So, the Brahman that is beyond avyakta is decidedly NB, Turiya, in advaita. Do not mix up non-advaitic trash with advaita and pollute advaita. That which is beyond prakrti can be only NB in advaita. Ishwara is inseparably united with prakriti. Even the BG has several verses on this. Without prakrti Iswara can not even create anything. His dependence on prakrti is well established in the BSB 1.4.3 too. There तदधीनत्वादर्थवत् ॥ ३ ॥ Shankara says: we have to admit the pradhāna-like nascent state (seed state also called avyakta). For, otherwise, He says, the Vedantic अत्रोच्यते — यदि वयं स्वतन्त्रां काञ्चित्प्रागवस्थां जगतः कारणत्वेनाभ्युपगच्छेम, प्रसञ्जयेम तदा प्रधानकारणवादम् ; परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, न स्वतन्त्रा । सा चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या ; अर्थवती हि सा ; न हि तया विना परमेश्वरस्य स्रष्टृत्वं सिध्यति, शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः । brahman cannot do anything without it.

So, do not bring in your non-advaitic stuff to salvage Vishnu from the throes of prakrti and sully the advaitic waters.]

“visnor paramam padam” – even sarvajnAtma uses the term “bhagavatO visnoH paramam padam” and “murArEh paramam padam” for which you have no answer to Ramatirtha and Nrsimhasrama’s commentary.

[First improve your fundamental grammar. It is awful to see you repeating endlessly / visnor paramam /. It is visnoḥ paramam.

Let them use it that way. None can deny what Shankara has said in the Kaṭha bhāṣya which I have cited. To know the ultimate meaning of that expression of the Kaṭha shruti, one has to go with the bhāṣyam and not any other contextual references. Viṣṇu and his supreme state are not two different things as per the upaniṣad. ]

They equate Murari with Krishna openly. The subodhini also says “jagatpAlaka vishNu” and uses the “sattva upAdhi” term as well. Hence, “visnor paramam padam” only means, “the supreme (nirguNa) state of the all-pervasive saguNa isvara (vishNu)”. This vishNu is identified as the deity of pAncarAtrikas, ie, nArAyaNa everywhere by Shankara. That is why the Chandrika says that the AdhiSthAna or base of the vyapanashIla jagat kAraNa saguNa brahman (deva vishNu) is nirguNa brahman.

[Let them equate the way they want. That is not the point here. Ignorance (in advaita) is dispelled by Nirguṇ brahma jñānam alone. I have provided the BG quote too. The all-pervasive saguṇa Iswara is also pervaded by NB in Advaita. Shankara has refuted the pāncarātra as the one (Śāṇḍilya) who rejected the veda in the BSB विप्रतिषेधाच्च ॥ ४५ ॥ वेदविप्रतिषेधश्च भवति — चतुर्षु वेदेषु परं श्रेयोऽलब्ध्वा शाण्डिल्य इदं शास्त्रमधिगतवानित्यादिवेदनिन्दादर्शनात् । तस्मात् असङ्गतैषा कल्पनेति सिद्धम् ॥ ४५ ॥

and the only part that is admissible for him is that they hold Vāsudeva is the abhinna nimitta upādāna kāraṇam of the jagat (which only Advaita vedanta holds) and that that is the paramartha tattvam. In advaita the paramārtha tattvam is NB. So, Shankara admits that system, in part, only because their parmārtha tattvam, called ‘Vāsudeva’ is the Vedantic Brahman which is not saguṇa.]

nirguNa brahman does not pervade the deva vishNu, you clumsy moron.

[You dull headed creature, NB is the substratum for the entire creation including deva viṣṇu which is a superimposition on NB.

तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च, न परमार्थतो विद्यया अपास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूपे आत्मनि ईशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यते ; तथा चोक्तम् — ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमा’ (छा. उ. ७-२४-१) इति ; ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५) इत्यादि च ; एवं परमार्थावस्थायां सर्वव्यवहाराभावं वदन्ति वेदान्ताः सर्वे ; तथेश्वरगीतास्वपि — ‘न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः । न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते’ (भ. गी. ५-१४) ॥ ‘नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभुः । अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः’ (भ. गी. ५-१५) इति परमार्थावस्थायामीशित्रीशितव्यादिव्यवहाराभावः प्रदर्श्यते ;

The highlighted part means: Ishwaratvam characterized by omniscience and omnipotence are products of avidyā and its resulting finitizing. Thus, according to Shankara, the Ishwara (whichever deity it might be) if endowed with omnipotence, etc. is a paricchinna entity only of NB. Of course, this finitizing is not real, since it is caused by the ignorance-upādhi.   If deva Viṣṇu is Ishwara, he cannot escape being a paricchinna entity as per Shankara. Non-advaitins can never digest this. That is why the founders of those schools severely criticized Shankara for virtually bulldozing all kalyana gunas from Ishwara and declaring an ashabdamasparsham…etc. brahman as the Supreme Reality. ]

That would mean you are admitting two entities (the pervaded deva and the pervading nirguNa brahman) while acknowledging paramAthika sath, which is impossible. Neither can nirguNa brahman pervade for it is all in the sense of being the only one (sarvam).

[This is another standard misconception of non-advaitins. Whenever such expressions as ‘adhiṣṭhāna – āropita, vyāpya – vyāpaka’ type of relations are used in Advaita, it is not any duality but only ādhyāsika sambandha. No one would count the superimposed snake as a second entity after the underlying rope. So too the vyāpya (pervaded) deva Viṣṇu is an adhyasta vastu on the vyāpaka NB. Hence the defect of two entities is never there in Advaita. Any number of āropita objects on the adhiṣthānam NB will not render the latter devoid of its innate advitiya nature. Shankara has said this in the adhyāsa bhāṣya and also in the māṇḍūkya kārikā bhāṣya 2.17 (आत्मा एतेष्वनुगतः, सर्वत्राव्यभिचारात्, यथा सर्पधारादिभेदेषु रज्जुः ।.The Atman, which is only one, is immanent in all creation just as the one rope is immanent in all the various superimpositions possible on a rope like snake, a streak of water, etc.   Dunces who do not understand fundamentals of Advaita take up positions to argue. It is time they shut up and mend their brains. ]

Jnanottama clearly attributes vyapanashIlatva to the deva vishNu only.

[If he has not attributed all-pervading nature to Brahman it is his folly. Shankara never commits such a folly. ]

The devas – vishNu, shiva, etc are all nirguNa in essence, but under upAdhIs they are differentiated. Shiva, Brahma, etc are under rajO and tamO guNa upAdhIs. Thus, they are objectionable objects for upAsaNa.

[Just becuase you are full of rajo and tamo guṇas do not superimpose them on Shiva.

Srimad Bhagavatam 4.6.49

Brahmā addresses Shiva:

bhavams tu pumsah paramasya mayaya

durantayasprsta-matih samasta-drk

taya hatatmasv anukarma-cetahsv

anugraham kartum iharhasi prabho

SYNONYMS

bhavan -- Your Lordship; tu -- but; pumsah -- of the person; paramasya -- the supreme; mayaya -- by the material energy; durantaya -- of great potency; asprsta -- unaffected; matih -- intelligence; samasta-drk -- seer or knower of everything; taya -- by the same illusory energy; hata-atmasu -- bewildered at heart; anukarma-cetahsu -- whose hearts are attracted by fruitive activities; anugraham -- mercy; kartum -- to do; iha -- in this case; arhasi -- desire; prabho -- O lord.

TRANSLATION

My dear lord, you are never bewildered by the formidable influence of the illusory energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore you are omniscient and should be merciful and compassionate toward those who are bewildered by the same illusory energy and are very much attached to fruitive activities.

Here is a fine dhyaṇa shloka on Shiva:

॥ शिवध्यानम्‌॥

शान्तं पद्मासनस्थं शशधरमुकुटं पञ्चवक्त्रं त्रिनेत्रं
शूलं वज्रं च खड्‌गं परशुमभयदं दक्षिणांगे वहन्तम्‌।
नागं पाशं च घण्टां डमरुकसहितां चांकुशं वामभागे
नानालंकारदीप्तं स्फटिकमणिनिभं पार्वतीशं नमामि॥

I prostrate myself before the five-faced Lord of Parvati, who is adorned with various ornaments, who shines like Sphatika jewel, who is seated peacefully in lotus pose, with moon-crested crown, with three eyes, wearing trident, Vajra, sword and axe on the right side, serpent, noose, bell, Damaru and spear on the left side and who gives protection from all fears to His devotees.

‘upāsakānām yadupāsanīyam…’ is a famous hymn on Dakṣiṇāmūrti by Shankara. Just because some fanatics do not know this, the advaitins who know this will not subscribe to your clumsy ideas. ]

Sanātana dharma is full of methods of obtaining the grace of Shiva for a person’s spiritual sādhana.]

VishNu is nirguNa under sattva upAdhIs and hence he alone is free of mAya; he is the mahEsvara who controls mAya and is worthy of upAsaNa.

[No one is free of māyā. Even sattva is within māyā alone. Krishna says in the BG that all three worlds are within the grip of māyā’s three guṇas.

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.48 Summary

In this chapter Lord Sri Krishna first visits Trivakra (also known as Kubja) and enjoys with her, and then He visits Akrura. The Lord sends Akrura to Hastinapura to satisfy the Pandavas.

After Uddhava had related to Sri Krishna the news of Vraja, the Lord went to the home of Trivakra, which was decorated with diverse ornamentation conducive to sexual enjoyment. Trivakra welcomed Krishna with great respect, giving Him a raised seat and, together with her female companions, worshiping Him. She also offered Uddhava a seat, as befitted his position, but Uddhava simply touched the seat and sat on the floor.

Lord Krishna then reclined on an opulent bed as the maidservant (of Kamsa) Trivakra elaborately washed and decorated herself. Then she approached Him. Krishna invited Trivakra to the bed and began to enjoy with her in various ways. By embracing Lord Krishna, Trivakra freed herself of the torment of lust. She asked Krishna to remain with her for some time, and the considerate Lord promised to fulfill her request in due course. He then returned with Uddhava to His residence. Apart from offering sandal paste to Krishna, Trivakra had never performed any pious acts, yet simply on the strength of the piety of this single act she attained the rare personal association of Sri Krishna.

Krishna’s tricking Vṛnda (Tulasi) and robbing her chastity is another instance.

When Krishna does this, it is ‘shuddha sattvopādhi’. If any other, say, Brahma or Shiva were to do this, it is under the influence of rajas/tamas/ignorance!! Hell with your fanaticism.

As I pointed out above, ‘sāttvikāya namaḥ, shuddhavigrahāya namaḥ, shāśvatāya namaḥ’ etc. are some of the names of Shiva. If all these accrue to Shiva through Viṣṇu as per your fractured logic, then the advaitin will quickly point out that all the gunas of viṣṇu ( if he is the Iswara) too are superimposed by avidyā as per Shankara in the BSB 2.1.14. In any case, Viṣṇu is not the sole agent to ‘give’ all gunas to others. Stop your fanatical utterances which only make you a laughing stock.]

The Chandrika clearly points this out and so do Shankara and Anandagiri, and yet you can only rile against Jnanottama mishra in your ignorance.

[Shankara and Anandagiri never do this. I have studied the Prashnopanishad bhāṣyam. If any, the upaniṣad and the bhashyam only say that ‘one entity (prāṇa), as Rudra engages in the world-dissolution activity and as rakṣitā, in the sustaining activity.

प्रश्नोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । द्वितीयः प्रश्नः । मन्त्रः ९ - भाष्यम्

किंच, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, तेजसा वीर्येण रुद्रोऽसि संहरन् जगत् । स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः सौम्येन रूपेण । त्वम् अन्तरिक्षे अजस्रं चरसि उदयास्तमयाभ्यां सूर्यः त्वमेव च सर्वेषां ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥

The mantra and the bhāṣyam bring out the sāmānādhikaraṇyam among all the entities there: prāṇa, rudra and the pālayitā. This is a fine instance of the Upaniṣadic hari-hara aikya concept.

In the BG 11^th chapter, Arjuna, unable to tolerate the terrible form of Krishna, wants Him to revert to the sowmya form. The Lord Himself says that is His ‘ghora’ rŪpam. It is one Lord who showed His terrible form (kālo’ṣmi lokakṣyakakṛt..). It is this very idea in the above bhashyam: One entity as vīrya form for one function and another soumya form for another function. Hence, all murti-s can be meditated upon by discarding the aspect that is not relishable and retaining the one that is pleasant for the upāsaka.]

Shiva is described as the Jagadguru in the Bhāgavatam. The same work also has the Kashyapa prajāpati giving out the glories of Shiva’s vairāgyam to his wife, Diti who sought gratification of her carnal desires in the evening time. Someone who is endowed with so many glories is ‘tama upādhi’ only for you, a tāmasic being. ]

Do not bring in Shiva-Viṣṇu issues while responding.  I am least interested in them. I mentioned some instances above only because you raised that topic. There was no provocation on my part in my earlier blogs on this.  Limit your responses to mere advaita and Shankara’s bhashya.