The release of a new publication (in Sanskrit) with the above title is announced in the following URL::

Comparison of Advaita, Visistadvaita and Dvaita Sanskrit Talk at UC Berkeley

by Sri Bannanje Govindacharya – (a well-known scholar of Dvaita Vedanta)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qLZP56Tzks

I viewed the video and the talk. As could only be expected, the speaker, Sri Bannanje Govindachrya (BG) has largely misrepresented Advaita and taken that opportunity to caricature Advaita and present Dvaita as the flawless system.  Some, of the many, ‘highlights’ of his talk are:

1. Those who follow Shankara are doing that blindly and only those who are buddhijeevi-s (beings endowed with the thinking faculty) follow Ramanuja and Madhva.
2. Historically, when Shankara arrived, the damage to the Vedic tradition was already done by the Buddhists, with royal patronage like that of Ashoka.  People in India were waiting for a ‘saviour’ and Shankara arrived.  Naturally he gained great following.  Anyone in that place would have achieved that (implying that there is nothing special about Shankara).
3. People in India have the tendency of blindly following a ‘pūrva Āchārya’ without questioning.  They would simply tap their cheeks (an act of expressing devotion/respect among Indians).  Such was Shankara’s following.  Even after Ramanuja and Madhwa came and questioned and finished off Advaita, that blind following continues.
4. BG: That the  Atman is all-pervading is not supported by the Upanishad.  That was the prevalent view among Naiyāyikas and Sāṅkhya-s.  Shankara endorsed that alone with some modifications. That Atman is atomic, aṇu, alone is the vedic view.
5. BG: When this view was brought out by Ramanuja and Madhva, Advaita met its end.
6. BG: For Shankara, women are not eligible for mokṣa; they have to be born as men, and then become sannyasins and then alone get mokṣa.

[I am just pointing to Shankara’s commentary here:

māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye’pi syuḥ pāpayonayaḥ |

striyo vaiśyāstathā śūdrāste’pi yānti parāṁ gatim || Gītā – 9-32

9.32 For, O son of Prtha, even those who are born of sin – women, Vaisyas, as also śūdras, even they reach the highest Goal by taking shelter under Me.

Sri Shankara’s commentary –

मां हि यस्मात् पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य माम् आश्रयत्वेन गृहीत्वा येऽपि स्युः भवेयुः पापयोनयः पापा योनिः येषां ते पापयोनयः पापजन्मानः । के ते इति, आह — स्त्रियः वैश्याः तथा शूद्राः तेऽपि यान्ति गच्छन्ति परां प्रकृष्टां गतिम् ॥

//English translation by Swami Gambhirananda (on Sri Sankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary)
9.32 Hi, for; O son of Prtha, ye api, even those; pāpayonayah syuh, who are born of sin;-as to who they are, the Lord says-striyah, women; vaisyāḥ, Vaisyas, tathā, as also; śūdrāḥ, śūdras; te api, even they; yānti, reach, go to; the parām, highest; gatim, Goal vyapāśritya, by taking shelter; mām, under Me-by accepting Me as their refuge.//

It should not be thought that Shankara is implying here that the above category of people will attain male, brāhmaṇa body and sannyāsa āśrama in a later birth and then attain the highest (mokśa).  If such were the case, the very verse of the Lord will be useless, conveying nothing.

The Br.up. 6.5.1 refers to Maitreyī as a brahmavādinī मैत्रेयी ब्रह्मवादिनी बभूव.  There is also the well-known case of Vācaknavī Gārgī (Br.up.5.1.1) referred to by Shankara in the Sūtrabhāṣya 3.4.9.36: रैक्ववाचक्नवीप्रभृतीनामेवंभूतानमपि ब्रह्मवित्त्वश्रुत्युपलब्धेः । The ‘api’ in the Bh.Gī.9.32 is significantly reflected in this sentence, where it is said ‘even’ those who have no eligibility for sannyāsa āśrama are known from the śruti to have attained the liberating knowledge.

In the Bh.Gītā 4.24 Shankara says that for some reason a Knower of the Self, is not able to leave his āśrama (e.g. household), he can continue there itself and still be a non-doer as his ignorance-born doership/enjoyership ideas have been destroyed by Knowledge:

त्यक्त्वा कर्मफलासङ्गं नित्यतृप्तो निराश्रयः ।
कर्मण्यभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि नैव किञ्चित्करोति सः ॥ २० ॥

भाष्यम्

त्यक्त्वा कर्मसु अभिमानं फलासङ्गं च यथोक्तेन ज्ञानेन नित्यतृप्तः निराकाङ्क्षो विषयेषु इत्यर्थः । निराश्रयः आश्रयरहितः, आश्रयो नाम यत् आश्रित्य पुरुषार्थं सिसाधयिषति, दृष्टादृष्टेष्टफलसाधनाश्रयरहित इत्यर्थः । विदुषा क्रियमाणं कर्म परमार्थतोऽकर्मैव, तस्य निष्क्रियात्मदर्शनसम्पन्नत्वात् । तेन एवंभूतेन स्वप्रयोजनाभावात् ससाधनं कर्म परित्यक्तव्यमेव इति प्राप्ते, ततः निर्गमासम्भवात् लोकसङ्ग्रहचिकीर्षया शिष्टविगर्हणापरिजिहीर्षया वा पूर्ववत् कर्मणि अभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि निष्क्रियात्मदर्शनसम्पन्नत्वात् नैव किञ्चित् करोति सः ॥

7. BG says: Shankara was a Vaishnava.  He never donned the bhasma.  It is only those who follow him, out of delusion/ignorance, mouḍhya, don bhasma and portray Shankara in pictures as donning the bhasma.
8. BG: In the explanation of Tat tvam asi, the meaning of Tat as Brahman is completely out of place; grammatically wrong.  ‘Sa ātmā’ is in masculine and therefore, the ‘tat’ there can never be brahman which is neuter.

[Here are some comments on the above observation of BG:

It can be noted that that very section of the Chāndogya upaniṣad (chapter 6 where occurs the teaching of the Sadvidyā by Uddālaka to his son Śvetaketu)  refers to the Supreme Brahman in all the three genders:

1. सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम्  Ch.up. 6.2.1.  Here the words 'Sat', 'ekam' and 'advitīyam' , all in the neuter gender, refer to Brahman.

2.  सेयं देवतैक्षत हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपें व्याकरवाणीति ॥ २ ॥ Ch.up. 6.3.2.  Here the word 'Seyam' is a conjunction of two words 'sā' and 'iyam', both in the feminine gender, referring to the word 'devatā' contained in the conjunction 'devataikṣata'.  This word 'devatā' in the feminine, is referring to the Supreme Brahman, the creator of the Universe and who has entered the created universe as the jīva.

3. स य एषोऽणिमैतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वं तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो

The commentary of Shankara for this is:

स यः सदाख्यः एषः उक्तः अणिमा अणुभावः जगतो मूलम् ऐतदात्म्यम् एतत्सदात्मा यस्य सर्वस्य तत् एतदात्म तस्य भावः ऐतदात्म्यम् । एतेन सदाख्येन आत्मना आत्मवत् सर्वमिदं जगत् । नान्योऽस्त्यस्यात्मासंसारी, ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ नान्यदतोऽस्ति श्रोतृ’ (बृ. उ. ३-८-११) इत्यादिश्रुत्यन्तरात् । येन च आत्मना आत्मवत्सर्वमिदं जगत्, तदेव सदाख्यं कारणं सत्यं परमार्थसत् । अतः स एव आत्मा जगतः प्रत्यक्स्वरूपं सतत्त्वं याथात्म्यम्, आत्मशब्दस्य निरुपपदस्य प्रत्यगात्मनि गवादिशब्दवत् निरूढत्वात् । अतः तत् सत् त्वमसीति हे श्वेतकेतो इत्येवं प्रत्यायितः ..

The words highlighted in pink color show the Upanishadic and Shānkaran commentary for the reference to Brahman, Sat, in the masculine.  It can also be noted that even Shankara uses the word 'Sat' alone, a word used by this very Upanisad to refer to Brahman.

Thus, the Upaniṣad itself is using, alternatively, the three genders to refer to the same entity, Brahman. In fact, the upaniṣad never uses the word 'Brahman' in this entire discourse.  The words it uses to refer to Brahman are: Sat (neuter), Ātmā (masculine) and Devatā (feminine).  So, there is absolutely nothing wrong in Shankara taking the word 'tat' in the above cited mantra as Brahman.  It is quite correct grammatically.

Another instance of an Upaniṣad using two genders in the same mantra is found in the Māṇḍūkya upaniṣad 7th mantra:

नान्तःप्रज्ञं नबहिःप्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं नप्रज्ञानघनं नप्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम् । अदृश्यमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः ॥ ७

The mantra started off in the neuter gender and ends with the masculine. The word highlighted in pink is Ātmā in the masculine.  All the other words used above to denote Brahman are in the neuter.  Thus, just because two or three genders are found in a mantra there is no way they should refer to different entities alone.  The above two instances are a glaring example for such a case. ]

9. Shankara was a crypto buddhist.  Madhva has proved this with several quotes from Buddhistic sources and compared them with Advaita.

[Questions to be asked:  How can a 'Vaiṣṇava' be a Buddhist in disguise?  How can the two co-exist in a person?  And, will a Vaiṣṇava deny Omniscience and Omnipotence to Brahman (see BSB 2.1.14 of Shankara)?  Did Madhva accept Shankara as a Vaishnava?  Obviously no, since Madhva held Shankara to be a demon who was out to destroy Vaishnava dharma. No true Madhva would call Shankara a Vaishnava, in gross disobedience to his Acharya, (whether Ramanuja or Madhva).]

See this article on the subject: ‘Did Shankara prefer any deity?’ here:

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

1. Shankara composed many hymns on Vishnu.  All the other works that go by that name of Shankara are by his followers who also called themselves Shankaracharya.  So, whether these are works of ‘mūla Shankaracharya’ or ‘nirmūla Shankaracharya’ is not known to anyone.  (The sarcasm and the tone of caricature is so open for all to see in BG’s face when he says this.).
2. BG: The development of Vedanta is akin to the development of Science. A scientist establishes a theory and a later theory replaces/ denounces that.  So too in Vedanta.  Advaita was first established only to be undone by the later Acharyas.

[ The case of science is different as it is based on tarka and pratyaksha alone.  On the other hand Vedanta has the solid base of the Veda/upaniṣad.  Veda Vyasa has aphorized 'tarka apratiṣhṭhāmāt...' 2.1.3.11 only to show that a conclusion based on mere tarka is always shaky, to be replaced by those more adept in tarka.  But Vedanta doctrine, basing itself primarily on the Veda is not so.]
What was presented was only lopsided view of Advaita to the scholar-audience at the University.

Adhyāsa and an example thereof

Shankaracharya has defined what adhyāsa is in the preamble to the Brahmasūtra bhāṣyam, both in an elaborate manner and also in a succinct way. The latter is cited here for it is more easily grasped by most people than the first one which involves greater effort. The second occurrence is: अध्यासो नाम अतस्मिन्स्तद्बुद्धिरित्यवोचाम [ ‘We have said that adhyāsa (superimposition/error) is the cognition of something as some other thing.’ In the same document Shankara has also summarized the various views on adhyāsa pointing to a common feature among all those views: सर्वथापि तु अन्यस्यान्यधर्मावभासतां न व्यभिचरति । तथा च लोकेऽनुभवः — शुक्तिका हि रजतवदवभासते, एकश्चन्द्रः सद्वितीयवदिति ॥ [‘From every point of view, however, there is no difference as regards the appearance of one thing as something else. And in accord with this, we find in common experience that the nacre appears as silver, and a single moon appears as two.’]

One comes across a fine example that demonstrates what adhyāsa is in the following page:

Dvaita-Advaita QA    https://sites.google.com/site/madhwaprameyaqa/home/dvaita-advaita

The following is a part of the above page:

QUOTE

// Q: #2 Prayatna is of no use, because it depends on the Lord who is sarva-prEraka.

KT: Prayatna is always of use and it must always be done. Note that if your swarupa-yOgyata compels you to do prayatna, you will be compelled to do so. Isn’t it? The sarva preraka Lord will do preraNa as per one’s swarupa-yOgyata and engages one to do prayatna.

In fact, Prayatna is of no use in case of Advaita -where jIva is God and so where is the need for Prayatna? If Advaita claims that Prayatna is to make the jIva realize that he is God, then it is biting its own tail. If jIva is omniscient God, then he must know that even without any prayatna. If not, he is no omniscient God.

Q: #3 There’s no way of knowing one’s swaruupa, so the jiiva could become confused about its saadhana.

KT: Firstly, what is the correlation between “knowing one’s swaruupa” and “the jiiva could become confused about its saadhana”?

Secondly, there is a way of knowing one’s swarUpa. That is what is aparoxa j~nAna. One must strive for that. There is at least some evidence for that and it is not hard to conceive that. What is impossible and what does not have evidence is “an ordinary soul becoming into God”. Even Sankaracharya has not achieved this even as per Advaitis.

The amount of confusion of a jIva is dependent on the yogyata of jIva.

In case of Advaita, there’s no way of knowing one’s swaruupa. In Advaita, knowing one’s swarUpa is realizing that one is God. This is most ridiculous because this entails that “there are so many Gods floating around, who did not realize that they are God.”

God always knew that He is God and specific to our context, when He incarnated on earth, He knew that He is God. No ordinary jIva, no matter what he does, can ever become God. So, Advaita is an untenable position.

Q: #4 No incentive for action, because swaruupa determines the outcome, so if you’re saatvik, you’re going to be liberated, so why break your head over this?

KT: Because that is your swaruupa. Can you go against your swaruupa? If you think you can, then that is not your swaruupa. If it is your swaruupa, then you can’t go against it.

Otoh, in case of Advaita, there is no incentive for action. If you are God, nothing can change the outcome, so why break your head over this? If you are not God, then you are no Advaitin. What is worse is that in case of Advaita, even the most despicable jIva is non-different from God. //

UNQUOTE

The ‘repḷies’ by the blogger form a fine example of adhyāsa. From the replies it is evident that what is not Shāṅkara Advaita is wrongly seen/understood to be so.

Here are parts of the ‘replies’ (quoted between // – //) and rebuttals to them by citing / stating what Advaita taught by Shankara through the bhāṣya-s :

// In fact, Prayatna is of no use in case of Advaita -where jIva is God and so where is the need for Prayatna? If Advaita claims that Prayatna is to make the jIva realize that he is God, then it is biting its own tail. If jIva is omniscient God, then he must know that even without any prayatna. If not, he is no omniscient God. //

The fact is Shānkaran Advaita never claims ‘Jiva is God’. The word ‘God’ is a little misleading here for it may usually mean the Omniscient, etc. Lord or by some stretch, the Nirguṇa Brahman. But by the emphasis found in the ‘reply’ the word ‘God’ is taken as the Omniscient Lord alone. Why does Advaita not propose to equate the jīva with the Omniscient God? The reply is: In Advaita, both the entities jiva and God (Iśwara) are in truth the Pure Consciousness, nirupādhika chaitanyam, appearing as sopādhika ones, that is, they are endowed with upādhis. The jiva is endowed with the pancha koshas (annamaya, etc. which Advaita holds as anātman) as upādhis and God/Ishwara is endowed with sarvajñatva, sarvaśaktitva, etc. upādhis, going by the translated words ‘Omniscience, Omnipotence, etc.’ In Advaita these are all adjuncts superimposed on the Nirguṇa Brahman which is ever free of any upādhis. Thus, there will be no use, and also not possible, to unite or identify or equate the jiva with Ishwara.

Says Shankara in the BSB 2.1.14:

// 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..//

[Iśwara’s Lordship, Omniscience and Omnipotence are caused by limitations born of upādhis which have ignorance for their root. They do not subsist in the absolute sense when Atman is realized to be free of all upādhis (limiting adjuncts) through right knowledge, vidyā when the vyavahāra involving omniscience, omnipotence do not remain. Hence is stated by the Chāndogya upaniṣad 7.24.1: When one does not see another, hear another, knows another, that state is Infinite, bhūmā. And the Br.up. 4.5.15 says: when for one all has become the Self then with what does he see what? Etc.]

Thus, according to Advaita, when the attributes such as Omniscience and Omnipotence are not absolutely real, there is no way the jīva is taught to be non-different from Iśwara. Another misconception of the blogger that ‘Ishwara has to know his true self through prayatna, effort’ is also not what Advaita teaches. Advaita holds Ishwara to be ever sarvajna and never bound requiring Him to put efforts to know Himself. In fact, in advaita, Ishwara is the one who graces the jiva with the Advaitic knowledge:

BSB 2.3.41:

// कर्माध्यक्षात्सर्वभूताधिवासात्साक्षिणश्चेतयितुरीश्वरात्तदनुज्ञया कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वलक्षणस्य संसारस्य सिद्धिः ; तदनुग्रहहेतुकेनैव च विज्ञानेन मोक्षसिद्धिर्भवितुमर्हति । कुतः ? तच्छ्रुतेः ; यद्यपि दोषप्रयुक्तः सामग्रीसम्पन्नश्च जीवः, यद्यपि च लोके कृष्यादिषु कर्मसु नेश्वरकारणत्वं प्रसिद्धम्, तथापि सर्वास्वेव प्रवृत्तिष्वीश्वरो हेतुकर्तेति श्रुतेरवसीयते ; तथा हि श्रुतिर्भवति — ‘एष ह्येव साधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्य उन्निनीषते । एष ह्येवासाधु कर्म कारयति तं यमधो निनीषते’ (कौ. उ. ३-७) इति, ‘य आत्मनि तिष्ठन्नात्मानमन्तरो यमयति’ इति च एवंजातीयका ॥ ४१ ॥

[It is by His, Ishwara’s grace alone the vijñāna, realization, arises which results in liberation.]

The Advaitic realization of ‘I am Brahman’ is possible only when both the jiva and Ishwara are shorn of the upādhis and the unnegatable Pure Consciousness alone is recognized and realized as one’s true self. Evidently, the blogger has not understood this fact of Shānkaran Advaita and expresses that ignorance/confusion in the ‘reply’ cited above. No jiva, when in the state of bondage and in the state of liberation, claims he is Ishwara/God who is the Omniscient one. Hence, there is no situation where one is ‘biting his tail’ as envisaged by the blogger. Also there is no situation in Adviata where ‘”there are so many Gods floating around, who did not realize that they are God.”’ for the reason stated above. In Advaita there is only one Ishwara for all the jiva-s who are subject to Him. The jiva-jiva, jiva-Iśwara bheda is admitted in Advaita too in vyāvahārika. “an ordinary soul becoming into God”. is also not an Advaitic position for the same reason given above. The blogger’s observation ‘Even Sankaracharya has not achieved this even as per Advaitis.’ needs a little clarification from the Advaitin:

Traditional advaitins hold Shankaracharya as Lord Shiva alone. So, there is no question of Shankaracharya ‘achieving’ Ishwarahood. The concluding verses of the Mādhavīya Shankara vijaya say:

At the end of Shiva’s role as the Acharya, His ascension to His abode is described thus:

इन्द्रोपेन्द्रप्रधानैः त्रिदशपरिवृढैः स्तूयमानः प्रसूनै-

र्दिव्यैरभ्यर्च्यमानः सरसिरुहभुवा दत्तहस्तावलम्बः ।

आरुह्योक्षाणमग्र्यं प्रकटितजटाजूटचन्द्रावतंसः

शृण्वन्नालोकशब्दं समुदितमृषिभिर्धाम नैजं व्रजस्थे ॥ (sarga 16, verse 107)

[Praised by Indira, Viṣṇu and other gods and worshipped with divine flowers, and led by Brahmā who was born in a lotus, taking His hand, that Yatīśwara wearing the crescent moon and the weight of the matted hair, taking His own divine form, ascending on the vṛṣabha, hearing the round of applause of the group of Munis arrived at His abode.]

Thus, there is no question of Shankaracharya attaining any new status. On another count, Shankaracharya, being brahmajnāni, is also Brahman itself.

Since the blogger is not aware of the correct position of Advaita regarding the Jiva, Ishwara, realization, etc. he has given expression to his confusion in those ‘replies’ which are meant to ‘clarify’ doubts raised by a sincere seeker!! As another example of this confusion and the resultant misrepresentation of Advaita by the blogger, here is another instance:

// Q: He says in this dream world, he is different from the Vishnu he’s worshipping. Which makes all people caught in bondage dvaitins. Out of bondage, there’s only oneness.

KT: In other word, the Advaitin claims that the jIva has at least some existence in samsAra and in Mukti, the jIva ceases to exist. In other words, the purpose of sAdhana is to achieve extinction! Mukti seems really scary!//

Alas! The confusion of the blogger has led him to conclude the extinction of the Advaitic jiva as the consequence of realization!! The Upaniṣad declares: ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति (’The knower of Brahman is Brahman alone’ – Munḍaka. 3.2.9) So, even going by the Upaniṣad, there is no extinction of the knower of Brahman. See what Shankaracharya says in the Brahmasutra bhashya as the mode, prakāra, of such realization:

सूत्र( 4.1.9.13)भाष्यस्थवाक्यम् -

पूर्वसिद्धकर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वविपरीतं हि त्रिष्वपि कालेषु अकर्तृत्वाभोक्तृत्वस्वरूपं ब्रह्माहमस्मि । न इत: पूर्वं कर्ता भोक्ता वा अहमासं, न इदानीं, नापि भविष्यत्काले इति ब्रह्मविदवगच्छति ।

[ Quite contrary to what had been previously regarded as agent and enjoyer, I am verily that Brahman, which, by nature, is neither agent nor enjoyer at all in all the three periods of time.  Even earlier I was never an agent or enjoyer, nor am I so at present; nor shall I be so in future - such is the realization of the knower of Brahman.]

So, where is the question of the Advaitic jīva becoming extinct upon realization of his Brahman-nature? The Lord says in the BG 2.16: na abhāvo vidyate sataḥ. The Existent Brahman never becomes non-existent. So, the jiva who has realized his true nature as Brahman never goes into extinction. What, however, goes into extinction, is his wrongly held jīvatva, samṣaritva bhāva.

In the BSB 3.2.4 सूचकश्च हि श्रुतेराचक्षते च तद्विदः ॥ ४ ॥ [This is a sutra in the svapnādhikaraṇa which says: the dream is an indicator as the shruti says so and the knowers say so.]   Shankara says:

इहापि ‘य एष सुप्तेषु जागर्ति’ (क. उ. २-२-८) इति प्रसिद्धानुवादाज्जीव एवायं कामानां निर्माता सङ्कीर्त्यते ; तस्य तु वाक्यशेषेण ‘तदेव शुक्रं तद्ब्रह्म’ इति जीवभावं व्यावर्त्य ब्रह्मभाव उपदिश्यते — ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (छा. उ. ६-९-४) इत्यादिवत् — इति न ब्रह्मप्रकरणं विरुध्यते ।

//Here too the shruti ‘he who is awake in deep sleep (kaṭhopaniṣad 2.2.8) by the alluding to the popular experience of the deep sleep state, declares that the jiva alone is the creator of the objects of desire in the dream and by the rest of that shruti passage ‘he is pure, he is brahman’ it (the shruti) teaches the Brahman-nature of the jiva after negating his jiva nature, just as the Chandogya 6.9.4 teaches ‘Tat tvam asi’. Therefore the sutra (which is dealing with dream) does not restrict itself to the nature of the jiva, but it is non-contradicting with the context of Brahman too. //

Thus, in Advaita, there is no room for the extinction of the svarupa, which is Brahman, the Pure consciousness, of the jiva; there is an end, however, to the erroneously held jivabhāva alone. It is akin to Karna’s wrongly held notion of ‘Rādheya’ (son of Rādha) coming to an end when he realized that he is indeed Kaunteya, Kunti’s son upon being informed/instructed/revealed by the Lord. Karna himself does not come to an end, only his wrong identity vanishes.

This is only a sample to show that the blogger’s fundamental misconception of advaitic concepts reflects in all his ‘replies’. The same is the case with all the Acharyas of the non-advaitic schools who raised objections against Advaita, only based on their wrong understanding of Advaita. If Advaita is correctly understood, none will have anything to object. One may not accept Advaita as the path suited for oneself, but going about misrepresenting Advaita and misleading the questioners and unwary readers of their blogs is what is unfortunate.

It is enough to show just one or two instances to prove that the entire QA document is flawed.

The document has a fine example in it for the idea of adhyāsa: mistaking Shankaran Advaita to mean so many things that it is really not.

The above article is available for download here:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/3mmna73kfpf1an4/Adhyāsa_and_an_example_thereof.docx

Here are available the recent parts of the article series:

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-muNDakopaniShat—Part-10.ashx

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-kenopaniShat—Part-10.ashx

adbhutam

श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः

प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुत्या, स्मृत्या तथा सूत्रेण बाधः

अद्वैतिनः प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणस्य व्याप्तिं व्यावहारिकदशायां नैव निराकुर्वन्ति । यतो हि लौकिकशास्त्रीयव्यवहारस्य प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणं विना असम्भवं अभ्युपगच्छन्ति । कर्मयोगभक्तिध्यानश्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनगुरुशुश्रूषादि- मोक्षमुद्दिश्य क्रियमाणं कर्म प्रत्यक्षमवश्यमपेक्षते । यत्र दशायां सर्वव्यवहारस्य बाधः श्रुतिप्रामाण्यादङ्गीकुर्वन्ति, तस्यामेव अवस्थायां प्रत्यक्षादिसर्वप्रमाणबाधम् इच्छन्ति अद्वैतिनः । केयमवस्था कथं तस्यावगतिः इति पृष्टे सति इदमुच्यते प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुत्या, स्मृत्या तथा सूत्रेण बाधः यथा सम्भवति तथा वक्तव्यम् इति । तदेवात्र प्रदर्श्यते ।

श्रुत्या बाधः – बृहदारण्यकभाष्ये तावत् कांश्चन श्रुतीनामुल्लेखः क्रियते –

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमोऽध्यायः । चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः १० - भाष्यम्

// सर्वं हि नानात्वं ब्रह्मणि कल्पितमेव ‘एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-२०) ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-१९) ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५) ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१) इत्यादिवाक्यशतेभ्यः, सर्वो हि लोकव्यवहारो ब्रह्मण्येव कल्पितो न परमार्थः सन्…//

तत्र इयं श्रुतिमादाय प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुत्या बाधः प्रतिपाद्यते – ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५) अस्याः श्रुतेर्मन्त्रवर्णः एवं भवति –

// यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति तदितर इतरं जिघ्रति तदितर इतरं रसयते तदितर इतरमभिवदति तदितर इतरं शृणोति तदितर इतरं मनुते तदितर इतरं स्पृशति तदितर इतरं विजानाति यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत्तत्केन कं रसयेत्तत्केन कमभिवदेत्तत्केन कं शृणुयात्तत्केन कं मन्वीत तत्केन कं स्पृशेत्तत्केन कं विजानीयाद्येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्स एष नेति नेत्यात्मागृह्यो न गृह्यतेऽशीर्यो न हि शीर्यतेऽसङ्गो न हि सज्यतेऽसितो न व्यथते न रिष्यति विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयादित्युक्तानुशासनासि मैत्रेय्येतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वमिति होक्त्वा याज्ञवल्क्यो विजहार ॥ १५ ॥ //

अत्र पूर्वभागे प्रत्यक्षमनूद्यते श्रुत्या यत्र द्वैताङ्गीकारावस्थायां अन्यस्य अन्यदर्शनघ्राणादिज्ञानेन्द्रियव्यापरः तथा वदनादिकर्मेन्द्रियव्यापारः मनोबुद्धिव्यापारः चोपलक्षणत्वेन अनूद्यते । अस्मिन्नुदाहरणे सर्वोऽपि प्रत्यक्षसाध्यव्यवहारो गृहीतो वर्तते । ततः परं ’यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्’ इत्यंशेन तुशब्दप्रयोगेण पूर्वोदाहृतप्रत्यक्षव्यवहारं पूर्वपक्षं व्यावृत्य सर्वात्मदर्शनावस्थायां सर्वस्यापि प्रत्यक्षसाध्यव्यवहारस्य असम्भवं ब्रुवन् श्रुतिः आत्मनोऽद्वैतादिस्वभावं बोधयति । एतेन उदाहरणत्वेन दर्शितैकेन श्रुतिवाक्येन प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुतिकृतबाधः प्रदर्शितः ।

स्मृत्या बाधः

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीतायां श्लोकमिमं स्मृतिकृतप्रत्यक्षबाधाय उदाह्रियते –

ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविर्ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम् ।
ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ॥ ४.२४ ॥

भाष्यम्

// ब्रह्म अर्पणं येन करणेन ब्रह्मवित् हविः अग्नौ अर्पयति तत् ब्रह्मैव इति पश्यति, तस्य आत्मव्यतिरेकेण अभावं पश्यति, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं पश्यति ; तदुच्यते ब्रह्मैव अर्पणमिति, यथा यद्रजतं तत् शुक्तिकैवेति । ‘ब्रह्म अर्पणम्’ इति असमस्ते पदे । यत् अर्पणबुद्ध्या गृह्यते लोके तत् अस्य ब्रह्मविदः ब्रह्मैव इत्यर्थः । ब्रह्म हविः तथा यत् हविर्बुद्ध्या गृह्यमाणं तत् ब्रह्मैव अस्य । तथा ‘ब्रह्माग्नौ’ इति समस्तं पदम् । अग्निरपि ब्रह्मैव यत्र हूयते ब्रह्मणा कर्त्रा, ब्रह्मैव कर्तेत्यर्थः । यत् तेन हुतं हवनक्रिया तत् ब्रह्मैव । यत् तेन गन्तव्यं फलं तदपि ब्रह्मैव ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ब्रह्मैव कर्म ब्रह्मकर्म तस्मिन् समाधिः यस्य सः ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिः तेन ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ब्रह्मैव गन्तव्यम् ॥ //

अत्रापि पूर्वोदाहृतश्रुतिवाक्ये यथा तथैव प्रत्यक्षसाध्यहविरर्पणादिव्यवहारोऽनूद्यते । सर्वोऽपि तद्व्यवहारो ब्रह्म साक्षात्कृतवतः पुरुषस्य ब्रह्मातिरेकाभावो गृह्यत इत्येतदुपदिश्यते भगवता । अन्यदपि वाक्यजातमस्ति गीतायामेव – तथा हि ‘कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येत्’ (भ. गी. ४-१८), ’ विद्याविनयसम्पन्ने ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि । शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः ॥ ५.१८ ॥ या निशा सर्वभूतानां तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी । यस्यां जाग्रति भूतानि सा निशा पश्यतो मुनेः ॥ २.६९ ॥ इत्येवंजातीयकं स्मृतिनिर्वर्तितप्रत्यक्षबाधविषये योजयितव्यम् ।

सूत्रेण बाधः

श्रीबादरायणकृतब्रह्मसूत्रेषु द्वितीयाध्यायगतप्रथमपादे ४५. आरम्भणाधिकरणम् तावत् प्रत्यक्षेण गृह्यमाणजगदाख्यकार्यस्य ब्रह्माख्यकारणव्यतिरेकेणाभावशब्दितमिथ्यात्वप्रतिपादनाय विशेषतः प्रवृत्तम् । इदमेवानन्यत्वं कार्यस्य कारणात् ।

तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः ॥ २.१.१४ ॥ भाष्यम्

भावे चोपलब्धेः ॥ १५ ॥ भाष्यम्

सत्त्वाच्चावरस्य ॥ १६ ॥ भाष्यम्

असद्व्यपदेशान्नेति चेन्न धर्मान्तरेण वाक्यशेषात् ॥ १७ ॥ भाष्यम्

युक्तेः शब्दान्तराच्च ॥ १८ ॥ भाष्यम्

पटवच्च ॥ १९ ॥ भाष्यम्

यथा च प्राणादि ॥ २० ॥ भाष्यम्

एवं च प्रस्थानत्रयगतप्रमाणेन प्रत्यक्षस्य बाधो दृष्टः । अस्मिन् सन्दर्भे बाधशब्दस्यार्थः सम्यग्गृहीतव्यः । बाधो नाम न बाधप्रतियोगिनोऽदृश्यत्वम् अपि तु तन्मिथ्यात्वनिश्चय एव । मरुमरीचिकां दृष्ट्वा तत्र उदकबुद्धिर्यस्य जायते तस्यैव तत्समीपं गत्वा नास्त्यत्र जलम् इति सम्यग्ज्ञानं प्राप्य पुनः यत्र यत्र मरुमरीचिकादर्शनं भवति तत्र तत्र उदकाभासदर्शनसमकाले एव तोयसत्वं न कलयति । तथैव प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणजनितविषयप्रमितिवेलायामपि ‘नैव किंचित्करोमीति युक्तो मन्येत तत्त्ववित्। पश्यन् श्रृणवन्स्पृशञ्जिघ्रन्नश्नन्गच्छन्स्वपन् श्वसन्।।५.८।। प्रलपन्विसृजन्गृह्णन्नुन्मिषन्निमिषन्नपि।

इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेषु वर्तन्त इति धारयन्’ (५.९), ’गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते’ (३.२८) इति न तत्र सत्यत्वबुद्धिं भजति । भगवद्गीतायामेव त्रयोदशाध्याये ’इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रमित्यभिधीयते । एतद्यो वेत्ति तं प्राहुः क्षेत्रज्ञ इति तद्विदः ॥ १ ॥ इत्युपक्रम्य क्षेत्रविवरणावसरे महाभूतान्यहंकारो बुद्धिरव्यक्तमेव च । इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः ॥ ५ ॥ इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं संघातश्चेतना धृतिः । एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम् ॥ ६ ॥ इति कृत्स्नस्य प्रमातृ-प्रमाण-प्रमेय-प्रमितिजातस्य क्षेत्रकुक्षिपतितत्वं दर्शयन् तस्य दृश्यत्वमपि, वेद्यत्वमपि, ज्ञापयति भगवान् । एवं च यथा प्रथमस्तरे इन्द्रियाणि प्रति शब्दादिविषयाः विषयत्वम्, वेद्यत्वं, दृश्यत्वं भजन्ते, तथैव तदुत्तरस्तरे इन्द्रियाणामपि तद्विषयैः तज्जनितप्रमितिभिः सह वेद्यत्वम्, विषयत्वम्, दृश्यत्वं च बोधयति भगवान् । दृश्यस्य वेद्यस्य मिथ्यात्वमपि ज्ञापयति अध्यायान्ते – क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोरेवमन्तरं ज्ञानचक्षुषा। भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च ये विदुर्यान्ति ते परम्।।13.35।।

तत्र भाष्यम् -

// — -क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः यथाव्याख्यातयोः एवं यथाप्रदर्शितप्रकारेण अन्तरम् इतरेतरवैलक्षण्यविशेषं ज्ञानचक्षुषा शास्त्राचार्यप्रसादोपदेशजनितम् आत्मप्रत्ययिकं ज्ञानं चक्षुः, तेन ज्ञानचक्षुषा, भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च, भूतानां प्रकृतिः अविद्यालक्षणा अव्यक्ताख्या, तस्याः भूतप्रकृतेः मोक्षणम् अभावगमनं च ये विदुः विजानन्ति, यान्ति गच्छन्ति ते परं परमात्मतत्त्वं ब्रह्म, न पुनः देहं आददते इत्यर्थः।।//

।।13.35।।एवंप्राप्तक्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञविवेकः प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणग्राहिप्रपञ्चस्य इन्द्रियैः सह वेद्यतया, दृश्यतया पश्यन् तस्य मिथ्यात्वमप्यगत्य आ देहपातं कालं नयति । एतादृशपरमार्थज्ञानसद्भावेऽपि व्यावहारिकप्रत्यक्षजनितप्रमां तदुचितव्यवहारेण उपपादयन् जीवत्ययम् । द्रष्टा, क्षेत्रज्ञः, क्षेत्रवेत्ता, नैव बाध्यते, अदृश्यत्वात् [अदृष्टो द्रष्टा..इति श्रुते.: ब्.उप्.३.७.२३], यथा आत्मा, इति अनुमानेन द्रष्टुरबाध्यत्वमपि सिद्ध्यति ।

इति प्रत्यक्षस्य यद्यपि उपजीव्यत्वं श्रुतिस्मृतिसूत्राणि प्रति तथापि तैरेव तस्य बाधो बहुधा उपदिश्यते इति सर्वमनवद्यम् ।

This article can be downloaded from:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/2cxwgh1d2m3agru/pratyakshasya+baadhah.docx

The Sanskrit-English version is available here:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/qcbwd8q040bwqqm/Pratyaksha+English-Sanskrit.docx

श्रीसद्गुरुचरणारविन्दार्पणमस्तु

’

श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः

प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुत्या, स्मृत्या तथा सूत्रेण बाधः

Śrīgurubhyo namaḥ

Annulment of Pratyakṣa by the Śruti, Smṛti and Sūtra

अद्वैतिनः प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणस्य व्याप्तिं व्यावहारिकदशायां नैव निराकुर्वन्ति । यतो हि लौकिकशास्त्रीयव्यवहारस्य प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणं विना असम्भवं अभ्युपगच्छन्ति । कर्मयोगभक्तिध्यानश्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनगुरुशुश्रूषादि- मोक्षमुद्दिश्य क्रियमाणं कर्म प्रत्यक्षमवश्यमपेक्षते । यत्र दशायां सर्वव्यवहारस्य बाधः श्रुतिप्रामाण्यादङ्गीकुर्वन्ति, तस्यामेव अवस्थायां प्रत्यक्षादिसर्वप्रमाणबाधम् इच्छन्ति अद्वैतिनः । केयमवस्था कथं तस्यावगतिः इति पृष्टे सति इदमुच्यते प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुत्या, स्मृत्या तथा सूत्रेण बाधः यथा सम्भवति तथा वक्तव्यम् इति । तदेवात्र प्रदर्श्यते ।

Advaitins do not negate the applicability of pratyakṣa (sense-perception) in the vyāvahārika state. This is because both the worldly and scriptural parlance is impossible to go on without the means called perception. Karma yoga, bhakti, dhyāna, śravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsana, service to the guru, etc. which are performed with the aim of liberation, mokṣa, do require pratyakṣa pramāṇa. In that state alone where, based on the śruti pramāṇa the annulment of all vyavahāra, all the pramāṇas including pratyakṣa are regarded as inapplicable by the Advaitins. What is that state and how is that understood? In reply to such a question is the sequel that demonstrates that pratyakṣa is annulled by the śruti, smṛti and the brahmasūtra.

श्रुत्या बाधः – बृहदारण्यकभाष्ये तावत् कांश्चन श्रुतीनामुल्लेखः क्रियते –

Annullment, bādha, by the Śruti

In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka upaniṣat bhāṣya 1.4.10 Shankara illustrates a few passages from the śruti to show that hundreds of passages of this kind negate all vyavahara. //Br.up.4.4.20 (‘It has to be perceived as One only’), ‘Br.up.4.4.19 (‘There is no multiplicity at all in Brahman’), Br.up.4.5.15 (‘Where it is as though dvaita….’) Chāndogya up. 6.2.1 (‘One only without a second’). All the worldly parlance is superimposed, imagined, in Brahman alone.//

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमोऽध्यायः । चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः १० - भाष्यम्

// सर्वं हि नानात्वं ब्रह्मणि कल्पितमेव ‘एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-२०) ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-१९) ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५) ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१) इत्यादिवाक्यशतेभ्यः, सर्वो हि लोकव्यवहारो ब्रह्मण्येव कल्पितो न परमार्थः सन्…//

तत्र इयं श्रुतिमादाय प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुत्या बाधः प्रतिपाद्यते – ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५) अस्याः श्रुतेर्मन्त्रवर्णः एवं भवति –

Among the above passages this one in particular is taken up here for presentation: Br.up.4.5.15 (‘Where it is as though dvaita….’)

// यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति तदितर इतरं जिघ्रति तदितर इतरं रसयते तदितर इतरमभिवदति तदितर इतरं शृणोति तदितर इतरं मनुते तदितर इतरं स्पृशति तदितर इतरं विजानाति यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत्तत्केन कं रसयेत्तत्केन कमभिवदेत्तत्केन कं शृणुयात्तत्केन कं मन्वीत तत्केन कं स्पृशेत्तत्केन कं विजानीयाद्येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्स एष नेति नेत्यात्मागृह्यो न गृह्यतेऽशीर्यो न हि शीर्यतेऽसङ्गो न हि सज्यतेऽसितो न व्यथते न रिष्यति विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयादित्युक्तानुशासनासि मैत्रेय्येतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वमिति होक्त्वा याज्ञवल्क्यो विजहार ॥ १५ ॥ //

// 15. Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something, one smells something,

one tastes something, one speaks something, one hears something, one thinks something, one

touches something, one knows something. But when to the knower of Brahman everything has

become the Self, then what should one see and through what, what should one smell and through

what, what should one taste and through what, what should one speak and through what,

what should one hear and through what, what should one think and through what, what should

one touch and through what, what should one know and through what ? Through what should

.one know that owing to which all this is known? This self is That which has been described as

• Not this, not this.’ It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never

decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered-it never feels pain, and never suffers

injury. Through what, 0 Maitreyi, should one know the Knower? So you have got the instruction,

Maitreyi. This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear. Saying this Yajfiavalkya

left.//

अत्र पूर्वभागे प्रत्यक्षमनूद्यते श्रुत्या यत्र द्वैताङ्गीकारावस्थायां अन्यस्य अन्यदर्शनघ्राणादिज्ञानेन्द्रियव्यापरः तथा वदनादिकर्मेन्द्रियव्यापारः मनोबुद्धिव्यापारः चोपलक्षणत्वेन अनूद्यते । अस्मिन्नुदाहरणे सर्वोऽपि प्रत्यक्षसाध्यव्यवहारो गृहीतो वर्तते । ततः परं ’यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्’ इत्यंशेन तुशब्दप्रयोगेण पूर्वोदाहृतप्रत्यक्षव्यवहारं पूर्वपक्षं व्यावृत्य सर्वात्मदर्शनावस्थायां सर्वस्यापि प्रत्यक्षसाध्यव्यवहारस्य असम्भवं ब्रुवन् श्रुतिः आत्मनोऽद्वैतादिस्वभावं बोधयति । एतेन उदाहरणत्वेन दर्शितैकेन श्रुतिवाक्येन प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुतिकृतबाधः प्रदर्शितः ।

Here, in the first part the śruti is alluding to, restating, (anuvāda), the pratyakṣa-driven duality-ridden vyavahāra state where all the sense organs are employed. The motor organs’ activity and the mental and intellectual perceptions too are mentioned as a representative. After this, in the next part, the state where ‘everything is realized to be the Ātman’, is described by negating all that was stated as the non-realized state of duality. After doing this, the śruti states the true nature of the Advaitic Self. By this instance the annulment of pratyakṣa by the Śruti is demonstrated.

स्मृत्या बाधः

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीतायां श्लोकमिमं स्मृतिकृतप्रत्यक्षबाधाय उदाह्रियते –

Now the bādha of pratyakṣa by the smṛti is taken up:

ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविर्ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम् ।
ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ॥ ४.२४ ॥

भाष्यम्

// ब्रह्म अर्पणं येन करणेन ब्रह्मवित् हविः अग्नौ अर्पयति तत् ब्रह्मैव इति पश्यति, तस्य आत्मव्यतिरेकेण अभावं पश्यति, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं पश्यति ; तदुच्यते ब्रह्मैव अर्पणमिति, यथा यद्रजतं तत् शुक्तिकैवेति । ‘ब्रह्म अर्पणम्’ इति असमस्ते पदे । यत् अर्पणबुद्ध्या गृह्यते लोके तत् अस्य ब्रह्मविदः ब्रह्मैव इत्यर्थः । ब्रह्म हविः तथा यत् हविर्बुद्ध्या गृह्यमाणं तत् ब्रह्मैव अस्य । तथा ‘ब्रह्माग्नौ’ इति समस्तं पदम् । अग्निरपि ब्रह्मैव यत्र हूयते ब्रह्मणा कर्त्रा, ब्रह्मैव कर्तेत्यर्थः । यत् तेन हुतं हवनक्रिया तत् ब्रह्मैव । यत् तेन गन्तव्यं फलं तदपि ब्रह्मैव ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ब्रह्मैव कर्म ब्रह्मकर्म तस्मिन् समाधिः यस्य सः ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिः तेन ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ब्रह्मैव गन्तव्यम् ॥ //

In the Bhagavadgita 4.24 it is taught:

4.24 The ladle is, Brahman, the oblations is Brahman, the offering is poured by Brahman in the fire of Brahman. Brahman alone is to be reached by him who has concentration on Brahman as the objective As an object to be known and attained. (Some translate brahma-karma-samadhina as, ‘by him who sees Brahman in action’.)

Shankara’s commentary:

// 4.24 Brahma-arpanam, the ladle is Brahman: The knower of Brahman perceives the instrument with which he offers oblation in the fire as Brahman Itself. He perceives it as not existing separately from the Self, as one sees the non-existence of silver in nacre. In this sense it is that Brahman Itself is the ladle-just as what appears as silver is only narcre. (The two words brahma and arpanam are not parts of a compound word, samasa.) The meaning is that, to a knower of Brahman, what is perceived in the world as ladle is Brahman Itself. Similarly, brahma-havih, the oblations is Brahman: To him, what is seen as oblations is nothing but Brahman.In the same way, brahma-agnau, (-this is a compound word-) in the fire of Brahman: The fire into which oblation is hutam, poured; brahmana, by Brahman, by the agent, is Brahman Itself. The meaning is that Brahman Itself is the agent (of the offering). That he makes the offering-the act of offering-, that is also Brahman. And the result that is gantavyam, to be reached by him; that also is brahma eva, surely Brahman.Brahma-karma-samadhina, by him who has concentration on Brahman as the objective//

अत्रापि पूर्वोदाहृतश्रुतिवाक्ये यथा तथैव प्रत्यक्षसाध्यहविरर्पणादिव्यवहारोऽनूद्यते । सर्वोऽपि तद्व्यवहारो ब्रह्म साक्षात्कृतवतः पुरुषस्य ब्रह्मातिरेकाभावो गृह्यत इत्येतदुपदिश्यते भगवता । अन्यदपि वाक्यजातमस्ति गीतायामेव – तथा हि ‘कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येत्’ (भ. गी. ४-१८), ’ विद्याविनयसम्पन्ने ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि । शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः ॥ ५.१८ ॥ ‘या निशा सर्वभूतानां तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी । यस्यां जाग्रति भूतानि सा निशा पश्यतो मुनेः ‘॥ २.६९ ॥ इत्येवंजातीयकं स्मृतिनिर्वर्तितप्रत्यक्षबाधविषये योजयितव्यम् ।

Here too, just as the above referred Śruti passage, the verse is alluding to the pratyakṣa-driven vyavahāra of offering the material in the sacrificial fire. The Lord teaches that all this vyavahāra is seen as non-existent, non-different from Brahman by the self-realized person. There are other verses also in the Gitā which drive home the same point as the above:

4.18 He who finds inaction in action, and action in inaction, he is the wise one Possessed of the knowledge of Brahman among men; he is engaged in yoga and is a performer of all actions!

5.18 The learned ones look with equanimity on a Brahmana endowed with learning and humality, a cow, an elephant and even a dog as well as an eater of dog’s meat.

2.69 The self-restrained man keeps awake during that which is night for all creatures. That during which creatures keep awake, it is night to the seeing sage. [Pl. read the bhāṣya for a clear understanding of these verses.]

Such passages have to be collected to appreciate the pratyakṣa bādha by smṛti.

Now, the bādha of pratyakṣa by the Brahma sūtra is stated:

श्रीबादरायणकृतब्रह्मसूत्रेषु द्वितीयाध्यायगतप्रथमपादे ४५. आरम्भणाधिकरणम् तावत् प्रत्यक्षेण गृह्यमाणजगदाख्यकार्यस्य ब्रह्माख्यकारणव्यतिरेकेणाभावशब्दितमिथ्यात्वप्रतिपादनाय विशेषतः प्रवृत्तम् । इदमेवानन्यत्वं कार्यस्य कारणात् ।

In the Bādarāyaṇa sūtras the 45th Adhikaraṇa (Ārambhaṇādhikaraṇa) consisting of seven sutras deal with this topic of showing that the effect that is the world is non-different from the cause that is Brahman. In other words, the effect does not exist as a separate entity other than an appearance of the cause. The sutras 2.1.14 to 2.1.20 may be studied with the Acharya’s bhāṣya.

तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः ॥ २.१.१४ ॥ भाष्यम्

भावे चोपलब्धेः ॥ १५ ॥ भाष्यम्

सत्त्वाच्चावरस्य ॥ १६ ॥ भाष्यम्

असद्व्यपदेशान्नेति चेन्न धर्मान्तरेण वाक्यशेषात् ॥ १७ ॥ भाष्यम्

युक्तेः शब्दान्तराच्च ॥ १८ ॥ भाष्यम्

पटवच्च ॥ १९ ॥ भाष्यम्

यथा च प्राणादि ॥ २० ॥ भाष्यम्

Conclusion:

एवं च प्रस्थानत्रयगतप्रमाणेन प्रत्यक्षस्य बाधो दृष्टः । अस्मिन् सन्दर्भे बाधशब्दस्यार्थः सम्यग्गृहीतव्यः । बाधो नाम न बाधप्रतियोगिनोऽदृश्यत्वम् अपि तु तन्मिथ्यात्वनिश्चय एव । मरुमरीचिकां दृष्ट्वा तत्र उदकबुद्धिर्यस्य जायते तस्यैव तत्समीपं गत्वा नास्त्यत्र जलम् इति सम्यग्ज्ञानं प्राप्य पुनः यत्र यत्र मरुमरीचिकादर्शनं भवति तत्र तत्र उदकाभासदर्शनसमकाल एव तोयसत्वं न कलयति । तथैव प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणजनितविषयप्रमितिवेलायामपि ‘नैव किंचित्करोमीति युक्तो मन्येत तत्त्ववित्। पश्यन् श्रृणवन्स्पृशञ्जिघ्रन्नश्नन्गच्छन्स्वपन् श्वसन्।।५.८।। प्रलपन्विसृजन्गृह्णन्नुन्मिषन्निमिषन्नपि। इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेषु वर्तन्त इति धारयन्’ (५.९), ’गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते’ (३.२८) इति न तत्र सत्यत्वबुद्धिं भजति । भगवद्गीतायामेव त्रयोदशाध्याये ’इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रमित्यभिधीयते । एतद्यो वेत्ति तं प्राहुः क्षेत्रज्ञ इति तद्विदः ॥ १ ॥ इत्युपक्रम्य क्षेत्रविवरणावसरे महाभूतान्यहंकारो बुद्धिरव्यक्तमेव च । इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः ॥ ५ ॥ इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं संघातश्चेतना धृतिः । एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम् ॥ ६ ॥ इति कृत्स्नस्य प्रमातृ-प्रमाण-प्रमेय-प्रमितिजातस्य क्षेत्रकुक्षिपतितत्वं दर्शयन् तस्य दृश्यत्वमपि, वेद्यत्वमपि, ज्ञापयति भगवान् । एवं च यथा प्रथमस्तरे इन्द्रियाणि प्रति शब्दादिविषयाः विषयत्वम्, वेद्यत्वं, दृश्यत्वं भजन्ते, तथैव तदुत्तरस्तरे इन्द्रियाणामपि तद्विषयैः तज्जनितप्रमितिभिः सह वेद्यत्वम्, विषयत्वम्, दृश्यत्वं च बोधयति भगवान् । दृश्यस्य वेद्यस्य मिथ्यात्वमपि ज्ञापयति अध्यायान्ते – क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोरेवमन्तरं ज्ञानचक्षुषा। भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च ये विदुर्यान्ति ते परम्।।13.35।।

तत्र भाष्यम् -

– -क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः यथाव्याख्यातयोः एवं यथाप्रदर्शितप्रकारेण अन्तरम् इतरेतरवैलक्षण्यविशेषं ज्ञानचक्षुषा शास्त्राचार्यप्रसादोपदेशजनितम् आत्मप्रत्ययिकं ज्ञानं चक्षुः, तेन ज्ञानचक्षुषा, भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च, भूतानां प्रकृतिः अविद्यालक्षणा अव्यक्ताख्या, तस्याः भूतप्रकृतेः मोक्षणम् अभावगमनं च ये विदुः विजानन्ति, यान्ति गच्छन्ति ते परं परमात्मतत्त्वं ब्रह्म, न पुनः देहं आददते इत्यर्थः ।।13.35।।

एवंप्राप्तक्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञविवेकः प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणग्राहिप्रपञ्चस्य इन्द्रियैः सह वेद्यतया, दृश्यतया पश्यन् तस्य मिथ्यात्वमप्यवगम्य आ देहपातं कालं नयति । एतादृशपरमार्थज्ञानसद्भावेऽपि व्यावहारिकप्रत्यक्षजनितप्रमां तदुचितव्यवहारेण उपपादयन् जीवत्ययम् । द्रष्टा, क्षेत्रज्ञः, क्षेत्रवेत्ता, नैव बाध्यते, अदृश्यत्वात् [अदृश्यो द्रष्टा..इति श्रुते.:], यथा आत्मा, इति अनुमानेन द्रष्टुरबाध्यत्वमपि सिद्ध्यति ।

इति प्रत्यक्षस्य यद्यपि उपजीव्यत्वं श्रुतिस्मृतिसूत्राणि प्रति तथापि तैरेव तस्य बाधो बहुधा उपदिश्यते इति सर्वमनवद्यम् ।

श्रीसद्गुरुचरणारविन्दार्पणमस्तु

Thus has been shown/seen the bādha of prtyakṣa as taught in the prasthānatraya. At this juncture it is important to clearly grasp the meaning of the term ‘bādha’ used by Advatins. ‘Bādha’ is not the disappearance from the field of perception of that which is annulled but the determination of its unreality, mithyātvam. When a person perceives a mirage phenomenon, at first, not knowing that it is a mirage formation, he thinks there is water there. When he nears the spot, he gains the knowledge that there is no water but what was experienced is only an appearance thereof. For him, repeated perceptions of similar phenomenon will not bring up the water-thought but he knows that even while appearing so, there is no water really there. In the same manner the Knower of the pāramārthika Truth, even while engaged in perception activity knows that ‘he is not really attached to the apparent perception activity’ as taught in the BG verse:

5.8-5.9 Remaining absorbed in the Self, the knower of Reality should think, ‘I certainly do not do anything’, even while seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, moving, sleeping, breathing, speaking, releasing, holding, opening and closing the eyes-remembering that the organs function in relation to the objects of the organs.

And 3.28 But, O mighty-armed one, the one who is a knower of the facts about the varieties of the gunas (qualities) and actions does not become attached, thinking thus: ‘The organs rest (act) on the objects of the organs.’

This non-attachment is what signifies mithyātva of the perceived objects. He knows that the realm of perception is in the realm of the body-mind which is a perceived object for the Ātman, the realized person.

In this manner he does not hold the pratyakṣa-ridden activity as real. In the Bhagavadgītā itself we have in the 13^th chapter:

13.1 The Blessed Lord said — O son of Kunti, this body is referred to as the ‘field’. Those who are versed in this call him who is conscious of it as the ‘knower of the field’.

Having mentioned the ‘field’, the Lord specifies what that field is constituted of:

13.6 The great elements, egoism, intellect and the Unmanifest itself; the ten organs and the one, and the five objects of the senses;

13.7 Desire, repulsion, happiness, sorrow, the aggregate (of body and organs), sentience, fortitude- this field, together with its modifications, has been spoken of briefly.

Thus having shown that the entire lot of knower-knowing (instruments)-knowable objects and-knowledge to be in the objective field, the Lord goes on to finally negate the entire field as non-existent:

13.35 Those who know thus through the eye of wisdom the distinction between the field and the Knower of the field, and the annihilation of the Matrix of beings,-they reach the Supreme.

The bhāṣya:

13.35 Ye, those who; viduh, know; evam, thus, in the manner described above; jnana-caksusa, through the eye of wisdom-the eye is the realization in the form of the knowledge of the Self, which arises from following the instructions of the scriptures and teachers; through that eye of wisdom; antaram, the distinction, the particular mutual distinction; ksetra-ksetrajnayoh, beween the field and the Knower of the field as they have been explained; and bhuta-prakrti-moksam, the annihilation of the Matrix of beings-the Matrix of beings is that which is described as ignorance and is called the Unmanifest; (those who know) the annihilation (moksanam) of that Matrix of beings; te, they; yanti, reach, go to; param, the Supreme, to Brahman, the Reality which is the suprme Goal. The idea is that they do not take up a body again.

This is the way the Lord teaches the annulment of the kṣetra, field, the objective whole. The Subject, the Knowing Consciousness alone is real, un-negatable as it never comes under the knowable, vedyam, dṛśyam. The Seer/Knower-of-the-field is never annulled, because he is never the seen, ever the Seer.[‘ unseen but the seer…[Br.up.3.7.23]

He who has secured the discriminative realization between the Knower-of-the-field and the field, lives on till the fall of the body, witnessing the pratyakṣa-driven world of vyavahāra knowing full well its unreality, mithyātvam.

Thus, even though pratyakṣa is depended upon by the Śruti, Smṛti and the Sūtra for knowing them, yet since the former (pratyakṣa) is negated, annulled by these three texts (prasthānatraya) themselves, there is no incongruity.

This Sanskrit- only article can be downloaded from:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/2cxwgh1d2m3agru/pratyakshasya+baadhah.docx

It is available for reading:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%83/

The Sanskrit-English version is available here:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/qcbwd8q040bwqqm/Pratyaksha+English-Sanskrit.docx

Śrīsadgurucaraṇāravindārpaṇamastu

The Mundakopanishat article Part 11 is available here for reading:

In the following blog there is a narrative purported to be from the Mahabharatha:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_17.html

Quote

2) Brahma-Rudra dialogue in Shanti Parva

And again, in the Shanti Parva, we have the following incident where Brahma declares Siva is his son, and Siva again addressed Brahma as his father:

uvAca cainaM bhagavAMz cirasyAgatam Atmajam

svAgataM te mahAbAho diSTyA prApto ‘si me ‘ntikam

kaccit te kuzalaM putra svAdhyAyatapasoH sadA

nityam ugratapAs tvaM hi tataH pRcchAmi te punaH

“The Grandsire said, ‘Welcome art thou, O thou of mighty arms. By good luck I see thee after such a long time come to my presence. I hope, O son, that everything is right with thy penances and thy Vedic studies and recitations. Thou art always observant of the austerest penances. Hence I ask thee about the progress and well-being of those penances of thine!”

Then, Rudra replies as follows:

tvatprasAdena bhagavan svAdhyAyatapasor mama

kuzalaM cAvyayaM caiva sarvasya jagatas tathA

Rudra said, ‘O illustrious one, through thy grace, all is well with my penances and Vedic studies. It is all right, again, with the universe.

Unquote

The above quote gives one an impression that Shiva underwent vedic studies.  However, in the ‘Devatādhikaraṇa’ of the Brahmasutra bhāṣya 1.3.26 Shankara says:
न चोपनयनशास्त्रेणैषामधिकारो निवर्त्येत, उपनयनस्य वेदाध्ययनार्थत्वात्, तेषां च स्वयंप्रतिभातवेदत्वात् ;

['Nor does the shāstra regarding upanayana preclude (the devatās from trying and attaining Self-knowledge) for upanayana is meant for vedādhyayana, while the devatās are by themselves endowed with vedic (knowledge.']

In other words, there is no upanayana for Devatas, for they have no varna dharma; caste distinctions. And Upanayana is for veda adhyayana and devata-s have no veda adhyayana as they are deemed to be endowed with Vedic knowledge naturally.

From the above it is clear that the purported episode, dialogue, is only a stuti, eulogy, praise. Of What? It is a background setting for the teaching of the nature of the Puruṣa that is contained in that dialogue. Shankara has repeatedly stated in the Upaniṣad bhāṣyams, in the Yama-Nachiketas, Bhṛgu-Varuṇa dialogue, the Yakṣa-deva-s dialogue of the Kenopanishad, etc. that the story/dialogue background in which the Brahmavidyā is given out is a ‘vidyāstuti’. Thus, the background is unreal, unimportant, inconsequential. What is real, important and consequential, however, is the teaching.

The blogger cites two lines from the above dialogue as being cited by Shankara in the BSB 2.1.1

mamAntarAtmA tava ca ye cAnye dehasaMjJitAH

sarveSAM sAkSibhUto ‘sau na grAhyaH kena cit kva cit

and gives the translation for the last part as ‘No one can grasp or comprehend him at any time.’  The Supreme Atman, Brahman, cannot be contacted by any of the sense/motor organs. However, it can definitely be comprehended. Otherwise the complete teaching of the scripture will be futile and the comprehending/realizing Brahman alone confers liberation.

In any case, for Shankara these lines do not in any way refer to the saguṇa viṣṇu. The context of the BSB where he cites these lines is to determine that the sole reality is only one Advaitic Brahman which is nirguṇa. This alone is called Puruṣa in the Br.up. and the BG 15^th chapter.

Here is the BSB 2.1.1

//महाभारतेऽपि च — ‘बहवः पुरुषा ब्रह्मन्नुताहो एक एव तु’ इति विचार्य, ‘बहवः पुरुषा राजन्सांख्ययोगविचारिणाम्’ इति परपक्षमुपन्यस्य तद्व्युदासेन — ‘बहूनां पुरुषाणां हि यथैका योनिरुच्यते । तथा तं पुरुषं विश्वमाख्यास्यामि गुणाधिकम्’ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘ममान्तरात्मा तव च ये चान्ये देहसंस्थिताः । सर्वेषां साक्षिभूतोऽसौ न ग्राह्यः केनचित्क्वचित् ॥ विश्वमूर्धा विश्वभुजो विश्वपादाक्षिनासिकः । एकश्चरति भूतेषु स्वैरचारी यथासुखम्’ — इति सर्वात्मतैव निर्धारिता । श्रुतिश्च सर्वात्मतायां भवति — ‘यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मैवाभूद्विजानतः । तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (ई. उ. ७) इत्येवंविधा । अतश्च सिद्धमात्मभेदकल्पनयापि कापिलस्य तन्त्रस्य वेदविरुद्धत्वं वेदानुसारिमनुवचनविरुद्धत्वं च,//

The gist of the above is:

1. The enquiry in the MB dialogue is ‘whether there are many selves or only one.’
2. This is the pūrvapakṣa regarding the existence of many selves as admitted by the sānkhya and patanjali systems.
3. The reply is: There is only one.
4. The MB dialogue establishes that the view that there are many selves is veda viruddha.
5. This veda viruddha view is what is propagated by the Dvaita and Visishtadvaita systems by their adhering to the pāncharātra, and hence the MB is completely against their views.
6. Unfortunately the blogger has cited these portions to support his Vishnu-supreme view which is no way done by the MB.
7. For Shankara those verses teach only the Advaitic nirguna Brahman as the only reality with no multiple jivas.
8. In any case, the Shiva-Brahma dialogue is only incidental, being only a stuti, for the vidyā about the Nirguna Advaitic Brahman.

The blogger has some more misconceptions to promote his Vishnu-supreme, Shiva-inferior theory:

//Shiva says that Daksha is following the Pasupata religion in praising him, thus showing that the adhikAris for such worship are pAshupata tAntrikas, who are outside the purview of vedAnta, and not vaidikas. And as everyone knows, the brahma sutras openly denounce the pAshupata matham and embraces the pAncharAtra. Even shaivas accept this fact. Shri Veda Vyasa himself states in the Mahabharata that the Pancharatra is entirely Vedic. For details, the interested reader can refer to Pancharatra adhikaraNa (2.2.40-43) in shrIbhAShya, and/or shrI yAmuna’s Agama prAmANya.

Since the mahAbhArata and the brahma sutras are not held contradictory to one another, the only way to interpret this as a genuine incident is if we consider that Daksha was following an inferior religion, given by Shiva on purpose. As Daksha has ahaMkAram (as evidenced by his insult of shiva) and his mind is not sAttvik, he follows a religion based on his inclinations. In which case, his stOtra to Shiva praising him as the supreme is but in accordance with paShupata matham and hence, veda virodham as declared in the brahma sutrAs. The mahAbhArata simply records that incident and does not endorse it.//

Contrary to the blogger’s thinking, Shankara has shown that the pāncharatra is veda viruddha. In the BSB Shankara cites the bhāgavata school and refutes it as it is inconsistent, admits the jiva to be a created one, etc. And not stopping with that, Shankara says:

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । द्वितीयः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । उत्पत्त्यसम्भवाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ४५ - भाष्यम्

विप्रतिषेधश्च अस्मिन् शास्त्रे बहुविध उपलभ्यते — गुणगुणित्वकल्पनादि लक्षणः ; ज्ञानैश्वर्यशक्तिबलवीर्यतेजांसि गुणाः, आत्मान एवैते भगवन्तो वासुदेवा इत्यादिदर्शनात् । वेदविप्रतिषेधश्च भवति — चतुर्षु वेदेषु परं श्रेयोऽलब्ध्वा शाण्डिल्य इदं शास्त्रमधिगतवानित्यादिवेदनिन्दादर्शनात् । तस्मात् असङ्गतैषा कल्पनेति सिद्धम् ॥ ४५ ॥

The gist of the above is: Shāṇḍilya, a proponent of the pāncharātra school, did that after not finding the means of salvation in all the four Vedas. By doing that he has insulted/reprimanded the veda: vedanindā is the strong word Shankara uses to refute this school as veda viruddha. But the blogger says the Brahma sutras ‘embrace’ the pancharatra. We have already seen above, from the MB dialogue, that the non-advaitic schools such as the pancharatra which is held in high esteem by the dvaitins and the visishtadvaitins, by admitting multiple jivas, is already veda viruddha. Now owing to the veda nindā too, the pancharatra is anti-vedic and hence can never be approved by Veda Vyasa. For this very reason the entire Mahabharata will have to be seen as never supporting the non-advaitic schools. And for this very reason Veda Vyasa, the author of the MB, the BG and the Puranas and the Brahmasutras is not a Vaishnava. For, a Vaishnava would never refute/reject the pāncharātra.

Apart from this, Shankara has also denied the Vedic authority to Pancharatra in the Daśaślokī for which Madhusudana Saraswati (MS) has commented in his work ‘Siddhānta bindu’ which has several sub commentaries too. In the beginning of this work MS explicitly says that this Dasashloki is a work of Shankara.

न साख्यं न शैवं न तत्पाञ्चरात्रं

न जैनं न मीमांसकादेर्मतं वा .

विशिष्टानुभूत्या विशुद्धात्मकत्वात्

तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् .. ४..

“There is no Sankhya nor Saiva, nor that Pancharatra

nor Jaina. The conception of the Mimamsaka and others does not

exist. For, through the specialized direct realisation (akhṇḍākāravṛtti) the Self is known as of the nature of the Absolutely Pure. That One, the Residue, the Auspicious, the Alone, am I.”

As a corollary, the above study also demolishes the blogger’s pet theory: ‘Shankara and some early advaitins were Vaishnavas.’ First of all, no vaishnava, as the term is understood by the dvaitins and VAs, will deny omniscience, etc. to Brahman on the grounds that they are avidya adhyaropita, as Shankara has done in the BSB 2.1.14. If Shankara were a Vaishnava, how would he ever reject the pāncharatra as veda viruddha as it is a product of Shāndilya’s veda nindā? No dvaitin or VA would ever do that. Their philosophical systems are precariously perched on ‘Vishnu sarvottamatva’ and if that is denied, the whole structure of their philosophies crumbles. Such a pathetic situation of deity-dependence is not there for Advaita. That is what is borne out by the Shankara bhāṣyas. That also proves that their ‘Shankara is a vaishnava’ theory has no basis anywhere except their own wishful thinking. All the schools mentioned in the Daśaślokī by Shankara are refuted / rejected as Un-vedantic by Veda Vyasa in the Brahmasutras.

This is another remark of the blogger:

// In which case, his stOtra to Shiva praising him as the supreme is but in accordance with paShupata matham and hence, veda virodham as declared in the brahma sutrAs. //

It follows from the above, for the blogger, that whoever does a stotra to Shiva as the supreme is endowed with ahankara, like Dakṣa. All sages including Shankara who has praised Shiva as the Supreme in innumerable works such as the Shivanandalahari (which the blogger, for obvious reasons, of its containing praises of Shiva as the Supreme and Vishnu and Brahma as subordinate, is not Shankara’s composition. It is only the blogger’s wishful thinking, āśā modaka, and never admitted so by the Advaitins.), the Dashashloki (where the last line in nine verses is ‘shivaḥ kevalo’ham’ – which no vaishnava would do. Even though the word Shiva there is not the saguna shūla pāṇin Shiva, still, the very name is abhorring to vaishnavas who would never call vishnu by that name excepting in the vishnu sahasra nāma.) are all ahankārins according to the blogger. And all those who hold Shiva and Vishnu to be non-different are also tāmasic for them, including VedaVyasa, Shankara, Madhusudana Saraswati who wrote a commentary for the Shiva mahimna stava. Sadashiva Brahmendra, of Nerur, a jivanmukta, has composed songs on Shiva and Vishnu, the composers Thyagaraja, Muthuswamy Dikshitar, are all ‘pāśupatas’ for the blogger, endowed with ahankara, like Daksha. And Nilakantha, just because he commented on the Shiva sahsara nama of the MB is also an ahankārin, and therefore to be shunned, for another reason apart from his name that is Shiva’s. Not just that, if anyone wears bhasma on the forehead, he is to be shunned for he cannot worship Rama, Krishna, as a vaishnava would do!! It is only with such fanatics in mind someone said:

वैष्णवाश्च पिशाचाश्च मत्कुणाश्च पिपीलिकाः ।

भस्मदर्श्नमात्रेण पलायन्ते दिशो दश ॥

[On the very sight of bhasma (ash), the vaiṣṇavas (who hold Lord Viṣṇu alone to be the supreme), the ghosts, bed bugs and ants, take to their heels in the ten directions.]

The pāśupata mata is rejected by the Brahmasutras not because it seeks to have Shiva, Pashupati, as the supreme. It is for several other reasons that are not amenable to the Vedanta doctrine. In fact, as shown above, from the MB and the Brahmasutras, the Vedanta Doctrine never subscribes to a particular deity as the supreme. These reasons are there for the rejection of the Bhagavata school/pāncharātra too. One will discern these when one reads Shankara’s commentary to these adhikaraṇas in the Brahma sutra bhashyam.

This misleading explanation from the blogger too is against Shankara’s teaching of Advaita:

// So, “sarvAtma” says that Rudra’s knowledge has expanded greatly.  “AtmA” means “Buddhi” here. It does not mean “sarvAntarAtma”, but only a pervasiveness of buddhi, ie, knowledge. An expanded knowledge means one can remain anu (since jiva is anu) but by virtue of the knowledge, one can assume several bodies. So, Rudra was able to appear in many bodies. Similarly, Saubhari muni assumed many bodies as well. This also explains how he appears in linga and other forms. Unlike nArAyaNa who pervades by his svarUpa and svabhAva and hence is present everywhere, devas like Shiva are anu svarUpa, but pervade by their svabhAva (jnAnam) and control their lingas and other vigrahas/bodies. //

The above is the blogger’s display of his viśiṣṭādvaitic leanings, with which he struggles to explain the concept of ‘sarvātmatva’. As per Shankara, the one who realizes Brahman is Brahman alone and is ‘sarvātmā’ in the absolute sense. In the Br.up.1.4.10 bhāṣyam Shankara has said quite a lot about this. It is Brahman’s asarvatva and abrahmatva bhāva due to avidyā of its own nature that tied it to samsāra and by vidyā this asarvatva and abrahmatva are dispelled. Nowhere does Shankara admit of the aṇu (atomic ) size for the jīvas. For Shankara, the word ‘aṇu’ referring to Ātmā occurring in certain upaniṣads such as the Kaṭha, mean only ‘subtle’ and not atomic. For Shankara such atomic size concept is against the Vedanta which declare the oneness of the jiva with Brahman. I am citing the passages from the Īśāvāsya bhāṣya for the sixth mantra, just as a sample of how Shankara sees the Brahmajnāni, here:

यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मन्येवानुपश्यति ।
सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥ ६ ॥

भाष्यम्

यस्तु परिव्राट् मुमुक्षुः सर्वाणि भूतानि अव्यक्तादीनि स्थावरान्तानि आत्मन्येव अनुपश्यति, आत्मव्यतिरिक्तानि न पश्यतीत्यर्थः । सर्वभूतेषु तेष्वेव च आत्मानं तेषामपि भूतानां स्वमात्मानमात्मत्वेन — यथास्य देहस्य कार्यकरणसंघातस्यात्मा अहं सर्वप्रत्ययसाक्षिभूतश्चेतयिता केवलो निर्गुणोऽनेनैव स्वरूपेणाव्यक्तादीनां स्थावरान्तानामहमेवात्मेति सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं निर्विशेषं यस्त्वनुपश्यति, सः ततः तस्मादेव दर्शनात् न विजुगुप्सते विजुगुप्सां घृणां न करोति । प्राप्तस्यैवानुवादोऽयम् । सर्वा हि घृणा आत्मनोऽन्यद्दुष्टं पश्यतो भवति ; आत्मानमेवात्यन्तविशुद्धं निरन्तरं पश्यतो न घृणानिमित्तमर्थान्तरमस्तीति प्राप्तमेव — ततो न विजुगुप्सत इति ॥ इममेवार्थमन्योऽपि मन्त्र आह —

[The highlighted part means: The self-realized person knows thus: ‘Just as I am the self of this (my) body-organ-mind complex, and am the witness of all thoughts and am the impeller thereof, one only and nirguṇa, I am, by this very nature, svarūpa, am the self of everything starting from the subtle-most avyakta up to the grossest in creation, the unmoving objects, sthāvara’ thus he realizes himself as the self of all beings in creation.]

Thus, the realization of Brahman by an individual makes him realize that he is the absolute sarvātmā. So, if Shiva is a brahma jnāni, he is essentially the antaryāmin of all creation, including Vishnu and other deities. That is the message of the Mahabharata and the Vedanta. Not being able to bear this, the blogger tries his best tricks to paint Shiva in an inferior picture. Such is the blogger’s pathetic attempt at reconciling the ‘brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati’ declaration of the upaniṣads. I am no crusader for any shaiva school, but in the spirit of Appayya Dikshitar, I am only pointing to the non-deity specificity of the scriptures.

One can see how mistaken is the blogger of the very idea of sarvātmatva when one keeps in mind what Shankara has said above. On the one hand the blogger brags that Shankara was a Vaishnava and on the other wants to stay clear of what advaitic teaching Shankara gives based on the Upaniṣad. Anyway, no vaishnava would even dream of negotiating / compromising Vishnu’s sole sarvātmā/antaryāmi status with anyone who realizes Brahman!! And our Shankara has thus disappointed this poor blogger!!

Here is another baseless claim by the blogger regarding the Shiva sahasranāma occurring in the Mahabharata:

//None of the authentic works, by advaitins, dvaitins, vishishtadvaitins, or even shaivas before the 16th Century ever say that there is an “upamanyu upAkhyAna” in the Mahabharata where Krishna is said to have taken up Saiva initiation from sage upamanyu to worship Siva. If the portion that we allege to be a later interpolation was indeed genuine, the fact that everyone, including Saivas, were silent about them is inexplicable,..//

Actually, Nīlakaṇṭha, a disciple of Sridhara Swamin (who commented on the Srimadbhagavatam) has commented on the Mahabharata (including the Bhagavadgita). His commentary for the complete Shivasahasranāma which is available:

https://archive.org/stream/mahabharata_nk/mahabharata_nilakanthas_commentary#page/n3643/mode/2up

The Shiva Sahasranama starts on the above page. In the previous chapters where the Upanmanyu episode is given, too contain Nilakantha’s commentary with no mention of its interpolation. Nilakantha is Sridhara’s (14^th CE) disciple. The following screen shot of the preface page of the above MB commentary by Nilakantha says that this is very widely studied by the Maharashtrians:

The following screen shot says that Nilakantha was a disciple of Sridhara Swamin:

The above can be viewed on this URL too:

http://www.dvaipayana.net/books/ppssastri-mbh/ppssastri-anushasanaparva-part1.pdf

The blogger’s hatred for Shiva and fanatical fascination for Vishnu has blinded him from even logical consistency:

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

//The Gita, rAmAyaNa and mahAbHArata were composed by krishNa, vAlmiki and vyAsa respectively. The tAmasa purAnAs thus contradict the words of krishNa, vAlmiki and vyAsa. 
Since knowledge that contradicts whatever is taught by great authorities in authentic works is a form of tAmas, these purAnAs are classified as ‘tAmasa purAnAs’. //

The blogger admits that the ‘tāmasa purāṇas’ are compositions of Veda Vyasa and says above that they contradict Veda Vyasa!! If Veda Vyasa has contradicted himself, he ceases to be an Achārya who can be relied upon. Nowhere has Veda Vyasa said that holding Shiva or any other as the Supreme will not lead one to liberation or that such a view will keep one in samsāra. Nowhere in the purported tāmasa purāṇa can one find any teaching that is contradicting the Vedanta. Shankara would see any such contradiction as apparent and look for the essential teaching of Advaita. All other stories are mere eulogies, stuti, arthavāda, from Shankara’s viewpoint.   All such instances which the blogger takes pain to list, where Shiva is said to have lost a battle, for instance, is merely Shiva allowing himself to be subdued only to let Vishnu to be seen as superior, just as the lad Krishna allowed himself to be bound to mortar by Yashodha. How can any force be superior to Shiva who is the samhārakartā of the entire creation (Praśnopaniṣad with Shankara bhashya) that includes all deities such as Vishnu and all Vishnu loka-s? Madhusudana Saraswati in the Advaita Siddhi has categorically stated that none of the Vishnu lokas is absolutely eternal. All eternality of such lokas spoken of in the scripture is merely relative eternality, staying only up to the pralaya. The blogger has not known this but chooses to bask in the commentaries of certain advaitins to the puranas saying vaikuntha is eternal. He does not know that no advaitin, if he knows the subject well, would admit of any absolute eternality to vaikunṭha. Absolute eternality to anything other than nirguna Brahman is antithetical to Vedanta as taught by Shankara. For more details see an article:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/on-the-eternality-of-vaikuntha/

The Prashnopanishad bhashya of Shankara says/implies that one entity called prāṇa alone takes the form of Shiva as samhāra kartā and Vishnu as pālana kartā, thereby striking the Shiva-Vishnu non-difference.

Thus, the Mahabharata and the Vedantas (upaniṣads) never support the idea of pāncharātra, the jiva-nānātva (multiplicity of jivas), sole supremacy of Vishnu, sarvātmatva of Vishnu alone, inferiority of Shiva, etc.

There is a desperation seen in the blogger’s futile attempts to resurrect/salvage vaishnavism/Vishnu-supremacy in the purāṇas, etc. as is evident here:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_17.html

//There is also one interpolation of a “hari-hara aikya stuti” in the HarivamSha purana in the section on bAnAsura yuddham. This is clearly an interpolation because bAnAsura charithram has been quoted by many sri vaishnava acharyas and this stuti has never been mentioned by any achAryA and not even by shaivas. Furthermore, this stuti seems to follow appayya dikshitar’s philosophy closely, which suggests that it was an interpolation as late as the 16^th century. Lastly, even if we consider this stuti as genuine, it would be very easy to grammatically interpret it in favour of Vishnu parathvam. Statements such as “Shiva is of the form of Vishnu and vice-versa” can be interpreted in favour of nArAyaNa parathvam only. So, it doesn’t pose problems at all. //

The above is no argument at all, for the vaishnava āchāryas, being biased against Shiva will simply ignore those verses speaking of Hari-Hara abheda or hold them to be interpolations. So, too would the Shaivas who also would not like Hari to be equated with Hara. In the face of such clear statements of Veda Vyasa the last straw to which they want to cling is grammar to ‘somehow’ make those statements to apply to Vishnu. Such is their predicament to salvage Vishnu from the innumerable statements of Veda Vyasa across his various purāṇas that show others like Shiva and Devi as the Supreme. And they try to take solace in their pet theory: //Those other ‘vaishnava’ portions are well-supported by other sAstra such as sruti, smriti, etc. The entire body of sAstra is vaishnava in reality.// which is nowhere near the reality. The entire corpus of the Vedas, Upanishads, the Mahabharata and the Puranas do not support the Vishnu supremacy theory, the pāncharātra construct, jīva nānātva, vaikunṭha as eternal loka, etc. as abundantly discernible from the Shānkara Bhāṣyas. To put it shortly, the scriptures do not support Vishnu as the super god and all others as jivas. The purport of the scriptures is in the non-dual Brahman which is Nirguna with no jivas at all. Also, the pāncharātra has been severely condemned as veda viruddha/veda nindā by Veda Vyasa. So, Veda Vyasa himself is no vaishnava.

I would not bother to comment on the fanatic blogs such as the one that is the subject matter here. It is only because they stealthily use Shankaracharya’s name and bhāṣyas to make it appear that there is support in them (bhāṣyas) to their unvedic theory of sole Vishnu-supremacy. It is to inform the unwary reader of the misinformation propagated by their blogs that I have made a few comments on their funny ideas and put them on public domain. Readers, if they exercise caution, can prevent themselves from being gullible in the eyes of those bloggers.

Om Tat Sat

An article, penned by Dr.V.N. Muthukumar along with me, with the above title has been uploaded. It is available for download at the following URL:

Namaste

Please forward this link to all those interested in learning the stotram with script and audio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAwZDxBfnkI

THE CONCEPT OF KRAMA MUKTI IN ADVAITA

In the following blog there is a supposed analysis of the concept of krama mukti in Advaita with the ulterior motive of somehow, desparately, bringing in the idea of ‘vishnu alone is the saguna brahman in advaita according to Shankara':

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2011/12/saguna-brahman-and-krama-mukti-in.html

The blogger commences thus:
Quote:

Vishnu as Saguna Brahman and Krama-mukti in Shankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya: Part I – The kAryAdhikaraNa section

In this section, the nature of destination of the “devAyana” (path of the deities) described in the Upanishads is explained. This is the path by which the mukta (liberated jIvAtmA) travels. Shankara explains that the goal of these muktas is the satya-loka of the four-faced Hiranyagarbha/Brahma. From there, upon the dissolution of satya-loka at the end of the kalpa, they reach the Supreme abode of Vishnu which is the abode of krama-mukti. In turn, they achieve final liberation in Vishnu’s abode, which is the realization of the essential nirguNa nature of saguNa brahman Vishnu, the Lord of the Universe.//

unquote

The fundamental misconception of advaita by the blogger is revealed by his words:  //This is the path by which the mukta (liberated jIvAtmA) travels. Shankara explains that the goal of these muktas is the satya-loka…//

In advaita, the mukta never ‘travels’ anywhere. The devayāna path is for those sagunopāsakas (also called apara brahma upasakas) who not having gained the nirguna brahma jnanam in this life, by the strength of their saguna/apara brahma upasana, travel to brahmaloka through a nāḍi in the body.  For the nirguna jnaani there is no travel, not even utkrānti (their sukshma sharira does not even leave the gross body, ‘na tasya prāṇā utkrāmanti atraiva samavanīyante’ of the Br.up. which means ‘his (the jnani’s) sukshma sharira does not leave the body; it dissolves here itself.)  The saguna/apara brahma upasaka travels to brahma loka, attains nirguna jnana there (and in that instant is a mukta) and then at the time of dissolution of that loka, along with the lord of that loka, Brahma, the sagunopaska, now nirguna jnani, attains ultimate videha kaivalya, never to return to samsara. Even here, the one who has gained nirguna brahma jnaanam in Brahma loka does not travel anywhere.  This is the position in advaita.  The blogger has not understood this fundamental difference and goes on a long tour of misconceived ideas, only to confuse and mislead the unwary readers, in the guise of bringing out the truth about advaita.  And what all he says in the above paragraph is not at all supported by the Shankara bhashya/s.

The blogger has a confused understanding of the terms ‘aparabrahman’ and ‘sagunabrahman':

//The word ‘but’ indicates the setting aside of the doubt.–As Brahma, who is not para or saguNa brahman (aparasya brahmaNa) is in proximity (sAmIpyAt) //

He thinks, obviously erroneously, that the two are different and hence takes pains to differentiate apara from saguna brahman.  However, for Shankara they are synonymous as brought out in the bhasyas, a few examples of which are:

In this BSB 3.1.14 Shankara says:

// किंविषयाः पुनर्गतिश्रुतय इति, उच्यते — सगुणविद्याविषया भविष्यन्ति । तथा हि — क्वचित्पञ्चाग्निविद्यां प्रकृत्य गतिरुच्यते, क्वचित्पर्यङ्कविद्याम्, क्वचिद्वैश्वानरविद्याम् ; यत्रापि ब्रह्म प्रकृत्य गतिरुच्यते — यथा ‘प्राणो ब्रह्म कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (छा. उ. ४-१०-५) इति ‘अथ यदिदमस्मिन्ब्रह्मपुरे दहरं पुण्डरीकं वेश्म’ (छा. उ. ८-१-१) इति च, तत्रापि वामनीत्वादिभिः सत्यकामादिभिश्च गुणैः सगुणस्यैव उपास्यत्वात् सम्भवति गतिः । न क्वचित्परब्रह्मविषया गतिः श्राव्यते । तथा गतिप्रतिषेधः श्रावितः — ‘न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-६) इति । ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (बृ. उ. २-१-१) इत्यादिषु तु, सत्यपि आप्नोतेर्गत्यर्थत्वे, वर्णितेन न्यायेन देशान्तरप्राप्त्यसम्भवात् स्वरूपप्रतिपत्तिरेवेयम् अविद्याध्यारोपितनामरूपप्रविलयापेक्षया अभिधीयते — ‘ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-६) इत्यादिवत् इति द्रष्टव्यम् ।//

Note the first two italicised sentences where Shankara says the satyakāmatva, etc. epithets are pertaining to saguna brahman, for the upasaka of this there is traveling from the body on death to a certain loka. He precludes the traveling for parabrahma (obviously nirguna brahma) jnani-s in the other italicised sentence above.

The blogger makes another statement, revealing his confusion:

//Purvapaksha - Brahma is said to be proximate to Parabrahman because he is saguna brahman who is rooted in Nirguna brahman.//

What he thinks is a purva paksha, is actually the position of the siddhānta.  Apara brahma or saguna brahma or kārya brahma or saviiśeṣa brahma or sopādhika brahma (all synonyms in shānkara advaita: तत्र कार्यमेव सगुणमपरं ब्रह्म एनान्गमयत्यमानवः पुरुष इति बादरिराचार्यो मन्यते BSB 4.3.7) [In this one sentence Shankara has categorically specified that the three terms ‘kārya brahma’, ‘saguṇa brahma’ and ‘apara brahma’ are synonyms] is actually very proximate, not spatially, but conceptually, to Para/nirguna brahman.  One example to understand the term ‘sāmīpya’ is from shankara’s Chandogya bhashya 8.12.3:
आत्मभावेन वा आत्मसामीप्येन जायत इत्युपजनमिदं शरीरम्,

Here Shankara is saying that the gross body is very proximate to the Atman.  Now, in advaita the Atman is non-different from Brahman, all-pervading.  How can the all-pervading Atman be an object of anything else in creation, proximate spatially?  That is not the idea:  the idea of taking the body to be the atman is what is meant by ‘the body being very proximate to the Atman.’  In the same way the apara/saguna/kārya brahma is taken to be the supreme by the upasakas.  Shankara in the introduction to the prashnopanishat says:  the six jignāsus who had regarded the apara brahman as lofty had come to sage Pippalada to know exactly the nature of para brahman: ते ह एते ब्रह्मपराः अपरं ब्रह्म परत्वेन गताः, तदनुष्ठाननिष्ठाश्च ब्रह्मनिष्ठाः, परं ब्रह्म अन्वेषमाणाः …

It may be again seen that the blogger is confused regarding what is parabrahman in advaita:
He says:
// The word ‘but’ indicates the setting aside of the doubt.–As Brahma, who is not para or saguNa brahman (aparasya brahmaNa) is in proximity (sAmIpyAt)  to the highest brahman (parabrahman), there is nothing unreasonable in the word ‘Brahman’ being applied to the former (Brahma) also.//

I included this portion of the blogger at this juncture just to show that as stated in the aforesaid Prashnopanishat bhashya, the term Parabrahman means Nirguna Brahman.  They  are the aspirants who are already adepts in the meditation of saguna/apara brahman and now are on the enquiry of the nirguna brahman and also ultimately attain that knowledge as per this very upanishad.  The blogger is mistaken in thinking that Parabrahman means Vishnu, the one superior to Brahma.  He uses the adjective superlative ‘highest’ which in advaita will only mean nirguna brahman.

And also:

// Secondly, if brahmA is saguNa brahman “rooted” in higher nature of nirguNa,  it would make Shankara’s bhAShya for the next sUtra nonsensical, where the AcArya says “after pralaya,  they along with hiraNyagarbha proceed to the param parishuddham viShNoH paramaM padam“. Because, here another “paramaM padam” is used which would make the previous “parabrahmasAmIpya” redundant.//

Here the blogger is under the mistaken idea that Shankara is differentiating between Vishnu (the saguna brahman as per the blogger) and vishnu’s ‘paramam padam’.  Such is not at all the case with Shankara.  Nor is it that for Shankara the sāmīpya of brahmaa the four-faced is with vishnu the parabrahma.

Reverting to the concept of proximity…

In the karika bhashya 4.99 too Shankara says that the Buddha had come very close to the ‘advayavastu’ (which is the all-pervading brahman/atman): यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् ।  There are other examples from the bhashyam for the usage of ‘sāmīpya’ in similar vein:  अतिशयसामीप्येन द्रष्टृत्वात् उपद्रष्टा स्यात् । (BGB 13.22), etc.

This following conclusion of the blogger is nowhere substantiated in the bhashya:

//Having established that the souls reach Brahma who is in proximity with saguNa brahman,//

Brahma is not admitted to be in proximity with saguna brahman by the bhashya. The blogger is imposing the theistic idea of Vishnu > brahma which is not what is considered in the bhashya.  In the BSB 4.3.9 परब्रह्मसामीप्यात् अपरस्य ब्रह्मणः, तस्मिन्नपि ब्रह्मशब्दप्रयोगो न विरुध्यते । परमेव हि ब्रह्म विशुद्धोपाधिसम्बन्धं क्वचित्कैश्चिद्विकारधर्मैर्मनोमयत्वादिभिः उपासनाय उपदिश्यमानम् अपरमिति स्थितिः ॥ ९ ॥ the word ‘para brahma’ denotes the nirguna chaitanyam and the apara brahma denotes the saguna / karya brahma.  In the next sentence, by defining saguna brahman by the term upādhi (sopādhika brahman), Shankara is implying that the nirguna brahman is nirupādhika brahman.

The blogger also knows the above sentence where Shankara differentiates between the para and apara brahman.  The sentence is very clear that Para brahman has no (not even) vishuddhopādhi sambandha and such an attribute is superimposed only to derive an apara brahman.  But, strangely, obviously confusedly, the blogger identifies the Para brahman with Vishnu, the saguna brahman where he says the brahmaloka residents along with brahma will go/reach upon dissolution of that loka.  Also, when the spoke of the ‘proximity’ concept, he identifies the deity Vishnu (who is endowed with vishuddopādhi according to the blogger) as the one to whom brahma is proximate.  Such ideas have no basis in the bhashya whatsoever.

BSB 3.4.9 सम्भवति च सोपाधिकायां ब्रह्मविद्यायां कर्मसाहित्यदर्शनम् ;(this is the same as  sagunopasana)

Kaṭhopaniṣad bhashya 2.3.13:  ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) इति श्रुतेः, तदा तस्य निरुपाधिकस्यालिङ्गस्य सदसदादिप्रत्ययविषयत्ववर्जितस्यात्मनस्तत्त्वभावो भवति । तेन च रूपेणात्मोपलब्धव्य इत्यनुवर्तते । तत्राप्युभयोः सोपाधिकनिरुपाधिकयोरस्तित्वतत्त्वभावयोः where both the terms sopādhika and nirupādhika are used to denote the latter means nirguna / para brahman and the former the saguna/apara brahman.  There are innumerable instances of the usage of these two terms in the bhashya.

Thus ‘saguna brahman is no different from apara brahman’ and ‘kārya brahman’ in shānkara advaita.  And therefore the blogger’s following conclusion is flawed as it is based on the misconception stated earlier:

//When the reabsorption of the effected Brahma’s world (kAryabrahmaloka) draws near, the souls in which meanwhile perfect knowledge has sprung up proceed, together with Hiranyagarbha (the aforesaid Brahma) the ruler of that world, to ‘what is higher than that i.e. to the pure (as it is beyond prakrtri) highest place (as it is the abode of saguNa brahman) of Vishnu (saguNa Ishvara).//

The abode of saguna brahman is brahma loka which is very much within prakriti, as it undergoes pralaya when the lord of that loka along with the muktas there will become videha mukta-s.

It is also to be noted that if Vishnu, the  deity with Lakshmi, conch, etc. is admitted to be ‘saguṇa brahman’ to please the blogger, then the inevitable, undesirable for the blogger, conclusion would be that such a vishnu is kārya brahman, which is effected and therefore subject to perish in pralaya.

And not stopping with that he desperately brings in Ramanuja to support his view.  Nowhere in the Shankara advaita is the idea of the sagunopasakas, after having reached Brahmaloka, going to yet another saguna brahma (vishnu loka) admitted.  Why is this flawed?  Shankara very clearly specifies that those upasakas who reach brahma loka gain the liberating knowledge there, in brahma loka.  And having become nirguna brahma jnanis in brahma loka, upon that loka getting dissolved in pralaya, they attain the Supreme kaivalya.  In fact they are mukta-s, in the advitic connotation, there itself in the brahma loka, just like jivan muktas in this loka. There is no room, need, for these jnanis to go to a separate vishnu loka, which is a pure imagination of the blogger, to somehow sneak in the idea of vishnu supremacy/vishnu-saguna brahman into Shānkara advaita.

It is also to be very clearly understood and remembered that in Advaita the supreme position is:
न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिः न बद्धो न च साधकः ।

न मुमुक्षुर्नवै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ G.K. 2.32

There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and

none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation

and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.

Since there is no creation (ajāti) and no dissolution, there are no jivas. Since
there are no jivas, there is none in bondage. Hence, there is no one seeking
liberation and therefore no sādhaka. Thus there is none who is a mukta since there is no

such thing as bondage first of all. The advaitic realization confers upon one the

knowledge that one is the Nirguna Brahman, the sole absolutely real in Advaita. With such
a realization there is no way anyone can go to and stay eternally in any loka such as
vaikuntha. The concept of vaikuntha is relevant in Dvaita and VA since the jivas

in their systems are eternally jivas, even in moksha. That is the reason in Advaita

no such loka as vaikuntha is admitted as the residence of liberated jivas. There is no
concept of ‘liberated jiva’ in advaita for the jiva bhāva itself is realized to be
mithya. Not understanding these fundamentals of advaita, the bloggers desparately

labour to impose a vaikuntha, vishnu loka, vishnu-supreme, etc ideas that are completely
alien to Vedanta.
See this: BSB 4.3.10

कार्यात्यये तदध्यक्षेण सहातः परमभिधानात् ॥ १० ॥

कार्यब्रह्मलोकप्रलयप्रत्युपस्थाने सति तत्रैव उत्पन्नसम्यग्दर्शनाः सन्तः, तदध्यक्षेण हिरण्यगर्भेण सह अतः परं परिशुद्धं विष्णोः परमं पदं प्रतिपद्यन्ते.

To buttress his funny claims the blogger gives an ‘explanation':

//Some object here that in advaita-bhAShyas, “viShNoH paramaM padam” refers only to the nirguNa state and has nothing to do with Lakshmipati-Chaturbhuja Vishnu, the deity of the Vaishnavas. We will now show why they are wrong:

1. Shankara’s qualification of “Vishnu” as “vAsudevAkhya” in Kathopanishad 1.3.9 itself is enough to stop such nonsensical claims. There is only one entity, the caturbhuja Vishnu that has “vAsudeva” as samAkhya in all shruti, smR^iti, purANa, nikaNDus, etc. Amarakosha says “(1\.1\.42)  padmanAbho madhuripurvAsudevastrivikramaH (1\.1\.43)  devakInandanaH shauriH shrIpatiH puruShottamaH”. Shruti says “brahmaNyo devakIputraH brahmaNyo madhusUdanaH” (Narayanopanishad).//

I have rebutted his claim in an earlier blog of mine.  Yet just this one mantra which comes soon after the one the blogger cites above is enough to show that his position is faulty:

महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः ।

पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः ॥ ११ ॥

….

//Beyond the Purusha there is nothing: this is the end, the Supreme Goal.//

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । अष्टमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक २२ – भाष्यम्

पुरुषः पुरि शयनात् पूर्णत्वाद्वा, स परः पार्थ, परः निरतिशयः, यस्मात् पुरुषात् न परं किञ्चित् ।

In the above BGB 8.22 too Shankara echoes the above Kathopanishad usage of the term ‘purusha’ as being the ultimate, nothing excels It or exists beyond It.

Now, if as the blogger’s claim ‘there is a state/tattvam beyond ‘Vishnu’ of the 9th mantra which he says is ‘the paramam padam’ of vishnu, thereby differentiating ‘vishnu’ from ‘his superior state/abode’, then the ‘Puruṣa’ of the 11th mantra has to be seen as something different from ‘Vishnu’.  This is because the 11th mantra says ‘there is nothing beyond the Puruṣa’. And the 9th mantra means to the blogger there is something beyond vishnu. Obviously, the vishnu of the 9th mantra will be some state/entity that is lower/different from Purusha. [ Nowhere have we heard of any aparamam/nikṛṣṭam padam of Vishnu for the Kathopanishad to differentiate from it and state a paramam padam of vishnu.] That will be absurd for no school admits that Vishnu and Purusha are different entities or of different levels.  So, the ‘vishnoḥ paramam padam’ is nothing but ‘vishnu the supreme abode’ just as in the expression ‘rahoḥ śiraḥ’ where rāhu and the head are non-different.  The Gopalayatindra commentary to the Kathopanishat bhashya for that mantra alternatively states this ‘rahoḥ shiraḥ’ example and says: it is aupacharika ṣaṣṭhī for the word vishnu.

Incidentally, in the commentary to the Kathopanishat by Madhva, he gives a verse specifying the hierarchy to identify the word ‘vishnu’ and ‘purusha’ of the mantras concerned:

…. तस्याश्च पुरुषो विष्णुः पूर्णत्वान्नैव तत्समः ।

कश्चित्कुतश्चिच्छ्रेष्ठस्तु नास्तीति किमु सा कथा ॥

He does not identify any such as ‘vhnu’s superior state/abode’ as something different, higher, than Vishnu.

And on the ‘support’ of amara kosha, let it be known that there are several usages of the term / name ‘Shiva’ in the bhashya:

प्रश्नोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । चतुर्थः प्रश्नः । मन्त्रः १ – भाष्यम्

अथेदानीं साध्यसाधनविलक्षणमप्राणममनोगोचरमतीन्द्रियमविषयं शिवं शान्तमविकृतमक्षरं सत्यं परविद्यागम्यं पुरुषाख्यं सबाह्याभ्यन्तरमजं वक्तव्यमित्युत्तरं प्रश्नत्रयमारभ्यते ।

माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्यम् । मन्त्रः १२ – भाष्यम्

प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवः अद्वैतः संवृत्तः एवं यथोक्तविज्ञानवता प्रयुक्त ओङ्कारस्त्रिमात्रस्त्रिपाद आत्मैव ;

सर्वद्वैतोपशमत्वादेव शिवः । for karika word in 1.29

मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । तृतीयं मुण्डकम् । द्वितीयः खण्डः । मन्त्रः ७ – भाष्यम्

त एते कर्माणि विज्ञानमयश्च आत्मा उपाध्यपनये सति परे अव्यये अनन्तेऽक्षये ब्रह्मणि आकाशकल्पेऽजेऽजरेऽमृतेऽभयेऽपूर्वेऽनपरेऽनन्तरेऽबाह्येऽद्वये शिवे शान्ते सर्वे एकीभवन्ति अविशेषतां गच्छन्ति एकत्वमापद्यन्ते जलाद्याधारापनय इव सूर्यादिप्रतिबिम्बाः सूर्ये, घटाद्यपनय इवाकाशे घटाद्याकाशाः ॥

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । पञ्चमोऽध्यायः । प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः १ – भाष्यम्

सर्वसमाप्तौ तु कस्य विरोध आशङ्क्येत अद्वैते केवले शिवे सिद्धे..

In the amarakosha the word ‘shiva’ is listed as one of the many names of Lord Shiva in about 10 verses starting from 59. None of these will suit the word ‘shiva’ found in the above instances of the bhashya for the simple reason that these several names of Shiva refer to the individual God, shūāpāṇin, and the usage of that word in the bhashya is referring to the nirguna brahman.  Similar is the case with the kārikā/bhashya usage of the word ‘shivā’ in the feminine.  As per the amarakosha it refers to one of the several names of Parvathi.  Hence, bringing in the amarakosha for the names vāsudeva, vishnu, etc. will be absurd and a futile exercise.  Also, there are usages, in the Vivekachudamani etc.: नारायणोऽहं नरकान्तकोऽहम्…[I am Narayana, the slayer of ‘naraka’ used in the context of the aspirant’s expression of his realization of the supreme.  The vākyavṛtti of Shankaracharya [which work the Panchadashi cites]  opens with the verse: यस्य प्रसादात् अहमेव विष्णुः मय्येव सर्वं परिकल्पितं च  [’I prostrate to my Guru by whose grace I have realized that I am Vishnu indeed and everything is an appearance in Me.]  Such usages are purely in the nirguna context and bringing in the saguna vishnu, narayana will be absurd.  The aspirant in Advaita will not realize his identity with the consort of lakshmi, holding conch, etc. in his hand, residing in a limited world like vaikuntha.  These are all avidya-born upadhis as per advaita, used for upasana and not for realization.  So too the word Vasudeva.  See these sample sentences:

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । प्रथमः अध्यायः । चतुर्थः पादः । वाक्यान्वयाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् २२ – भाष्यम्

अतश्च विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मनोरविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितनामरूपरचितदेहाद्युपाधिनिमित्तो भेदः, न पारमार्थिक इत्येषोऽर्थः सर्वैर्वेदान्तवादिभिरभ्युपगन्तव्यः …स्मृतिभ्यश्च — ‘वासुदेवः सर्वमिति’ (भ. गी. ७-१९) ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत’ (भ. गी. १३-२) ‘समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम्’ (भ. गी. १३-२७) इत्येवंरूपाभ्यः ;

Here Shankara is giving pramāṇas for the advaitic nirguna jnanam.  The BG 7.19 usage of the word ‘vāsudevaḥ’ is hardly the vaikunṭhavāsin.  The Vishnusahasranama bhashya of Shankara too does not give any saguna-favoured meaning for the name ‘Vāsudeva’ by citing several puranic verses. The Parameshwara word too is hardly the saguna Ishwara.

This instance, however, will surely mean the deity vāsudevaḥ':

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । तृतीयः अध्यायः । चतुर्थः पादः । ऐहिकाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ५१ – भाष्यम्

इत्यर्जुनेन पृष्टो भगवान्वासुदेवः ‘न हि कल्याणकृत्कश्चिद्दुर्गतिं तात गच्छति’ (भ. गी. ६-४०) इत्युक्त्वा,

On the contrary, this instance is not at all the saguna vāsudevaḥ:

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 Here, the jnani’s identity with the Para tattvam vāsudeva is stated.  This can never be the saguna brahman in advaita.  This instance is also not saguna brahman: Introduction to the BG 4th ch. त्वयि सति ‘वासुदेवः सर्वम्’ इति ज्ञानेनैव मुमुक्षवः सन्तः

In this instance we have two usages, the first one is nirguna and second one saguna:
श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । सप्तमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १७ – भाष्यम्
तस्मात् ज्ञानिनः आत्मत्वात् वासुदेवः प्रियो भवतीत्यर्थः । स च ज्ञानी मम वासुदेवस्य आत्मैवेति मम अत्यर्थं प्रियः ॥
Here Shankara himself settles the issue:

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । सप्तमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १८ – भाष्यम्
‘अहमेव भगवान् वासुदेवः न अन्योऽस्मि’ इत्येवं युक्तात्मा समाहितचित्तः सन् मामेव परं ब्रह्म गन्तव्यम् अनुत्तमां गन्तुं प्रवृत्त इत्यर्थः ॥ The word param brahma differentiates the apara brahma vasudeva from the nirguna brahman.

Here is another fine example:

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । नवमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १ – भाष्यम्
इदमेव तु सम्यग्ज्ञानं साक्षात् मोक्षप्राप्तिसाधनम् ‘वासुदेवः सर्वमिति’ (भ. गी. ७-१९) ‘आत्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (छा. उ. ७-२५-२) ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१) इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यः   Here Shankara very clearly precludes the saguna meaning for the name vasudeva.  He calls this samyagjnanam and supports it with other shruti passages.  The sagunopasaka’s jnanam is not admitted to be samyagjnanam in advaita.  He calls it ‘the direct means to moksha’.  This can never be sagunopasana/saguna vasudeva.

Madhusudana says in the BG 7.19:

वासुदेवः सर्वमिति ज्ञानवान्सन्मां निरुपाधिप्रेमास्पदं प्रपद्यते सर्वदा समस्तप्रेमविषयत्वेन भजते। सकलमिदमहं च वासुदेव इति दृष्ट्या सर्वप्रेम्णां मय्येव पर्यवसायित्वात्। अतः स एव ज्ञानपूर्वकमद्भक्तिमान्महात्मात्यन्तशुद्धान्तःकरणत्वाज्जीवन्मुक्तः सर्वोत्कृष्टो न तत्समोऽन्योऽस्ति,

The realization ‘Vasudeva is all this and me’ can never mean a saguna Ishwara identification.  In advaita the individual and the entire universe is a superimposition on nirguna brahman and the realization takes the above form of identifying oneself and the entire world with/as Brahman.  Such a brahman can never be the deity vasudeva because that is also avidya kalpita as per advaita.  Also, on the same lines of the Bhashya of Shankara, Madhusudana too comments on the BG 4.24 (brahmārpaṇam…’):
तत्सर्वं ब्रह्मणि कल्पितत्वाद्ब्रह्मैव रज्जुकल्पितभुजङ्गवदधिष्ठानव्यतिरेकेणासदित्यर्थः। This substratum Brahman is not at all any saguna Vasudeva but the Nirguna chaitanyam which is what is called by the term Vasudeva in the BG and the bhashyam.  In that BGB 4.24 Shankara gives the vivarta vāda example:

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । चतुर्थोऽध्यायः । श्लोक २४ – भाष्यम्

ब्रह्म अर्पणं येन करणेन ब्रह्मवित् हविः अग्नौ अर्पयति तत् ब्रह्मैव इति पश्यति, तस्य आत्मव्यतिरेकेण अभावं पश्यति, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं पश्यति ; तदुच्यते ब्रह्मैव अर्पणमिति, यथा यद्रजतं तत् शुक्तिकैवेति ।   

This is called ‘bādhāyām sāmānādhikaraṇyam.’  That which was wrongly seen as the world is now realized to be Brahman just as that which was wrongly seen as silver is realized to be nacre.  The absence of the world is what is indicated in the bhashya.  Since the saguna vasudeva is also part of the world, there can be no identification with it in the true realization.

In the VS bhashya Shankara cites a Vishnupuranam verse that gives the nirguna meaning of Vasudeva:

सकलमिदमहं च वासुदेवः

परमपुमान्परमेश्वरः स एकः ।

इति मतिरमला भवत्यनन्ते

हृदयगते व्रज तान्विहाय दूरात् ॥ 3.7.32 ||

The verse may mean something else to the non-advaitin but
the advaitin sees this as the expression of the advaitic
realization of the Truth. The Vasudeva here is by no means
the saguna brahman but the Nirguna Tattva. In the VS bhashya for the word Vasudeva,

Shankara cites four verses all of
which are nirguna specific alone. In short, all these
four verses only say that the entire creation is having
the Vasudeva for its support/substratum. So also Shankara cites a verse regarding Vishnu:

‘नाविष्णुः कीर्त्तयेद् विष्णुंनाविष्णुर्विष्णुमर्चयेत् ।नाविष्णुः संस्मरेद् विष्णुंनाविष्णुर्विष्णुमाप्नुयात् ॥ From the Mahabharata, karmadāṇḍa. This means: Let one who is not Vishnu himself sing praises of Vishnu, perform worship, engage in remembering Vishnu and none who is not Vishnu himself shall ‘attain’ Vishnu. This is the essence of the Advaitic realization of the Truth.    ऒम् तत् सत्

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_17.html

In the above page, under the ‘comments’ section is seen the following:

Quote:

//So, effectively in writing this article, he has failed to understand that we ARE staunch vishishtadvaitins and not those “with vishishtadvaitic leanings”. His “research” has been so hasty that he doesn’t even understand this simple fact.//

Unquote.

My response:

No vishishtadvaitin worth his salt will make dubious claims such as these bloggers are doing, like, ‘Shankara is a vaishnava’, ‘Advaitins admit of an eternal vaikunta’, etc. For the simple reason, the cult of vishishtadvaita mushroomed only because Shankara had explicitly said in the BSB 2.1.14 that omniscience, omnipotence, Ishwaratva, etc. are only avidyakalpita upadhis and therefore not absolute. Shankara had criticized the pāncharātra school in the BSB as a product of ‘veda nindā’. Shankara has denounced the vaishnava doctrines of multi-jivas, jiva-ishwara bheda, eternal vaikuntha, etc. None of these will be palatable to a vishishtadvaitin. Yet they propagate their funny pet theories of ‘Shankara a Vaishnava’. That is what betrays their vishishtadvaitic claims.

See what badmouthing Ramanuja indulged in against Shankara extending to Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman:

//तदिदमौपनिषदपरमपुरुषवरणीयताहेुतुगुणविशेषविरहिणां अनादिपापवासनादूषिताशेषशेमुषीकाणां  अनधिगतपदवाक्यस्वरूपतदर्थयाथात्म्यप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमाणवृत्त-तदितिकर्तव्यतारूपसमीचीनन्यायमार्गाणां विकल्पासहविविधकुतर्ककल्ककल्पितमिति न्यायानुगृहीतप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमणवृत्तयाथात्म्यविद्भिः अनादरणीयम् ।//

(as quoted by MM Śrī S.Subrahmaṇya Śāstri in his foreword to the book ‘Upaniṣad bhāṣyam’ published by the Mahesh Research Institute, Varanasi)

Ramanuja accuses Shankara (and Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman):

1. As those devoid of appreciation for the auspicious attributes of the Lord
2. As those soaked in immense sinful tendencies
3. As those who are ignorant of fundamentals of epistemology and its application
4. As those who engage in intolerant fallacious argumentation
5. And therefore all right-knowing/thinking people should reject them (Shankara, Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman).

Such being the case, the bloggers, in blatant defiance to their Founding Acharya, are putting up Shankara, Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman and others as their brand ambassadors, having realized well that Ramanuja is a failed champion of Vaishnavism. So much for their ‘staunch’ following of their school.

Quote

//Neither is there any “struggle” in the Vishishtadvaitic position. The interpretation of “sarvAtma” as pertaining to all pervasive knowledge is perfectly within the realms of grammar and context where it says “visnor cAtma bhagavatO bhava” – vishNu is the antaryAmin of bhava. The person who tried to refute us lacks a basic knowledge of sanskrit grammar itself if he thinks this interpretation is a struggle.//

Unquote

The word ‘sarvātmā’ will never mean ‘all pervasive knowledge’ by any stretch of grammar. The compound word will have to be stated as ‘sarveṣām ātmā’ (‘the self of all’), or ‘sarvasya ātmā’ which is also the same as the former. Another way is: sarvaśca asau ātmā ca’ [‘the self that is the all’]. The blogger is displaying his poor knowledge of Sanskrit grammar in giving that meaning. Not being sure of what he is saying, he goes on to give a quote, with a ‘meaning’: //”visnor cAtma bhagavatO bhava” – vishNu is the antaryAmin of bhava// No one can make out the equation between the quote and the meaning. Also, despite my pointing out on an earlier occasion that in that construction it should be ‘viṣṇoḥ’ and not ‘viṣṇor’, he fails to correct himself and continues with that awkward depiction. And he faults my Sanskrit grammar. The Vishishtadvaitic struggle with the interpretation of that word ‘sarvātmā’ is there for all to see.

See what Nilakantha says for the name ‘sarvātmā’ occurring in the Shiva Sahasranama of the Mahabharatha:

https://archive.org/stream/mahabharata_nk/mahabharata_nilakanthas_commentary#page/n3645/mode/2up

Further,

Quote:

// HBB addressed this to me in a private communication that the nIlakaNtha mentioned by this person as a disciple of sridhara swamin is not the one who commented on the mahAbhArata. //

Unquote.

Now see how poorly he has comprehended what his partner might have written to him in that purported private communication, which the latter is at pains to ‘clarify’ in his subsequent comment:

Quote:

// I clarify what I intended to say here: Sridhara, the teacher of Nilakantha who commented on the mahAbhArata, is not the same Sridharaswami who commented on Bhagavatam, Bhagavad Gita etc.//

One can see the sea of difference between the two statements, of which less said the better. With such poor comprehension the blogger writes essays and also faults others. In his haste to vilify his opponent he fails to even get his own points correct.  

Here is another comment on that page: [My replies are in italics in between]

Quote

To the following remark of subbu:

[Quote]
Now, in the following post I am adding that the Madhva recension of the MB contains the same Shiva sahasra nama (pl see attachment). I have it on the authority of a renowned Madhva scholar Vidwan Dr. Haridasa Bhatta Acharya of the Purnaprajna vidya pitha, Bangalore, who regularly discourses on the MB (in Kannada and Tulu too sometimes) that the Kumbhakonam edition is what is authoritative to them and that it contains the Shiva sahasra nama. I am citing the Madhva admissibility here because the blogger had said that Madhva has in his MBTN mentioned that there are interpolations in the MB and therefore *according to the blogger*, stories of Shiva being eulogized are mere interpolations and the sahasra nama too is one such. In order to just show that the Madhvas admit the sahasra nama not as interpolation, I made the enquiry and here is the result.
[/Quote]

We reply as follows:

1) The text quoted (Kumbhakonam edition) is not a “mAdhva recension” but an edition of the mahAbhArata, based on southern manuscripts, that have been compiled and published by a press managed by vaidika mAdhvas in Kumbhakonam. The publishers happen to be mAdhvas, that’s all. And they have published the manuscripts “as is” without making any changes to suit their beliefs.

[On the contrary, the screenshot of the cover page I provided clearly says ‘A New Edition ….with footnotes and readings.’ And also ‘Edited by…’. Further, it is not printed in a ‘press managed by vaidika…’ but in the ‘Nirnayasagar’ press, Bombay. That there is enough evidence of editorial work by the two Madhva scholars is seen all over the book/volumes. Even in the particular instance of the chapter 48 where the Shiva Sahasra nāma (SS) occurs, there is a title: ‘A recounting by Krishna to Yudhiṣṭhira of the SS that was told to Himself by Upamanyu’. This is surely an editor’s work. The Nilakantha edition does not contain the above title. There are a number of footnotes too by way of meanings, etc. given by the editors. It is not by any means a reproduction ‘as is’ of the various manuscripts. In fact in the inside cover of the book the editors say that ‘this edition is done with the help of many scholars’. ]

2) The mAdhva vidwAn simply stops at saying ” Kumbhakonam edition is what is authoritative to them and that it contains the Shiva sahasra nama”. This might be a politically correct statement to suit the public without giving up the truth. Note that the vidwAn has not stated “we accept Shiva sahasra nama as an authentic portion”.

[The Madhva vidwan does not mean simply that ‘it contains the ss’. When he gave that reply he meant that the SS is indeed a part of the Kumbhakonam edition which is admissible to them. He was in no need to make any politically correct statement since he was not doing any pravachana then. He was on a one-on-one basis with me when he said that. Also, he is not that type who would make such ‘politically…’ statements since he is a vociferous debator and say clearly what his system holds to be genuine. Note that the vidwan did not say: the SS is an interpolation’.]  

3) As I stated before, even otherwise, a lone mAdhva accepting Shiva Sahasranama as authentic does not make it so, because –

[Here is another mādhva scholar, Smt. Meera Tadipatri (who resides in the US and teaches their works), also saying, in reply to a question:

Quote

// On August 26, 2006 omkar_deshpande wrote:

> I have been having a long-standing question on the Mahabharata, which
> I have not got an answer to. There is a big section in Anushasana
> Parva

In the MBTN, Acharya notes that the original Mbh text has been
corrupted even during his time!

In the absence of reliable Mbh text, we find it safer to follow
the 1906 Satguru publication of Mbh edited by Sri T.R Krishnachar
and Sri T.R. Vyasacharya of Kumbakonam, and not the popular versions.
This Satguru edition also has a big section of 417 verses with
Shiva Stuthi etc.

Madhva-s don’t have any problem with the Shiva Stuthi as it refers
to Vishnu in the parama mukhyArtha.//

Unquote

Another madhva scholar, Sri Gururaja Kalkura, now teaching Pūrvamīmāmsā at the Madras Sanskrit College, recently purchased the Kumbhakonam edition alone for his personal use.

Many more scholars attached to well-known Madhva institutions also confirmed to me that it is the Kumbhakonam edition that is admissible to them and that they do not consider the SS to be an interpolation in the MB.

When I visited the PPSM, Bangalore, and requested the senior scholar there to show me the Mahabharata, what he brought to the table was, by default, the Kumbhakonam edition.

In fact, there is no reason for Madhvas to doubt the authenticity of the SS in the MB since, as noted above by that scholar, there are three levels of attribution of names: mukhya artha (to Shiva, in the case of SS), mukhya-tara artha (to vāyu) and mukhyatama artha (to Vishnu). This is what another contemporary vidwan Sri Bannanje Govindacharya says in his very recent book on the Rudrādhyāya.

Sri Vādirāja Tirtha (1480 to 1600 CE) a highly respected Acharya of the Madhva school, has authored the ‘Lakṣālaṅkāra’ (a work that explains selected points/words/verses of the MB. An institution called the ‘Mahabharata Samshodhana…’, Girinagar, Bangalore, under a committee headed by top-ranking scholars of the Madhva school too has in recent years brought out a multi-volume edition of this mighty work. There, in almost every page in the footnote is given several corresponding references to the Kumbhakonam edition of the chapter / verse numbers of the Lakshalankara. There, in chapter 33 of the Ānuśāsanika parva of the MB (acc. to Sri Vadiraja) is an explanation on a MB verse ‘सुरासुरगुरो देव…’. The 33^rd chapter of this book corresponds to the 45^th chapter of the Kumbhakonam edition. (The actual SS occurs in the 48^th chapter in the K edition as shown in my screenshot.) Taking the above verse as the prateeka the author says:

//वक्ष्यमाणशिवसर्वोत्तमादिकमप्रामाणिकमिति सूचयितुं ’सुरासुराणां गुरो’ इति सम्बुद्धिः..//

(The above verse does occur in the Kumbhakonam edition too. Incidentally, a chapter 44 in the K edition occurs prior to ch.33 of the Lakshalankara text. Such cases are also to be seen and the MB research committee has done a very painstaking work in identifying them and mapping the verses/chapters of the two books, the Lakshalanakara and the Kumbhakonam edition.)

(The meaning is: The idea of ‘Shiva’s Absolute Supremacy’ etc. that is going to be told is not authoritative. To indicate this (the Lord) is addressed ‘O the Preceptor of the devas and asuras..’ )

(The intention is: Since You are the Guru of asuras too, You, in order to delude them, teach / propagate ideas such as ‘Shiva is the Supreme’ even as You did in the form of Buddha. The Madhvas hold Buddha to be an incarnation of Vishnu.)

The author conveys this idea in a long paragraph that follows the above sentence: Bhishma, in his death bed, is hesitant, lajjā, even to give the names of Shiva (since according to him ‘the shiva-supreme idea and the SS implied by the word ‘etc.’ are only a retelling, alluding, of ‘shaiva darshana’ which is meant for deluding the asuras – ‘asuramohanārtham’, and therefore not approved by Veda Vyasa. So, Bhishma asks Lord Krishna Himself to give out the episode/SS.’

I mention the above only to show that all that is contained in the chapters around the above deal with Krishna getting eight boons from Shiva-Parvati, His praying to Shiva for progeny, Upamanyu instructing Krishna on the SS, etc. and Krishna retelling it to Yudhishthira, are completely admissible to the Madhvas, as evidenced by the Lakshalankara (15^th / 16^th CE) and the Kumbhakonam edition. The author has included the Kailasa yatra, etc. episodes of the MB also to be ‘aprāmāṇika’ but mentioned in the MB for ‘asuramohana’ (deluding the asuras).

Another important point the author Sri Vadiraja makes is, by citing a verse of Veda Vyasa to the effect that ‘the MB contains three types of renderings/languages – bhāṣā-s: ‘darśana, guhya and samādhi’. The ideas/episodes concerned with ‘Shiva-supreme, including the SS’ fall in the first category, an alluding of the un-vedic shaiva darshana. (This fact, two other Madhva scholars too confirmed to me while talking about the Lakṣhalankara work.)

One may read this communication:

http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2015-January/037862.html

Hence, the Madhvas are not unnecessarily worried about these episodes/SS in the MB. For them it is an authentic part of the MB though the idea of ‘Shiva Supremacy and the SS that teaches that’ are aprāmāṇika’ – not to be held as true and that they are there in the MB for ‘some other purpose’. In fact Sri Vadiraja also says at the end of the paragraph…’even though these can be explained as meaning the Supremacy of Vishnu alone…’ ]

The blogger says:              
// 4) Even some Srivaishnava vidwAns who conduct upanyAsas have stated in public to the effect that Shiva Sahasranama is an authentic portion of the mahAbhArata (to point out how Shankara chose to comment only on the Vishnu Sahasranama). However, it does not imply that all Srivaishnavas accept it so. As I have stated in the article, Sri Puthur Swami, a towering Srivaishnava Vidwan, has given a number of compelling reasons to reject Shiva Sahasranama as an interpolation.//

Unquote

[There are some Srivaishnava vidwAns/yatis who have a screen draped over the Shiva shrine wherever they are invited to give a discourse. Such ‘vidwans’ would never authenticate the SS for any political reason for their stated act defies all such public decency.

In fact a lone Vishishtadvaitin scholar’s opinion on the SS in the MB amounts to nothing.]

Om Tat Sat

In the Brahmasūtra bhāṣya for the very first sutra, Shankara says:

Shankara’s Date – A Discussion on Sudhanva’s Copper Plate
The article ‘Sankara’s Date: Paradigm for Scrutiny of Biographical and Epigraphic Data’ by Dr. V. N. Muthukumar and V. Subrahmanian contains an examination of the evidential value of what are said to be Sudhanvan’s copper-plate inscription and verses of the Brhat Sankara Vijaya about Bhagavatpada’s advent.
Sri Sunil Bhattacharyaji has written with reference to the article:
What is disturbing, is that the king Sudhanva has been mentioned in the biography of Adi Shankara by no less than a person like Swami Vidyaranya. That is why we cannot just dismiss the existence of Sudhanva in the times of Adi Shankara.

Authors’ Response:

We definitely have regard for the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya and have not dismissed the possibility of a king named Sudhanvan having existed in Bhagavatpada’s time. We have only said, strictly with reference to what is claimed about Sudhanvan in the copper-plate inscription as presented in Vimarsha, “As for historical evidence, there is none at all till now that corroborates the position that there actually was an emperor in India named Sudhanvan who ruled in the 5th century B.C.” The position of the Tarka-shastra is that the statement, “There is no ‘dandi purushah (man-with-staff)’ here” would hold even if there were, in front of one, just a man, just a staff or even a man with a staff nearby and would be false only if there were a man with a staff. Accordingly, our statement would be wrong only if there is historical evidence to corroborate what is made known in the inscription that: (a) there existed an emperor (sarvabhauma) – not just a king – named Sudhanvan in Bhagavatpada’s time and (b) this suzerain ruled in the 5th century BC (the inscription being dated Yudhishthira-shaka 2663, that is, 476 BC). We have used the phrase ‘historical evidence’ in the unremarkable sense of ‘evidence of past events or persons that can be verified to a reasonable standard of certainty’.

The author of Vimarsha, the source of the contents of the inscription, has, after presenting the said contents, written (on page 32 of Vimarsha), “That there was indeed a great king Sudhanvan who was a chief disciple of Bhagavatpada is known from the (Madhaviya Shankara) Digvijaya [Translated from Sanskrit]” That he was referring to the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya is unmistakeable, for he has followed this sentence by quoting in full a verse from it about Sudhanvan. Thus, the author of Vimarsha has presented the Madhaviya Shankara Viyaya as evidence for the existence of a king and contemporary of Bhagavatpada named Sudhanvan. Sri Bhattacharya too has here deemed the Madhaviya to be an authoritative work and evidence for Sudhanvan’s existence.

The Madhaviya Sankara Vijaya nowhere says that Sudhanvan was an emperor. On the contrary, by speaking of a king of Kerala (who is said to have presented his dramas to Bhagavatpada), King Amaruka (whose body Bhagavatpada occupied for a while) and the king of Vidarbha (who is presented as a king like Sudhanvan and not as one subservient to the latter), it falsifies the categorical claim in the copper-plate inscription about Sudhanvan being an emperor ruling over the entire Bharata-varsha. (Since the inscription purports to be a devoted submission by Sudhanvan to his esteemed preceptor, Bhagavatpada, this falsification cannot be explained away by claiming that the king had just greatly exaggerated his status.)

Further, the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya does not in any way mention or even hint that Bhagavatpada lived in the 5th century BC. On the contrary, a scholar versed in astrology had, even decades ago, ascertained and pointed out that the astrological information in Verse 2.71 of the Madhaviya that at the time of Bhagavatpada’s birth, the Sun, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars were all in kendra and in exaltation (ucca) is incompatible with Bhagavatpada having been born (on vaisakha-shukla-panchami at Kalady) in any year of the sixth and fifth centuries before Christ. Thus, if the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya is deemed to be authoritative and an evidence for there having been a king named Sudhanvan in Bhagavatpada’s time, then the copper-plate inscription must be dismissed as undependable for, according to the inscription, Sudhanvan and Bhagavatpada were alive in the 5th century before Christ (in 476 BC).

Thus, anybody who deems the Madhaviya to be authoritative and an evidence for there having been a king named Sudhanvan in Bhagavatpada’s time should (unless he wants to eat the cake and have it too ) concede, on the basis of the Madhaviya itself, that the copper-plate inscription spoken of in Vimarsha is untrustworthy.

In any case, even if there existed, as mentioned in the Madhaviya, a king and Bhagavatpada’s follower named Sudhanvan, it does not follow – and certainly not from the Madhaviya – that this Sudhavan submitted to Bhagavatpada a copper-plate inscription, and that too one with (as demonstrated in our article) false, grandiose claims about his suzerainty, a false declaration about there being universal, punctilious adherence to varnashrama-dharma in his kingdom and unsound reasons for Bhagavatpada choice of the heads of two of his four Maths.

(Sri Sunil Bhattacharyaji has written:)
Secondly, I understand that the Archaeological survey of India (Baroda Office) says that the copper-plate inscription has been retained by the Dwaraka peeth authorities, but it doubts the authenticity of the inscription.

Response:

This information is factually incorrect. The ascertained facts are that the said copper-plate inscription was never made even temporarily available to the ASI and was never even so much as just shown to any expert even in the premises of the Math. Consequently, the ASI never concluded that the copper-plate inscription was authentic or that it was unauthentic or that it was of doubtful authenticity.

(Sri Sunil Bhattacharyaji has written:)
On top of it , there has been the report of a split in the Dwarka peeth in 1880 and that was followed by another spit at a later date. This complicates matters as the properties of the Peeth could have been distributed among the split units and the Copper-plate inscription may now be with one of the branches of the Dwarka peeth.

Response:

(1) Centuries ago, when Muslim invasion of Kathiawar was imminent, the then pontiff of the Dwaraka Math shifted to Mulbagal in Karnataka, and, establishing a Math, settled there; as for the institution at Dwaraka, it became defunct and remained headless for long [vide, for example, Sri Shankaracharya va tyancha sampradaya (Marathi) by Mahadev Rajararam Bodas, 1923, page 50; Sri-Shankaracharya-caritam (Sanskrit) by (Vidvan) Venkatachala Sharma, 1916, pp. 30-31 (Preface to Brahmasutra-bhashya with Bhamati, Nyayanirnaya and Ratnaprabha)]. If the copper plate under consideration did exist in the Dwaraka Math at that time, it would, in view of its significance, irreplaceability and easy portability have almost certainly been taken by the pontiff to Mulbagal. However, it has never been identified in Mulbagal. In 1945, the head of the Mulbagal Math, Sri Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha, was installed as the Shankaracharya of the Dwaraka Math. If the copper plate had been present in the Mulbagal Math, it is implausible that even he would have been unable to access it at all. Likewise, if the copper-plate were at Dwaraka, it is quite unlikely that it would have been totally untraceable even by him. Yet, at no time in the long period of over three decades between his taking over at Dwaraka in 1945 and his passing away in 1982 did the copper-plate ever come to light and that too in spite of earnest requests for information about it by different persons and in spite of doubts raised by sceptics in writing itself not only about the reliability of the inscription but even about whether such a copper plate ever existed. It would, therefore, be unrealistic to expect the copper plate to be currently lying unfound at either Mulbagal or the Dwaraka Math.

(2) Sri Rajarajeshvara Shankara Ashrama, the author of Vimarsha, took up the position of Shankaracharya of the Dwaraka Math in Vikrama 1935 (1878 AD). According to Bodas (1923), “About 40 years ago, Sri Rajarajeshvara took samnyasa from one Keshava Ashrama who abided in the Dwaraka Math and then comported himself as the Shankaracharya of the Sharada-pitha (Dwaraka) [Freely rendered into English from Marathi].” According to Venkatachala Sharma (1916), Sri Rajarajeshvara was a South Indian Brahmin who, as a youth, had studied the Tarka-shastra to an extent and knew some English. When he went to Dwaraka, he saw that the Math had no formal head and became desirous of becoming its pontiff. He took up samnyasa, won the approval of the authority there and became the Shankaracaraya of Dwaraka. In his highly eulogistic account about Sri Rajarajeshvara, Vishnu Shastri has written in his preface to Vimarsha (pp. 1-2) that Sri Rajarajeshvara was from the Godavari District of Andhra, his name was Jagannatha Shastri and he learnt the Veda from his father. At the age of 21, he, who was a bachelor, set out on a pilgrimage, visited Kanchipuram, Rameswaram, Ujjain, Panchavati (Nasik), etc. and expounded the scriptures at various places. Then, “He enthusiastically arrived at Dwaraka. He had the darshan of Dwarakadhish (Krishna) and the Sharada-pitha’s head [Sri Keshava Ashrama; not named]. The preceptor honoured him with words full of regard and affection with the primary aim that the latter ascend the pitha. Revering the preceptor’s instruction, when the Guru’s death was at hand, he took up samnyasa in the prescribed manner and duly ascended the seat of Bhagavatpada, being entreated by the important persons of the town to do so. He who had become Rajarajeshvara Shankara Ashrama and the Jagadguru of the pre-eminent Sharada-pitha was respected by the Gaekwad king of Baroda (in whose jurisdiction Dwaraka falls) and by other rulers, such as of Saurashtra [Freely translated from Sanskrit with some hyperbole omitted].” Sri Rajarajeshvara is the one and only source to date in respect of the existence and the contents of Sudhanvan’s copper-plate inscription.

Prior to presenting the contents of the copper-plate inscription, Sri Rajarajeshvara has declared in his Vimarsha (on page 29), “As regards this (the period of Bhagavatpada), the very definitive copper-plate inscription of Sudhavan which is an incontrovertible, unequivocal guide to the period of Bhagavan Bhashyakara (Bhagavatpada) is reproduced here [Translated from Sanskrit].” Then, immediately after presenting the contents of the inscription, he has asserted (on page 31), “From this edict, we come to the conclusion that exactly as stated therein, with the agreement of Sudhanvan and other primary disciples, Bhagavan Bhashyakara ordained as pontiff, Sri Totakacarya in the Jyotir Math, Sri Hastamalakacarya in Sringagiri (Sringeri), Sri Padmapadacarya in the Govardhana Pitha (at Puri) and the Vartikakara Sri Sureshvaracarya in the Sharada-pitha in Dwaraka and that…” Sri Rajarajeshvara has thus strongly indicated to his readers that the copper plate existed and was accessible to him when he penned Vimarsha. At the close of Vimarsha, he has specified that he completed it in Vikrama 1953 (1896 AD) and as per the title-page, the book was published with the right of republication vested in the author, in Vikrama 1955 (1898 AD). So, unless he chose to mislead his readers, the copper plate must have been available to him in the late 1890s and, thus, it cannot be rightly presumed that the copper plate passed on in the 1880s to some separated branch of the Dwaraka Math and remains undiscovered there.

Vishnu Shastri has written in his preface to Vimarsha (pp. 2-3) that for some time after becoming the Shankaracharya, Sri Rajarajeshvara remained in Dwaraka. Then, “He left Dwaraka and travelled to Jamnagar, Bhavnagar, Ahmadabad, Baroda, Udaipur, Indore, Ujjain, Bhopal, Gwalior, Agra, Mathura, Delhi, Lahore, Kashmir, Haridwar, Bareilly, Lucknow, Ayodhya, Patna, Navadvipa (Nabadvip in Bengal), Deoghar and such other centres and engaged in discussions about right and wrong with the rulers there. He has been honoured by scholars on account of his scholarliness and austerity and is being served well by all. He has been successfully touring India till today.” Thus, as per this account, Sri Rajarajeshvara set out from Dwaraka some time after taking up the position of Shankarachara (in 1878) and was still touring when he completed Vimarsha (in 1896). Sri Rajarajeshvara has himself written at the close of Vimarsha (on page 89) that he was on tour and camping at Moradabad at that time. So, unless what he wrote about the copper plate is fictitious, he must have obtained it at Dwaraka prior to the 1880s and had access to it even when he was on tour in the late 1890s. It follows that the copper plate could not have passed on to some separated branch Math in the 1880s and be lying undiscovered there.

Sri Rajarajeshvara was not from the line at Mulbagal, never went there and, reports Bodas (1923), “There was a extended dispute between Sacchidananda Tirtha of Mulbagal and Rajarajeshvara of Dwaraka; Swami Krishnananda and the others who mediated decided in favour of Mulbagal” Thus, there is no question of his having obtained the copper plate in or from Mulbagal. So, if, as indicated by him, the copper plate was actually available to him, it could not have been lying at Mulbagal and ought to have been located at Dwaraka. However, this would mean that (a) the copper plate had, incredibly, remained undestroyed, undamaged and unappropriated even when the Krishna Temple as also the town of Dwaraka was plundered and vandalized by, for instance, Mohammad Ghazni in the 11th century and Mehmud Begarha in the 15th century; (b) notwithstanding the copper plate’s significance, irreplaceability and easy portability, it was, quite inexplicably, ditched at Dwaraka and not taken to Mulbagal when the Shankaracharya of Dwaraka shifted to and settled down in Mulbagal many years before Sri Rajarajeshvara’s time; and (c) though the Dwaraka Math was, after the shift to Mulbagal, defunct and headless for long, the copper plate was, remarkably, not taken away by anyone and remained intact and accessible to Sri Rajarajeshvara when he came there in the late 19th century.
Moreover, even if there did exist a copper-plate inscription of Sudhanvan belonging to the 5th century BC and it was, incredibly, found intact at Dwaraka by Sri Rajarajeshvara, it would still be a mystery how the inscription on it could have been understood by him. This is because if the inscription really belonged to the 5th century BC, it would have been in an ancient (Brahmi?) script and it was never shown to any expert capable of deciphering it. In view of all this, unless one is willing to unconditionally believe him, one may wonder whether he actually ever came across the copper plate under consideration. Of course, if even he, the only source to date about the copper plate’s existence and contents, had, unlike what he has indicated, never personally come across the copper plate, then there would be no reason for anyone to even speculate that since the 1880s, it is lying unfound in some branch of the Dwaraka Math.

(3) Sri Rajarajeshvara passed away about two years after publishing Vimarsha, in Vikrama 1957 (1900 AD), in the month of Ashadha, on shukla-pancami. While he did not nominate any successor, his disciple Sri Madhava Tirtha was chosen by the Baroda State (which had jurisdiction over Dwaraka) to be the next Shankaracharya of Dwaraka and he was formally installed, a few months after Sri Rajarajeshvara’s demise, as pontiff, in Vikrama 1958 (1901 AD), in the month of Pushya, on the full-moon day. Sri Madhava Tirtha remained the undisputed Shankaracharya till his death at Dakore on 27th September, 1916 (Vikrama 1972, in the month of Bhadrapada, on the new-moon day). It was after his passing away that legal succession-disputes arose, involving multiple claimants. There is, however, evidence that the copper plate, if at all it ever existed, was unobtainable even in Sri Madhva Tirtha’s time. So its unavailability is not some aftermath of those disputes.

A court case was filed by Sri Madhava Tirtha against a monk, Sri Madhusudana Parvata, to restrain the latter from calling himself the Shankaracharya of the Jyotir Math; to restrain him from touring and accepting offerings from devotees in Gujarat; and to order him to give up to the Dwaraka Math what all had been donated to him in Gujarat. Sri Madhava Tirtha contended that as the Shankaracharya of Dwaraka he alone and not any other Shankaracharya had jurisdiction over this area. For his case, he needed to provide evidence to the court that such territorial rights existed for the Shankaracharya of Dwaraka. To this end, he submitted a Mathamnaya (a text specifying the norms for Bhagavatpada’s Maths) but this was countered by Sri Madhusudana Parvata who submitted another Mathamnaya wherein exclusive territorial boundaries for the Shankaracharyas of Dwaraka, Jyotirmath, Puri and Sringeri were not prescribed. If the copper plate inscription as described by Sri Rajarajesvara had been available in his time, Sri Madhava Tirtha would undoubtedly have presented it or an authenticated copy of it, for it would have constituted a unique and incontrovertible evidence in favour of his claim of territorial jurisdiction. The pertinent portion of the inscription as translated and presented in our article is: “In this way, the four quarters of bharata-varsa (India) were placed by you under the stewardship of four preceptors. May these preceptors, guarding over their respective dominions uninterruptedly, cause the Vedic way to shine in splendour. Every one of us – brahmanas, ksatriyas and others – who dwell in a realm, shall remain subject to the authority of the corresponding preceptor [Diacritical marks present in the article are omitted here].” Sri Madhava Tirtha, however, failed to submit the copper plate or even an authenticated copy of the inscription; did not succeed in establishing that the Shankaracharya of Dwaraka had exclusive jurisdiction over Gujarat; and lost the case, with costs.

Here are some extracts (with our clarifications added in curly brackets) from the Judgement of Basil Scott, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High court [‘Madhusudan Parvat vs Sree Madhav Teerth on 11 November, 1908’]:
1. The plaintiff {Sri Madhava Tirtha} brought this suit for the declaration that the defendant {Sri Madhusudana Parvata}…is not entitled to call for or receive any offerings from the people of Ahmadabad and other places in Gujerat {sic} either in his assumed capacity of a Shankaracharya or of a Shankaracharya of the Jotir {sic} Math or a branch of that Math, for an account of the money received by the defendant as a Shankaracharya in Gujerat with a decree for payment to the plaintiff {Sri Madhava Tirtha} of the sum found to have been so received by the defendant {Sri Madhusudana Parvata}… The Subordinate Judge made a declaration that the defendant {Sri Madhusudana Parvata} is not entitled… to claim or receive offerings from the Judicial district of Ahmadabad in his assumed capacity of a Shankaracharya of the Jotir Math or the so-called branch of it at Dholka… From the decree of the Subordinate Judge the defendant {Sri Madhusudana Parvata} has appealed to this Court… 5. It is claimed on behalf of the defendant {Sri Madhusudana Parvata} that his predecessor in 1872 established or re-established the Jotir Math at Dholka…6. The establishment of the Math at Dholka, followed by visitations and preaching by its Mohunt {Mahant, head} in various parts of Gujerat… soon aroused opposition from the Mohunt of the Sharada Math {of Dwaraka}. 7. The opposition was based on practical as well as sentimental grounds…the attraction of followers to the Dholka Math involved the withdrawal of probable or possible donors of offerings from the Dwarka Mohunt. In order to put a stop to the competition of the Dholka Mohunt, the plaintiff {Sri Madhava Tirtha}, in 1887, with the concurrence of his preceptor {Sri Rajarajeshvara Shankara Ashrama}, the then Mohunt of the Dwarka Math, filed a criminal complaint at Siddhpur against Raj Rajeswaranand {Sri Madhusudana Parvata’s Guru}, the then head of the Dholka Math, charging him with cheating by personating the Shankaracharya of the Jotir Math. This complaint was dismissed… 8. The present suit is the first attempt made in a civil court to challenge the right of the occupant of the Dholka Math to preach as a Shankaracharya in Gujerat. 9. It is contended on the plaintiff’s {Sri Madhava Tirtha’s} behalf that he has, throughout that part of India where Gujerati {sic} is spoken, the exclusive privilege of preaching as Shankaracharya and receiving the offerings of Shankar {Bhagavatpada}. This contention is based on certain versions of the Mathamnaya or traditional precepts of the Maths produced by some of the plaintiff’s {Sri Madhava Tirtha’s} witnesses. 10. There is no authoritative version of the Mathamnaya and witnesses for the defendant {Sri Madhusudana Parvata} have produced other versions of it which differ in material particulars from those relied upon by the plaintiff {Sri Madhava Tirtha}. Thus the plaintiff’s versions after prescribing certain territorial limits for each Math contain the following precepts (see Exhibit 335, paragraphs 25 and 26), “The head preceptors should never enter into each other’s territories, that is the rule. Good rules would be violated by transgression, of the boundaries. It gives rise to an abode of quarrels; one should avoid that.” The defendant’s {Sri Madhusudana Parvata’s} versions do not contain these precepts nor any definition, of territorial limits…12. It is clear from the above references that the plaintiff {Sri Madhava Tirtha} has not succeeded in proving any exclusive and unbroken customary privilege for himself and his predecessors to preach and receive offerings as Shankaracharyas in Gujerat… 12…The appearance of the defendant {Sri Madhusudana Parvata} and his predecessors as Shankaracharyas in Gujerat may have affected the prestige as preachers of the heads {such as Sri Madhava Tirtha} of the Sharada Math {of Dwaraka} but for interference with a mere dignity no suit can be maintained… 14…We allow the appeal {of Sri Madhusudana Parvata}, set aside the decree {of the Subordinate Judge in favour of Sri Madhava Tirtha}, and dismiss the suit with costs on the plaintiff {Sri Madhava Tirtha}.

From the judgement, it is patent that it was in 1887 itself, in the time of and with the concurrence of his Guru, Sri Rajarajeshvara Shankara Ashrama, that Sri Madhava Tirtha first filed a case against then head of the Dholka Math. While this was before Vimarsha was completed, the case against Sri Madhusudana Parvata concluded only in 1908, about a decade after the completion of Vimarsha. It is striking that not only did Sri Madhava Tirtha fail to submit the copper plate, which would have constituted a powerful, unique evidence in his favour, he steered clear of submitting even a copy of contents of the inscription as found in Vimarsha. His avoiding submitting even a copy of the contents of the copper plate would make sense only if the copper plate was totally unavailable to him and there was no expert who had seen the copper plate and could bear testimony to its existence and contents and, consequently, its contents as reported in Vimarsha would, if submitted as evidence, have been quite unsubstantiated and challengeable in court as having been cooked up by Sri Rajarajeshvara. Since there is ground to surmise that the copper plate was unavailable even in Sri Madhava Tirtha’s time itself, it need not be supposed that the succession-disputes that followed Sri Madhava Tirtha’s death had anything to do with its disappearance.

(4) Even by considering just what transpired in the period between the passing away of Sri Madhava Tirtha in 1916 and the installation of Sri Abhinava Sacchidananda Tirtha (of Mulbagal) as the Shankaracharya of Dwaraka in 1945, it can be seen that the copper plate, if indeed it existed, could not have passed on in this period to some separated branch of the Dwaraka Math. This is because while there were succession-disputes in the aforesaid period involving multiple claimants, nonetheless, there never was any division of the properties of the Math between claimants, nor was the Dwaraka Math (that Sri Madhava Tirtha had presided over) under actual joint occupation at any time.

The legal and other particulars given in the box below demonstrate that there was no division of the Dwaraka Math properties and no actual joint occupation of the Math in the period 1916-1945 AD and, thus, buttress the conclusion that the copper plate could not have landed up in this period in some separated branch of the Dwaraka Math.
Sri Madhava Tirtha, who had been the undisputed Shankaracharya of the Dwaraka Math for about 15 years, died (on 27th September, 1916) without designating anyone to succeed him. The entire property of the Math was promptly placed under the control of the pertinent District Judge (Kennedy). The State of Baroda informed the District Judge (on 16th December 1916) of its authority to appoint the next Shankaracharya, chose Sri Shantyananda Sarasvati as Sri Madhava Tirtha’s successor (on 8th May 1917), and he was formally installed as the head of the Dwaraka Math on 5th June, 1917. Sri Shantyananda applied to the District Judge for the property. A person named Purnananda, who had also staked his claim to the District Judge, gave up his claim and the District Judge passed an order (on 9th August 1917) delivering the property to Sri Shantyananda “on the ground that he was the de facto occupant of the gadi {gaddi, seat} and had been installed at Dwaraka and was in possession of the property situate there and subject to the control of the Shankaracharya {quoted from the Judgement of Justice Patkar and Justice Barlee of the Bombay High Court in ‘Shri Sharada Peeth Math vs Shri Rajarajeshvarashram on 3 November 1931’}.” Another claimant named Rajarajeshvara Ashrama (not the author of Vimarsha!), who had staked his claim before the District Judge saying that he was the eldest disciple of Sri Madhava Tirtha, appealed to the Bombay High court against the District Judge’s order delivering of the property to Sri Shantyananda; he also sought an injunction against Sri Shantyananda’s being designated as Shankaracharya. Chief Justice Scott and Justice Shah did not issue the injunction that this claimant sought but ruled that the property should not be under the control of any claimant until the final determination of the title. Thereafter, as the issue “dragged on for nearly nine years” and as “nothing effective was done till…Shantyanand…died” {quoted from the earlier-mentioned judgement of Justice Patkar and Justice Barlee}, the Math property remained under the control of the Court and Sri Shantyananda continued as the Shankaracharya and the occupant of the Math at Dwaraka till his death on 16th February, 1926. With his death, the case against him by Sri Rajarajeshvara Ashrama, allegedly the eldest disciple of Sri Madhava Tirtha, “abated”. What is pertinent with respect to the copper plate is that in the period from the death of Sri Madhava Tirtha in 1916 to the death of Sri Shantyananda in 1926, the Math property was not divided between claimants and was essentially under the control of the court; further, Sri Shantyananda maintained, since his installation as pontiff, the designation of Shankaracharya and was the one who occupied the main Math at Dwaraka. So, the copper plate, if it had existed, could not have passed on to some separated branch Math in this period.

After Sri Shantyannanda’s death, Sri Rajarajeshvara, whose case against the former had abated, advanced his claim to the District Judge (Davis) for delivering the Math property to him. While the District Judge ruled in his favour, this decision was promptly challenged by one Svarupananda (not the present pontiff of Dwaraka) “claiming to be the successor of the last Acharya Madhav Tirth {Sri Madhava Tirtha} through one Trivikram Tirthji who was alleged to have been installed as Shankaracharya on 21st June 1917 and was succeeded by Bharati Krishna Tirthji who selected defendant 2 {Sri Svarupananda} to succeed him at Dwarka.” The matter went up to the Bombay High court. Chief Justice Marten and Justice Baker ordered that the property should not be handed to either Sri Rajarajeshvara or to Sri Svarupananda until the final determination of the suit. Thereafter, Sri Svarupananda and Sri Rajrajeshvara fought in the courts for the final determination of the title. In the meantime, the High court was informed that the Baroda State had appointed the late Sri Shantyananda’s successor (the next Shankaracharya of Dwaraka) on 19th November, 1927. He suffered a setback in the First Class Subordinate Judge’s court but went on appeal to the Bombay High court; there, Justice Patkar and Justice Barlee ruled in his favour. About two decades later, Sri Abhinava Sacchidananda Tirtha succeeded him. It is noteworthy that Sri Bharathi Krishna Tirtha (Sri Svarupananda’s predecessor, Sri Trivikrama Tirtha’s disciple and the Shankaracharya of Puri from 1925-1960) played a positive role in the installation of Sri Abhinava Sacchidananda Tirtha at Dwaraka (Jagatguru Shankaracharya Shri Bharati Krishna Teertha by T. G. Pande, 1997, p. 5). In the light of the above account, it can be seen that there was no division of the property between the claimants and no joint occupation of the Math at Dwaraka after the death of Sri Shantyananda and, thus, the copper plate, if it had existed, could not have passed on to some separated branch of the Dwaraka Math in the period between Sri Shantyananda’s death and Sri Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha’s installation at Dwaraka.

(5) After the firm establishment of Sri Abhinava Sacchidananda Tirtha (who headed the Mulbagal Math) as the Shankaracharya of Dwaraka, there is no separate Mulbagal line of preceptors and there have been no succession disputes in the Dwaraka Math. So, there is no scope to conceive that the copper plate, if at all it had ever existed, landed up after that in some separated branch of the Dwaraka Math and has been lying unnoticed there.

(Sri Sunil Bhattacharyaji has written:)
Thirdly, the state of the dating of the ancient inscriptions in India will improve only after the historians give up their faithfulness to the AIT time-line framed by Max Muller.

Response

Without expressing any opinion on this topic and confining ourselves to just our article, all that we would like to point out is that ‘Yudhishthira-shaka 2663’ (the date inscribed on the copper plate according to the author of Vimarsha) was equated to 476 BC in keeping with the author of Vimarsha, the sole source of information about the copper plate, deeming that the Kaliyuga started in 3101(+1) BC and the Yudhishitira-era in 3128(+1) BC (vide Vimarsha p. 22-23).

Sri ChittaranjanNaikji:

Can you inform us of the source from which you obtained the extract of Citsukacharya’s biography of Shankara?

I ask this question because, as far as I know, Citsuka’s biography on Shankara has been lost and is not in existence today. I feel that the extract of the book which you quoted in your article, showing the inconsistency between Shankara’s birth-date and the astronomical date mentioned by Citsuka, seems to be have been from a reproduction that was (deliberately) manipulated. It is highly unlikely that Citusuka would have made such a mistake and even more unlikely (and incredible) that none of the panditas in our tradition well-versed in Jyotisha at that time, of which there would have been many, or subsequently, would have failed to notice such an error.

If the source of the text you quoted from comes from, or is traced to, Sri Narayana Sastri or his citations from Citsuka’s work published posthumously, then I would be quite sure that it is a manipulated text.

Response:

The five verses, which contain information about when Bhagavatpada was born and the planetary positions at that timeand which are said to be from the BrihatSankara Vijaya of Sri Citsukha,were reproduced in our article from Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri’sThe Age of Sankara(1971 edition, p. 273).These verses did not figure in the first edition of 1916 of The Age of Sankara. As for Sri Citsukha’s Briha tSankara Vijaya, it has never been printed and is unobtainable even in manuscript form. Sri Narayana Sastri has, however, claimed, “In his biography of Sankara, which is known to the later writers, on account of its bulk, under the name Brihat Sankara Vijaya or Guru Shankara Vijaya, he has given a full account of the lives of Sankara and Suresvara and of the works they had written. Except the Bhashyas which were simply referred to, almost all the minor works of Sankara are collected and given in this work with the occasion on which they were composed. (The book has been evidently divided into three parts, (I) Purvacharya Satpatha, (II) Sankaracharya Satpatha and (III) Suresvaracharya Satpatha; but we have been able to get a mutilated copy containing only Sankaracharya Satpatha.) It is a pity that the work has not as yet been completely collected and printed in any part of India. (op. cit., p. 40) [Underlining added].” Prior to presenting 32 verses of which the ones referred to in the article are verses 12-16, he has claimed, “Thefollowing is the full text of the Prakarana as is found in the copy of the manuscript in our possession. (op. cit., p.272) [Underlining added].” Even the Brihat Shankara Vijaya’s Sankaracharya Satpatha’s copy that he claimed to have in his possession (and from which he says he reproduced the verses) is unavailable now. His son Sri T. N. Kumaraswamy, who brought out the second edition in 1971, has written in its preface, “My father, who was engrossed in this intense study about Sankara for twenty long years, produced this biography of the Loka-Guru in 1916…he could not bring out all the supplements he promised to incorporate. Death overtook him at the prime of life and prevented him from fulfilling his intentions. The manuscripts containing valuable matter were lost, leaving no trace behind. (op. cit., p. iii-iv) [Underlining added]”

Thus, the verses in question belong, according to Sri Narayana Sastri, to the Brihat Shankara Vijaya but neither is this work available anywhere now even in manuscript form, nor is the copy that he claimed to possess and from which, he says, he reproduced them. Sri Atmabodhendra has mentioned the Brihat Sankara Vijaya in Sushama, his commentary on the Gururatnamalika, and has cited it on more than one occasion but not one of these verses has been referred to by him. Nobody has reported having coming across these verses in any work predating Sri Narayana Sastri. So, unless it so happens that Brihat Shankara Vijaya comes to light somewhere and these verses are found therein, we have only the word of Sri Narayana Sastri that they are from it.

Taking Sri Narayana Sastri trustworthiness for granted, several authors have, over the years, stated that these verses are from the Brihat Shankara Vijaya and presented them as definitive evidence for Bhagavatpada’s date. You have questioned the genuineness of the verses. I too have such misgivings; there are grounds to suspect Sri Narayana Sastri’s credibility.

Here are two examples of Sri Narayana Sastri’s unreliableness and prejudice sent tomeby a friend, who had identified several more such instances too.

(1) The Jagadguru-parampara-stotra and the Jagadguru-parampara-namamala of Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati (said to be the 65^th pontiff of the Kanchi Math) do not include Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra (the great jivanmukta-yogi and disciple of Sri Paramsivendra Sarasvati) as a pontiff of the Kamakoti Pitha; they present Sri Atmabodhendra Sarasvati as the 57^thAcharya and successor of Sri Paramasivendra Sarasvathi. The official website of the Kanchi Math too lists Sri Atmabodhendra as Sri Paramasivendra’ ssuccessor, not Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra. The pertinent link is:

http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html#appendix2

Sri Narayana Sastri has, however, chosen to list (in English) Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra as the 57^thAcharya of the Kamakoti Pitha and the successor of Sri Paramasivendra Sarasvati (The Age of Shankara, 1971 edition, p. 197). Ironically, he has done so just after presenting (in Sanskrit) Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati’s Jagaguru-parampara-stotra in full (op. cit., pp. 185-191). Presumably, he was so brazen in propagating misinformation that he did not even care about the possibility of a reader comparing what is found in the said hymn with what he has claimed thereafter.

(2) With regard to the ‘copper-plate inscription’, Sri Narayana Sastri has written “The following is the full text of King Sudhanvan’s Copper plate published at p. 29 of the ‘Vimarsa’: (The Age of Sankara, 1971 edition, p. 219)” and then given, in Sanskrit, the text of the inscription (op. cit., p.220-221). He has, however, slyly replaced ‘vishvarUpApara-nAmadheya-sureshvarAcAryAmsca…[Visvarupa alias Sureshvaracharya]’ found in Vimarsha(on p.30, line 19) with ‘maNDanamishrApara-nAmadhyeya-sureshvarAcAryAmsca…[Mandana Mishra alias Sureshvaracharya] (TheAgeofSankara, 1971 edition,p. 221, line 6).’ Thus, Sri Narayana Sastri was prepared to slyly make changes even when quoting from a book available in print.

Ironically, in the pages just preceding the one in which Sri Narayana Sastri surreptitiously replaced Visvarupa by Mandana Mishra in the citation from Vimarsha, he accused many of having indulged in textual manipulation. He wrote, “Visvarupacharya cannot be identified with Sureshwaracharya…Even the identification of Prithividhara (Prithividhava) with Visvarupa is open to serious objections. It was to meet this difficulty that the various SankaraVijayas known to us under the names of Madhavacharya (Vidyaranya), Sadanandacharya and Cidvilasayati had been brought into existence and given the appearance of ancient works…the Kumbhakonam Mutt had, in their eagerness to give over-prominence to the Kamakotipitha established by SankaraBhagavatpada…introduced serious changes in the names of the first Acharyas of the various Mathas established by Sankara in India in their newly framed Mathamnayas and Guruparamparas…(The Age of Sankara, 1971 edition, pp.212-216) [Underlining added].”

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

http://www.mediafire.com/download/x4r72mk93dmkcav/andhra+bharatam+short+study.pdf

regards

adbhutam