[Advaita-l] Shankara authenticates Shiva as the son of Brahma
agnimile at gmail.com
Mon Aug 15 02:37:46 CDT 2016
Yes, but that is an attribution made by Shankara. Remember the context of
this mantra is that Indra does not know who or what this Yaksha is. He has
not made the connection that this Yaksha is in fact Ishvara.
So his thought pattern, according to Shankara is - I don't know what this
Yaksha is. But this lady Uma, because she is sarvajna Ishvara's wife,
should be knowledgeable due to her association with her omniscient husband.
Therefore, she will be able to tell me who or what this unknown entity,
His thought pattern is not - this Yaksha is Ishvara. Here comes his wife,
she can tell me about her husband, Ishvara who is this Yaksha. If he
already knew that Yaksha is Ishvara, he doesn't need Uma to repeat it to
On 15 Aug 2016 8:29 a.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Shankara says that it is *Indra's* thought that Uma was forever
> associated with sarvajna Ishwara. Please check the bhAshya again.
> These are Indra's thoughts according to Shankara.
> On 15 August 2016 at 12:46, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think you have understood my point.
> > Indra did not use the neuter gender to refer to Uma's husband, he used
> it to
> > refer to Yaksha. Indra makes no reference to Uma's husband at all.
> > Only Shankara makes reference to Uma's husband as Sarvajna Ishvara, and
> > when he is talking about Yaksha, when he is talking about Uma always
> > associated with Him. And there is no gender confusion there at all.
> > Regards,
> > Venkatraghavan
> > On 15 Aug 2016 7:58 a.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Shri Venkatraghavanji
> >> > If you are saying that because the neuter gender is used in the
> >> > (एतत्), Siva cannot be referred to because he is male,
> >> I am saying, if Indra thought that the companion of Uma who was
> >> sarvajna Ishwara, was a male (being her *husband*), then he would not
> >> have used neuter gender to refer to the sarvajna Ishwara. I also
> >> invite you to check the translation of Swami Gambhirananda. He uses
> >> the neutral word "God" everywhere in this context for Ishwara and does
> >> not interpret it as Shiva. So your assumption that Ishwara here refers
> >> to Shiva is no more than speculation.
> >> and no masculine
> >> > entity can be referred to, then by that logic, the Upanishad cannot be
> >> > referring to ईश्वर as that Yaksha either - because the word ईश्वर is
> >> > masculine in gender too.
> >> >
> >> > However, that interpretation would be wrong, because Shankara
> >> > says that the Yaksha is indeed ईश्वर only.
> >> Let me point out that yaksha can be used both in neuter and masculine
> >> gender.
> >> Having said that, consider the following -
> >> 1. ayam AtmA brahma - here Atman is masculine and brahman is neuter
> >> but there is no problem with Atman referring to brahman.
> >> 2. Mohini is Vishnu - here Mohini is feminine and Vishnu is masculine,
> >> but there is no problem with Mohini referring to Vishnu.
> >> 3. Brihannala is Arjuna - here Brihannala is (I think) feminine and
> >> Arjuna is masculine, but there is no problem with Brihannala referring
> >> to Vishnu
> >> Hence there is no problem with the word yaksha referring to the word
> >> Ishwara, even if the former is used in neuter gender.
> >> Regards
> >> Gayatri
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list