[Advaita-l] Padmapada's invocation and commentaries
dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 4 03:32:46 CDT 2016
//While* that* Lord Shiva was donning the ashes, *this*, Shankaracharya, is
bereft of the vibhūti called aishvarya: aishvaryalakshanavibhūti vidhuraḥ.
Anyone with elementary Sanskrit knowledge will be able to see this. //
You can check the commentary. Or readers can check the commentary
themselves to see who is misinterpreting things. Commentary does not use
"vibhUti" but "bhUti". The commentary is saying he is devoid of wealth and
ashes. bhUti is given the meaning of bhasitam, or ashes, by the commentary
//That differentiation is only for the purpose of showing that the Original
Lord Shiva alone has incarnated as Shankaracharya. //
This is probably the most disingenuous (mis) interpretation that I have
seen. This, when the commentator is explicitly saying that he is
differentiating the prasiddha Shankara and Adi Shankara.
I have presented my case and have no further comments to add. Readers are
free to verify the link to the commentaries in Sanskrit.
On Sunday, 4 September 2016, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:06 PM, D Gayatri via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>> There has been some discussion about padmapada's iinvocation verse
>> here and one particular member accused me of misleading the "gullible"
>> readers (as if readers are not intelligent enough!). I have been
>> accused of distorting the meaning of the commentaries.
>> A good friend of mine has sent me link to the commentaries on
>> Padmapada's verse in Sanskrit, which explain the meaning of the verse.
>> The friend also pointed to me, the relevant portions of the
>> commentaries. I give full credit to my friend for this post.
>> The commentaries can be found here and can be verified by anyone -
>> The readers can look at two of the commentaries 1. RujuvivaraNam and
>> 2. tattvadIpanam
>> Both the commentaries indicate that Shankara did not don bhasma and
>> the last commentary states that Shankara is being differentiated from
>> the other prasiddha Shankara (Shiva).
>> 1. RujuvivaraNam
>> For “nirastabhUtim”, the explanation given is “bhasmarahitaM
>> nirastaishvaryaṃ vA” (bhasmarahitam means without ashes,
>> nirastaishvaryam means without wealth). Thus the RujuvivaraNam is
>> saying that (Adi) Shankara did not don the bhasma and he is also
>> without wealth.
>> 2. tattvadIpanam
>> This one says - "prasiddha Shankara vilakshaNam paramahamsa parAyaNam
>> ShankarAchAryam namAmi....". The commentary then goes on ....
>> Thus the commentator is clearly differentiating the prasiddha Shankara
>> (Shiva) from (Adi) Shankaracharya.
>> For bhUtih, the commentator says -
>> bhUtiḥ -- bhasitam (ashes), tadanuliptagAtraḥ saḥ (sah here refers to
>> prasiddha Shankara or Shiva) । ayaṃ (this refers to Adi Shankara)
>> (Adi) Shankara is bhUtividhurah - i.e, he is devoid of ashes.
> The above is a patently wrong translation of the commentary. The correct
> translation is:
> While* that* Lord Shiva was donning the ashes, *this*, Shankaracharya, is
> bereft of the vibhūti called aishvarya: aishvaryalakshanavibhūti
> vidhuraḥ. Anyone with elementary Sanskrit knowledge will be able to see
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list