[Advaita-l] Shankara authenticates Shiva as the son of Brahma
dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 13 06:18:55 CDT 2016
nirguNa does not always imply nirvishesha. It is Ishwara who creates and
destroys as mentioned clearly in the 6th mantra of Mandukya upanishad.
nirvishesha Brahman is beyond Ishwara, as the fourth. It neither creates
nor destroys anything. There is no second entity in that state. It cannot
even be denoted by terms like Brahman or Atman. Please read bhagavatpAda's
commentary on neti neti, if you think I am making things up. The
nirvishesha Atman is indicated by silence as is mentioned in BSB. Shankara
also quotes Narayana telling to Narada (from Mbh Shanti parva), that his
true nature is not even the vishwaroopa.
I would like to point out here that you are also contradicting yourself. In
your article on paradox, you say that Narayana, who is beyond avyakta, is
the ishtha devata of Shankara. Now you are saying that no deity is beyond
avyakta. I suggest you resolve your contradiction first.
Regarding your other question, there is a discussion in BSB, that prANa
does not mean vital force when it is indicated as creator etc, but it means
supreme Brahman who alone is the cause. Same is the case with other words
like Akasa etc. If you are unable to find it, let me know. I can help.
On Saturday, 13 August 2016, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 4:12 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
>> //In the Prashnopaniishat bhashya Shankara has stated Rudra is the
>> world-annihilating entity.//
>> In the BSB, Shankara says that all such words like prANa etc. that occur
>> here, must be taken to mean the supreme Brahman only and no body else. The
>> second brahmasUtra also states that it is Brahman alone that is the cause
>> of creation and destruction. In BSB 2.1.1, Shankara quotes a purANa which
>> says that Narayana alone is everything, he is the cause of origin and
>> dissolution of everything. Thus Brahman alone is the cause and no one else.
> That only confirms that Shankara holds the word 'Rudra' to connote the
> Supreme Brahman even as the other names do. Along with that puranic verse
> in BSB 2.1.1 Shankara quotes another verse which has the word nirgunam
> showing that it is no deity.
> ‘स ह्यन्तरात्मा भूतानां क्षेत्रज्ञश्चेति कथ्यते’ इति चोक्त्वा,
> ‘तस्मादव्यक्तमुत्पन्नं त्रिगुणं द्विजसत्तम’ इत्याह ; तथान्यत्रापि ‘*अव्यक्तं
> पुरुषे ब्रह्मन्निर्गुणे सम्प्रलीयते*’ इत्याह ;
> The kshetrajna in advaita is nirguna chaitanyam and the avyakta has its
> source in it and also dissolves into it, the nirguna. For Shankara the
> Supreme Brahman is beyond the avyakta; a deity will be within the avyakta.
> By the way, could you pl. show that sentence where Shankara says //all
> such words like prANa etc. that occur here, must be taken to mean the
> supreme Brahman only and no body else. // ?
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list