[Advaita-l] Padmapada's invocation and commentaries
dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 4 02:36:37 CDT 2016
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
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).
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
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.
Over all we must note two things -
1. Both commentaries say that (Adi) Shankara did not don the bhasma
2. The second commentary explicitly says that (Adi) Shankara is being
differentiated from the other prasiddhi Shankara (Shiva)
Therefore, neither did (Adi) Shankara don the bhasma, nor was he
considered an incarnation of Shiva by Padmapada.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list