[Advaita-l] Padmapada's invocation and commentaries
agnimile at gmail.com
Sun Sep 4 05:57:21 CDT 2016
Having read the vyakhyA to panchapAdika provided by Smt Gayatri, it is my
view that Sri PadmapAdachArya is using the double meaning device as follows
- in each case, when referring to Lord Shiva he is using the direct meaning
of the word (vAcyArtha) and when referring to Shankaracharya, he is using
the indirect meaning of its opposite word (lakshyArtha).
So when he says नमामि अभोगिपरिवारसंपदं - when referring to Shiva he says
he is भोगिपरिवारसंपदं and Shankara is अभोगिपपिवारसंपदं. Here Bhogi's direct
meaning is snakes and indirect meaning is enjoyers of material wealth.
भोगिपरिवारसंपदं means he who is surrounded by snakes and अभोगिपपिवारसंपदं
is he is who is surrounded by ascetics.
Coming to अनुमार्धविग्रहं, he is referring to Shankara as अनुमार्धविग्रहं
and Shiva as उमार्धविग्रहं. Here by the word उमार्धविग्रहं he is meaning
the direct meaning - Shiva, who has Parvati as half his body. By
अनुमार्धविग्रहं he takes the indirect meaning - Shankaracharya, who
places equal importance to anumAna (logical reasoning) along with Shruti in
Coming to निरस्तभूतिं. Taking the direct meaning of भूति as ashes he
applies this to Shiva as he who is covered in ashes and indirect meaning of
भूति as wealth he applies to Shankaracharya.
The pattern is quite consistent - the same meaning of the word is never
used for Shiva and Shankaracharya at the same time. It's always the direct
meaning of the word for Shiva and the indirect meaning of the opposite for
That being the case, it can't be argued that the direct meaning of the word
भूति as ashes be applied both for Shiva and Shankaracharya, conclude that
Shankara never applied ashes and thereby claim that Shankara did not
consider Shiva as Ishvara.
As others have argued, it is my considered opinion that the reason
Padmapada chooses to compare Shiva and Shankaracharya thus in the first
place is because he regards them as one - that Shankara is none other than
Shiva, or as his fellow disciple, Totakacharya calls Shankara, भव एव भवान्,
Shiva is verily yourself.
On 4 Sep 2016 11:02 a.m., "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 2:02 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > //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. //
> > Commentary does not use "vibhUti" but "bhUti".
> Tattvadipanam - This is correct. While typing I had said vibhūti instead
> of bhūṭi. But that does not change the meaning of the compound word:
> aishvaryalakshana bhūti vidhuraḥ. Bhūti is given a viśeṣaṇa, adjective:
> aishvaryalakṣana. (there is the famous Mundakopanishad mantra: tasmāt
> ātmajñam hyarchayet bhūtikāmaḥ [Therefore, let the one desirous of wealth
> propitiate/worship the Knower of the Self] When the two words are combined
> it is aishvaryalakshana-bhūti. Tena vidhuraḥ, devoid of that glory. Nowhere
> the bhasma is brought here in this compound.
> First he gives the meaning for the word 'bhūti' of the verse to apply to
> Shiva: bhūtiḥ=bhasitam. Then he says: tadanuliptāgāraḥ = Shiva is the one
> whose body is smeared with bhasma. Then the vailakshanya is brought out:
> Shankara, on the other hand, is devoid of the bhūti that is aishvarya.
> Nowhere does this mean that the commentator is holding that 'Shankaracharya
> is without bhasma.'
> > The commentary is saying he is devoid of wealth and ashes.
> The commentary is not saying this at all. If it is indeed saying that, the
> construction of the sentence should have been: aishwaryabhūtibhyām
> vidhuraḥ. The vigraha of this compound would be: aishvaryam tathā bhūtiḥ =
> aishvaryavibhūtī. tābhyām (dual number) vidhuraḥ. But the actual sentence
> found there is: aishvaryalakshana bhūti vidhuraḥ. The word lakshana is the
> one that indicates the adjective for bhūti. Since the word bhūti has both
> the meanings: bhasma and aishwarya, the commentator is specifying that it
> is the latter (in the case of Shankaracharya) in order to ward off the
> former meaning.
> > bhUti is given the meaning of bhasitam, or ashes, by the commentary
> Yes. this is correct. But that is applicable to Shiva as I have shown
> Anybody can see the commentary for which the link to the image has been
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list