[Advaita-l] Bigotry can't get any worse

[V Subrahmanian]

Bigotry can't get any worse

The Bhamati 1.3.24 BSB on the bhashya for the sutra 'शब्दादेव प्रमितः'
cites this following verses while putting forward the prima facie view that
the jiva and not the Paramatma, is the one that is taught as ' angushtha
maatrah purusha' (the purusha is of the size of the thumb):


अपि च जीवात्मनः स्पष्टमङ्गुष्ठमात्रत्वं स्मर्यते 'अङ्गुष्ठमात्रं पुरुषं
निशिचकर्ष यमो बलात्' इति ।

[Yama, forcefully pulled away the ' purusha of the size of the thumb' and
set out on the journey to the pitruloka...] Bhavishya puranam.

The Bhamati continues, in support of this idea:

नहि सर्वेशस्य ब्रह्मणो यमेन बलान्निष्कर्षः कल्पते । [Indeed it is
impossible to propose that the Supreme Lord Brahman can be pulled away
forcefully by Yama.] And in substantiation of this statement cites a verse
from the  of the Vishnu Purana:

यमो हि जगौ 'हरिगुरुवशगोऽस्मि न स्वतन्त्रः प्रभवति संयमने ममापि विष्णुः' इति
। [Yama indeed said 'I am under the control of Hari, the Superior, and not
independent. Vishnu is the one capable of controlling me as well.]

The statement of Vachaspathi Mishra that Yama cannot pull away forcefully
the 'Supreme Lord, Brahman' and the immediate citing of a verse that says
that such a Supreme Lord Brahman is Vishnu proves that he had no
reservations in holding Vishnu to be the Supreme Brahman.

We have the bigoted blogger maligning Vachaspathi Mishra (VM), the renowned
Advaita Acharya, who wrote the famous Bhamati as 'a non-vedantin, a shaiva,
etc.':

https://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_3.html#advaitavishnu

And also see  http://www.mediafire.com/download/n9q6kdu3dnr4l4z/VM%
27s+Crime.pdf

Much to the chagrin of the blogger, the author of the Kalpataru (commentary
to the Bhamati), Swami Amalananda, whom he tried to promote as a
'vaishnava-advaitin' favoring the cause of Vaishnavism of the Ramanuja
brand, has himself said in no unequivocal terms that the author of the
Bhamati was an aparoksha jnani, in his concluding part of the Kalpataru.
This very Swami Amalananda, in this very work, Kalpataru, authenticated the
Prapanchasara as a work of Shankara and even cited a verse from it.  It is
very well known that the Prapanchasara is the complete antithesis of all
that is Vaishnavite. There is everything in it that holds all deities as
upasya, as giving moksha and has even a verse that holds Hari and Hara as
to be worshiped on par.

Now, added to all this, is this statement of VM himself where he holds
Vishnu to be the Supreme. If he was really a 'Shaiva', he would never have
held Vishnu to be the Supreme Brahman. In fact there was no need for him to
make that statement; he could have simply cited the verse from the VP and
that would have served his purpose of portraying the prima facie view. That
he has done what he has speaks volumes of his Hari-Hara abheda acceptance
as all other Advaitins before and after him have been.

The sole cause of the blogger's hatred towards VM is primarily triggered by
his own shiva-hatred. The crime of VM was that, in all innocence, he paid
obeisance to Lord Shiva in his invocation to the Bhamati:

षड्भिरङ्गैरुपेताय विविधैरव्ययैरपि  ।
शाश्वताय नमस्कुर्मो वेदाय च भवाय च  ॥३॥

Even a mere obeisance to Shiva would not have caused so much rage in the
blogger, for the invocation qualifies Shiva with the adjective:   शाश्वताय
which means 'eternal.'  For the fanatical vaishnava, no one other than
Vishnu can be eternal.  He would not have been so much disturbed if the
Bhamati had given that adjective to just the Veda, but it went on to
include Bhava, Shiva, too as the one qualified by that adjective. So much
for the fanaticism of someone who has received modern education.

It is to be noted that VM nowhere denigrated Vishnu. In fact he has
referred to Vishnu as 'Bhagavan', an undoubtedly exalting honorific, while
paying obeisance to Veda Vyasa:

ब्रह्मसूत्रकृते तस्मै वेदव्यासाय वेधसे  ।
ज्ञानशक्त्यवताराय नमो भगवतो हरेः  ॥५॥

VM praises Veda Vyasa as the jnana shakti avatara of Bhagavan Hari.

Of course, when one's heart is filled with hatred to Shiva, the intellect
to recognize a Hari-stuti in the immediate proximity, is sadly clouded.

Now, the Bhamati's statement about Vishnu as the Supreme Brahman, strikes
on the face of the blogger's fanatical animosity towards Shiva and, by
extension, the author of the Bhamati, and all smartas. Even a
vishishtadvaitin has recognized the Bhamati citing the verse above:


http://thiruppul.blogspot.in/2016/08/blog-post_16.html

பீஷ்ம‌ர் ந‌குல‌னுக்கு வ‌ர்ணித்ததைப் ப‌ராச‌ரர்வ‌ர்ணித்தார். இந்த‌ஸ‌ம்வாதத்தில்
ஸ்ரீச‌ங்க‌ரர் முத‌லிய‌ அத்வைத‌ப் பெரியார்க‌ளுக்கு விசேஷ‌ ஈடுபாடு. ய‌ம‌ன்
பாடினான் என்று"ஹ‌ரிகுருவ‌ஶ‌கோऽஸ்மி ந‌ ஸ்வ‌த‌ந்த்ர‌: ப்ர‌ப‌வ‌தி ஸ‌ம்ய‌ம‌தே
மமாபி விஷ்ணு:" (*हरिगुरुवशगोऽस्मि न स्वतन्त्र: प्र्भवति संयमते ममापि
विष्णु:) என்ற‌ சுலோக‌த்தை  பா‌ம‌தீ க்ர‌ந்த‌ம் உதாஹ‌ரித்தது. *

It is really unfortunate that so much animosity to Shiva, the smarta
sampradaya and the Acharyas of the Advaita tradtion (who have been maligned
by projecting them as supporters of the bigoted strand of vaishnavism)
emerges from someone who has his roots in the very smarta tradtion that he
has continuously maligned:

(These are from public domain)

Here is a Tamil blog where he has admitted his smarta roots:

As ' கந்தர்வன்' on January 29, 2010  this blogger wrote in :
*http://www.tamilhindu.com/2010/01/sivarama-darshanam-by-kamban/
<http://www.tamilhindu.com/2010/01/sivarama-darshanam-by-kamban/>*

// (நான் ஸ்ரீவைஷ்னவன் அல்லன்; சங்கர சம்பிரதாயத்தை அடியொற்றி வந்த அத்வைத
குலத்தவன்)//  [The translation is: 'I am not a Srivaishnava; I belong to
the Advaita lineage that has adhered to the Shankara sampradaya.']

And in this page too refers to his 'conversion' to the Ramanuja following:

https://narayanastra.blogspot.in/search?q=father


How can there be such Shiva-hatred and hatred for those who worship Shiva?
If Vaishnavism needs to stay afloat by means of cheap gimmicks such as
hatred, bigotry, factually false proclamations, etc, indeed one has to pity
that 'ism.'  Those who have partnered with such a mentality will have to
seriously reconsider their stand. Rather than promoting Srivaishnavism such
behaviour only blotches the image of that school and its founding fathers
and those who have nurtured it.



Om Tat Sat