[Advaita-l] Shankara exposes the bigoted Vaishnava !!

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Thu Apr 25 09:13:44 EDT 2019


Very well said, Srinivasamurthy ji,  wonderful.

warm regards
subbu

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:21 PM sreenivasa murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>  Dear Sri Subramanian,     You Write :"12. There is no way that the
> Trimurti-s are alienated from Brahman."
> Why Trimurtis alone,
> Can  any  carAcaravastu  be  alienated  from  Brahman?Can you,  me,  they
> be  alienated  from  Brahman?NEVER.Sruti  says  AtmaivEdagm  sarvam ||
> brahmaivedagm  viSvaM  variShTham ||
>
> A  Vedantin  should  never  forget   the  factthat  all  ,  without  any
> exception, are  theexpressions / manifestation of  That  ONE  without a
> second.All the  doctrines, without  any  exception, are theexpressions /
> manifestation of  That  ONE  without a second.Is  it  not  so?The word
> "bigoted Vaishnava" leaves a very bad taste.
> With  respectful  namaskars,Sreenivasa Murthy
>
>
>
>
>     On Thursday, 25 April, 2019, 1:13:25 pm IST, V Subrahmanian via
> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>  Shankara exposes the bigoted Vaishnava !!
>
> In the Vishnu Sahasra Nama (VSN) bhashya, while explaining the names:
> bhUtakRt, bhutabhRt ..
>
>
>   1. रजोगुणं *समाश्रित्य* विरिञ्चिरूपेण…
>   2. तमोगुणम् *आस्थाय *स रुद्रात्मना..
>   3. सत्त्वगुणम् *अधिष्ठाय* भूतानि
>
> With the ulterior motive of maligning Shankara by portraying him as a
> 'vaishnava' who shows Rudra in a derogatory manner as a 'taamasic' devataa,
> some disgruntled vaishnavas tried to play with the highlighted words above
> to finally show that according to Shankara Brahma and Rudra are rajas and
> tamas guna influenced but Vishnu alone is by default sattvaguna.
>
> While the above idea has been refuted by showing several pramana-s from
> Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata, Sridhari Vyakhya, etc. we find that Shankara
> himself is exposing his opponents:
>
> In the VSN there is the name (839) 'guNabhRt' (followed by 'nirguNah'). For
> this name Shankara says:
>
> सत्त्वरजस्तमसां सृष्ठिस्थितिलयकर्मसु अधिष्ठातृत्वात् गुणभृत् |  [Braman is
> called 'guNabhRt' because it is the one presiding in the cosmic actions of
> creation, sustenance and dissolution that belong to sattva, rajas and
> tamas.]
>
> The above bhashya of Shankara brings to the fore:
>
> 1. The functions of creation, sustenance and dissolution are of the three
> gunas: rajas, sattva and tamas, in this order.
> 2. They are not of Brahman really.
> 3.  Since Maya cannot do these by itself unless aided by Consciousness,
> Brahman, these are said to be of Brahman.
> 4. Brahman cannot do these by Itself without the aid of Maya's three gunas.
> 5. Brahman is 'equal' with regard to its presiding over the three gunas.
> 6. The idea that the three entities, Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra who are
> assigned the three gunas are really doing these functions is not correct,
> as per Bhagavatpada.  Even in the bhUtakRt, bhUtabhRt bhashyam Shankara has
> only said that Brahman does these 'as' Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra.
> 7. That the three Murti-s are different from each other is also not in
> Bhagavatpada's endorsement.
> 8. If any, it has to be said that the three guna-s are of Brahman who is
> Nirguna in truth.
> 9. This is exactly stated by the very next Name in the VSN: NirguNah.
> 10. Since Shankara has said that it is Brahman that presides over the
> cosmic functions that are actually of the three gunas, it is to be known
> that Shankara does not endorse the idea that the Trimurti-s are endowed
> with these three gunas.
> 11. This is because since these three forms are Brahman alone, the guna-s,
> if any, belong to Brahman. This is exactly the literal meaning of the Name
> 'GuNabhRt', the one who bears/supports/holds the three guNa-s.
>  12. There is no way that the Trimurti-s are alienated from Brahman.
>
>
> Thus, there is absolutely no basis for the mischievous  claim born of
> misunderstanding that 'Shankara holds Rudra to be a taamasic devataa.' On
> the other hand, if any, Shankara is only saying that Brahman is rajasic,
> tamasic and saattvic when it comes to be the jagatkaaraNam. This idea is
> alone taught by the Vishnu Puranam:
>
> सृष्टिस्थित्यन्तकरणीं ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवात्मिकाम् ।
> स संज्ञां याति भगवान् एक एव जनार्दनः  ||    वि. पु. १-२-६६    [That
> 'Janardana' takes upon the names of 'Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva' based on the
> functions of creation, etc.]
>
> The Brahma sutra 'janmaadyasya yatah' is teaching that 'One" Brahman alone
> is the JagatkaaraNam and not three different entities as the
> jagatkaaraNam.  Anandagiri, commenting on a verse of Sureshwaracharya has
> said that 'The idea of three different entities being the jagatkaaranam is
> unvedic.'
>
> Om Tat Sat
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list