Turīya Śiva of the Kaivalyopaniṣat

We have these mantras in the Kaivalyopaniṣat:

हृत्पुण्डरीकं विरजं विशुद्धं विचिन्त्य मध्ये विशदं विशोकम् ।

अचिन्त्यमव्यक्तमनन्तरूपं शिवं प्रशान्तममृतं ब्रह्मयोनिम् ॥ ६॥

तमादिमध्यान्तविहीनमेकं विभुं चिदानन्दमरूपमद्भुतम् । var तथादि

उमासहायं परमेश्वरं प्रभुं त्रिलोचनं नीलकण्ठं प्रशान्तम् ।

ध्यात्वा मुनिर्गच्छति भूतयोनिं समस्तसाक्षिं तमसः परस्तात् ॥ ७॥

7. (Who is) unthinkable and unmanifested; (whose) forms are infinite; who is (Śiva) peaceful, immortal and all-pervading, and who is the cause (of all); and, who has no beginning, nor middle nor end; who is one and omnipresent; who is chit and Ānanda; who is without forms and wonderful.

Sankaranada’s commentary – ‘S’iva': the form of beneficance. ‘Peaceful, devoid of the fault of Avidyā.

Uma’s spouse, (Umasahāya) the supreme Lord (Parameshwara) who is powerful (Prabhu); the three-eyed and beneficent Nilakantha; by meditation, a Muni reaches Him who is the origin of all beings, the witness of all and passes beyond Tamas.

स ब्रह्मा स शिवः सेन्द्रः सोऽक्षरः परमः स्वराट् ।

स एव विष्णुः स प्राणः स कालोऽग्निः स चन्द्रमाः ॥ ८॥

He is Brahma, He is S’iva, He is Indra, He is imperishable, supreme and self-luminous. He is Himself Vishnu. He is Prana, He is Kālāgni, He is the moon.

स एव सर्वं यद्भूतं यच्च भव्यं सनातनम् ।

ज्ञात्वा तं मृत्युमत्येति नान्यः पन्था विमुक्तये ॥ ९॥

He is all, – what is past and what is to pass, and eternal Knowing Him one crosses death. There is no other path to liberation.

The seventh mantra above is the teaching of the Turiya Śiva whose manifestations are the other trimurtis, Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva who engage in creation, sustenance and dissolution.

The annotation, उपबृम्हणम्, upabṛmhaṇam, of the above upaniṣad mantra is available in the Skandapurāṇa, sūta samhitā, making the upanisad and the teaching of the Turiya Śiva in the Upaniṣad a valid one :

आदिमध्यान्तनिर्मुक्तमेकं साक्षाद्विभुं तथा ।

अरूपं सच्चिदानन्दमनन्तं प्रमेश्वरम् ।

उमासहायमोमर्थं प्रभुं साक्षात्त्रिलोचनम् ।

नीलकण्ठप्रभान्तस्थं ध्यायेन्नित्यमतन्द्रितः ।

एवं ध्यानपरः साक्षान्मुनिर्ब्रह्मात्मविद्यया ।

भूतयोनिं समस्तस्य साक्षिणं तमसः परम् ।

गच्छत्येव न सन्देहः सत्यमुक्तं मया सुराः ॥

The meaning of the above is what is contained in the translation shown in the mantra portion above.

Henceforth, the annotation of the latter part of the Kaivalyopanishat is present in the sūta samhitā:

यतस्तु जातं सकलं विचित्रं सत्यवत् सुराः

The concept of Turiya Śiva is widely present in the scriptures. A sample of quotations are Mahabharata Anushasanika parva, Ch.45. Here Krishna says about Shiva that from Shiva have Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra have emerged. I have not given the translation of each verse:
योऽसृजद्दक्षिणादङ्गाद्ब्रह्माणं लोकसम्भवम् |
वामपार्श्वात्तथा विष्णुं लोकरक्षार्थमीश्वरः ||१८३||

युगान्ते चैव सम्प्राप्ते रुद्रमङ्गात्सृजत्प्रभुः ||१८३||

स रुद्रः संहरन्कृत्स्नं जगत्स्थावरजङ्गमम् |
कालो भूत्वा महातेजाः संवर्तक इवानलः ||१८४||

एष देवो महादेवो जगत्सृष्ट्वा चराचरम् |
कल्पान्ते चैव सर्वेषां स्मृतिमाक्षिप्य तिष्ठति ||१८५||

सर्वगः सर्वभूतात्मा सर्वभूतभवोद्भवः |
आस्ते सर्वगतो नित्यमदृश्यः सर्वदैवतैः ||१८६||

From the Adityapurana: Aditya says to Manu:

आत्मभूतान्महादेवाल्लीलाविग्रहधारिणः ।
आदिसर्गे समुद्भूता ब्रह्मविष्णुसुरोत्तमाः ॥
तमेकं परमात्मानमादिकारणमीश्वरम् ।
प्राहुर्बहुविधं तत्त्वमिन्द्रम्मित्रमिति श्रुतिः ॥
न तस्मादधिकं कश्चिन्न ज्यायान्न समः कुतः ।
तेनेदमखिलं पूर्णं शंकरेण महात्मना ।

आदिसर्गे महादेवो ब्रह्माणमसृजद्विभुः

(The idea conveyed by the above cited MB verses is contained in the Adityapurana too. The underlined part is the alluding to the famous Rg. vedic passage: indram mitram varunam…. Ekam sat viprāh bahudhā vadanti as the pramana for the concept of One Paramatma having various forms.)

In the Padmapurana, Shiva tells Rama:

Here is just the gist of the few verses: From the right side Shiva created Brahmā and from the left, Hari. From the heart region Shiva created Mahesha. These three sons he created. Just upon being born the three asked ‘Clearly let us know who You are and who we are?’ Shiva replied: ‘You are my sons and I am your father.’ तानाह च शिवः पुर्त्रान् यूयं पुत्रा अहं पिता.

[The bloggers propagate the idea that Rudra is born of Brahma and Brahma is Vishnu’s son]

In the Shaivapurana, Vāyavīyasamhitā, Dadhīchi says to Dakṣa:

ब्रह्मविष्णुमहेशानां स्रष्टा यः प्रभुरव्ययः

The ‘ṛight side left side’ creation by shiva of brahma and vishnu is contained in several purans. In the shaiva, the section cited ends with this line: संसारमोचको देवः पश्यन्नन्य इति श्रुतिः । [It is alluding to a shruti passage which contains the word ‘paśyannanyaḥ’ as pramana for the concept]

The skanda purana: Nandikeshvara addresses Sanatkumara about the same concept.

सृजते सकलं देव ग्रससीश पुनः पुनः
…
ब्रह्मविष्णुसुराः सर्वे स्थावराणि चराणि च

Shiva purana, vñavīyasamhitā:

यस्मात्सर्वमिदं ब्रह्मविष्णुरुद्रेन्द्रपूर्वकम् ॥ 2ab
सह भूतेन्द्रियैः सर्वैः प्रथमं संप्रसूयते ॥ 2cd
कारणानां च यो धाता ध्याता परमकारणम् ॥ 3ab
न संप्रसूयते ऽन्यस्मात्कुतश्चन कदाचन ॥ 3cd

There itself in the 8th chapter:

ततस्तेभ्यो विकारेभ्यः रुद्रविष्णुपितामहाः

Padmapurana:

यं वातमाहुर्यं रुद्रं शाश्वतं परमेश्वरम्
परात्परतरञ्चाहुः परात्परतरं शिवम्
ब्रहमणो जनकं विष्णोर्वह्नेर्वायोः सदाशिवम्

The shruti pramana for the concept of One Para Shiva being the cause of the Brahma Vishnu and Rudra is:

सोमः पवते जनिता मतीनां जनिता दिवो जनिता पृथिव्याः …जनितोत विष्णोः .

The alluding, rephrasing, of the above shruti, called ‘upabṛhmaṇam’ is found in several puranas, and the most direct one is:

Sanatkumara samhita where Vishnu tells Prabhakara:

मतीनाञ्च दिवः पृथ्व्या वह्नेः सूर्यस्य वज्रिणः ।
साक्षादपि च विष्णोश्च सोमो जनयितेश्वरः ॥

Brahmandapurana:

द्यावापृथिव्योरिन्द्राग्नेभ्यो विष्णोर्धातुर्यमस्य च ।
वरुणस्य शशांकस्य जनिता परमेश्वरः ॥

Kurmapurana, skandapurana too give out this concept. In the latter it is said that even the three consorts of the three murtis are born of the Supreme Shiva:

Brahma tells Vasishtha:

आत्मशक्त्या ससर्जाथ कन्यात्रयमनिन्दितम्

Skandapurana:

अजायां जज्ञिरे पुत्राश्चिदानन्दात् सदाशिवात्
त्रयस्त्रेताग्निसंकाशा एकपञ्चचतुर्मुखाः
सृष्टिस्थितिविनाशानां कर्तारः कार्यकोविदाः
ब्रह्मा विष्णुश्च रुद्रश्च मात्रास्तिस्रः प्रकीर्तिताः

Here, by eka, pancha and chatuḥ, Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma are indicated.

In the Brahmandapurana, Brahma says to Bhṛgu:

He says: Shiva created me from his right side and created Vishnu from his left and instructed us both to engage in creation and sustenance. At the time of dissolution, he, out of his own amsha, will be instructed in that act.

Ishānasamhitā too contains this concept. There is a shruti passage too cited:

त्रिणेत्रं त्रिगुणाधारं त्रयाणां जनकं विभुम् ।
स्मरन्नमस्शिवायेति ललटे तु त्रिपुण्ड्रकम् ॥

[The above have been cited in very great detail in the book ‘Vedantanāmaratna sahasram’ authored by Sri Paramashivendra Saraswati, the guru of Sri Sadashivendra Saraswati. This book is a compilation of 1000 names from the shruti. In support of those names, as far as possible, the author has cited references from Itihasa and puranas. That list contains names such as Vishnu, Vasudeva and Narayana, and shown as names of Brahman, with references from shruti/smrti none of them are about a vaikuntha vāsin, lakshmipati, etc. just the same way they are found in the Shankara’s bhashyas. The book is available for download in DLI.]

What is shown above is with reference to the upanishadic/vedic name त्रयाणां जनकः {The progenitor of the ‘three’} for which alone the author has given copious references from the Mahabharata onwards.

The Kaivalyopaniṣat is cited in the Viṣṇusahasra nāma bhāṣyam by Shankaracharya to establish Shiva-Vishnu abheda. The Upanishad also contains the teaching that the shatarudrīyam is to be chanted to be free from all defects. The contemplation that the entire universe is a creation of the self is explicitly taught here. It is a very valuable teaching of Advaita that is contained in the Kaivalyopanishat.

Om Tat Sat

The names ‘Nārāyaṇa’ and ‘Vāsudeva’ denote the Nirguṇa Brahman

The above topic is discussed in the sequel in the light of Shankara’s bhāṣyas with Sureshwara’s vārtika, Anandagiri’s gloss and Sāyana’s commentary.

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । द्वितीयः अध्यायः । प्रथमः पादः । स्मृत्यधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् १ – भाष्यम्

एवमप्यन्या ईश्वरकारणवादिन्यः स्मृतयोऽनवकाशाः प्रसज्येरन् ; ता उदाहरिष्यामः — ‘यत्तत्सूक्ष्ममविज्ञेयम्’ इति परं ब्रह्म प्रकृत्य, ‘स ह्यन्तरात्मा भूतानां क्षेत्रज्ञश्चेति कथ्यते’ इति चोक्त्वा, ‘तस्मादव्यक्तमुत्पन्नं त्रिगुणं द्विजसत्तम’ इत्याह ; तथान्यत्रापि ‘अव्यक्तं पुरुषे ब्रह्मन्निर्गुणे सम्प्रलीयते’ इत्याह ; ‘अतश्च संक्षेपमिमं शृणुध्वं नारायणः सर्वमिदं पुराणः । स सर्गकाले च करोति सर्वं संहारकाले च तदत्ति भूयः’ इति पुराणे ; भगवद्गीतासु च — ‘अहं कृत्स्नस्य जगतः प्रभवः प्रलयस्तथा’ (भ. गी. ७-६) इति ; परमात्मानमेव च प्रकृत्यापस्तम्बः पठति — ‘तस्मात्कायाः प्रभवन्ति सर्वे स मूलं शाश्वतिकः स नित्यः’ (ध. सू. १-८-२३-२) इति ।

The above cited verse from the smṛti is similar to the opening verse cited by Shankara in the introduction to the BGB:

नारायणः परोऽव्यक्तादण्डमव्यक्तसम्भवम् ।
अण्डस्यान्तस्त्विमे लोकाः सप्तद्वीपा च मेदिनी ॥

[From Narayana the avyakta emerged….]

The Bh.gita 13^th chapter teaches the kṣetrajña, the knower-of-the-field, to be the very self of the jīva, the nirguṇa chaitanyam.

A smṛti cited in the foregoing says, the avyakta dissolves in the Puruṣa that is Nirguṇa.

Another smṛti says: The Narayana, the Ancient, creates everything and withdraws that.

In all these places the Cause, Narayana, is not identified as the consort of Lakshmi, resident of Vaikuntha, etc. This Narayana is also the kṣetrajna, the very self of the jiva.

Continues the above cited bhāṣya:

मनुना च ‘सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि । सम्पश्यन्नात्मयाजी वै स्वाराज्यमधिगच्छति’ (मनु. स्मृ. १२-९१) इति सर्वात्मत्वदर्शनं प्रशंसता कापिलं मतं निन्द्यत इति गम्यते ; कपिलो हि न सर्वात्मत्वदर्शनमनुमन्यते, आत्मभेदाभ्युपगमात् । महाभारतेऽपि च — ‘बहवः पुरुषा ब्रह्मन्नुताहो एक एव तु’ इति विचार्य, ‘बहवः पुरुषा राजन्सांख्ययोगविचारिणाम्’ इति परपक्षमुपन्यस्य तद्व्युदासेन — ‘बहूनां पुरुषाणां हि यथैका योनिरुच्यते । तथा तं पुरुषं विश्वमाख्यास्यामि गुणाधिकम्’ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘ममान्तरात्मा तव च ये चान्ये देहसंस्थिताः । सर्वेषां साक्षिभूतोऽसौ न ग्राह्यः केनचित्क्वचित् ॥ विश्वमूर्धा विश्वभुजो विश्वपादाक्षिनासिकः । एकश्चरति भूतेषु स्वैरचारी यथासुखम्’ — इति सर्वात्मतैव निर्धारिता । श्रुतिश्च सर्वात्मतायां भवति — ‘यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मैवाभूद्विजानतः । तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (ई. उ. ७) इत्येवंविधा ।

The sarvātmadarśanam, the one-only puruṣa as opposed to multiple beings, spoken of there in many texts cited above is the nirguna chaitanyam alone and not a saguna deity. This is the realization for mokṣa in Advaita. That chaitanyam is the witness, the sākṣī which Shankara specifies Nārāyaṇa to be in the Br.up.antaryāmi brahmaṇam 3.7.3 and teaches through the mahāvākya: ‘you are that antaryāmi.’ All these are about the niguna Brahman:

देवताकार्यकरणस्य ईश्वरसाक्षिमात्रसान्निध्येन हि नियमेन प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती स्याताम् ; य ईदृगीश्वरो नारायणाख्यः, पृथिवीं पृथिवीदेवताम्, यमयति नियमयति स्वव्यापारे, अन्तरः अभ्यन्तरस्तिष्ठन्, एष त आत्मा, ते तव, मम च सर्वभूतानां च इत्युपलक्षणार्थमेतत्, अन्तर्यामी यस्त्वया पृष्टः, अमृतः सर्वसंसारधर्मवर्जित इत्येतत् ॥

The Sureshwara vārtika for the above bhāṣyam annotates the BGB introductory verse too and also says:

The following part is taken from the http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/#h.e305a2ale1tc

My comments are stated in between [ ]

tasmai namostu devAya nirguNAya guNAtmane |

nArAyaNAya vishvAya devAnAM paramAtmane ||

[It specifies Narayana to be nirguna and the self of the guṇas. He is the adhiṣṭhānam of all the gunas and all duality, creation. This is exactly the way Shankara has stated in the BSB cited above. Anandagiri glosses on the above words of Sureshwara:]

na kevalaM purANAgamAbhyAMeva so.adhigamyate, kiM tu shrutyakSharair api ityarthaH | etameveti | sahasrashIrShaM devaM vishvAkShaM vishvashaMbhuvaM vishvaM nArAyaNaM devaM akSharaM paramaM padaM’ ityAdi mantraH vedavidbhir antaryAmiNaM uddishya viniyukto.ataH sa vaidikaH ityarthaH

Translation: (surEshvarAcArya explains here that) not only is nArAyaNa’s greatness known from Puranas and Agamas, but from Vedic mantras such as ‘sahasrashIrShaM devaM vishvAkShaM vishvashaMbhuvaM vishvaM nArAyaNaM devaM akSharaM paramaM padaM’ that serve to show this as the Vedic position.

This shows that the Narayana Sukta mantras praise the Puranic Vishnu only.

Moreover, in Sayanacarya’s commentary on the Narayana Sukta, we find the following statement pertaining to the mantra “nArAyaNaH paraM brahmA” etc: ^[TASyB:1]

“purANeShu nArAyaNashabdena vyavahriyamANo yaH parameshvaraH, sa eva ‘paraM’ utkR^iShTaM”

Translation: The Supreme Lord who is denoted by the term ‘nArAyaNa’ in the purANas – He alone is the Highest.

Hence, Sayana also understands the Narayana of the Narayana Sukta as the puranic nArAyaNa only.//

My comments

Anandagiri does not say anything about the ‘greatness’.

The above citations and translations are not only incomplete but also misleading. Here is what Sāyana says for those portions of the nārāyaṇa sūktam:

At the beginning itself Sayana says: āropitasya jagataḥ adhiṣṭhāna-vyatirekeṇa vāstavarūpābhāvāt. [Since the superimposed world has no reality apart from the substratum.]

Sāyana sets the tone for the delineation of the Nirguna Brahman in the Narayana sukta at the outset itself. And says the etymological meaning of the word ‘nārāyaṇa’ is shown in the purāṇs: nārāyaṇaśabasya nirvacanam purāṇeṣu darśitam:

आपो नारा इति प्रोक्ता, आपो वै नरसूनवः। अयनं तस्य ताः पूर्वं तेन नारायणः स्मृतः।।

This is purely an etymological verse for the name ‘nārāyaṇa’ and no way denotes a deity who is the consort of Lakshmi, etc. This is the ‘purāṇa prasiddhi’ that Anandagiri denotes in the Sureshvara vārtika commentary and not any deity.

Also, this is what Sayana says in that commentary for the sūkta:

//”purANeShu nArAyaNashabdena vyavahriyamANo yaH parameshvaraH, sa eva ‘paraM’ utkR^iShTaM” // (this part alone is cited by the blogger and the following part which is a continuation of the above sentence is cited by me here)

‘satyajñānānandādivākyaiḥ pratipādyasya brahmaṇaḥ tattvam. Ato nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ para eva ātmā na tu aparo mūrtiviśeṣaḥ. tathā paro jyotih yadetat utkṛṣṭam jyotiśchandogaiH ‘paraM jyotirupasampadya’ ityāmnātam tadapi nārāyaṇa eva. Tasmāt nārāyaṇaḥ parmātmā’

All the above is decidedly about the nirguṇa svarūpam and not anything else. Sāyana explicitly says that the nārāyaṇa here is not any deity with form. And it is the svarūpa lakshana of Brahman: satyam jñānam anantam as per the Taittiriya upanishat. The last Chandogya shruti 8.3.4 he cites is a very important nirguṇa mantra for advaitins for it shows the svarūpa that the jiva realizes upon getting the samyag jñānam. One can see the Shankara bhashya for that.

The blogger has evidently, for obvious reasons, left out the crucial nirguna-establishing portions of the sāyana bhashya and tried to show to his unwary readers that Shankara, Sureshwara, Anandagiri and Sayana are all supporting a saguṇa deity called Vishnu/narayana in the bhashyas. The ‘purānic’ prasiddhi is also not what the blogger thinks to be but the Brahman that is given the name narayana for which sayana provides the puranic etymology. The author of the Tamil book ‘sankararum vaiṇavamum’ is the originator of the above misconceived idea.

Here is the translation for the above cited BSB where all the references Shankara makes from smriti are about the nirguna Brahman which is the non-dual, jiva svarupa-identical mahāvākya-specific entity and not at all a saguṇa deity. The ‘1000-heads,eyes, etc.’ expression is also about the Nirguna Brahman on which the adhyāropa is made deliberately by the shruti.

Quote:

Brahma sutra bhāṣya: 2.1.1

//In one passage the highest Brahman is introduced as the subject of discussion, ‘That which is subtle and not to be known;’ the text then goes on, ‘That is the internal Self of the creatures, their soul,’ and after that remarks ‘From that sprang the Unevolved, consisting of the three gunas, O best of Brâhmanas.’ And in another place it is said that ‘the Unevolved is dissolved in the Person devoid of qualities, O Brâhmana.’–Thus we read also in the Purâna, ‘Hear thence this short statement: The ancient Nârâyana is all this; he produces the creation at the due time, and at the time of reabsorption he consumes it again.’ And so in the Bhagavadgîtâ also (VII, 6), ‘I am the origin and the place of reabsorption of the whole world.’ And Âpastamba too says with reference to the highest Self, ‘From him spring all bodies; he is the primary cause, he is eternal, he is unchangeable’ (Dharma Sûtra I, 8, 23, 2). In this way Smriti, in many places, declares the Lord to be the efficient as well as the material cause of the world. As the pûrvapakshin opposes us on the ground of Smriti, we reply to him on the ground of Smriti only; hence the line of defence taken up in the Sûtra.

Manu himself, where he glorifies the seeing of the one Self in everything (‘he who equally sees the Self in all beings and all beings in the Self, he as a sacrificer to the Self attains self-luminousness,’ i.e. becomes Brahman, Manu Smriti XII, 91), implicitly blames the doctrine of Kapila. For Kapila, by acknowledging a plurality of Selfs, does not admit the doctrine of there being one universal Self. In the Mahâbhârata also the question is raised whether there are many persons (souls) or one; thereupon the opinion of others is mentioned, ‘There are many persons, O King, according to the Sânkhya and Yoga philosophers;’ that opinion is controverted ‘just as there is one place of origin, (viz. the earth,) for many persons, so I will proclaim to you that universal person raised by his qualities;’ and, finally, it is declared that there is one universal Self, ‘He is the internal Self of me, of thee, and of all other embodied beings, the internal witness of all, not to be apprehended by any one. He the all-headed, all-armed, all-footed, all-eyed, all-nosed one moves through all beings according to his will and liking.’ And Scripture also declares that there is one universal Self, ‘When to a man who understands the Self has become all things, what sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who once beheld that unity?’ (Îs. Up 7); and other similar passages. //

unquote

Here is a passage from the BSB 3.2.17:

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । तृतीयः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । उभयलिङ्गाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् १७ – भाष्यम्

दर्शयति च श्रुतिः पररूपप्रतिषेधेनैव ब्रह्म — निर्विशेषत्वात् — ‘अथात आदेशो नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. २-३-६) ‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १-३) ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह’ (तै. उ. २-४-१) इत्येवमाद्या । बाष्कलिना च बाध्वः पृष्टः सन् अवचनेनैव ब्रह्म प्रोवाचेति श्रूयते — ‘स होवाचाधीहि भो इति स तूष्णीं बभूव तं ह द्वितीये तृतीये वा वचन उवाच ब्रूमः खलु त्वं तु न विजानासि । उपशान्तोऽयमात्मा’ इति । तथा स्मृतिष्वपि परप्रतिषेधेनैवोपदिश्यते — ‘ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते । अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (भ. गी. १३-१२) इत्येवमाद्यासु । तथा विश्वरूपधरो नारायणो नारदमुवाचेति स्मर्यते — ‘माया ह्येषा मया सृष्टा यन्मां पश्यसि नारद । सर्वभूतगुणैर्युक्तं नैवं मां ज्ञातुमर्हसि’ इति ॥१७ ॥

All the passages Shankara cites there are about Nirguna Brahman, denying all differences. Perhaps the best ever definition of nirguna Brahman from the veda itself is cited by Shankara here from an unidentified (by editors and scholars) source: the Bāṣkalī-Bādhvā dialogue. This says that Atman is quiescence. And the BG quote is also about the knowable Brahman which is nirguna brahman as opposed to the meditatable, upāsya, Brahman, which alone is saguna. And the passage ends with the Lord Narayana instructing Narada that He is to be known as nirguna Brahman alone and not with attributes. The above BSB is cited to show that Shankara, in the same breath, talks about the quiescent Brahman and Nārāyaṇa who Himself teaches that one ought not to know Him as endowed with guṇas and that the saguṇa world that is a projection is only out of Māya.

Translation:

Quote

17. (This scripture) also shows, and it is likewise stated in Smriti.

That Brahman is without any difference is proved by those scriptural passages also which expressly deny that it possesses any other characteristics; so, e.g. ‘Next follows the teaching by No, no’ (Bri. Up. II, 3, 6); ‘It is different from the known, it is also above the unknown’ (Ke. Up. I, 4); ‘From whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it’ (Taitt. Up. II, 9). Of a similar purport is that scriptural passage which relates how Bâhva, being questioned about Brahman by Vashkalin, explained it to him by silence, ‘He said to him, “Learn Brahman, O friend,” and became silent. Then, on a second and third question, he replied, “I am teaching you indeed, but you do not understand. Silent is that Self.”‘ The same teaching is conveyed by those Smriti-texts which deny of Brahman all other characteristics; so, e.g. ‘I will proclaim that which is the object of knowledge, knowing which one reaches immortality; the highest Brahman without either beginning or end, which cannot be said either to be or not to be’ (Bha. Gîtâ XIII, 12). Of a similar purport is another Smriti-passage, according to which the omniform Nârâyana instructed Nârada, ‘The cause, O Nârada, of your seeing me endowed with the qualities of all beings is the Mâyâ emitted by me; do not cognize me as being such (in reality).’

Unquote

Here is a concluding sentence from the BG introduction:

परमार्थतत्त्वं च वासुदेवाख्यं परं ब्रह्माभिधेयभूतं विशेषतः अभिव्यञ्जयत्..

Shankara says that the Paramārtha tattvam is Vāsudeva, who has the name Param Brahma. This is what is being especially taught in the Gitāśāstram. For those who have not had an exposure to the traditional teaching of Advaita the term ‘paramārtha tattvam’ is incomprehensible. That it means the Nirguṇa Brahman, the substratum of the world-duality and the jiva, is what that term means. So, the purport of the entire BG according to Shankara lies in the Nirguna Brahman called Vāsudeva. It is this Vāsudeva that is taught as ‘I am non-different from Vāsudeva’, a mahāvākya. Only those who have studied the Advaita shāstra under traditional Acharyas can understand the meanings of the terms: Vāsudeva, Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu, Ananta, mahāvākya, etc. Others who are outside the Advaita sampradaya invariably end up with erroneous understanding of these terms. For them these terms can mean no more than certain deity, resident of certain loka, consort of a deity, and so on. The concept of adhyāropa-apavāda and the mahāvākya with the terms tat and tvam are not understood unless one takes up a devoted study of the Advaita shastra under a traditional Acharya.

In the foregoing is shown that the usage of the names ‘Nārāyaṇa’ and ‘Vāsudeva’ in the Shankara Bhāṣya is to denote the Nirguna Brahman and not at all a saguna deity. The Nārāyaṇa sūktam and the Sāyana Bhāṣya eminently establish this, along with the antaryāmi brāhmaṇa of the Br.up. with the Bhāṣya and the Sureshvara vārtika with Anandagiri’s gloss. The ‘Purāna prasiddhi’ is not any deity but the etymology available in the Purāṇa for the name Nārayāna, Vāsudeva, etc. Shankara cites these verses from the Purāṇas in the Vishnusahasranāma bhāṣya for the names Nārayaṇa and Vāsudeva.

Om Tat Sat

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE JAGADVYĀPĀRĀDHIKARAṆAM, ETC.

In the following blog the blogger has given expression to his complete misunderstanding of the Advaita darśana. The endeavor in this article is to expose such misconceived ideas and show the correct method of Advaita in respect of those aspects.

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/01/saguna-brahman-and-krama-mukti-in.html

//Hence, just as he (the Saguna Upasaka) does not reach (directly) the attributeless (nirguNa) nature of the double-natured Highest Lord, stopping at that form which is distinguished by qualities (saguNa), even in obtaining the Saguna form of the Lord, the upAsaka stops at limited aishvarya (in the form of rulership over certain spheres within the effected universe) and does not obtain the unlimited aishvarya of Ishvara.//

[The segment in the above ‘translation’ by the blogger // even in obtaining the Saguna form of the Lord,// has no basis whatsoever in the original bhāṣya. It is a mischievous interpolation. This is all what is said in the bhāṣya: अतश्च यथैव द्विरूपे परमेश्वरे निर्गुणं रूपमनवाप्य सगुण एवावतिष्ठन्ते, एवं सगुणेऽपि निरवग्रहमैश्वर्यमनवाप्य सावग्रह एवावतिष्ठन्त इति द्रष्टव्यम् [Also, just as in the two-formed Supreme Lord, without attaining the nirguna form, they (the sagunopasakas) stay in the saguna form (this ‘form’ is not any figure, only the world in the manifest and unmanifest forms – ‘one foot’ of Brahman), so too in the realm of saguṇa, the upāsakas remain with limited powers alone and not unlimited powers as that of Ishwara. ]

What the blogger says here:

// The section is begun by Shankara showing the twofold form of Saguna Brahman (vikAra and nirvikAra) to answer as follows: “Just as those who obtain saguNa brahman do not attain the nirguNa state (immediately) even though Brahman is one, what we have stated makes is in fact fitting very well.”]//

is wrong. Shankara nowhere is showing the twofold form of Saguṇa Brahman. This is an erroneous understanding and mischievous interpolation of the blogger. The meaning of the Chandogya shruti cited by Shankara in BSB 4.4.19 is explained by Anandagiri: the first and third quarters speak of the realm of transformation and the second and fourth, the transcendental, untransforming ‘form’ which is Nirguna Brahman which is the substratum of the transformed-realm containing the savitṛmanḍala, etc. The blogger is fundamentally wrong in thinking that Advaita holds that there are two forms of saguṇa Brahman; on the contrary it is that the saguṇa Brahman is kalpita in Nirguṇa Brahman. In the ‘ubhayalingādhikaraṇam’ BSB 3.2.11 Shankara has stated:

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । तृतीयः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । उभयलिङ्गाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ११ – भाष्यम्

न तावत्स्वत एव परस्य ब्रह्मण उभयलिङ्गत्वमुपपद्यते ; न हि एकं वस्तु स्वत एव रूपादिविशेषोपेतं तद्विपरीतं च इत्यवधारयितुं शक्यम्, विरोधात् ।

There cannot be two-forms for the Parabrahman naturally. It cannot be, indeed, said that one entity is by itself endowed with attributes such as form and not so, since it is contradictory to each other.

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । तृतीयः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । उभयलिङ्गाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् २१ – भाष्यम् BSB 3.2.21:

तस्मात् निर्विकल्पकैकलिङ्गमेव ब्रह्म, न उभयलिङ्गं विपरीतलिङ्गं वा इति सिद्धम् ॥

Therefore, there is only one form for Brahman, which is free of differentiations.

This sets at rest the funny theory of the blogger that ‘saguṇopasakas first reach a certain abode, vaikuṇṭha, and then attain identity with the nirguna form of (Lakshmipati) Vishnu, the saguṇa Brahman of Advaita.’ Such a misconception has no place in Shānkaran Advaita.

For the above stated reasons, the following silly observation of the blogger is also completely faulty:

// [“You say there is an eternal changeless form of (Saguna) Brahman. Be that as it may. So what?” – This question is answered thus: “In reality, even though it is so (that the Saguna Brahman has an eternal form), the general rule of ‘obtaining of exactly the same form (i.e., rulership) as per the nature of upAsana’ is dependent on the specific rules in scripture. In the absence of a scriptural-based specification of obtaining such forms as unlimited Lordship etc. through upAsana, there is no attainment of what is not meditated upon.”] //

No one has said that // there is an eternal changeless form of (Saguna) Brahman//

The blogger has wrongly copied the words of the Nyāyanirṇaya:

// astu brahmaṇo vikārāvartirūpaṃ tathāpi kiṃ syāt, tatrāha//

It should be vikāravartirūpam and not as shown by him with an elongation on the second ‘a’. That is how it is printed in the Motilal Banarasidas edition, p.904: अस्तु तर्हि ब्रह्मणो विकारवर्तिरूपं…. That makes the reading a completely wrong one than that intended by Anandagiri. What the gloss intends is: ‘Let there be a form of Brahman that exists within the realm of transformation…’ And it is quite reasonable, for the question is on why the saguṇopāsakas do not gain total aiśvarya despite their getting sāyujyam of the saguṇa Brahman.

The prakaṭārtha vivaraṇa cited by the blogger adds nothing to the discussion.

This section of the blog is a complete misunderstanding:

// Question: How do you say that the Sutra Bhashya shows Ishvara’s existence beyond material creation?

Answer: To show the existence of this eternal form, Shankara gives the example of Gayatri-brahma-vidya in the Chandogya Upanishad which declares that while only one quarter of the Highest is saMsAra-maNDala, three quarters of it are immortal and in a realm beyond saMsAra-maNDala:

tāvānasya mahimā tato jyāyāṃśca puruṣaḥ

pādo ‘sya sarvā bhūtāni, tripādasyāmṛtaṃ divi

[Such is the greatness of it; greater than it is the Person. One foot of him are all beings; three feet of him is what is immortal and in its own self-effulgence (Chandogya Upanishad, 3.12.6).] //

For, in Advaita the status of Ishwara is aupādhika; created by upādhis generated by avidya. In the BSB 2.1.14 Shankara has very clearly stated this: the omniscience, lordship, etc. are not absolute. So, Ishwara, Ishwaratva is only relative to material world and there is no way these subsist in the transcendental realm. The Chandogya shruti cited is also not to show in any way that Ishwara (saguṇa Brahman) exists beyond the realm of creation, with an eternal form.

The blogger is clearly mistaken here too:

// Here, we should also cite Shankara’s Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya, where the Acharya says that *the deity Vishnu* is the destination intended for those who are liberated, due to *no chance of returning* for those who reach Him:

muktānāṃ paramā gatiḥ – muktānāṃ paramā prakṛṣṭā gatirgantavyā devatā punarāvṛttyasaṃbhavāttadgatasyeti muktānāṃ paramāgatiḥ । ‘māmupetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate’ iti bhagavadvacanam ।/

The word ‘devatā’ is what has misled the blogger. It is not any deity that he thinks to be. In the Chāndogya sixth chapter called sadvidyā where the tattvamasi occurs, the Upanishad does not use the word Brahman at all. It uses three words: devatā (in feminine), Sat (neuter) and Atmā (masculine). ‘सेयं देवतैक्षत हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपें व्याकरवाणीति ॥ ६.३.२ ॥ for which Shankara comments: सेयं प्रकृता सदाख्या that devatā which is called ‘Sat.’ So, what Shankara says in the above VS bhasya is not any saguṇa deity but the Nirguṇa Brahman. In Advaita the state of non-return to samsāra occurs only when attaining, realizing by knowledge, the identity with nirguna Brahman. Even for the BG 8.16 Shankara has said: माम् एकम् उपेत्य तु कौन्तेय पुनर्जन्म पुनरुत्पत्तिः न विद्यते ॥ By attaining Me, the One, there is no return….This One is no way any saguna Brahman.

Shankara has said what it means to ‘attain Him’ so as to not return to samsāra, in the BGB 8.15, just prior to the above cited verse by the blogger:

माम् उपेत्य माम् ईश्वरम् उपेत्य मद्भावमापद्य पुनर्जन्म पुनरुत्पत्तिं नाप्नुवन्ति न प्राप्नुवन्ति ।

‘Attaining/reaching’ Brahman is not moving to any physical location where Brahman resides, but attaining, realizing, by knowledge, Its very nature, madbhāvamāpadya. This is not at all possible with a saguṇa deity. That very word ‘māmupetya’ is repeated, for that very purpose of non-return, in the very next verse cited by Shankara in the VS bhashyam. And it never means any saguṇa deity.

In another chapter, 15, Shankara says:

ततः पदं तत्परिमार्गितव्यं
यस्मिन्गता न निवर्तन्ति भूयः ।
तमेव चाद्यं पुरुषं प्रपद्ये
यतः प्रवृत्तिः प्रसृता पुराणी ॥ ४ ॥

भाष्यम्

ततः पश्चात् यत् पदं वैष्णवं तत् परिमार्गितव्यम्, परिमार्गणम् अन्वेषणं ज्ञातव्यमित्यर्थः । यस्मिन् पदे गताः प्रविष्टाः न निवर्तन्ति न आवर्तन्ते भूयः पुनः संसाराय ।

The Supreme Abode is something to be known, realized, not reachable physically.

For a detailed understanding of the terms ‘padam’, etc. read this article:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/tad-vi%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%87o%E1%B8%A5-paramam-padam/

The blogger says:

//Question: Well, what answer do you have to the objection that terms like “nirvikAra rUpa”, “vikArAvartI” etc., refer to formless Nirguna Brahman (Chaitanyam) state and not some eternal form of Vishnu in an eternal abode called Vaikuntha?

Answer:  Again, our position fits the context whereas the position that you state does not. Here is the reason:

The entire section talks about the niravagraha aishvarya which can belong to Saguna Brahman alone, and hence the scriptural statements quoted (Chandogya Upanishad, Mundaka/Katha, Gita) etc. refer to forms of Saguna Brahman only//

Response:

The above is simply completely wrong. The adhikaraṇa that is presently discussed is no doubt about the aishvarya of the sagunopāsakas in comparison with the Ishwara’s aishvarya which is unlimited. However, the sutra ‘vikārāvarti cha…..’ is to make a comparison at two levels:

//न च तत् निर्विकारं रूपम् इतरालम्बनाः प्राप्नुवन्तीति शक्यं वक्तुम् अतत्क्रतुत्वात्तेषाम् । अतश्च यथैव द्विरूपे परमेश्वरे निर्गुणं रूपमनवाप्य सगुण एवावतिष्ठन्ते, एवं सगुणेऽपि निरवग्रहमैश्वर्यमनवाप्य सावग्रह एवावतिष्ठन्त इति द्रष्टव्यम् ॥ १९ ॥//

The Nirguna (nirvikāra) ‘form’ of Brahman is not attained by the sagunopāsakas as they have not worked for it. Therefore, too, अतः च, just as of the two-fold form of Brahman, the upāsakas remain in the saguṇa realm only and not in the nirguṇa realm, so too, within the saguṇa realm, they remain with limited powers without attaining the unlimited powers (of Ishwara).

Here, the comparison is so very clear. That is why the idea of Nirguṇa Brahman is brought in by the sūtra by the word ‘vikārāvarti’. The common aspect between the two levels is: one can attain to only what he has worked for and not that for which he has not put efforts.

The bhāṣyam uses four expressions: नित्यसिद्धस्यैव ईश्वरस्य (4.4.17), पर ईश्वरः, पूर्वसिद्ध ईश्वरः(4.4.18), अनादिसिद्धेनेश्वरेण (4.4.21). All these mean the same saguna Brahman, Ishwara, who rules the created world. They do not mean what the blogger thinks: //who is eternally perfect (nityasiddha//

And the blogger enters into a misadventure citing the Chandogya bhāṣyam for 3.12.7, etc. //Evidence from Gayatri-brahmavidya in Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya This is examined in the sequel:

The blogger says:

// Note several points here. First, Shankara clearly says that the brahmaprApti arising from the Gayatri-Brahmavidya, a form of Saguna Vidya, is described as “a heavenly abode”. Is Shankara intending an abode within the material universe, or an abode of an eternal nature beyond material existence? Surely the latter, since by saying “yaccoktaṃ tripādasyāmṛtaṃ divīti tat“ Shankara brings up the immortality of this “svargaloka” (hence not to be confused with the ordinary svarga-loka of Indra, etc.) by a connection with the imperishable three-quarters that was just described in 3.12.6. Also, the three quarters do not include even the satyaloka, since “vishvAnibhUtAni” in 3.12.6 which Shankara explains as “tejobannAdIni sthAvarajaN^gamAdIni” (fire, food, air, etc. constituting plants, animals, etc.) has to include Brahma, who has been declared by Shankara as a bhUta (being that comes into existence during the course of creation) in innumerable places in the Bhagavad Gita Bhashya etc. Also, “saMsArAdupari” also shows that these unmatched Highest loka-s are beyond saMsAra that includes all material existence. Brahma’s saMsAritva has been declared by Shankara in many places, for example in Sutra Bhashya, 1.3.30 and in 1.1.4.//

Response:

For chandogya 3.12.6 the bhāṣyam is:

तावानस्य महिमा ततो ज्यायंश्च पूरुषः । पादोऽस्य सर्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवीति ॥ ६ ॥

भाष्यम्

तावान् अस्य गायत्र्याख्यस्य ब्रह्मणः समस्तस्य महिमा विभूतिविस्तारः, यावांश्चतुष्पात्षड्‌विधश्च ब्रह्मणो विकारः पादो गायत्रीति व्याख्यातः । अतः तस्माद्विकारलक्षणाद्गायत्र्याख्याद्वाचारंभणमात्रात् ततो ज्यायन् महत्तरश्च परमार्थसत्यरूपोऽविकारः पूरुषः पुरुषः सर्वपूरणात् पुरि शयनाच्च । तस्य अस्य पादः सर्वा सर्वाणि भूतानि तेजोबन्नादीनि सस्थावरजङ्गमानि, त्रिपात् त्रयः पादा अस्य सोऽयं त्रिपात् ; त्रिपादमृतं पुरुषाख्यं समस्तस्य गायत्र्यात्मनो दिवि द्योतनवति स्वात्मन्यवस्थितमित्यर्थ इति ॥

Anandagiri says: paramārthasatye hetumāha avikāra iti.

That which is vācārambhaṇamātram in advaita is the created universe mithyā, and that which is not that is Nirguna Brahman. That is how the Chandogya sixth chapter teaches. ‘aitadātmyam idam sarvam, tat satyam, sa ātmā, tat tvam asi shvetaketo’ [All this universe which is a transformation of tejas, ap and annam – fire, water and earth – has this Sat as its Self and that is satyam and you, shvetaketu, are that Sat]. And that is specified by the bhāṣya as ‘paramārthasatyarūpa, avikāra…’. It is well known that the parmārtha satya in advaita is Nirguṇa Brahman. Nowhere Shankara is talking about a saguṇa entity and his worlds that are beyond, outside, creation.

In the Chandogya 13.3.7 bhāṣyam विश्वतः पृष्ठेष्वित्येतस्य व्याख्यानं सर्वतः पृष्ठेष्विति, संसारादुपरीत्यर्थः; संसार एव हि सर्वः, असंसारिणः एकत्वान्निर्भेदत्वाच्च । it is very clear that ‘sarvaḥ’ (‘all, everything, multiplicity’) is samsāra and that which is above samsāra is the asamsāri, One and devoid of divisions. This is undoubtedly the Nirguna Brahman, stated as nirvikalpam by Shankara in the ubhayalingādhikaraṇa, cited in this article. Shankara is not at all talking about any transcendental lokas here by the term ‘samsārādupari’, for in advaita, Ishwara’s relevance is within samsāra. If the ‘lokas’ were to be meant by Shankara as obtaining ‘above’ the samsāra manḍala, the above cited असंसारिणः एकत्वान्निर्भेदत्वाच्च would be contradicted, for the loka-s above samsara is in plural, and one loka has to be distinct from the other. So, the blogger has got the entire Chandogya section wrong.

And coming to the bhāṣyam: // anuttameṣu tatpuruṣasamāsāśaṅkānivṛttaya āhottameṣu lokeṣviti //

what it means is: Anandagiri explains: All the lokas that have no lokas excelling them are ‘anuttama loka-s’ This is the meaning derived from the bahuvrīhi compound. And Shankara says that these lokas are that of hiraṇyagarbha, namely satya lokas. These are the highest lokas. Anandagiri explains this as: Since these uttama lokas are the kārya, effect, of Brahman, the latter is manifest forever in these lokas as hiraṇyagarbha, etc. [the basis for this is the Kaṭhopaniṣad mantra 2.3.5: च्छायातपयोरिव ब्रह्मलोके, and Shankara says: छायातपयोरिव अत्यन्तविविक्तं ब्रह्मलोक एवैकस्मिन् । – Atman/Brahman is extremely clearly graspable only in Brahmaloka and not so in the others.] And Brahman that transcends all the effects is specified as being above these lokas: samsārāt upari, for the purpose of meditating. Anandagiri has very explicitly clarified in the earlier paragraph that this is an upāsanā where the jīvbrahma aikyam is involved. If Shankara had intended any vaikuntha loka in this section, he would not have said ‘in satya loka, etc. the Hiraṇyagarbha, etc. which are the effects of the Supreme Lord, are very clearly manifest…’.‘सत्यलोकादिषु हिरण्यगर्भादिकार्यरूपस्य परस्येश्वरस्य आसन्नत्वादुच्यते उत्तमेषु लोकेष्विति । On the other hand he would have said: vaikuṇṭhādi lokeṣu….viṣhṇvādirūpeṇa ..etc. For according to the blogger the vaikunṭha is certainly above satyaloka and hiranyagarbha is surely lower than viṣṇu. That Shankara does not say so is the evidence that goes against the imagination of the blogger.

Chandogya 3.12.9

तदेतद्धार्दाकाशाख्यं ब्रह्म पूर्णं सर्वगतम्, न हृदयमात्रपरिच्छिन्नमिति मन्तव्यम्, यद्यपि हृदयाकाशे चेतः समाधीयते । अप्रवर्ति न कुतश्चित्क्वचित्प्रवर्तितुं शीलमस्येत्यप्रवर्ति, तदनुच्छित्तिधर्मकम् । यथा अन्यानि भूतानि परिच्छिन्नान्युच्छित्तिधर्मकाणि, न तथा हार्दं नभः । पूर्णामप्रवर्तिनीमनुच्छेदात्मिकां श्रियं विभूतिं गुणफलं लभते दृष्टम् । य एवं यथोक्तं पूर्णाप्रवर्तिगुणं ब्रह्म वेद जानाति इहैव जीवन् तद्भावं प्रतिपद्यत इत्यर्थः ॥

Chandogya 3.13.6 bhashyam:

ते वा एते यथोक्ताः पञ्चसुषिसम्बन्धात् पञ्च ब्रह्मणो हार्दस्य पुरुषाः राजपुरुषा इव द्वारस्थाः स्वर्गस्य हार्दस्य लोकस्य द्वारपाः द्वारपालाः ।…….. ततश्च स्वर्गलोकप्रतिपत्तये पारम्पर्येण भवतीति स्वर्गलोकप्रतिपत्तिरेवैकं फलम् ॥

The above is not anything but the attaining, realizing, the Para (Nirguna) Brahman. There is an imagery here: the ‘svarga’ is not any heavenly abode, not even any transcendental abode of Vishnu as the blogger erroneously thinks, but the vedāntic ‘heart’. Anandagiri says in 3.13.1: svargalokaśabdaḥ paramātmaviṣayaḥ, ‘svargam lokamita ūrdhvam vimuktāḥ’ …svargalokasya paramātmano bhavanam āyatanam’ The word ‘svarga’ means Paramātman. The place in the body where that svarga, paramātman, is located/visible/perceptible is called ‘heart-space’. This heart-space is none other than Brahman तदेतद्धार्दाकाशाख्यं ब्रह्म पूर्णं सर्वगतम् (ch.bhashyam 3.12.9). Just like a team of soldiers guard the King/palace/city, so too the team of sense organs ‘guard’ the Brahman, that is, they do not permit anyone to enter, realize, Brahman. So, one has to ‘befriend’ the sense organs, that is, make them amenable to sādhana, and finally attain the realization of Brahman. That is the imagery here.

In the seventh mantra bhashyam: अथ यत् असौ विद्वान् स्वर्गं लोकं वीरपुरुषसेवनात्प्रतिपद्यते, यच्चोक्तं त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवीति, तदिदं लिङ्गेन चक्षुःश्रोत्रेन्द्रियगोचरमापादयितव्यम्, यथा अग्न्यादि धूमादिलिङ्गेन । Shankara clearly says: hereafter, that ‘svarga loka’ (heart-ākāsha, Brahman) that this Knower attains, and that which was stated much earlier as the one that subsists transcending the created world, is to be clearly stated through indicatory marks, just as fire is inferred, known, through the indicatory mark that is smoke.   By resorting to such reasoning alone one will attain certainty with regard to Brahman, as ‘This is how/what It is’.

This statement of the blogger is incorrect, misleading:

// We also have confirmation from Anandagiri who says in the Chandogya-Bhashya-Tika that it is saguNa-brahman here who for the purpose of upAsana described as the resident of these transcendental loka-s:

tasya upāsyatvārthaṃ saṃsārādupariṣṭādavasthānamuktaṃ । (Anandagiri in 3.13.7) //

Response:

Anandagiri’s statement no way amounts to what the blogger tries to convey. It simply says: With a view to meditate on That (Brahman), it is stated to be beyond samsāra. This in no way means that Brahman is taught to be resident of these transcendental lokas.  No lokas have been specified anywhere in the Upanishad or bhashya as transcendental and where Brahman resides. This is a mischievous interpolation of the blogger to mislead his gullible readers. One who has the capacity to read the texts in the original and understand them correctly, as per a good sampradāya, will never fall a prey to such tricks as the blogger employs to push his ‘Vishnu, the deity, is the saguna Brahman in Shankara Vedanta and Vishnu lokas are imperishable, eternal, etc.’ Such un-vedantic concepts are in no way part of the Advaita Vedanta taught by Shankara. In fact the Ratnaprabhā says: //योषितोऽग्नित्ववत् द्युमर्यादत्वादिकं ध्यानार्थं कल्पितं ब्रह्मणॊ युकमित्याह – अत्रोच्यते इत्यादिना //p.145. [Just as the female is taught as being of the nature of fire (for meditation purpose, while in truth the female is not fire), so too the limitedness, etc. of Brahman in the dyuloka, etc. is devised, kalpitam, for the purpose of meditation.]

Since the mantra involved here ‘pādo’sya sarvā bhūtāni….’ is verisimilar to the Puruṣasuktam, the sāyana bhāṣya for that segment is given here:

यद्यपि सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्मेत्याम्नातस्य परब्रह्मण इयत्ताया अभावादंशचतुष्टयं न निरूपयितुं शक्यं तथाऽपि जगदिदं ब्रह्मस्वरूपापेक्षयाय़्त्यल्पमिति विवक्षित्वा पादत्वोपन्यासः ।

[The Taittiriyopanishat has defined Brahman as ‘Satyam, Jnānam, Anantam’ which is svarūpa lakṣaṇam for Brahman, Nirguna Brahman, in Advaita. Such a Brahman has no confines and therefore it is impossible to demonstrate the ‘four parts’ the mantra is mentioning. Yet, in view of the fact that the universe is infinitesimal in comparison to the infinite Brahman, anantam, the ‘four quarter’ imagery is employed.]

This is cited to show that the blogger’s idea of ‘above’ everything is vaikuntha located is baseless.

It is also significant that the sāyana bhāṣya cites the BG 10.42 –

विष्टभ्याहमिदं कृत्स्नमेकांशेन स्थितो जगत् ॥ ४२ ॥ where the bhashyam cites this mantra, though from the Rg.veda:

भाष्यम्

अथवा बहुना एतेन एवमादिना किं ज्ञातेन तव अर्जुन स्यात् सावशेषेण । अशेषतः त्वम् उच्यमानम् अर्थं शृणु — विष्टभ्य विशेषतः स्तम्भनं दृढं कृत्वा इदं कृत्स्नं जगत् एकांशेन एकावयवेन एकपादेन, सर्वभूतस्वरूपेण इत्येतत्; तथा च मन्त्रवर्णः — ‘पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि’ (ऋ. १०-८-९०-३) इति; स्थितः अहम् इति ॥

The purpose of showing all the above is to prove that in Advaita this mantra specifying the ‘transcendental three parts’ is to teach the nirguna, asamsāri, Brahman and not any saguna deity located in any abode. No special abode above creation is admitted in Advaita. The Advaita Siddhi explicitly denies eternality to viṣṇu lokas and admits their existence only during the period between maha pralayas. Therefore such lokas are very much within samsāra mandala.

The fundamental error of the blogger is in taking the word ‘svarga loka’ as being a special loka, abode, beyond creation. That such is only an imagery, hārda brahman’ is shown in the bhāṣya. All that the blogger says on the Chandogya mantras taken up by him for discussion along with Anandagiri is therefore faulty and shatter his hopes of proving an eternal vaishnava loka in vyavaharika satyam in advaita.

Here is another desperate attempt by the blogger to somehow bring in his pet theories into advaita. Responses are placed between [ ]:

// Again, do we have statements from Shankara himself that the description in this passage is a description of sopAdhika saguNa brahman and not of nirupAdhika state? Affirmative, since Shankara has dealt with this passage again in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 1.1.24 where Gayatri-Brahmavidya is discussed: //

[It has been shown beyond doubt that the Chandogya mantra in question is not teaching any sopādhika Brahman as obtaining in a loka beyond creation. That which transcends creation, the lokas, is the nirupādhika Brahman alone. The very attempt to bring in this Sūtra bhāṣua 1.1.24 is futile since Shankara has not admitted any loka that is named vaishnava or another, in a realm beyond creation. All lokas, grouped under uttama lokas in the chandogya mantra and explained as ‘hiranyagarbhādi (satya) lokas’ in the bhashya come under the created category and therefore within samsāra. Since this is clearly settled, the sutra bhashya topic is irrelevant as it is dealing with a different topic of upasana-specific locations. All such dyu loka, etc. based upasanas are within the created range and not at all beyond creation. Hence there is absolutely no scope for this sutra bhashya here. It does not alter the situation settled in the chandogya bhashya: Brahman, asamsāri, is beyond created lokas. ]

The blogger adds a note:

//Note: by “limiting adjuncts” or “upAdhivisheShasaMbandhAt” we need to take it as “sattva upAdhi-s” in the context of upAsana. While all beings are nirguna Brahman under rajo/tamo guNa upAdhi-s, Vishnu alone is under shuddhasattvaupAdhi-s and hence he alone is worthy of upAsana as Saguna Brahman for liberation. This has already been pointed out by Anandagiri in his TIka on to Shankara’s BSB, in the kAryAdhikaraNa section, and identified as Vishnu by agnicit puruShottama mishra as well in his commentary to the introductory (invocatory) verse of Sarvajnatman’s saMkShepa shArIraka.//

This needs to be clarified: The upAdhivisheShasaMbandha is not with any person, individual, deity. The upadhis are all certain locations in the body such as eye, heart, or any loka, mandala. Hence the question of Vishnu being sattva upadhi is not at all relevant. In fact there are innumerable Hiranyagarbhopasanas in the Upanishads and presenting Hiranyagarbha (Brahmā) as extremely pure, superior. Hiranyagarbha is no different from brahmā, prajāpati, and if he is rajopādhi, the blogger is only faulting the Upanishad/Shankara for enjoining this upasana. Here are shown a sample of such instances about Brahmā in the bhāṣyam. I am not giving exact translations which can be had from any standard book, based on the references shown below:

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । प्रथमः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । अदृश्यत्वाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् २३ – भाष्यम् Brahmasutra bhāṣyam (BSB) 1.2.23

श्रुतिस्मृत्योश्च त्रैलोक्यशरीरस्य प्रजापतेर्जन्मादि निर्दिश्यमानमुपलभामहे — ‘हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे भूतस्य जातः पतिरेक आसीत् । स दाधार पृथिवीं द्यामुतेमां कस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम’ (ऋ. सं. १०-१२१-१) इति

Hiranyagarbha, called Prajāpati, is having the three worlds for his body.

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । पञ्चमोऽध्यायः । पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः १ – भाष्यम् Bṛ.up.B 5.5.1

कथं पुनर्यक्षमित्युच्यते — ते एवं सृष्टा देवाः पितरमपि विराजमतीत्य, तदेव सत्यं ब्रह्म उपासते; अत एतत् प्रथमजं महत् यक्षम् ; तस्मात् सर्वात्मना उपास्यं तत् ;— समवर्ततेति अजायतेत्यर्थः — तथा, ‘स वै शरीरी प्रथमः स वै पुरुष उच्यते । आदिकर्ता स भूतानां ब्रह्माग्रे समवर्तत’ इति च । Hiranyagarbha is to be meditated upon by all means.

काठकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमोऽध्यायः । प्रथमा वल्ली । मन्त्रः १७ – भाष्यम् Kathopanishad 1.1.17

किञ्च, ब्रह्मजज्ञम्, ब्रह्मणो हिरण्यगर्भाज्जातो ब्रह्मजः ब्रह्मजश्चासौ ज्ञश्चेति ब्रह्मजज्ञः । सर्वज्ञो ह्यसौ । तं देवं द्योतनाज्ज्ञानादिगुणवन्तम्, ईड्यं स्तुत्यं विदित्वा शास्त्रतः, निचाय्य दृष्ट्वा चात्मभावेन इमां स्वबुद्धिप्रत्यक्षां शान्तिम् उपरतिम् अत्यन्तम् एति अतिशयेनैति । वैराजं पदं ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयानुष्ठानेन प्राप्नोतीत्यर्थः ॥ The virāt who is born of Hiranyagarbha, brahmā, is a Jnani and is to be meditated upon.

मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमं मुण्डकम् । प्रथमः खण्डः । मन्त्रः ८ – भाष्यम् Mundakopanishat 1.1.8

अन्नात् प्राणः हिरण्यगर्भो ब्रह्मणो ज्ञानक्रियाशक्त्यधिष्ठितो जगत्साधारणोऽविद्याकामकर्मभूतसमुदायबीजाङ्कुरो जगदात्मा अभिजायत इत्यनुषङ्गः । Hiranyagarbha is endowed with the Jnanakriyashakti of Brahman….

मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमं मुण्डकम् । द्वितीयः खण्डः । मन्त्रः ११ – भाष्यम् Mundakopanishat 1.2.11:

ये पुनस्तद्विपरीतज्ञानयुक्ता वानप्रस्थाः संन्यासिनश्च, तपःश्रद्धे हि तपः स्वाश्रमविहितं कर्म, श्रद्धा हिरण्यगर्भादिविषया विद्या, ते तपःश्रद्धे उपवसन्ति सेवन्तेऽरण्ये वर्तमानाः सन्तः । शान्ताः उपरतकरणग्रामाः । विद्वांसः गृहस्थाश्च ज्ञानप्रधाना इत्यर्थः ।

and

समस्तमपरविद्याकार्यं साध्यसाधनलक्षणं क्रियाकारकफलभेदभिन्नं द्वैतम् एतावदेव यद्धिरण्यगर्भप्राप्त्यवसानम् । तथा च मनुनोक्तं स्थावराद्यां संसारगतिमनुक्रामता — ‘ब्रह्मा विश्वसृजो धर्मो महानव्यक्तमेव च । उत्तमां सात्त्विकीमेतां गतिमाहुर्मनीषिणः’ (मनु. १२-५०) इति ॥

The above speak of the glories of Hiranyagarbha as attainable through highly sāttvik path.

तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । शीक्षावल्ली । षष्ठोऽनुवाकः । मन्त्रः २ – भाष्यम् Taittiriya bhashyam 1.6.2

भूर्भुवः सुवः स्वरूपा मह इत्येतस्य हिरण्यगर्भस्य व्याहृत्यात्मनो ब्रह्मणोऽङ्गान्यन्या देवता इत्युक्तम् । यस्य ता अङ्गभूताः, तस्यैतस्य ब्रह्मणः साक्षादुपलब्ध्यर्थमुपासनार्थं च हृदयाकाशः स्थानमुच्यते, सालग्राम इव विष्णोः । तस्मिन्हि तद्ब्रह्म उपास्यमानं मनोमयत्वादिधर्मविशिष्टं साक्षादुपलभ्यते, पाणाविवामलकम् । Hiranyagarbha upāsana is enjoined here.

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमोऽध्यायः । प्रथमाध्यायस्य चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः ६ – भाष्यम् Bṛ.up.bhāṣyam 1.4,6

हिरण्यगर्भस्तूपाधिशुद्ध्यतिशयापेक्षया प्रायशः पर एवेति श्रुतिस्मृतिवादाः प्रवृत्ताः । Hiranyagarbha (brahmā) is indeed of extremely pure upādhi….and therefore is more or less the Supreme Itself…

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमोऽध्यायः । प्रथमाध्यायस्य पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः २० – भाष्यम्

तथा अद्भ्यश्चैनं चन्द्रमसश्च दैवः प्राण आविशति । स वै दैवः प्राणः किंलक्षण इत्युच्यते — यः सञ्चरन् प्राणिभेदेषु असञ्चरन् समष्टिव्यष्टिरूपेण — अथवा सञ्चरन् जङ्गमेषु असञ्चरन्स्थावरेषु — न व्यथते न दुःखनिमित्तेन भयेन युज्यते ; अथो अपि न रिष्यति न विनश्यति न हिंसामापद्यते । सः — यो यथोक्तमेवं वेत्ति त्र्यन्नात्मदर्शनं सः — सर्वेषां भूतानामात्मा भवति, सर्वेषां भूतानां प्राणो भवति, सर्वेषां भूतानां मनो भवति, सर्वेषां भूतानां वाग्भवति — इत्येवं सर्वभूतात्मतया सर्वज्ञो भवतीत्यर्थः — सर्वकृच्च । यथैषा पूर्वसिद्धा हिरण्यगर्भदेवता एवमेव नास्य सर्वज्ञत्वे सर्वकृत्त्वे वा क्वचित्प्रतिघातः ; स इति दार्ष्टान्तिकनिर्देशः । किञ्च यथैतां हिरण्यगर्भदेवताम् इज्यादिभिः सर्वाणि भूतान्यवन्ति पालयन्ति पूजयन्ति, एवं ह एवंविदं सर्वाणि भूतान्यवन्ति — इज्यादिलक्षणां पूजां सततं प्रयुञ्जत इत्यर्थः ॥

Hiranyagarbha is spoken of as omniscient.

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । द्वितीयोऽध्यायः । षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः ३ – भाष्यम् Bṛ.up.2.6.3

ब्रह्मणो हिरण्यगर्भात् ; ततः परम् आचार्यपरम्परा नास्ति । यत्पुनर्ब्रह्म, तन्नित्यं स्वयम्भु, तस्मै ब्रह्मणे स्वयम्भुवे नमः ॥

Brahmā, that is Hiranyagarbha, is the Supreme Achārya. Obeisance to Him.

The blogger says:

//To those who say that the vaikuNTha vAsin and vaikuNTha loka must be subject to pralaya in Advaita Vedanta because of its association with a certain place, we have the same reply as Shankara. The statements of Shankara in Mundakopanishad 3.2.6 to the effect that Brahman cannot be associated with a specific place is in the context of sadyomukti/jIvanmukti that constitutes immediate realization of Nirguna Brahman//

The blogger is fundamentally mistaken about what Shankara said in the BSB on upadhi-specific teaching of Brahman. While those specific teachings about Brahman ‘in’ the eye, heart, dyuloka, etc. is for the purpose of upāsana, there is no such injunction in the Upanishads that teach the contemplation of Brahman located in a loka called Vaikunṭha. Not even is there an upasana that teaches one to contemplate Brahman ‘as’ located in brahmaloka. So, the blogger has no ‘same reply’ as Shankara whatsoever. And the Mundakopanishad 3.2.6 bhāṣyam is a universal statement and not limited to just sadyomukti/jivanmukti/videhamukti. The blogger cannot take shelter under the supposed logic that since that Mundaka 3.2.6 statement is about Advaitic mukti, there is allowance in advaita for the unvedantic idea of eternal Vishnu in Vaikuntha that is not subject to pralaya. Shānkaran Advaita nowhere admits of any loka outside the created 14 lokas, of which the Satya is the highest, as not subject to pralaya.

In fact the Chandogya expression anuttameṣūttameṣu lokeṣu (ChUp, 3.13.7) is misunderstood by the blogger, as evidenced by his statement:

//That Brahman is now described as the “jyotis” which shines above the universe, above everything, in the highest worlds, beyond which there are no worlds.//

And in another blog:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/01/saguna-brahman-and-krama-mukti-in_24.html

//Then, the commentator says that these “Abodes” of Vishnu are places where kramamukti is granted (kramamuktidAn) and that they exist above all loka-s and beyond them there are no other worlds (anuttamān yebhyaḥ pare uttamā na santi tān lokān).//

The blogger is fundamentally wrong in understanding the Chandogya shruti, the Shankara bhāṣyam, Anandagiri’s gloss and the Ramayana and the gloss he cites thereon. None of these talk of a vaikuntha that exists ‘above’ all other lokas. The ‘anuttama’ expression is explained by Shankara in the bhashyam thus: If it is taken as tatpuruṣa samāsa, it will mean: ‘na uttamā iti anuttama’ [‘they are not superior’]. Hence, the Upanishad itself uses the word ‘uttameṣu’ immediately after that first expression, which, as the bahuvrīhi compound means: those lokas that do not have other lokas excelling them ‘na uttamā lokāḥ yebhyaḥ iti anuttamalokāḥ’. Even by saying so, Shankara never means any vaikuntha loka as existing ‘above’ these most exalted lokas. For, Shankara says in that bhāṣya, the asamsāri Brahman (tripād) is ‘above’ these exalted lokas, all of which come under the created, one-foot, category: ‘tasmādupari’. Shankara gives the example of Hiranyagarbhādi lokas for those uttama lokas and nowhere says vaikunthaadi. If, as the blogger thinks, Shankara admits of a vaikuntha which is superior to satya loka of hiranyagarbha, Shankara would have mentioned it by name. But he does not. He simply groups all those uttama lokas where Brahman is especially manifest in comparison to other lower lokas. (the Ramayana commentary too says: brahmalokān kramamuktidān). And then Shankara says the transcendental Brahman, three-foot, is above these exalted lokas described as Hiranyagarbhādi. In advaita, krama mukti happens only with the hiranyagarbha loka entering pralaya. There is absolutely no evidence in advaita for a loka designated for krama mukti that escapes pralaya. Every loka where bhoga is there, is within creation according to advaita. For in such lokas there is duality, dvaita. Any loka that has dvaita is created and destroyed during pralaya. That is why Madhusudana Saraswati, despite saying in the BG.8^th chapter ‘mallokabhogānte’, denies even vyavaharika eternality escaping pralaya, to all bhagavallokas in the Advaita siddhi. Any bhogabhūmi is a created one where alone there can be multiple bhoktas, multiple bhogya vastus, etc. All this is dvaita according to advaita, subject to creation and destruction.

The blogger thinks that just because the Ramayana commentator says ‘kramamuktidān’ about the lokas where one goes, they are all imperishable. He is thoroughly mistaken. In advaita no loka that is fit for gaining krama mukti is eternal, even in the vyavaharika, creation-sustenance-pralaya, scheme.

The blogger now gives the BG as evidence for his Vishnu-loka theories in Advaita:

// Right after 15.6, Shankara raises the objection “But it is well-known that if one can go to a certain place, returning is always possible. How do we say for sure that there is no return of those?” and answers it in the next few verses by saying that these upAsakas attain nirguNa prApti at the end by giving the pot-sky analogy of avaccheda-vAda pakSha as well as the water-reflection analogy of AbhAsa-vAda pakSha. Note that there won’t be any such serious objection deserving a long explanation if “prApti”, “gamana”, “pravesha” etc. (respectively, “attainment”, “reaching”, and “entering”) only meant nirguNa-brahman realization. The idea is that they attain saguNa Ishvara, who is Vishnu and then attain His highest state, ie, nirguNatattva.//

It should be noted that the candidate in the BG 15^th Ch. is not any upāsaka, who will have to go to a loka for krama mukti. He is someone who gains the advaita nirguna brahmātmaikya jnānam in this life itself. The blogger thinks he is intelligent in citing the subsequent verses, with the avaccheda and ābhāsa’ specific examples taken up by Shankara. It can be easily seen how the blogger has missed the key element in that analogy as stated by Shankara. Here is the relevant commentary:

For the BG 15.7 Shankara comments:

ममैव परमात्मनः नारायणस्य, अंशः भागः अवयवः एकदेशः इति अनर्थान्तरं जिवलोके जीवानां लोके संसारे जीवभूतः कर्ता भोक्ता इति प्रसिद्धः सनातनः चिरंतनः; यथा जलसूर्यकः सूर्यांशः जलनिमित्तापाये सूर्यमेव गत्वा न निवर्तते च तेनैव आत्मना गच्छति, एवमेव; यथा घटाद्युपाधिपरिच्छिन्नो घटाद्याकाशः आकाशांशः सन् घटादिनिमित्तापाये आकाशं प्राप्य न निवर्तते । अतः उपपन्नम् उक्तम् ‘यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते’ (भ. गी. १५-६) इति । ननु निरवयवस्य परमात्मनः कुतः अवयवः एकदेशः अंशः इति? सावयवत्वे च विनाशप्रसङ्गः अवयवविभागात् । नैष दोषः, अविद्याकृतोपाधिपरिच्छिन्नः एकदेशः अंश इव कल्पितो यतः । दर्शितश्च अयमर्थः क्षेत्राध्याये विस्तरशः ।

The idea behind giving the analogies is only to show that mokṣa in Vedanta is not going to some place but mere realizing one’s true nature, here and now itself. The idea of being a samsārin is due to the upādhis which make one a finite being. And once it is known that the upadhis are mithyā and therefore do not and cannot finitize the infinite Brahman, that itself is freedom from bondage. The first example of a reflection of the sun in the reflecting medium, a water body: When the water-body medium that reflects the sun is destroyed (due to evaporation or any other reason), there is no longer the reflection. Where did the reflected sun ‘go’? It simply disappears, it is figuratively said to have ‘returned’ to the sun above, being non-different from the sun. In the same way, when the upadhis that are finitizing the infinite Brahman are ‘destroyed’ by knowing their falsity, the one that claimed jivahood no longer does so; he identifies himself with the infinite Brahman. The second analogy of the pot-space that is no different from the infinite space: when the pot, etc.-upādhis cease to be, that is when they are destroyed, the space in the enclosure ‘reaches’ the outer space and never regains the finitude. Here, both in the sun and the space analogies, there is no ‘physical returning’ to the source. Anyone can understand that when the pot breaks the space confined by the pot need not physically travel to reach the outer space. One can easily see that the two words ‘gatvā’ and ‘prāpya’ used by Shankara in the two analogies are only figurative and not literal, just to be in tune with the verse. So too, the term ‘gatvā’, ‘prāpya’ etc. in the case of the jnānin, only literal. In the BSB 4^th sutra Shankara has said there is nothing else to be done to ‘attain’ liberation, ‘after’ securing the knowledge:

‘तदात्मानमेवावेदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति, तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्’ (वाजसनेयि ब्रह्मण. उ. १-४-१०) ‘तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (ई. उ. ७) इत्येवमाद्याः श्रुतयो ब्रह्मविद्यानन्तरमेव मोक्षं दर्शयन्त्यो मध्ये कार्यान्तरं वारयन्ति । तथा ‘तद्धैतत्पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्च’ (बृ. उ. १-४-१०) इति ब्रह्मदर्शनसर्वात्मभावयोर्मध्ये कर्तव्यान्तरवारणायोदाहार्यम् — यथा ‘तिष्ठन्गायति’ इति तिष्ठतिगायत्योर्मध्ये तत्कर्तृकं कार्यान्तरं नास्तीति गम्यते ।//

The blogger’s hopes of showing up the words such as ‘paramam ‘dhāma’, gatvā, etc. in the BG as ‘evidences’ for the existence of a physical Vishnu loka admitted in advaita are dashed by this BGB 8.21:

अव्यक्तोऽक्षर इत्युक्तस्तमाहुः परमां गतिम् ।
यं प्राप्य न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम ॥ २१ ॥

8.21 He who has been mentioned as the Unmanifested, the Immutable, they call Him the supreme Goal. That is the supreme abode of Mine, reaching which they do not return.

भाष्यम्

सोऽसौ अव्यक्तः अक्षरः इत्युक्तः, तमेव अक्षरसंज्ञकम् अव्यक्तं भावम् आहुः परमां प्रकृष्टां गतिम् । यं परं भावं प्राप्य गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते संसाराय, तत् धाम स्थानं परमं प्रकृष्टं मम, विष्णोः परमं पदमित्यर्थः ॥

English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary – Swami Gambhirananda

//8.21 He Himself who has been uktah, meantioned; as avyaktah, Unmanifest; the aksarah, Immutable; āhuh, they call; tam, Him – that very unmanifest Reality which is termed as the Immutable; the paramam, supreme; gatim, Goal. Tat, That; is the paramam, supreme; dhama, abode, i.e. the supreme State; mama, of Mine, of Visnu; yam prāpya, attaining which Reality; na nivartante, they do not return to the worldly state.//

Here, both in the original and the translation, nowhere is a physical location stated that has to be physically reached for liberation. That Reality itself is the Goal and upon attaining that bhāva, state, there is no return. The Lord never says that the attainment of that state is accomplished by traveling to a specific location. And to top it all, the BGB 15.4 says: ततः पश्चात् यत् पदं वैष्णवं तत् परिमार्गितव्यम्, परिमार्गणम् अन्वेषणं ज्ञातव्यमित्यर्थः ।   The paramam padam vishnavam has to be known.

In Br.up.Bh. 1.4.7 Shankara says: न तु ब्रह्मविज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण अन्यत् मोक्षसाधनमवगम्यते । [Other than securing the Direct Knowledge of Brahman no means for liberation is seen taught in the scripture] If going to vaikuntha is an unavoidable, inevitable, condition to be liberated, even after securing realization, then the above words of Shankara will be contradicted. Even in the case of krama mukti it is not that one has to go from Brahma loka to any other loka to get mukti; the upasaka who has reached brahmaloka gains the advaita jnanam there and becomes a sadyomukta/jivanmukta there. He is alive there till the mahapralaya and when the brahma loka gets destroyed, along with Brahmā and the others who have gained self-realization, will become liberated. This is nothing but videha mukti for all of them; with no more confines of the body, loka etc.

Br.up.3.3: न च अज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण मोक्षस्य व्यवधानान्तरं कल्पयितुं शक्यम् — नित्यत्वान्मोक्षस्य साधकस्वरूपाव्यतिरेकाच्च — यत्कर्मणा निवर्त्येत । [Other than ignorance there is nothing that blocks liberation since moksha is eternal and is non-different from the svarupa of the aspirant. If, as the blogger thinks, one has to travel to vaikuntha to get moksha, then the above statements would be contradicted. Shankara clearly says that nothing need be done other than removal of ignorance, for liberation. Not just that, liberation is the very svarupa of the aspirant. In the BG 8.21 above the Lord says His bhāva, State, is that Brahman. One who attains to that bhāva, state, has no return to samsara. Since samsara is avidyākalpita, once the avidya is annulled, there is no going to some place for liberation. Non-return is simply not getting into ignorance and not a denial of physically coming back to samsara. The blogger in his proverbial ignorance of Advaita thinks that the 15^th chapter is about saguṇopāsana and krama mukti is what is spoken of there. In the 19^th verse there is said:

यो मामेवमसंमूढो जानाति पुरुषोत्तमम् ।
स सर्वविद्भजति मां सर्वभावेन भारत ॥ १९ ॥

15.19 O scion of the Bharata dynasty, he who, being free from delusion, knows Me the supreme Person thus, he is all knowing and adores Me with his whole being.

भाष्यम्

यः माम् ईश्वरं यथोक्तविशेषणम् एवं यथोक्तेन प्रकारेण असंमूढः संमोहवर्जितः सन् जानाति ‘अयम् अहम् अस्मि’ इति पुरुषोत्तमं सः सर्ववित् सर्वात्मना सर्वं वेत्तीति सर्वज्ञः सर्वभूतस्थं भजति मां सर्वभावेन सर्वात्मतया हे भारत ॥

15.19 Bharata, O scion of the Bharata dynasty; yah, he who; asammudhah, being free from delusion;

janati, knows; mam, Me, God, having the aforesaid qualifications; purusottamam, the supreme Person;

evam, thus, in the way described, as ‘I am this One'; sah, he; is sarva vit, all knowing he knows everything through self identification with all i.e. (he becomes) omniscient; and bhajati, adores; mam Me, existing in all things; sarva bhavena, with his whole being, i.e. with his mind fixed on Me as the Self of all. Now then, having stated in this chapter the knowledge of the real nature of the Lord, which has Liberation as its fruit, it is being eulogized.

One can see clearly that the entire 15^th chapter is a teaching the Absolute Brahman and the one who realizes that as ‘I am He’ is never a saguṇopāsaka requiring to go to some loka, to gain a further knowledge there. Shankara says, on the words of the Lord, that such a one is a sarvajna. The sagunopasaka is still an ajnani since he has to gain the real knowledge only in that loka where he is destined to go. So, the blogger’s hope of putting up the 15^th chapter to sell his theories is a pathetic failure. And it is all the more laughable that he cites Shankara for all such nonsensical ideas.

And the blogger tries to show that he is aware of the ‘difference’ between going, attaining, etc. where there are two interpretations that are possible:

//Another point is also noteworthy here. In places where an interpretation in the secondary sense as “realization” i.e., “svarUpa-pratipatti” is warranted for the terms “prApti”, “gamana” etc., Shankara’s explanation is seen to be explicit and markedly different:

‘brahmavidāpnoti param'(tai. 2.1.1) ityādiṣu tu satyapi āpnoteḥ gatyarthatve varṇitena nyāyena deśāntaraprāpti asaṃbhavāt svarūpapratipattiḥ eva iyam avidyā adhyāropita nāma rūpa pravilaya apekṣayā abhidhīyate ‘brahmaiva sanbrahmāpyeti’ (bṛ. 4.4.7) ityādivat iti draṣṭavyam //

Nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita Bhashya where statements like “attainment of Vishnu’s paramaM padam” (8.21, 15.6, 18.56, 18.62), “attaining Me” (8.16, 9.25) etc. are mentioned, Shankara takes this route to say that the “attainment” is to be strictly taken in a secondary sense as “realization of the Atman’s true nature” or as “brahmaiva lokam” etc. In fact, Shankara explains “gatvA” as “prApya” in one place “prApya” as “gatvA” in another in the Gita Bhashya, instead of “AtmasvarUpaM pratipAdya” etc.//

Response:

Shankara need not say all that he said in one place, in all places too. He expects his followers to be intelligent enough to apply what he has said once or more in places where he has not said.

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । तृतीयः अध्यायः । तृतीयः पादः । गतेरर्थवत्त्वाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् २९ – भाष्यम्

अन्यथा हि अविशेषेणैव एतस्यां गतावङ्गीक्रियमाणायां विरोधः स्यात् — ‘पुण्यपापे विधूय निरञ्जनः परमं साम्यमुपैति’ (मु. उ. ३-१-३) इत्यस्यां श्रुतौ देशान्तरप्रापणी गतिर्विरुध्येत ; कथं हि निरञ्जनोऽगन्ता देशान्तरं गच्छेत् ; गन्तव्यं च परमं साम्यं न देशान्तरप्राप्त्यायत्तम् — इत्यानर्थक्यमेवात्र गतेर्मन्यामहे ॥ २९ ॥

The paramam sāmyam, absolute identity, with Brahman is not dependent on going to some other place. How indeed can one who is unattached, non-goer, go, reach, another place? Asks Shankara in the above passage.

In the Kathopanishad 1.3.4 Shankara, prior to introducing the series that leads to the tad visnoḥ paramam padam, says: वैष्णवस्य पदस्यात्मतया प्रतिपत्तिरुपपद्यते, नान्यथा स्वभावनतिक्रमात् [ Since another shruti teaches that the Pure atman is abhoktā (not an enjoyer/experience), it would be appropriate only when the vaishnava padam is realized as one’s self.]

If the vaishnava pada, as the blogger thinks, is a place, then it is impossible in advaita to teach the realization of that place as one’s self. Also, as pointed out in the foregoing, the BGB 8.21 clearly uses the words ‘यं प्राप्य न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम’ where Shankara has not said anything about reaching an abode: यं परं भावं प्राप्य गत्वा the ‘state’, bhāva, is not to be reached physically; it is to be realized. I have explained, with Shankara’s commentary, in the article https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/tad-vi%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%87o%E1%B8%A5-paramam-padam/

// Br.up.4.4.23 bhashyam:

तस्मात् तस्यैव महिम्नः, स्यात् भवेत्, पदवित् — पदस्य वेत्ता, पद्यते गम्यते ज्ञायत इति महिम्नः स्वरूपमेव पदम्, तस्य पदस्य वेदिता ।

For the word ‘padavit’ occurring in the above mantra, Shankara says: padam is padyate, gamyate, jñāyate and therefore the word ‘padam’ means verily the ‘svarūpam’ the true essence. He who has known (jñāyate) this is called padavit. [It should be noted that the Sanskrit root ‘pad’ has the meaning ‘gam’ which has also the meaning ‘know’.] //

Therefore ‘gatvā’ in those Bh.Gita usages means jnātvā. The 18.56 expression is to be understood as taught by Shankara in the Kaṭha bhāṣya: वैष्णवस्य पदस्यात्मतया प्रतिपत्तिरुपपद्यते, नान्यथा स्वभावनतिक्रमात्. Vaikuntha, a place, if that is the blogger’s meaning for the expression ‘vaishnavam padam’, it can never be realized to be his own svarupam of the aspirant since that place is characterized by duality and is a physical one, within creation, as established by the Advaita siddhi (see https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/madhusudana-saraswati-misrepresented/ ).

For the word ‘praveṣṭum’ (literally, to enter) Shankara says: ‘mokṣam ca gantum’. If one were to read this again literally it would translate to: ‘to go to mokṣa’. And that would not make any sense. In Vedanta mokṣa is not going to some place; it is realization of one’s true self. Shankara has said that mokṣa is the very nature of everyone and its realization, knowing, is what is meant by ‘gantum’/praveṣṭum’:

The Bh.G.11.54 says:

भक्त्या त्वनन्यया शक्य
अहमेवंविधोऽर्जुन ।
ज्ञातुं द्रष्टुं च तत्त्वेन
प्रवेष्टुं च परंतप ॥ ५४ ॥

भाष्यम्

भक्त्या तु किंविशिष्टया इति आह — अनन्यया अपृथग्भूतया, भगवतः अन्यत्र पृथक् न कदाचिदपि या भवति सा त्वनन्या भक्तिः । सर्वैरपि करणैः वासुदेवादन्यत् न उपलभ्यते यया, सा अनन्या भक्तिः, तया भक्त्या शक्यः अहम् एवंविधः विश्वरूपप्रकारः हे अर्जुन, ज्ञातुं शास्त्रतः । न केवलं ज्ञातुं शास्त्रतः, द्रष्टुं च साक्षात्कर्तुं तत्त्वेन तत्त्वतः, प्रवेष्टुं च मोक्षं च गन्तुं परंतप ॥

So, praveśa, literally entering, is not so in the above context. Even in the famous Taittiriya Upanishad, tat sṛṣṭvā tadevānu prāviśat [Having created, Brahman entered it], Shankara has explained at length the meaning of the word ‘praveśa’ and concluded that the ‘availability of Brahman in the heart of everyone to be recognized, realized, for liberation’ is what is meant by praveśa. Otherwise, he reasons, the all-pervading Brahman cannot be expected to ‘enter’ any finite place. It is always everywhere.

The blogger further says:

// Also note here that Anandagiri has explained “sthAnam” (Abode) as “the (place) where the liberated ones reside”. The usage of plural “liberated ones” (muktAH) indicates an eternal realm where a plurality liberated Jivas reside makes it inappropriate to associate “Vishnu’s highest padam” exclusively with nirguNaprApti, a state where there is no plurality.//

Here is another reference from Anandagiri:

संन्यासिभिः प्राप्यते स्थानं मोक्षाख्यम्// BGB 5.5 Shankara says: sthānam means that which is called mokśa.

आनन्दगिरि ८.२८: ऐश्वरं विष्णोः परमं पदं तदेव तिष्ठत्यस्मिन्नशेषमिति स्थानं, योगानुष्ठानादशेषफलातिशायिमोक्षलक्षणं फलं क्रमेण लब्धुं शक्यमिति भावः।

And Anandagiri, for the above bhāṣya gives enough material to complete the Gītā-Kaṭha connection. He annotates the Kaṭha ‘viṣṇoḥ paramam padam’ and says ‘that alone which is well established completely is ‘sthānam’, which one can gradually attain by sādhana. One also has to note that the ‘krameṇa’ is not any krama mukti indicated here, but the process of the aspirant evolving in sādhana by undertaking karma yoga, etc. Compare the above with Shankara bhashyam: स्थानं = तिष्ठति अस्मिन् इति, for BG 9.18 word स्थानम् . I have also pointed out before, in another article, that in the Chandogya, Sanatkumara instructs Nārada: ‘yadi vā na mahimni’: If you want to know ‘where that Bhūman (Brahman) is established, the reply would be: In Its own Glory, sve mahimni pratiṣṭhitaḥ. But even that is not correct; not in its glory.’ For Brahman does not require any support, like vaikunṭha, for its existence. It is infinite, ananta, satya. So, Existence and Infinite nature are not different in Advaita. That which is absolute Existence cannot be but absolutely infinite.

It is extremely silly on the part of the blogger to suggest that advaitins admit of a place where liberated ones, in plural, reside. In the above cited example, Anandagiri himself, uses the word in singular. And moreover clarifies that it is mokṣa. In advaita mokṣa is not a place but the very svarūpam of the aspirant. That svarupa cannot be many. It can be only one. And advaita does not admit of many ātmans. So, the blogger’s wishful thinking that there is evidence in advaita for a place where several muktas live is dismissed summarily. He desperately searches for singular/plural, etc. to somehow push in his vishistadvaitic ideas in advaita. If Ramanuja had identified his ideas in advaita, he would not have invented a new school. Nor would he have badmouthed Shankara (and Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman) as sinners. How can a vaishnava, if Shankara was one, be a sinner? If ending up being a sinner is what being a vaishnava amounts to, there is no special advantage in being one over being any other.

Om Tat Sat

Was Sri Madhusudana Saraswati a Bigot?

Sri Madhusūdana Saraswati (MS), the famed author of the Advaita Siddhi, the Gūḍhārtha dīpikā (GD) and several other works is very well known to be an ardent devotee of Viṣṇu. His verse, at the beginning of his GD 13^th chapter is:

ध्यानाभ्यासवशीकृतेन मनसा तन्निर्गुणं निष्क्रियं
ज्योतिः किञ्चन योगिनो यदि परं पश्यन्ति पश्यन्तु ते ।
अस्माकं तु तदेव लोचनचमत्काराय भूयाच्चिरं
कालिन्दीपुलिनोदरे किमपि यन्नीलं महो धावति ॥

// By means of the mind brought under control by the practice of meditation, Yogis behold the Supreme Light that is free from attributes and activity.  Let them do so.
But I am quite contented with the vision of the luminous blue deity, Krishna, who wanders about the banks of the river Kālindī. //

speaks of his saguṇa bhakti. In his Bhagavadgitā commentary (GD) he waxes eloquence on his Viṣṇu bhakti just one example of which is:

BG 12.6:

भगवन्तं वासुदेवं सकलसौन्दर्यसारनिधानमानन्दघनविग्रहं द्विभुजं चतुर्भुजं वा समस्तजनमनोमोहिनीं मुरलीमन्तिमनोहरैः सप्तभिः स्वरैरापूरयन्तं वा दरकमलकौमोदकीरथाङ्गसङ्गिपाणिपल्लवं वा नरसिंहराघवादिरूपं वा यथादर्शितविश्वरूपं वा ध्यायन्तः चिन्तयन्त उपासते…मय्यावेशितचेतसां….

[MS gives a enchanting description of the Lord Viṣṇu in His various forms as the ones fit for a devotee/aspirant to fix his mind on.]

Yet, MS, has left no trace of doubt that he was not a bigot. While his iṣṭa devatā bhakti was for Viṣṇu, he has not displayed the least intolerance that would normally go with a vaiṣṇava or even a śaiva. MS has emerged as a true Advaitin whose primary, fundamental, allegiance was with the Advaitic Nirguṇa Brahman which is devoid of any attributes. In the sequel are shown a few instances from the works of MS in evidence of his mature thinking:

1. In the BG 6.47 the Lord teaches:

योगिनामपि सर्वेषां मद्गतेनान्तरात्मना ।
श्रद्धावान्भजते यो मां स मे युक्ततमो मतः ॥ ४७ ॥

// 6.47 Even among all the yogis, he who adores Me with his mind fixed on Me and with faith, he is considered by Me to be the best of the yogis. //

In the commentary of Sri Shankaracharya we have:

6.47 Api, even; sarveṣām yoginām, among all the yogis, among those who are immersed in meditation on Rudra, Āditya, and others; yah, he who; bhajate, adores; mām, Me; antarātmanā,with his mind; madgatena, fixed on Me, concentrated on Me who am Vāsudeva; and sraddhāvān, with faith, becoming filled with faith; sah, he; is matah, considered; me, by Me; to be yukta-tamah, the best of the yogis, engaged in Yoga most intensely.

While most people, especially vaiṣṇava bigots, take the words ‘Rudra’ in the above commentary to refer to Lord Śiva, MS, of his own accord, even though the verse of the BG does not contain that word, chooses to write in his GD: योगिनां वसुरुद्रादित्यादिक्षुद्रदेवताभक्तानां सर्वेषामपि मध्ये मयि भगवति..[Among all the yogins who are devoted to the lowly deities such as the vasu-s, rudra-s and āditya-s, he who is devoted to Me…] MS does not take the word ‘Rudra’ (and ‘Aditya’) in Shankara’s commentary to mean the well known Lord Śiva etc. He gives the correct clarification by taking them to mean the gaṇas such as the eight vasus, the eleven rudras and the twelve ādityas. See an article on this topic here: http://www.mediafire.com/view/610a95362eprvy3/Reference_to_Rudra_and_Āditya_in_the_Bh.g.pdf

2. The opening (invocatory) verse of the Advaitasiddhi of MS is rendered thus by him:

मायाकल्पितमातृतामुखमृषाद्वैतप्रपञ्चाश्रयः

सत्यज्ञानसुखात्मकः श्रुतिशिखोत्थाखण्डधीगोचरः ।

मिथ्याबन्धविधूननेन परमानन्दैकतानात्मकं

मोक्षं प्राप्त इव स्वयं विजयते विष्णुर्विकल्पोज्झितः ॥ इति   ।

‘The verse says ‘Viṣṇu’ (Brahman) who is innately satyam, jñānam and sukham, is the abode of the universe consisting of the unreal dvaita of knower, knowing and known conjured up by māyā, and owing to the akhaṇḍkāravṛtti-based realization of His native ānanda svarūpa, being freed from the apparent bondage shines as though liberated, free from all the vikalpa-s.’

Here MS is depicting ‘Viṣṇu’ as the way Brahman is done in Advaita: Brahman alone, owing to ignorance of its own nature, appears as a bound jīva, samsārin, and owing to the knowledge of its true nature, is liberated as though. A vaiṣṇava who is a bigot and a fanatic would never bear to think of the Lord to be subject to avidyā and therefore a samsārin.

3. In the same work Advaita siddhi, MS has denied eternality to Viṣṇu lokas such as vaikuṇṭha. He admits only relative permanence to those loka-s. For a vaiṣṇava who is a fanatic the reality and permanence of vaikuṇṭha are non-negotiable. However MS does not admit of such lokas as being outside the purview of creation-dissolution cycle. He does not also admit of a real form for Iśvara/Brahman. See an article on this topic here: https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/madhusudana-saraswati-misrepresented/
4. A vaiṣṇava who is a fanatic does not admit of the oneness of Śiva and Viṣṇu and the non-difference of the trimūrtis consisting Śiva, Viṣṇu and Brahmā. For MS, however, the idea of Hari-Hara abheda and the trimūrti aikya are quite scriptural and therefore, admissible. MS has commented upon the famous work ‘Mahimna stotram’ of Puṣpadanta as applying to both Śiva and Viṣṇu. At the end of the work MS composes a few verses depicting the Hari-Hara abheda:

भूतिभूषितदेहाय द्विजराजेन राजते ।

एकात्मने नमो नित्यं हरये च हराय च ॥ ६

Obeisance ever to Him, who is resplendent with His body adorned with vibhūti, ashes, and is of the complexion of camphor (or having the moon on His head), the One Atman that is both Hara and Hari.

हरिशंकरयोरभेदबोधो भवतु क्षुद्रधियामपीति यत्नात् ।

उभयार्थतया मयेदमुक्तं सुधियः साधुतयैव शोधयन्तु ॥ १

[With the benediction that the understanding of non-difference between Hari and Shankara may rise even in those with a lowly intellect have I, with effort, commented on the Shivamanhima stotra verses in dual-meaning mode (as applying to Hari and Hara). Let the noble ones accept this as admissible alone.]

See this page too for more inputs about Madhusudana Saraswati’s vision:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.in/adi-shankara-preached-smarta-dharma

MS’s trimūrti aikya approval is expressed in this verse-commentary of the Mahimna stotra:

बहलरजसे विश्वोत्पत्तौ भवाय नमो नमः
प्रबलतमसे तत्संहारे हराय नमो नमः ।
जनसुखकृते सत्त्वोद्रिक्तौ मृडाय नमो नमः
प्रमहसिपदे निस्त्रैगुण्ये शिवाय नमो नमः ॥३०॥

[Salutation to Brahmā in whom rajas preponderates for the creation of the universe, salutation to Rudra in whom Tama preponderates for the destruction of the same. Salutatio to Viṣṇu in whom Sattva preponderates for giving happiness to the people (by preservation of the created universe). Salutation to Śiva who is effulgent and beyond the three attributes. ]

The last line of the above verse is explained by Madhusudana thus:

प्रमहसिपदे निस्त्रैगुण्ये शिवाय नमो नमः – निर्गतं त्रैगुण्यं यस्मात्न्निस्त्रैगुण्यं तस्मिन्पदे पदनीये तत्पदप्राप्तििमित्तम् । कीदृशे ? प्रमहसि प्रकष्टं मायया अनभिभूतं महो ज्योिर्स्मिन्स्था । सर्वोत्तमप्रकाशरूपत्रिगुणशून्यमोक्षनिमित्तमित्यर्थः ।शिवाय – निस्त्रैगुण्यमङ्गलस्वरूपाय  ’शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते ’ इति श्रुतेः । प्रमहसि पदे सथिताय इति वा । हरिपक्षेऽप्येवम् ।

The above means:  ‘Shiva’ is the tattvam, the Turiya, which transcends the three guṇas.  Why is Shiva to be prostrated? With a view to attain Him, His state.  What is His nature, state? The Supreme Consciousness, effulgence,  unaffected, untouched  by māyā is what He is .[Alternatively, He is established in such an effulgence.] That is the supreme state  of mokṣa which is free of all three guṇas.  For the word ‘Shiva’ the author cites the Mandukya 7th mantra: ‘shivam advaitam chaturtham manyante’  That pure auspicious essence that is free of the three guṇas which is non-dual, called the ‘fourth’ (Turiya).

Having explained thus to refer to Hara, Shiva, the commentator Madhusudana Saraswato, for whom Hari and Hara are non-different, says: the above explanation applies to Hari too in exactly the same manner.  Thus, for Madhusūdana the Supreme Brahman can be called Hari or Hara.  It makes no difference for the advaitin.

In conclusion, we cannot but bow in admiration to Madhusūdana Saraswati’s broad vision that is conspicuous by its freedom from narrow-mindedness that is characterized by fanaticism and bigotry. MS, just like the venerable Advaita Achārya Shankara (who too steered clear of all fanaticism and bigotry by expressing Hari-Hara abheda and trimūrti aikya in his various works including the Viṣṇu sahasra nāma bhāṣyam) stands firm in the tradition of Advaita Acharyas.

Om Tat Sat

The latest parts of the above series are available for reading here:

The Foe of Bondage

In the verses recited as a prelude to the Bhagavad Gita is this verse:

अद्वैतामृतवर्षिणीं भगवतीमष्टादशाध्यायिनीं अम्ब त्वामनुसन्दधामि भगवद्गीते भवद्वेषिणीम् ॥ १॥

O Mother Bhagavadgita, I meditate on you who are the nectar-rain of Advaita, consisting of eighteen chapters, verily the destroyer of bondage.

The word भवद्वेषिणी literally means: the one who is a hater of samsāra. In other words, the Jñāna tattva that is what the Bhagavadgita teaching is, does not permit samsāra to thrive; it puts an end to it.

The idea contained in the above verse is beautifully stated in the following verses of the Padmapurāṇa:

Second Chapter where Brahmā addresses Viṣṇu:

कालकूटमिदं पश्य कण्ठभूषणमीशितुः ।

सुराङ्गनानां सर्वासां कण्ठमंगलदायकम् ।

[Behold the terrible poison which is an ornament in Shiva’s neck. It is the ordainer of all auspiciousness to the celestial women]

हैमवत्या विशालाक्ष्याः कटाक्षैरमृतोपमैः ।

शीतलीकृतमीशस्य कण्ठभूषां भवद्विषम् ।

[By the benevolent nectarine side-glances of Hemāvati, Viśālākṣī, the poison has been rendered cool, and is the neck-ornament of Śiva and is therefore is the destroyer of samsāra.]

श्रुत्वेति ब्रह्मणो वाक्यं देवासुरवचांसि च ।

स्थापयित्वा विषं कण्ठे नीलकण्ठश्शिवोऽभवत् ।

[Hearing these words of Brahmā and the words of the devas and asuras, Śiva became Nīlakaṇṭha by placing the poison in His throat and was auspicious]

ततो दैत्याश्च देवाश्च ब्रह्मेन्द्रोपेन्द्रसम्हिताः ।

तुष्टुवुर्देवदेवेशं नीलकण्ठमुमापतिम् ।

[Then the asuras and the devas, along with Brahmā, Indra and Upendra (Viṣṇu), pleased the God of Gods, Nīlakaṇṭha, the consort of Umā]

ओन्नमो नीलकण्ठाय महादेवाय ते नमः ।

नमश्शिवाय सोमाय शाश्वताय नमो नमः ।

[‘Om, Prostrations to Thee, Nīlakaṇṭha, Mahādeva, Śiva, Soma, the Eternal, Prostrations again and again.’]

In that very Padmapurāṇa, we have the Devaṛṣis say:

ओन्नमो नीलकण्ठायेत्यब्रुवन् मन्त्रमैश्वरम् ।

संसारविषदष्टानामुत्तमं परमौषधम् ।

[By devoutly chanting the mantra ‘Om namo nīlakaṇṭhāya’ which is that of Ishwara, the foremost ambrosia to those afflicted by the poison of samsāra]

ध्यायमानो महादेवं नीलकठञ्चतुर्भुजम् ।

प्रणम्य गिरिजाधीशं प्रणतार्तिहरं परम् ।

[By meditating upon prostrating to Mahādeva, nīlakaṇṭha, the Four-armed, the Lord of Mother Girijā, the Supreme one benevolent to His devotees]

प्राह तेषामृषीणां तां कथां श्रीनन्दिकेश्वरः ।

श्रोतॄणामपि वक्तॄणामपि कैवल्यदायिनीम् ।

[Nandikeśwara recounted to the Ṛṣis that story which begets liberation to the hearers as well as the narrators]

In Padmapurāṇa, Mārkaṇḍeya says:

नीलकण्ठं विरूपाक्षं निर्मलं निरुपप्लवम् ।

नमामि शिरसा देवं किन्नो मृत्युः करिष्यति ।

[Obeisance to Nīlakaṇṭha, Virūpākṣa, the Pure, free of all troubles. What indeed can Death (samsāra) do to me when I have surrendered to Shiva?]

In the Śivarahasya, eighth Chapter we have Bhairava say:

कालकूटहर श्रीमन् कालकाल कृपानिधे ।

श्रीनीलकण्ठ कामारे उतोत इषवे नमः ।

[O Auspicious Lord, the destroyer of the Kālakūṭa poison, the Destroyer of even time (Death), the Compassionate, Nilakaṇtha, the adversary of Lust, Obeisance to Thy Arrow]

उमासहायमोमर्थं विभुं साक्षात्त्रिलोचनम् ।

नीलकण्ठं प्रशान्तस्थं ध्यायेन्नित्यमतन्द्रितः ।

[By Meditating on the Consort of Umā, the Purport of the Praṇava Om, the All-pervading, Witness, the Three-eyed, Nīlakaṇṭha, established in peace….]

The above verses form the true meaning of the purāṇic episode of the amṛta-mathanam, the churning of the milk-ocean for nectar. The story of Śiva consuming the Poison that arose then is allegorical to the inner meaning, tattva, of the Vedāntic teaching of Tat tvam asi which puts an end to samsāra. Without the understanding of this tattva delineated above, the mere story is not of any value. In Advaita, it is held that the purport of the creation passages in the Veda is in driving home the knowledge of the true nature of the Creator and not in a real creation. In the same way, the stories in the purāṇas, which are often contradictory to each other, even with respect to the same event, is not in teaching the reality of those incidents but to teach the higher, hidden, tattva.

The verses convey the meaning that Śiva who effortlessly contained the ‘viṣam’ (which is another name for ajñāna, samsāra) is the symbol of Brahman in which ignorance/bondage is superimposed, without affecting the substratum in any way whatsoever, is to be meditated upon so. Being ‘bhava-dviṣa’, the destroyer of samsāra, He grants Jñāna. That is also the teaching of the Kaivalyopaniṣat mantra 8:

उमासहायं परमेश्वरं प्रभुं त्रिलोचनं नीलकण्ठं प्रशान्तम् ।

ध्यात्वा मुनिर्गच्छति भूतयोनिं समस्तसाक्षिं तमसः परस्तात् ॥ ७॥

See also: https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/turiya-shiva-of-the-kaivalyopanishat/

The verses cited above are taken from the book ‘Vedānta nāma ratna sahasram’ of Sri Paramaśivendra Saraswati, the Guru of Sri Sādāśivendra Saraswati (Brahmendra) of Nerur. The book is a collection of a thousand names of Brahman culled out from the Veda and smṛtis. The name ‘Nīlakaṇṭha’ therein is annotated with the above set of verses.

Om Tat Sat

An Etymology for the name ‘Rudra’?

The blogger, in this blog http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html
which is written with the sole purpose of vilifying Lord Śiva but pretending to bring out the glory of Lord Viṣṇu, says:
//The term “Rudra” is used to denote Shiva here. “Rudra” means “One who weeps” – rOdayati iti rudra. He got this name because he wept on being born after realising he was “anapahatapApma” or not cleansed of karmas. //

Response:

In his enthusiasm to vilify Śiva, the blogger has exhibited his ignorance of basic Sanskrit grammar. The blessed Lord Viśṇu, whom the Mahabharata describes as the twin of Lord Śiva, could not bear this blogger’s tirade against His very Self, despite the blogger claiming Him to be his Antaryāmin. He did not prevent the blogger from the mistaken expression of the verb in that etymology to caricature Śiva. The Antaryāmin wanted to punish the blogger for his misdemeanor.
The root ‘rud’, when used in the singular present third person (prathama puruṣa) is: ‘roditi’ as shown in the following dictionary:

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=roditi&trans=Translate&direction=AU

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb wail

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb bewail

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb howl

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb deplore

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb roar

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb cry

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb lament

रोदिति { रुद् } roditi { rud } verb 2 weep

What the blogger has given, however, is the causative form of the same root, which means ‘to make one weep..’:

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=rodayati+&trans=Translate&direction=AU

रोदयति { रुद् } rodayati { rud } verb caus. cause to weep or lament

Says the blogger further:
//So, by using this name, the rk asserts two things –
1. As Shiva cried due to his “anapahatapApmatva”, bhagavAn made him the instrument to drink the poison and hence enabled Shiva to cleanse his karmas (as he has acted in favor of bhagavAn). What pleases bhagavAn is puNya, what displeases him is pApa karma. Shiva thus acquired merit in this incident.

Response:

The blogger had claimed in another blog that Rudra cried soon after birth and was cleansed subsequently by the ‘names’ of Viṣṇu:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/interpretation-of-brahmanas-not-easy.html

Quote// And this clearly shows that pArvati pati, the presiding deity of the mind, was born of karma and cleansed by giving names. The names were linked to the characteristics of the mind. By virtue of his punya karma, his dharma bhUta jnAna (attributive knowledge channelled by the mind) increased each time he was given the name. Since intellect only increases by destruction of pApa karmas, it is clear that these names were given because pArvati pati was not yet cleansed of karma (anapahatapApma).
So this proves, 1) This kumara is pArvati pati, 2) He was not cleansed of pApa karmas,// Unquote

Now, when according to the blogger, Lord Śiva is a jñāni (which the blogger accepts), where is the need to ‘cleanse’ the karmas? The Mundakopanishat 2.2.9 says:
भिद्यते–हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते–सर्वसंशयाः।
क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे ॥ ९ ॥
[Upon obtaining the direct realization of the Supreme, all karma-s are destroyed…(excepting prārabdha karmas, which, however, have to be expended only by experiencing).]

So, when Śiiva has no karma to be ‘cleansed’ where is the question of the ‘drinking’ of the poison ‘cleansing’ him and his ‘acquiring’ merit? The scriptures are very clear that a Jnāni does not earn any puṇya or any pāpa. Moreover, when according to the blogger it is Viṣṇu who actually, really, drank the poison and ‘saved’ the world, only He gets merit because of this puṇya karma of saving the world. The instrument does not get any punya. When a man murders another, it is not the weapon that is punished; but the wielder of the weapon. So too the mere ‘vessel’ that was Śiva will not earn any puṇya when he actually never drank the poison, as per the blogger.

He further says:
//2. Since Shiva is known as “Rudra” – One who wept on being born due to karmas, he is not capable of drinking the poison independently. He only drunk it because the antaryAmin empowered him to. This meaning also comes out in addressing him as Rudra here.//

Response:
The same response above applies here too. How can the devas approach Śiva, who is a sinner, to save them? Why did they not approach Viśṇu or pray to him even when he was present in the scene? In fact they all go, along with Viṣṇu, to Śiva’s abode. The blogger has said in this very blog:

// Shiva was used as a vessel for bhagavAn to drink up the poison. Why didn’t bhagavAn do it directly? Because Shiva, by virtue of his merit, had performed severe austerities to attain the position of the lord of the devas. The mahAbhArata records this as follows –
mahAdEva: sarvamEdhEMahAthmAhuthvaa aathmAnam dEvadEvO BhabhUva visvAn lOkAn vyApya vishtabhya keerthyA virAjathE dhyuthimAn KrutthivAsa: –MahAbhAratha: 20.12
(Meaning): The noble soul known as “mahAdeva” (shiva) performed the sarvamEdha yAga , where He offered Himself as Havis and became the greatest among DevAs. He shines brilliantly in all the worlds with His jnAna, took on eight kinds of radiant forms (ashtamUrthy) and became renowned (keerthimAn ,DhyutimAn virAjathE).
Since Shiva had acquired merit, the gracious bhagavAn fulfilled the fruits of his penances by allowing him to swallow the poison and thus lead the devas as their head. //

Response:
When Śiva has attained the position of ‘Mahādeva’ could he still be a ‘weeping’ baby? If he still did not have the capacity to contain the poison, the ‘names’ of Viśṇu that were given to him and the great austerities he had performed, have not had any effect. What austerity/karma does the scripture prescribe, according to the blogger, to merit/enable the containing of the poison? This is asked because the blogger has given a strange kārya-kāraṇa bhāva in the above cited point no.2:
// Since Shiva is known as “Rudra” – One who wept on being born due to karmas, he is not capable of drinking the poison independently// According to this reasoning which translates to ‘He who wept due to sinful karma is not capable of drinking the poison independently’
Contrary to what the blogger reports, the deva-s praise Śiva as the Cause of creation, etc. Even otherwise, when Śiva is ‘loka samhāra kartā’ as per the VS bhashya of Shankara, and also the Praśnopaniṣat and bhāṣya, where the entire created universe is absorbed, the kālakūṭa containing, which is an infinitesimal part of the entire creation, is no big issue. Sridhara swamin says that ‘Siva pretended to take Umā’s permission before imbibing the poison with the idea that She might not have the complete knowledge of His capabilities.’

Continues the bloger:
//3. In comparison to the devas, Shiva was called “agni” in the first rk – he who leads the devas. That is an indication of Shiva’s glory as the chief of the devas. But here, in comparison to nArAyaNa, he is rudra – one who weeps because he still has karmas – this indicates he is a jivAtma subject to nArAyaNa.//

Response:
This point too, as the earlier two, is devoid of any substance. When the chief of the devas has no capacity to protect the devas, there is no meaning in that position/designation. It is a powerless, sterile, post to attain which Śiva performed austerities according to the blogger. Also, there is no reference in the Bhagavatam or any other puranas where the Amṛtamathanam event is alluded to that ‘Rudra was weeping because of his karmas’ when the churning took place. And if as the blogger says that Śiva was a jīvātmā subject to Nārāyaṇa, Veda Vyasa, in the Mahabharata would not say:

http://tinyurl.com/kvos7pv

वैशंपायनेन जनमेजयंप्रति अर्जुनाय स्वमाहात्म्यख्यापनपूर्वकं श्रीकृष्णकृतनारायणादि-स्वनामनिर्वचनानुवादः।। 1।।
The Chapter 352 of the Original Mahābhārata (OMB) in the above URL is a continuation of the ‘etymology…’ chapter of 350. In this chapter of the Śāntiparva 350 of the OMB Vaiśampāyana addresses Janamejaya and recounts Kṛṣṇa giving the etymology for His names. In that dialogue, Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna about the prayer the former made to Śiva for progeny:

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्। 12.350.27 a
लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। “ b
It is one Truth that treads the world in the twin-form of Rudra and Narayana….

And the Lord Viṣnu Himself in the Bhāgavatam, in the Dakṣa yajna episode would not say:
(IV.7.50 – 54)

(50) Lord Vishnu said: ‘I, Brahmâ and Lord S’iva as well, do not differ in being the supreme cause and Supersoul, the witness and the self-sufficient one of the material manifestation.) Him the Supreme Brahmân that is without a second, is as one Supersoul with both Brahmâ and S’iva, but the living ones who are not conversant with this, think of them as being separate. (53) The way a person sometimes does not make a difference between the head, hands and other parts of his own body, so does My devotee thus make no difference between living beings. (54) He who having the one nature of the three, verily does, of the Supersoul in all beings, not see the separateness, o brahmin, realizes the peace.’

The blogger concludes:
//Thus, this mantra shows that Rudra was used as an instrument, ie, a vibhUti of bhagavAn, and that that it was Rudra’s inner self, namely nArAyaNa, who drank the poison by using the former as his instrument. And this also corroborates the stuti of Shiva in the bhAgavatam being interpreted as pratIkOpAsaNa and Shiva referring to Hari as “sarvAtma” in the same section. //

Response:
The Keṣī sūktam never has anything to do with the amṛta mathanam episode. Yet, the Mādhvas have taken it to be ‘Vāyu’ drinking up the essence of the poison and rendering it harmless for Śiva to ‘safely’ drink and not Visnu as the blogger has it. For Advaitins it is completely a different topic in that sūktam. There was no need for Nārāyaṇa to drink the poison ‘through’ Śiva and ‘give him the credit’. An intelligent reader of the purānas can easily see through such weak excuses. By saying that Nārāyaṇa passed on the credit to Śiva who did not do anything actually amounts to only hoodwink the readers. No one who realizes the stated ‘stage managing’ will ever regard Śiva as anyone great, for, the real greatness lies, then, in Viṣṇu. Hence, the aim of such stage managing fails utterly. While the blogger thinks he is intelligent enough to see through the game of Vśṇu drinking the poison and passing on the credit to Śiva, are not the devas who are much more accomplished than humans capable of seeing thru the game and yet accept Śiva as their ‘leader’ which the blogger wants them to as desired by Nārāyaṇa? If the devas praise really was addressed to Nārāyaṇa, why did they all, along with Viṣṇu who was very much there, approach Śiva in His abode? They could have easily directly prayed to Nārāyaṇa. There is a saying:
अर्के चेन्मधु विंदेत किमर्थं पर्वतं व्रजेत् । – शाबरभाष्य
[If one gets honey in the plant in the backyard, who will climb the mountain to get honey? They will not.] Śābarabhāṣya

Now, since the blogger has labored so hard to vilify Śiva with the etymology for the word ‘Rudra’, here is what Shankara says, as one of the meanings, for the word ‘Rudra’ in the Viṣṇusahasranāma bhāṣyam, citing a Śivapurāṇam (tāmasa purāṇa according to the blogger: http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_9.html) verse:

(114th): रुर्दुःखं दुःखहेतुं वा तद् द्रावयति यः प्रभुः । रुद्र इत्युच्यते तस्माच्छिवः परमकारणम् ॥ (samhitā 6, ch.9, verse 14)
(‘Ruḥ’ means misery or the cause thereof. This is destroyed, melted away, by Rudra. Hence the Supreme Lord, Shiva, who is the Ultimate Cause (of creation, etc.) is called ‘Rudra’).
Shankara is establishing the Hari-Hara abheda by citing the above verse for the name ‘Rudra’ in the VS.

Shankara cites two seminal verses from the Bhaviṣyottara purāṇa in the introduction to the VS:

Maheśvara (Śiva) says:
विष्णोरन्यं तु पश्यन्ति ये मां ब्रह्माणमेव वा । कुतर्कमतयो मूढाः पच्यन्ते नरकेष्वधः ॥
[Those fools. who, devoid of proper thinking, consider Me and Brahmā as different from Viṣṇu will be baked in the lowly hells.]

ये च मूढा दुरात्मानो भिन्नं पश्यन्ति मां हरेः । ब्रह्माणं च ततस्तस्माद् ब्रह्महत्यासमं त्वघम् ॥
[Those fools, wicked ones, by seeing Me and Brahmā as different from Hari are committing the heinous sin of brahmahatyā.]

See for more such references on Shiva-Viṣṇu abheda: https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/shiva-vishnu-abheda-in-the-kaivalyopanishat/

If the blogger thinks he can get away with giving such etymological derivations for ‘Rudra’ and vilify Him, it is equally possible for someone to apply that etymology to Krishna and Rama too:

http://nitaaiveda.com/Compiled_and_Imp_Scriptures/Ananda_Vrindavana_Champu/04_Shakatasura_Trinavarta_Killing.htm

(I am not providing the core texts of the Bhagavatam for these events as the points conveyed are actually there in those texts)
//Yasodanandana, whose beauty defeats beauty personified, started crying due to hunger and a desire to drink Yasoda’s breast milk. But Vrajesvari could not hear Him due to the loud music and singing.// (Shakatasura vadha)

Since Vishnu has a name ‘Rudra’ in the VS, one can give the above explanation, with the blogger’s etymology (in the corrected form).

http://kirtimukha.com/Krishnaswamy/child_ramakien/ramayana37.htm

// Rama: Raama wept and ran hither and thither in the grove round the cottage. The leaves and flowers on the trees had faded. Seeta was nowhere to be seen. He wandered about like one mad. His eyes were bloodshot. He cried, “Alas, have they eaten her up? Have they carried her away. O, how she must have trembled in terror! I cannot bear the thought of it.”

After wandering and weeping in vain for a long time, he fell on the ground moaning, “Ha Lakshmana! Ha Seeta!” He cried like an elephant trapped in a pit. //

The weeping of Rama can easily attract the blogger’s etymology for the word ‘Rudra’, for nothing prevents one from explaining that name of the VS by citing the above episode.

Aranya Kandam sarga 63:
स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः।
उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।
विपुले शोके in intense grief, निमग्नः plunged, सः that, रामः Rama, सशोकम् with sorrow, रुदन् crying, शोकवशाभिपन्नम् who was caught in sorrow, लक्ष्मणम् Lakshmana, उष्णम् hot, विनिश्वस्य sighing, व्यसनानुरूपम् in his grief, वाक्यम् these words, उवाच said.
[Here is where the blogger’s (corrected) etymology for the word ‘Rudra’ perfectly fits Rāma, who as Viṣṇu has a name ‘Rudra’ in the VS.]
Plunged in deep grief, Rama heaved hot sighs and said these words to griefstricken Lakshmana, weeping:
न मद्विधो दुष्कृतकर्मकारी मन्ये द्वितीयोऽस्ति वसुन्धरायाम्।
शोकेन शोको हि परम्पराया मा मेति भिन्दन्हृदयं मनश्च।।3.63.3।।
वसुन्धरायाम् on earth, मद्विधः like me, दुष्कृतकर्मकारी who undertakes forbidden acts, द्वितीयः second person, नास्ति not, मन्ये I think, शोकेन grief, शोकः grief, परम्परायाः continuously, हृदयम् heart, मनश्च mind also, भिन्दन् shattered, माम् my, एति हि is befalling.
I think there is none on earth like me who has performed such forbidden acts. One grief after the other is successively piercing my heart and my mind.
पूर्वं मया नूनमभीप्सितानि पापानि कर्माण्यसकृत्कृतानि।
तत्रायमद्यापतितो विपाको दुःखेन दुःखं यदहं विशामि।।3.63.4।।
मया by me, पूर्वम् in the past, नूनम् certainly, अभीप्सितानि dear to me, पापानि कर्माणि sinful deeds, असकृत् often, कृतानि done, तत्र there, अद्य now, विपाकः consequence of that, आपतितः has descended, यत् since, अहम् I, दुःखेन by sorrow, दुःखम् sorrow, विशामि I am entering.
In the past I had certainly done some sinful deeds I often liked the consequences of which have descended on me now as I am experiencing one sorrow after another. [Here is where the ‘anapahatapāpmatvam’ (lack of freedom from sins) of Rama is brought out by Himself. The blogger’s tirade on the śatapathabrāhmaṇa about Śiva is replayed, with some changes though, in this episode of the Rāmāyaṇa.]

राज्यप्रणाशस्स्वजनैर्वियोगः पितुर्विनाशो जननीवियोगः।
सर्वाणि मे लक्ष्मण शोकवेगमापूरयन्ति प्रविचिन्तितानि।।3.63.5।।
लक्ष्मण Lakshmana, राज्यप्रणाशः loss of kingdom, स्वजनैः kith and kin, वियोगः separation from, पितुः father, विनाशः death, जननीवियोगः separation from mother, सर्वाणि all, प्रविचिन्तितानि thinking over, मे I, शोकवेगम् fast increase sorrow, आपूरयन्ति greater measure.

O Lakshmana, loss of kingdom, separation from kith and kin, death of father, separation from mother–all these thoughts augment my sorrow faster and in greater measure.

If Krishna’s and Rama’s weeping, wailing, crying, are not to be seriously taken to deserve the Rudra-etymology of the blogger, so too does Śiva’s ‘weeping’. If the formers’ weeping has some hidden meaning, so too does the latter’s. If Nārāyaṇa can enact the poison-drinking to merely make Śiva gain popularity and applause, so too Śiva can enact the weeping and thereby give credit and fame to Nārāyaṇa’s names that Śiva ‘allowed’ to ‘cleanse’ him. After all, the two are non-different. They love, respect, and glorify each other.
Says Śuka in reply to Parikṣit’s question on the propriety of the Lord indulging in amorous play with the gopis who are others’ wives:

श्रीशुक उवाच
धर्मव्यतिक्रमो दृष्ट ईश्वराणां च साहसम्
तेजीयसां न दोषाय वह्नेः सर्वभुजो यथा 10.33.29
Sukadeva Gosvami said: The status of powerful controllers is not harmed by any apparently audacious transgression of morality we may see in them, for they are just like fire, which devours everything fed into it and remains unpolluted.
नैतत्समाचरेज्जातु मनसापि ह्यनीश्वरः
विनश्यत्याचरन्मौढ्याद्यथारुद्रोऽब्धिजं विषम् 10.33.30
One who is not a great controller should never imitate the behavior of ruling personalities, even mentally. If out of foolishness an ordinary person does imitate such behavior, he will simply destroy himself, just as a person who is not Rudra would destroy himself if he tried to drink poison emanated from the churning of the ocean.
[Just as we should not imitate this pastime of Śiva’s, we should not imitate Lord Kṛṣṇa’s activities with the gopis.]

Śrīdharaswāmin comments: तर्हि “यद्यद्आचरति श्रेष्ठः”इतिन्यायेनान्योऽपि कुर्यात् इत्याशङ्क्याह, नैतदिति । अनीश्वरो देहादिपरतन्त्रः यथा रुद्रव्यतिरिक्तो विषमाचरन्भक्षयन् । [Then, is it that whatever the Great ones do, that can be imitated/followed by others too? Not so. He who is not a master of his body-mind-senses, that is, one who is other than Rudra (who is a master of his body-mind-senses) were to consume that poison…]

So, in the opinion of Śuka (Veda Vyāsa), Rudra is extraordinary and is held as an example of having accomplished the feat of drinking the poison and not affected by it. If it were a fact that Śiva did not drink the poison but only Viṣṇu drank it, Śuka’s statement above would amount to a lie.
Read also the following in connection with the actual event of amṛta mathanam:

http://vedabase.net/sb/8/7/en

Sridhara swamin says:
8.7.19
अत एवासह्यं विलोक्य भीता अन्येन केनापि अरक्ष्यमाणाः सदाशिवं शरणं दुद्रुवु र्जग्मुः. [Frightened by the terrible poison, not being protected by anyone the devas took refuge in, surrendered to, Sadāśiva.]
[Those not able to stand this straightforward statement of the Bhāgavata using the word ‘Sadāśiva’ to refer to Rudra want to somehow hijack that name to Viṣṇu by saying: it is Viṣṇu who is saḍaśiva, ever-auspicious. One can clearly see the desperation. Why should the devas, along with Viṣṇu make a trip to Sadāśiva’s abode only to end up looking upon Viṣṇu as Sadāśiva there?]
The scenario is that even Lord Viṣṇu was there. Śiva was in His abode at that time. That is where the entourage went.
//O King, when that uncontrollable poison was forcefully spreading up and down in all directions, all the demigods, along with the Lord Himself, approached Lord Śiva [Sadāśiva]. Feeling unsheltered and very much afraid, they sought shelter of him.//
While non-Śrīdhara commentaries somehow struggle to save the situation by giving excuses such as ‘Viṣṇu, though capable of containing the poison, just in order to give credit to Śiva, let this happen.’, one can easily see how artificial and roundabout is such an explanation. अन्येन केनापि अरक्ष्यमाणाः

When Śiva is ‘loka samhāra kartā’ as per the VS bhashya of Shankara, and also the Praśnopaniṣat and bhāṣya, where the entire created universe is absorbed, the kālakūṭa containing, which is an infinitesimal part of the entire creation, is no big issue. Sridhara swamin says that ‘Siva pretended to take Umā’s permission before imbibing the poison with the idea that She might not have the complete knowledge of His capabilities.’

All the references about Śiva ‘taking the names of Viṣṇu before the act’ are comparable to Viṣṇu’s (as Kriṣṇa) praying to Śiva for progeny and worshiping Him with the thousand names. Such incidents only go to show the identity of Hari and Hara as the MB itself has said (see verse cited above): One Principle alone appears in the twin-form of Rudra and Nārāyaṇa.

The blogger says the Sāyaṇa commentary of the Keśī sūkta is not to be followed for he has not done any good work in explaining the Śatarudrīyam’ as no tattvam has been brought out. One can see here what advaitins have to say about the ‘Tattvam’ of the Sri Rudram:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/5ui915s8ftno32k/srirudram+reply+English.doc

Shankaracharya has composed verses involving the poison-containing in the Śivānandalahari which, for obvious reasons, is not admitted by bigoted non-advaitins as an ‘authentic’ work of Shankara. Traditional advaitins are not bothered about such misgivings.
नालं वा परमोपकारकमिदं त्वेकं पशूनां पते
पश्यन् कुक्षिगतांश्चराचरगणान् बाह्यस्थितान् रक्षितुम् ।
सर्वामर्त्यपलायनौषधमतिज्वालाकरं भीकरं
निक्षिप्तं गरलं गले न गिलितं नोद्गीर्णमेव त्वया ॥३१॥

[When the ocean of milk was churned for nectar, from the ocean emerged scorching deadly poison which Lord Shiva imbibed]. The poet devotee says ” O Lord of all beings! Seeing that all movable and immovable life forms were in your belly you neither swallowed the poison nor spat it out to save those outside. Thus you kept in your neck the deadly poison which was frightening and emitting flames causing all devas to run away from it. O Lord! Is not this single act of yours which saved all from extinction enough (to prove your compassion)?

ज्वालोग्रस्सकलामरातिभयदः क्ष्वेल: कथं वा त्वया
दृष्टः किं च करे धृतः करतले किं पक्वजम्बूफलम्
जिह्वायां निहितश्च सिद्धघुटिका वा कण्ठदेशे भृतः
किं ते नीलमणिर्विभूषणमयं शंभो महात्मन् वद ॥३२॥

O Lord ! How did you see the poison which was emitting flames of fire and creating great fear in the minds of the devas? When you took it in the palm of your hand did you see it merely as a ripe jāmun fruit ? When you placed it on your tongue did you think it was a globule of siddha medicine? When you retained it at the neck did you think that it was an ornament made of a precious stones of dark blue colour ? O Shambhu, The great one! Please tell me.

In fact the Śivānandalahari has several verses recounting the purāṇic event of Brahmā and Viṣṇu embarking on a cosmic journey to locate the beginning and end of Śiva who appeared as a mammoth effulgence.

There is no end to such attacks and counter-attacks. It is maturity that is required in all such cases. The Kamakoti blog (http://www.kamakoti.org/kamakoti/articles/Sri%20Kamakoti%20Pradeepam%20-%20The%20Erroneous%20Words%20of%20the%20Misguided.html ) is a result of grave provocation on the part of the srivaishnava article. Advaitins have retaliated to such deity-based fights initiated always by non-advaitins.

In conclusion, I am citing a passage from Shankara’s Brahmasutra bhāṣya to show that the talk of ‘Nārāyaṇa drinking the poison as antaryāmi, while Śiva was incapable of doing so, and thereby saw to it that Śiva got the credit/fame’ has no basis. The bhāṣya says that Ishwara is only a common cause, sādhāraṇam kāraṇam, and the specific causes are the karma, merit or otherwise, of the individuals. So, for all karma of all individuals to take effect, the common cause alone is Ishwara and He does nothing more than being that common cause. It is the individual’s effort that decides what kind of fruit he gets. I gave this general rule that applies to all jivas. So, even granting that Śiva is a jīva as wishfully thought by the blogger, the role of Viṣṇu, if He is the Iṣvara of the jīva Śiva, is not any active one; it is just a passive one of being the manager of the infrastructure. He has no role in the actual drinking of the poison by Śiva which happens by His own capability. For that matter, the role of the Lord is the same in the defeat of the asuras too. This is how advaita looks at the concept of antaryāmi. This rule is no exception even to the BG declaration:

मयैवैते निहताः पूर्वमेव निमित्तमात्रं भव सव्यसाचिन्।।11.33।।
[These adversaries of yours, O Arjuna, have been killed by Me, even before]

Madhusudana Saraswati says: एते च तव शत्रवो मयैव कालात्मना निहताः संहतायुषः त्वदीययुद्धात्पूर्वमेव। केवलं तव यशोलाभाय रथान्न पातिताः। अतस्त्वं निमित्तमात्रं अर्जुनेनैते निर्जिता इति सार्वलौकिकव्यपदेशास्पदं भव। [These enemies of yours have been killed, their lives have been ended, by Me alone as Kāla, Time, before your fighting them. …Therefore be just a mere efficient cause or instrumental cause for the universal fame that you will earn by actually fighting the war: ‘These great warriors have been defeated by Arjuna’.]

Thus, the role of the Lord is clearly stated in the above commentary as the Time, which, as per the destiny of every jīva, will take its toll. Every jīva is bound to die and that is the inescapable law. Yet, the Lord did not ask Arjuna to keep quiet; He goaded him to take up arms and really fight. So too, even if Śiva were to be a jīva, the role of the antaryāmi is to let everything happen as destined and not interfere in the law of nature. Shankara says, for the word ‘anumantā’ of the BG 13.22:
अनुमन्ता च, अनुमोदनम् अनुमननं कुर्वत्सु तत्क्रियासु परितोषः, तत्कर्ता अनुमन्ता च । अथवा, अनुमन्ता, कार्यकरणप्रवृत्तिषु स्वयम् अप्रवृत्तोऽपि प्रवृत्त इव तदनुकूलः विभाव्यते, तेन अनुमन्ता । अथवा, प्रवृत्तान् स्वव्यापारेषु तत्साक्षिभूतः कदाचिदपि न निवारयति इति अनुमन्ता ।
//And He is the anu-mantā, Permitter: Anumananam, approval, means satisfaction with those performers (viz body and organs) as also their perfomances. The agent of that (approval) is the anumantā. Or, He is the anumantā since, even though Himself not engaged in the activities of the body and organs, He appears to be favourably disposed towards and engaged in them. Or, He is the anumanta because, when the body and organs are engaged in their own functions, He remains as a witness and never dissuades them.//

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । द्वितीयः अध्यायः । प्रथमः पादः । वैषम्यनैर्घृण्याधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ३४ – भाष्यम्
वैषम्यनैर्घृण्ये नेश्वरस्य प्रसज्येते । कस्मात् ? सापेक्षत्वात् । यदि हि निरपेक्षः केवल ईश्वरो विषमां सृष्टिं निर्मिमीते, स्यातामेतौ दोषौ — वैषम्यं नैर्घृण्यं च ; न तु निरपेक्षस्य निर्मातृत्वमस्ति ; सापेक्षो हीश्वरो विषमां सृष्टिं निर्मिमीते । किमपेक्षत इति चेत् — धर्माधर्मावपेक्षत इति वदामः ; अतः सृज्यमानप्राणिधर्माधर्मापेक्षा विषमा सृष्टिरिति नायमीश्वरस्यापराधः ; ईश्वरस्तु पर्जन्यवद्द्रष्टव्यः — यथा हि पर्जन्यो व्रीहियवादिसृष्टौ साधारणं कारणं भवति, व्रीहियवादिवैषम्ये तु तत्तद्बीजगतान्येवासाधारणानि सामर्थ्यानि कारणानि भवन्ति, एवमीश्वरो देवमनुष्यादिसृष्टौ साधारणं कारणं भवति, देवमनुष्यादिवैषम्ये तु तत्तज्जीवगतान्येवासाधारणानि कर्माणि कारणानि भवन्ति ; एवमीश्वरः सापेक्षत्वान्न वैषम्यनैर्घृण्याभ्यां दुष्यति । कथं पुनरवगम्यते सापेक्ष ईश्वरो नीचमध्यमोत्तमं संसारं निर्मिमीत इति ? तथा हि दर्शयति श्रुतिः — ‘एष ह्येव साधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्य उन्निनीषत एष उ एवासाधु कर्म कारयति तं यमधो निनीषते’ (कौ. ब्रा. ३-८) इति, ‘पुण्यो वै पुण्येन कर्मणा भवति पापः पापेन’ (बृ. उ. ३-२-१३) इति च ; स्मृतिरपि प्राणिकर्मविशेषापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्यानुग्रहीतृत्वं निग्रहीतृत्वं च दर्शयति — ‘ये यथा मां प्रपद्यन्ते तांस्तथैव भजाम्यहम्’ (भ. गी. ४-११) इत्येवंजातीयका ॥ ३४ ॥
Translation of George Thibaut at http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34173.php:
// The Lord, we reply, cannot be reproached with inequality of dispensation and cruelty, “because he is bound by regards.” If the Lord on his own account, without any extraneous regards, produced this unequal creation, he would expose himself to blame; but the fact is, that in creating he is bound by certain regards, i. e. he has to look to merit and demerit. Hence the circumstance of the creation being unequal is due to the merit and demerit of the living creatures created, and is not a fault for which the Lord is to blame. The position of the Lord is to be looked on as analogous to that of Parjanya, the Giver of rain. For as Parjanya is the common cause of the production of rice, barley, and other plants, while the difference between the various species is due to the various potentialities lying hidden in the respective seeds, so the Lord is the common cause of the creation of gods, men, &c., while the differences between these classes of beings are due to the different merit belonging to the individual souls. Hence the Lord, being bound by regards, cannot be reproached with inequality of dispensation and cruelty.–And if we are asked how we come to know that the Lord, in creating this world with its various conditions, is bound by regards, we reply that Scripture declares that; compare, for instance, the two following passages, ‘For he (the Lord) makes him, whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, do a good deed; and the same makes him, whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds, do a bad deed’ (Kaush. Up. III, 8) 1; and, ‘A man becomes good by good work, bad by bad work’ (Bri. Up. III, 2, 13). Smriti passages also declare the favour of the Lord and its opposite to depend on the different quality of the works of living beings; so, for instance, ‘I serve men in the way in which they approach me’ (Bha. Gî. IV, 11).//
Thus, there is no way the blogger’s theory of ‘Nārāyaṇa the antaryāmi of Śiva actually drinking the poison while Śiva was a mere vessel. ‘svabhāvastu pravartae’ says the Lord in the BG:5.14:
न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः ।
न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ॥ १४ ॥
The translation of the commentary: 5.14 Prabhuh, the Self; na srjati, does not create; lokasya, for anyone; kartrtvam, agentship, by saying ‘Do this'; or even karmani, any objects – such objects as chariot, pot, palace, etc. which are intensely longed for; nor even karma-phala-samyogam, association with the results of actions – association of the creator of a chariot etc. with the result of his work. Objection: If the embodied one does not do anything himself, and does not make others do, then who is it that engages in work by doing and making others do? The answer is: Tu, but; it is svabhāvaḥ, Nature- one’s own (sva) nature (bhāva)-characterized as ignorance, Māyā, which will be spoken of in, ‘Since this divine Maya’ (7.14); pravartate, that acts.
The above is to point out that as per Advaita the Lord, antaryāmi, does not do anything; It is a passive observer, a concept much objected to by non-advaitins. So, even granting that Śiva is a jīva, the containing of the poison is not any act of the antaryāmi, nor any special enabling by the latter. There is no room for Viṣṇu drinking it or Śiva being enabled by taking the former’s name to accomplish the act. Such utterances are no more than arthavādas; the actual situation is stated above in various passages along with the commentary. To take such arthavādas as actual happenings and propagate fanciful theories is the folly of bigots.

Om Tat Sat

The Keśī sūktam commentary – A travesty of Vedanta

An Etymology for the word ‘Rudra’ – 3

On March 24, 2015, 8.55PM, the blogger resolved firmly, so he thought:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html?showComment=1427346896134#c56213039469556052

//This really is the last one. As I said before, readers can contact us for questions, though I doubt any true neutral has objections.//

Now, after I replied them left and right, not able to stand the rapid fall of their blogs, he hurried to make a response, breaking his earlier resolve, not being able to resist his temptation. In this attempt too he is making such swear-sentences: This shall be our last communication with him. ‘

Says he:

//Also you would notice that there is not *one* place in his refutation where he addresses the keshi sUkta, but again long winding passages of shankara, advaita, etc. //

Response: It is actually the idiotic vyākhyāna on the Kesi sukta that prompted me to reply. Since the authoritative Sayana bhashya is already there, there is no need for me to refute their childish meanderings that they call a ‘vyākhyāna’. Since it is only a vilification of Shiva in the garb of a blog, that I responded by posing uncomfortable questions to them. They have no way of defending those foolish utterings made by them there except indulging in cheap name-calling. That is the way of non-advaitins. All that I have said is about their stupid conclusions on the Kesi sukta and not having the IQ to even understand that, they come out with gibberish.

In my very first response to their mockery of Vedanta in the name of a ‘commentary’ to the Keśī sūktam I had raised the issues. I am making them even more pronounced here:

• Their premise is that Śiva, who is a sinner, and wept at birth, does not have the capacity to drink the poison and therefore it was Viśṇu who drank, through this sinner, who is a vibhūti, as a vessel, the poison. Thereby Śiva was earning puṇyam and getting his sinful karmas reduced.
• The above premise has several contradictions from the Vedanta and the facts of the amṛta mathanam episode as reported in the Bhāgavatam.
• In the Bhāgavatam, Shiva is shown as giving the liberating knowledge to sages who are seekers of liberation, while the devas, with none to protect them from the onslaught of the hālahala poison sought his refuge and protection. Thus Śiva is the Jagadguru, according to the Bhāgavatam itself in the dakṣayajña episode.
• If Śiva is presented as a teacher of liberating knowledge, he himself must be a knower of that Jnānam.
• The very dawn of Jnānam, according to the BG 4.19 and 4.37 which explicitly teach that all karmas are burnt: यस्य सर्वे समारम्भाः कामसङ्कल्पवर्जिताः । ज्ञानाग्निदग्धकर्माणं तमाहुः पण्डितं बुधाः ॥ १९ ॥ and यथैधांसि समिद्धोऽग्निर्भस्मसात्कुरुतेऽर्जुन । ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकर्माणि भस्मसात्कुरुते तथा ॥ ३७ ॥
• The Brahmasutra ‘तदधिगम उत्तरपूर्वाघयोरश्लेषविनाशौ तद्व्यपदेशात् 1.13 says: upon realizing the Highest Truth, there is no contact with future actions and with regard to past actions, they have been destroyed, since there is the teaching to this effect.’ So, when Shiva is a vedantic jnani, there is no karma left for him to cleansed. Since the sutra teaches that his future actions do not affect him, that is, add to his karma, the claim of the bloggers that the drinking of the poison earns him puṇya is also falsified by the Vedanta sutra. Further, the bloggers could not realize the illogical consequence of their claim. When it was really Viṣṇu who drank the poison, there is no way Śiva can earn puṇya. This defect is apart from the fundamental Vedantic bar on such earning of puṇya. This defect is called asambhava doṣa, the very suggestion that a Jnāni earns puṇya is impossible according to the Vedanta.
• The Taittiriya Upaniṣad teaches that the Jnāni will not have the regret : किमहं साधु नाकरवम्, किमहं पापमकरवमिति… [Why did I not perform good deeds, why did I engage in sinful deeds?] since he sees all actions as no different from the Atman itself:

So, even by the Taittiriya teaching, Śiva has no karma left to be cleansed or even the urge to cleanse. So, if Viśṇu desired that Śiva earn puṇyam and get cleansed by drinking the poison which really he did not, then Viśṇu is acting as someone who is ignorant of Vedanta. He is contradicting his own words: Vedāntakṛt vedavideva chāham of the BG (I am the initiator of the system of disseminating the Vedantic knowledge and am the knower of the Veda).

Thus by all the pramāṇas of the prasthāna traya, the premise of the blogger is contradicted and therefore does not stand scrutiny by knowers of the Vedanta. They have provided a fine example by that ‘Commentary’ to what Ramanuja said while badmouthing Shankaracharya in his Śrībhāṣyam:

अनधिगतपदवाक्यस्वरूपतदर्थयाथात्म्यप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमाणवृत्त-तदितिकर्तव्यतारूपसमीचीनन्यायमार्गाणां विकल्पासहविविधकुतर्ककल्ककल्पितमिति न्यायानुगृहीतप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमणवृत्तयाथात्म्यविद्भिः अनादरणीयम्

[Those who are ignorant of fundamentals of epistemology and its application, those who engage in intolerant fallacious argumentation – And therefore all right-knowing/thinking people should reject them ]

A beautiful tribute indeed the bloggers have paid to their Acharya by composing that dirty document on the Rg.vedic Keśi sūktam.

I had both explicitly and implicitly made all the above contradictions in my very first response. Not having the brains to understand that, since they gloated on the thought that they had achieved something great by writing that ‘commentary’, they say that I have not raised a ‘single’ objection to their commentary.

Here are some more responses to their comments:

//Answer: As usual, twist what is written. The antaryAmin in advaita is iSvara who is nirguNa brahman in essence. Here, Shankara identifies vishNu as “rudrAtmaNa” because tamas is a quality possessed by Vishnu *as the inner self* of Rudra. Thus, it shows he does not possess tamas directly, rather it is Rudra who possesses tamas and hence by virtue of antaryAmitvam, it is referred to Vishnu. Similarly for rajas, Shankara uses “virincarUpEna” which clearly means vishNu has rajas through the form of Brahma. Again, it is Brahma who creates through rajas. Vishnu through the form of Brahma also implies antaryAmitva but here “rUpena” is used as opposed to “AtmaNa” since creation is literally a transformation of brahma’s body. //

Response: The bloggers must be cursing their fate now. Their first folly, they did not realize it then, was to promote the idea that the VS bhaṣya is genuinely that of Shankara. And they followed it by citing from it hoping that it will help their ulterior motive of projecting Shiva as a tāmasa devatā, purely driven by their own tamoguṇa which is overflowing all over their blogs. Now let me address the issue here, only hoping that they grow even a little bit of brain by succeeding to understand this:

1. रजोगुणं समाश्रित्य विरिञ्चिरूपेण…
2. तमोगुणम् आस्थाय स रुद्रात्मना..
3. सत्त्वगुणम् अधिष्ठाय भूतानि

Now notice the three lyabanta avyayas Shankara has used that I have underlined: All the three words mean the same: 1. By resorting to, 2. By standing in it, literally, or ‘firmly taking up’ and 3. By keeping it as the basis. And in all the three cases, the lyabanta applies, relates, to Viṣṇu only, ekakartṛkatvam. It denotes that A, upon doing xxxx, does yyyy. Viṣṇu, by resorting to the three gunas is engaging in the three acts. None can break the above grammar rule and show any other anvaya to those sentences. And he does this not by using Rudra and Brahma as instruments (‘vessel’?), as the blogger mistakenly thinks, but as themselves. This tṛtīyā vibhakti is called ‘itthambhāve’. One example where Shankara uses this form of the instrumental case is the Taittiriya bhāṣya for the upanishadic words: ‘brahmaṇā vipaściteti’. The context and meaning there is: The Atmajnāni, in Advaita, is Brahman itself. The Upanishad says: सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह, ब्रह्मणा विपश्चितेति. While this sentence can mean: that jnani will enjoy all bhogas along with Brahman (brahmaṇā saha), in advaita there are no two entities in mokṣa. So, Shankara uses that instrumental case in which Brahman is used in the sentence as: As Brahman, that is, being non-different from Brahman, he enjoys all bhogas. For the how and what ‘enjoyment’ here means, one can look into the bhashya. The point that is made here, in this VS context is: Vishnu as Rudra and as Brahmā engages in the respective acts. As for himself, there is no need to mention as it is popular that Vishnu is one among the trimurtis, and hence Shankara does not use the tṛtīyā. The pronoun ‘sa’used by the bhāṣhyam only in respect of Rudra, is to be applied in the other two cases too. It is for any intelligent reader, which definitely the blogger is not, to supply it along with the tṛtīyā ṭhere and understand the bhāṣyam. Thus, the one Brahman, as the trimurtis, engages in those acts, with the necessary guṇas. Shankara nowhere says here ‘as the inner self’. Rudrātmanā does not mean ‘as the inner self of Rudra’ but ‘as Rudra’ as I have explained above. There is a famous verse we recite everyday: namaḥ savitre jagadekachakṣuṣe jagatprasūti-sthiti-nāśahetave. trayīmayāya triguṇatmadhāriṇe, virinchi-nārāyaṇa-shankarātmane, which too gives the same meaning explained above.

Here are just two more instances from Shankara for the usage of the ‘itthambhāve tṛtīyā’: अविकृतस्यैव ब्रह्मणो जीवात्मनावस्थानं ब्रह्मात्मना चेति ; न चैवंरूपस्योत्पत्तिरुपपद्यते [The existence of Brahman, without undergoing any transformation, as the jīvātman and brahmātman; and it would be unreasonable that such an entity is created/born.] BSB 2.3.17 and Shankara cites several passages in support of this. One can read the bhāṣyam for all details. What is shown in this citation is: Brahman exists as the jivātman (not as the inner self of the jiva) and as Brahman itself, and not as the inner self of Brahman.

तत्प्रवेशाच्च; ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ (तै. उ. २-६-१) इति च तस्यैव जीवरूपेण शरीरप्रवेशं दर्शयति । [Tai.up.bhāṣyam 2.1.1]. [Since Brahman has ‘entered’ ‘having created It entered that which has been created. Tai.up.2.6.1) Here too Shankara uses the jīvarūpeṇa in the itthambhāve tṛtīyā, as verily the jiva, not as the inner self. In advaita, Brahman itself, owing to ignorance of Its own nature, appears to be a samsārin and owing to self-knowledge appears to be liberated.

I provided these usages just to show that Shankara has done exactly that in the above VS bhāṣyam: Brahman itself, as Rudra, as Brahmā and as Viṣṇu, engages in the creation, etc. acts, assuming those guṇas. Thus, it is sheer ignorance, bigotry and mischief on the part of the bloggers to draw Shankara into their game of vilification of Shiva.

//Whereas, for protection, Shankara says “sattva prathishtaya” showing vishnu is verily saguna brahman. There is no “vishNu rupEna” or “visNorAtmana”. //

Response: I had already addressed this in an earlier blog. Yet, let me offer them solace: In the Praśnopaniṣad bhāṣya 2.9 gloss, Anandagiri, which the blogger happily cited as authority, says: ‘viṣṇvādirūpeṇa’. In that bhāṣya too Shankara employs this itthambhāve tṛtīya only:

किंच, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, तेजसा वीर्येण रुद्रोऽसि संहरन् जगत् । स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः सौम्येन रूपेण. The construct of the mantra itself is such, in the case of rudra it says tejasā. ‘You, O Prāna, are Rudra, destroying the worlds.’ Shankara follows exactly the construct and applies it to the rakṣaṇa act too even though the mantra just said: परिरक्षिता without even specifying ‘as whom/what’. ‘You alone are the protector/preserver of the world as the benign-form (ed Viṣṇu).’ It is not meant or said by the mantra that Prāṇa is a different entity and Rudra and the unnamed Viṣṇu are different entities.

So, there is nothing special in Shankara, in the VS, not adding that suffix for viṣṇu. And there is not a little bit of a suggestion by Shankara that Vishnu is the saguṇa Brahman because of his doing his act with sattva upādhi. In fact, the blogger’s suggestion is detrimental to himself: the sagunabrahman in advaita is the one that is responsible for all the acts, and not just preservation. So the three gunas equally apply to the saguna Brahman, as upādhis with which it functions. Let the blogger hide his face somewhere for not getting any relief from their much-touted Shankara. Their much hoped for ‘protection’ does not come from Shankara. It is just their ‘āśāmodaka’ (a sweetmeat that just remains in one’s imagination, a castle in the air). Here is what Shankara says in the BGB:

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । सप्तमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १२

ये चैव सात्त्विका भावा राजसास्तमसाश्च ये ।
मत्त एवेति तान्विद्धि न त्वहं तेषु ते मयि ॥ १२ ॥

ये चैव सात्त्विकाः सत्त्वनिर्वृत्ताः भावाः पदार्थाः, राजसाः रजोनिर्वृत्ताः, तामसाः तमोनिर्वृत्ताश्च, ये केचित् प्राणिनां स्वकर्मवशात् जायन्ते भावाः, तान् मत्त एव जायमानान् इति एवं विद्धि सर्वान् समस्तानेव । यद्यपि ते मत्तः जायन्ते, तथापि न तु अहं तेषु तदधीनः तद्वशः, यथा संसारिणः । ते पुनः मयि मद्वशाः मदधीनाः ॥

7.12 Ye bhāvāh, those things; sāttvikāḥ eva, that indeed are made of (the quality of) sattva; and ye rajasah, those that are made (of the quality) of rajas; and tāmasāḥ, those that are made of (the quality of) tamas-whatever things are made (of sattva, rajas and tamas) according to the creatures’s own actions: viddhi, know; tān, them, all without exception; mattah eva iti, to have sprung from Me alone when they come into being. Although they originate from Me, still, tu, however; aham, I; am na tesu, not in them-I am not subject to them, not under their control, as are the transmigrating bengs. Te, they, again; mayi, are in Me, subject to Me, under My control.

When the lord has categorically said the above, there is now way one can say that ‘as rudrātmā the lord is subject to tamas, as brahmā the lord is subject to rajas, etc.’

So, none of the three gunas, including the sattva, is attributable to Brahman, even when it is shown as the source of the creation.

Not having an answer for my question:

//The queer logic of the bloggers gets exposed here too. They want all heroic acts like drinking the poison to be attributed to Vishnu but do not want the ‘tāmasa’ attribute to go to him. If Shiva is a vibhuti of Vishnu, as the bloggers claim, in drinking the poison, why and how does the same Shiva cease to be a vibhuti, that too when it is Vishnu, according to Shankara, that bears the tamoguna while engaging in destruction or while weeping?//

the blogger utters some ‘blah blah blah’.

//He can never succeed in showing just one, let alone plenty, reference in support of ‘Rudra was weeping’ during the amrtha mathanam.’ Quite contrary to the claims of the bloggers, the very Bhagavatam describes the state of Shiva when the devas, finding themselves

ANSWER: Ignoramus, we never said rudra was crying during the samudra mathanam. The significance of the rk using the name “rudra” as opposed to Shiva or girisha is to show that Shiva is an entity with papa karmas as he cried *during birth*. And hence, swallowing the poison is something that accrues merit for him, something that he cannot do independently. The rk simply points out that the same being who cried during birth due to karmas has now been elevated.//

Same case, blah, blah, blah. They do not have an answer to my objection that the divine names given to Rudra to cleanse him have not been useful at all. Also, the Atmajnāni that Rudra is, is beyond any karma that requires cleansing or acquiring merit. They simply do not have any answers to these. So, they just glossed over those portions. All this only proves that their fundamental thesis of the Kesi suktam blog, vilifying Rudra as one who weeps, is ab initio void; it is contradicted by the Brahmasutra and the Taittiriya Upanishad I have cited regarding the status of the Vedantic Jnāni’s punya-papa.

//So, you are sad no true advaitin has written a commentary on keshi sukta?//

You have no definition of a ‘true advaitin’. Your ‘true advaitin’ (who also has to be a vaishnava) Shankara has been badmouthed by Ramanuja as a sinner. And that very ‘vaishnava’ Shankara has established Trimurti aikya and hari-hara abheda in the VSB, much to your consternation and ditched you. Disappointed, after I exposed these, you are caught like a rabbit in a trap, launching into an irrelevant rambling. And now are trying to take a by-lane route to Sridhara swamin, who is only commenting there, before, and not after, the swallowing of the poison. Even Shuka never said anything about Vishnu’s ‘grace’ in Shiva’s swallowing. There is absolutely no proof for you from any quarter of advaitins, of whatever period, to support your theory of the keśi suktam.

//For, you forget Sridhara’s statement in the bhagavata purana in the commentary for verse 8.7.21 where the devas begin their prayer to the antaryAmin of shiva:

“nirguNa saguna caiva siva hariparAkramaih
stuvantastu prajesAnA nAmayantAntaram tayoH”

Shiva is praised with the parAkrama of Hari. This is the clear statement of Sridhara who elsewhere also clarifies rudra is a vishnu bhakta who is under tam guNa upAdhIs. //

The correct form of the verse cited above is:

Nirguṇam saguṇam chaiva shivam hariparākramaiḥ

Stuvantastu prajeśānā na amanyanta antaram tayoḥ

What it means is: By doing the stuti of Śiva who is both nirguṇa and saguṇa, through the exploits of Hari, the devas are expressing that they do not see any difference between the two: Śiva and Hari.

The blogger has no brains to understand this and is claiming the support of Sridhara who is actually dealing a death-blow to the bloggers. Sridhara is bringing out the purport of Vyāsa/Śuka’s hari-hara abheda through the hymns of the devas. The praising of Śiva with the exploits of Hari only means, reiterates, the MB verse I had cited earlier:

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्। 12.350.27 a लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। “ b It is one Truth that treads the world in the twin-form of Rudra and Narayana….

So, like what the bloggers are imminent of doing: discard Shankara from their list of supporters, now it is Sridharaswamin’s turn to be checked out. None of the Advaitins, of whichever period, can be expected by the bloggers to support their foolish ideas.

In the very next verse of the Bhāgavatam there, according to Sridhara swamin too, the trimurti aikya is what is brought out. The non-advaitic ideas of identity, which is only a dilution, as per Shankara in the VS introduction, have no place in the Vedanta.

//You can rant or twist their words but truth will always prevail.//

You can try to fool your readers. But the truth that those authors were true Advaitins and not bigots will always prevail.

//Unfortunately for you, that “shiva” term specified as paramakaranam is also a common noun and applicable to narayana only. So Shankara used it directly to denote Hari. Makes all the more sense since he was commenting on Vishnu sahasranama. Ancient advaitins have several times taken shiva as a common noun.//

Unfortunately for you, it need not apply to ‘narayana’ only. The Paramakāranam is not any deity. Shankara used it to denote the entity of the VS only because for Shankara all deities, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are non-different. He has already established this in a long discussion at the introduction to the VSB itself. Show me the instances of ancient advaitins taking ‘Shiva’ as a common noun. I have myself shown several instances where Shankara uses the word ‘shivam/shiva/shivā’ to denote something auspicious, blissful, etc. as it happens in the Mandukya 7^th mantra and other bhāsyas. And Sridhara swamin too, in the verse cited in the foregoing says that the devas did not approve of the difference between Hari and Hara. So, you have nothing to say against the Shivapuranam’s shiva-specfic eight names with there.

//The reason is because the rk reminds us that rudra wept as he had papa karmas and hence shows – 1) he is not paramatma, 2) he thus does not have the power to do things independently, 3) He requires the help of keSi, ie, vishNu to swallow the poison, 4) He gained punya from the incident, ie such deeds of rudra give him merit.//

These are not reasons but only hetvābhāsas. 1. The bhāgavatam shows that Rudra is paramātmā and the devas do not approve of any difference between Hari and Hara (8.7.21) according to Sridhari. 2. From no.1 it follows that he has the power to do all things independently. 3. Not at all. Vishnu offered no help to Shiva to swallow the poison. It is only your imagination. 4. A Jnani who is imparting liberating knowledge while the devas took refuge under him, has no need to gain any punya. Do not blurt out unvedantic ideas here. Read the Brahmasutra and the Taittiriya I had cited for this. You are only making a fool of yourself by such cheap, bigoted ideas.

//Answer: Because 1) Shankara gives that etymology for Vishnu and the bhAShya is for vishNu sahasranAma, 2) Rudra is a created being who was given this name as he cried due to birth, 3) Rudra cannot grant moksha.//

1)For Shankara, the entity of the VS is not necessarily Vishnu, one of the trimurtis. For him both Vishnu and Shiva are the same paramakāraṇam 2) But that name, as the etymology goes, is the name of Vishnu. The name(s), you have claimed, are those of Bhagavan: //Of course, these are also bhagavad nAmAs. He has named himself out of devotion for Narasimha who possesses these names.// http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/interpretation-of-brahmanas-not-easy.html Thus, the etymology ‘because he cried’, applies to Bhagavan primarily. You cannot change the etymology of the same word when applying to Bhagavan and Rudra. See how that etymology ‘because he wept’ fits perfectly fine to Bhagavan as Rāma (cited from Valmiki who uses the same root to form the word ‘rudan’, see below).

You say // What I meant here is that though the slokas are nestled in a section of the shiva purana which has a tAmasa context, the actual meaning of the sloka, which is nothing but a general etymology of names, is sAttvika and hence can be used in the right vaidika manner. “sAttvika” is defined as that which imparts right knowledge and defining the term “rudra” as destroyer of misery is quite correct.//

Shiva, Rudra, did destroy the misery that the devas faced, by containing the poison. Why does not the etymology apply here? After all Shankara has given this etymology. How does this etymology not become a ‘right vaidika manner’ when applied to Shiva containing the poison? Instead of ‘remembering’ Rudra’s crying, why not remember this act in the so-called Kesi suktam commentary and use the above etymology ?

3) When the Mundaka Upanishad 3.2.1 teaches that even a Jnani can be worshiped for moksa why not Rudra? Sridhara Swamin has shown in 8.7.21 that the devas did not approve of difference between Hari and Hara. It is jnanam that results in mokṣa and it is not ‘granted’ by anyone. When one has the necessary means for it, jnanam arises liberating the jnani. So, the childish, bigoted, ideas that ‘one alone and not any other can ‘grant’ moksha’ is to be discarded as unvedic. Sridhara swamin raises a question in 8.7.23 and answers: 8.7.23:

ननु एवंभूतो विष्णुरिति प्रसिद्धं तत्राहुः, गुणमय्येति. अस्य जगतो यदा सर्गादीन्धत्से तदा हे भूमन्, स्व-दृक्स्वतःसिद्धज्ञानः त्वं ब्रह्मादिसंज्ञां धत्से.

[Is it not that the one that is the cause of bondage and liberation popularly known to be Viśṇu? In answer to this the verse says: When engaged in the creation, etc. of the world, then, You, O Infinite One, the Omniscient one, bear the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva.] Thereby Sridhara is suggesting that the stuti applies to Shiva directly: you, as Viṣṇu, are bandha-mokṣa kartā. This verse also brings out the fact that One entity, nirguna, it has no name, and that is what is praised here, takes the three names. For, there will be nothing special in this verse if Viṣṇu is the one praised and he ‘taking’ the names of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, through māyā which is shown by the word ‘guṇamayyā’ in the verse. So, this is a fine example of the Advaita prakriyā that Sridhara is bringing out by his own verse in the preceding commentary, ’saguṇam, nirguṇam chaiva shivam …’ where nirguna Brahman, in association with māyā, becoming Iśwara, bears the three names. This is what is done by Shankara for the bhūtakṛt, etc. words of the VS.

So, Scripture denounces the idea that ‘Rudra cannot grant mokṣa. Why would anyone listen to you or your Acharyas leaving out the unbigoted scriptural works of others? The bhāgavatam shows Shiva as imparting the liberating knowledge when the devas approach him and take refuge and engage in stuti.

//That etymology is used for vishNu in Vishnu Sahasranama. Foolish to even claim vishnu sahasranAma which starts with kim ekam daivataM. is nirguNa Brahman//

The ‘Rudra’ etymology is manifold and Shankara gives several of them in 114. And since he has no bheda between Hari and Hara he gives the etymology from the Shivapuranam as paramakāranam. Read Shankara’s bhashya for ‘kim ekam daivataM’ verse and get the joy of Shankara ditching you doubly: 1. The entity in that verse is Nirguna Brahman and 2. And that none needs to ‘grant’ mokṣa: yasya vijṇāna mātreṇa ānandalakṣaṇo mokṣaḥ prāpyate – ‘By just gaining the direct knowledge of that Nirguna Brahman the liberation characterized by bliss is attained’. In the BSB too Shankara has said: tadanugraha-hetukenaiva hi jnānena mokṣa siddhir bhavitumarhati: by the knowledge that can arise only by the grace of Ishwara does liberation takes place. And it is common knowledge that ‘grace’ is available only to him who has the necessary means and not other. In any case, for Shankara, mokṣa is not ‘granted’ by any deity.

// Shiva crying due to karmas is an indication of his knowledge of his true nature. It is actually a praise of his ability to recognise the truth.//

Exactly like Rāma did as taught by Valmiki. He cried, ‘rudan’, says Valmiki, acknowledging Rāma’s knowledge of his true nature. . It is actually a praise of his ability to recognise the truth. While Rudra realized his true nature soon upon birth, Rāma did that much later. (do not think you alone can play tricks)

See those verses here:

Aranya Kandam sarga 63:

स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः।
उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।

विपुले शोके in intense grief, निमग्नः plunged, सः that, रामः Rama, सशोकम् with sorrow, रुदन् crying, शोकवशाभिपन्नम् who was caught in sorrow, लक्ष्मणम् Lakshmana, उष्णम् hot, विनिश्वस्य sighing, व्यसनानुरूपम् in his grief, वाक्यम् these words, उवाच said.

[Here is where the blogger’s (corrected) etymology for the word ‘Rudra’ perfectly fits Rāma, who as Viṣṇu has a name ‘Rudra’ in the VS.]

Plunged in deep grief, Rama heaved hot sighs and said these words to griefstricken Lakshmana, weeping:

न मद्विधो दुष्कृतकर्मकारी मन्ये द्वितीयोऽस्ति वसुन्धरायाम्।
शोकेन शोको हि परम्पराया मा मेति भिन्दन्हृदयं मनश्च।।3.63.3।।

वसुन्धरायाम् on earth, मद्विधः like me, दुष्कृतकर्मकारी who undertakes forbidden acts, द्वितीयः second person, नास्ति not, मन्ये I think, शोकेन grief, शोकः grief, परम्परायाः continuously, हृदयम् heart, मनश्च mind also, भिन्दन् shattered, माम् my, एति हि is befalling.

I think there is none on earth like me who has performed such forbidden acts. One grief after the other is successively piercing my heart and my mind.

पूर्वं मया नूनमभीप्सितानि पापानि कर्माण्यसकृत्कृतानि।
तत्रायमद्यापतितो विपाको दुःखेन दुःखं यदहं विशामि।।3.63.4।।

मया by me, पूर्वम् in the past, नूनम् certainly, अभीप्सितानि dear to me, पापानि कर्माणि sinful deeds, असकृत् often, कृतानि done, तत्र there, अद्य now, विपाकः consequence of that, आपतितः has descended, यत् since, अहम् I, दुःखेन by sorrow, दुःखम् sorrow, विशामि I am entering.

In the past I had certainly done some sinful deeds I often liked the consequences of which have descended on me now as I am experiencing one sorrow after another. [Here is where the ‘anapahatapāpmatvam’ (lack of freedom from sins) of Rāma is brought out by Himself. The blogger’s tirade on Shiva in the śatapathabrāhmaṇa is replayed, and returned with compliments by Vālmiki, with some changes though, in this episode of the Rāmāyaṇa.]

राज्यप्रणाशस्स्वजनैर्वियोगः पितुर्विनाशो जननीवियोगः।
सर्वाणि मे लक्ष्मण शोकवेगमापूरयन्ति प्रविचिन्तितानि।।3.63.5।।

लक्ष्मण Lakshmana, राज्यप्रणाशः loss of kingdom, स्वजनैः kith and kin, वियोगः separation from, पितुः father, विनाशः death, जननीवियोगः separation from mother, सर्वाणि all, प्रविचिन्तितानि thinking over, मे I, शोकवेगम् fast increase sorrow, आपूरयन्ति greater measure.

O Lakshmana, loss of kingdom, separation from kith and kin, death of father, separation from mother–all these thoughts augment my sorrow faster and in greater measure.

If Nārāyaṇa can enact the poison-drinking to merely make Śiva gain popularity and applause, so too Śiva can enact the weeping and thereby give credit and fame to Nārāyaṇa’s names that Śiva ‘allowed’ to ‘cleanse’ him. After all, the two are non-different. They love, respect, and glorify each other.

// We didn’t think you were that stupid enough to think we claimed rudra was still crying!//

That is what you have eminently, subtly, done in your commentary. That is the fundamental premise of your thesis. If not the physical crying, the cause of it, the pāpa karma, continues during the churning episode and that pāpi is giving out the liberating knowledge to mumukṣus. Therefore, the mumukṣupūjya Jnāni (mundakopanishat) is a pāpi in your tāmasic eyes. Only because you realized your stupidity you went all over to make an extra comment recalling those words and trying to give a ‘clarification’. You are well exposed now. Only bigots and avaidikas will enjoy reading the stuff you churn out and applaud them. Others will quickly point out the blunders there and inform the world at large about them.

//Additionally let us clarify one thing. Sayana/Vidyaranya and Appayya were of the same ilk. By their time shaiva philosophy had penetrated into advaita. So their commentaries hold no water and are not a pramANa to justify practices of ancient advaitins.//

Why leave out Madhusudana? Is he not of the same ilk by his commentary to the Shivamahimnastotra and declaring Hari-Hara abheda at the end by specific verses on abedha/aikya? And he says in a verse, at the end of the 15th ch. of his Gita commentary:

शैवाः सौराश्च गाणेशा वैष्णवाः शक्तिपूजकाः। भवन्ति यन्मयाः सर्वे सोहमस्मि परः शिवः ||

[The free translation of the above verse is: I am that Supreme Brahman, Para Shiva, that is what all the worshipers of Shiva, Surya, Ganesha, Vishnu and Shakti become finally as a result of their worship.]

MS is including vaishnava as just one of the many. So, he too joins the above ‘ilk’, just like Shankara did by citing those uncomfortable verses from the ‘wrong’ sources in the VSB. There is no way you can find out the practices of ‘ancient’ advaitins. If ‘ancient’ advaitins practices which were characterized by worshiping the Śhaṇmata devatas’ were not ‘avaidika’, in the eyes Ramanuja, he would not have found the need to rebel against it. Actually the Bhāmati, itself has paid obeisance to Shiva and Subrahmanya, Ganapati, Surya in his invocatory verse. He also says that all these are worshiped by the ‘whole world’ – viśvavandyān.  So, at the time of Bhagavatpada these deities have been worshiped and were acceptable. Just because of this verse you would not accept the author of the Bhāmati as an advaitin (you have no business to comment on his writing on other shāstras apart from Vedānta) but that does not affect the advaitins, of all times. For you all these, Vidyaranya / Sayana who wrote the Veda bhāṣya, Appayya Dikshita and Madhusudana and Vācaspati misra and every other advaitin who expressed devotion to any deity other than Vishnu, are all avaidikas, along with Shankara who criticized the pāncarātra as veda nindā in the BSB and rejected it in the Daśaślok too, is also avaidika. And Madhusudana is avaidika on this extra count: he wrote the siddhāntabindu on the Daśaśloki, acknowledging it as that of Shankara. Thus all these are also tāmasa-s for they praised tāmasa devatās. Fanatics alone are saattvikas. What heights of bigotry!!

//Answer: haha. Now who denies that the context of a tAmasa purana is a tAmasa devata?//

That devatā to which Krishna prayed for progeny by worshiping through the thousand names? The campaign to dub this incident as an interpolation in the MB holds no water.

Also, how can the ‘tāmasa devatā’ have ‘sattva’ names? And those names given to that devatā in that context will not suddenly gain a different color when removed from the ‘context’ and planted elsewhere. No one but bigots like you will resort to such foolish practices and call it ‘vaidika’. Shankara never did that.

// Vaidikas are least bothered about context in a tamasa purana.What we meant is the select bunch of slokas talking about etymology are also quoted by srI vaishnava acharyas as they contain general meanings.//

What an irresponsible slur on ‘vaidikas’ from someone whose school has been refuted as ‘vedanindā’ by Shankara in the Brahmasutra!! No vaidika worth his salt will throw to the winds the context, prakaraṇam. And the concept of tāmasa purāṇa itself is avaidika to which Shankara does not subscribe. The criterion for a tāmasa purana is: ‘it holds someone other than Vishnu to be the supreme.’ Clearly only avaidikas who are bigots, adhere to that criterion and never Shankara.

Where does this verse, for example, there: शिवतत्त्वादिभूम्यन्तं शरीरादि घटादि च। व्याप्याधितिष्ठति शिवस्तस्माद्विष्णुरुदाहृतः . contain a ‘general meaning’? It is so very clear to anyone that it is about Shiva who is called Vishnu by that etymology. If any Acharya has discarded rules like context and prāyapāṭha (the other similar verses along with which the one picked out is also placed there), he is doing it out of ignorance of the methods. And it is again ignorance to give the go by to rūḍhi. Here, the verses are all applied to Shiva whose eight names, who by rūḍhi, prasiddhi, refers to parvatipati, and the Pāśupata yoga that is taught there. Not just that, there is upabṛhmaṇam of important vedic passages too. Ignoring these is sheer ignorance. Shankara has not done that. For, he has already declared the aikyam of Shiva and Vishnu, as the Bhagavatam has done, on the lines of the MB, and hence the entity of the VS is paramakāraṇam called by the name ‘Rudra’. And Shankara cites the Shivapuranam for, the Rudra nāma is prasiddha only as Parvatipati. So, it is wrong to cover up the mistake of the erring acharyas by taking the name of Shankara.

// Whereas, Shankara does not quote tales of lingodbhava, sharabha, pasupata aradhana etc precisely because those stories cannot be interpreted any other way; they are tamas.//

Why not? Shankara in several verses in the Śivānandalahari has alluded to the story of Brahmā and Viṣṇu competing to find out the svarūpa of Śiva, just as Veda Vyasa has done. Just because you, for this very obvious reason, do not hold this text to be of Shankara, and thereby use Shankara, despite his being a sinner for Ramanuja, for piggyback on, why would the followers of Shankara take your word? You hoped that just the VSB of Shankara is supporting you. Now that it is exposed that even the VSB has only ditched you, along with Sridhara swamin, you are left with no friend in your opponent’s camp to support your bigotry.

// What I meant here is that though the slokas are nestled in a section of the shiva purana which has a tAmasa context,//

You can never prove the above, for that very section has enough verses to show that the sādhana and yoga taught there are not in any way avaidika. Those are not in any way different from the practices of any puja, dhyanam, japam, etc. Shankara in the Br.up. bhāṣya has clearly enumerated them: तद्यथेहैव तावत् — अथ यः कश्चिदब्रह्मवित्, अन्यामात्मनो व्यतिरिक्तां यां काञ्चिद्देवताम्, उपास्ते स्तुतिनमस्कारयागबल्युपहारप्रणिधानध्यानादिना उप आस्ते तस्या गुणभावमुपगम्य आस्ते and तस्मात्पुष्पोदकाञ्जलिस्तुतिनमस्कारबल्युपहारस्वाध्यायध्यानयोगादिभिः आरिराधयिषेत

Even though in the above passages it is the prima facie view that is presented, yet, the final view does not reject the methods stated above. Also, in the Mundakopanishad bhaāṣyam 3.4.10:

तस्माद्विदुषः सत्यसङ्कल्पत्वादात्मज्ञमात्मज्ञानेन विशुद्धान्तःकरणं ह्यर्चयेत्पूजयेत्पादप्रक्षालनशुश्रूषानमस्कारादिभिः भूतिकामः विभूतिमिच्छुः । ततः पूजार्ह एवासौ ॥

Here, the upanishadic injunction and Shankara’s comment is: The Atmavit, knower of Atman, is to be worshiped by archana, washing of feet, service, namaskāra, etc. Since Shiva is Brahmavit, Jagadguru, who imparts the liberating knowledge, is definitely mandatorily to be worshiped by these methods. The very next mantra too says this about the Atmavit who is to be worshiped for mokṣa too. This is brought out by the Bhāgavatam too:

8.7.20

vilokya taḿ deva-varaḿ tri-lokyā

bhavāya devyābhimataḿ munīnām

āsīnam adrāv apavarga-hetos

tapo juṣāṇaḿ stutibhiḥ praṇemuḥ

SYNONYMS

vilokya — observing; tam — him; deva-varam — the best of the demigods; tri-lokyāḥ — of the three worlds; bhavāya — for the flourishing; devyā — with his wife, Bhavānī; abhimatam — accepted by; munīnām — great saintly persons; āsīnam — sitting together; adrau — from the top of Kailāsa Hill; apavarga-hetoḥ — desiring liberation; tapaḥ — in austerity; juṣāṇam — being served by them; stutibhiḥ — by prayers; praṇemuḥ — offered their respectful obeisances.

It is this same Shiva pūjā involving various practices that has been prescribed in that section of the Shivapurāṇam. Only he who is himself a tāmasabuddhi will call this portion that is eminently sanctioned by the Veda and the Bhāgavatam (maybe to wriggle out of the situation, these bigots will come up with this silly argument: Even the bhāgavatam, though a sāttvika purāṇa, those pockets where Shiva is praised, are tāmasa) as tāmasa.

Take the name of ‘veerashaiva’ innumerable times and obtain punya by that upāsana, japa. For, that name too is that of Nārāyana,   the greatest devotee of Shiva, the Veerashaiva, who even plucked out one of his eyes to offer in obeisance to his upāsya devatā.

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्। 12.350.27 a लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। “ b

It is one Truth that treads the world in the twin-form of Rudra and Narayana…. That is confirmed by Sridhara Swamin by his commentary on the Bh.8.7.21.

Om Tat Sat

Śrīdhara Swāmin Misrepresented

Veda Vyāsa, the greatest champion of Hari-Hara abheda and Trimūrti aikya, has upheld this position throughout the purāṇas and the Mahabhārata. All non-vaiṣṇava Achāryas headed by Shankara have followed this sampradāya alone
However the bloggers have been campaigning to distort the message of Veda Vyasa by their machnations:
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html?showComment=1428140161684#c3242663994773118927
//KuTarka vAdi says: From time immemorial, this debate of Shiva or Vishnu is going on. The very truth that there is and there has been debate on this subject shows that people have not understood the grand scheme created by Veda Vyasa for appealing to all type of people to follow the path of Dharma (where Dharma = God).

Well, my dear maharishi, since you understand “the grand scheme” as opposed to us lesser mortals, I suppose that means you are the avatara of some rishi and a cut above us, huh?

firstly, there has been no debate from time immemorial. Yamuna muni clearly states that all vaidikas admitted vishNu alone as Parabrahman. This fact is further reteirated by vedAnta Desika who declares that adi Shankara was a vaishnava. Yes, the same vedanta desikan who also declared that advaita is Buddhism in disguise.//
Response:
The above claim of the blogger is contradicted by Veda Vyasa. Says he in the Sūtasamhitā 4 yajñavaibhavakhaṇḍa, sūtagītā 2nd chapter:
http://www.transliteral.org/pages/z140113230508/view
अस्ति रुद्रस्य विप्रेन्द्रा अन्तःसत्त्वं बहिस्तमः
विष्णोरन्तस्तमः सत्त्वं बहिरस्ति रजोगुणः
[For Rudra it is sattva internal and tamas external. For Viṣṇu it is tamas internal and sattva external.]
अन्तर्बहिश्च विप्रेन्द्रा अस्ति तस्य प्रजापतेः
[For Brahmā it is rajas both internal and external]
अतोऽपेक्ष्य गुणं सत्त्वं मनुष्या विवदन्ति च
हरिः श्रेष्ठो हरः श्रेष्ठ इत्यहो मोहवैभवम्
सत्त्वाभावात्प्रजानाथं वरिष्ठं नैव मन्वते (40 -42)
[Therefore people dispute whether Hari or Hara is greater since they have sattvam. Since Brahma is devoid of sattvam he is not party to the dispute!!]
The above cited last verse says: On the basis of ‘sattva’ of Hari and Hara, deluded people dispute whether Hari or Hara that is superior.

So the debate on Hari-Hara superiority is time immemorial. The idea of purāṇas being composed later is not admissible to the traditionalists; only academicians hold such unorthodox views. The Vaishnava acharyas cited by the blogger are not to be considered authority here since they are known for their bigotry.

Incidentally the above section of the Sūta samhitā is what has likely inspired Sridhara swamin who also says at the end of those verses cited as a ‘challenge’ by the bloggers:
5. // The following padya-section occurs in Sridhara’s commentary on Shlokas 3-8 in the same chapter as a summary of the tattvam (truth) and abhiprayam (learned opinion) of the Rishis:

“guṇāḥ sattvādayaḥ śānta-ghora-mūḍhāḥ svabhāvataḥ
viṣṇu-brahma-śivānāḿ ca guṇa-yantṛ-svarūpiṇām

nāti-bhedo bhaved bhedo guṇa-dharmair ihāḿśataḥ
sattvasya śāntyā no jātu viṣṇor vikṣepa-mūḍhate

rajas-tamo-guṇābhyāḿ tu bhavetāḿ brahma-rudrayoḥ
guṇopamardato bhūyas tad-amśānāḿ ca bhinnatā

ataḥ samagra-sattvasya viṣṇor mokṣa-karī matiḥ
aḿśato bhūti-hetuś ca tathānanda-mayī svataḥ

aḿśatas tāratamyena brahma-rudrādi-sevinām
vibhūtayo bhavanty eva śanair mokṣo’py anaḿśataḥ”

In essence, it says that the trimUrtis are associated with sattvam, rajas, and tamas. From the pAramArthika point of view, these are like reflections of the same reality (vastu) on mAyA (this explanation is as per the tenets of the ‘bimba-pratibimba-vAda’ branch of advaita-matam). Though Vishnu is saguNa and is associated with Sattva, He is in essence the very parabrahman. Hence, He does not display the characteristics of restlessness (rajas) and delusion (tamas). However, the same can not be said of Brahma and Rudra, who are re-reflections of the shuddha-chaitanyam on rajas and tamas, and hence are affected by triguNas. Therefore, one should focus their mind entirely on Lord Vishnu, who is the embodiment of sattva, leading one to liberation. This brings material comfort too as a by-product. Worshipping Brahma or Rudra on the other hand, one only obtains material wealth quickly. They may become moksha-adhikaris only very slowly. Note that this padyam of Sridhara Swami shows clearly what modern-day neo-advaitins have distorted and hidden.//

Response

There is a commentary by Vamśidhara (included in that multi-thousand page book containing several commentaries and available for download too) who has elucidated what Sridhara Swamin says in those verses. He gives the vedantic view of the verses and says that there is no absolute bheda between the trimurtis as they are only associated with guṇas and only on the basis of guṇas there is a difference. Viṣṇu too, by association of rajas and tamas is Brahma and Shiva alone and Shiva too by association with sattva is Vishnu alone and so on. And those who meditate upon Rudra and Brahma as endowed with shuddhasattva forms, they get liberated. And according to Sridhara, says Vamshidhara, it is by taking into consideration that all the three are actually samagra sattva forms that here and there we see statements like: All the three of us are one and the same and those who perceived difference between us will not get peace, etc. And Sridhara says at the end of that set of verses/commentary:

तत्तद्भक्तानां तु कलहो मोहमात्रम् इति SB 10.88.5-7
[‘the disputes between the devotees of trimūrtis, however, is mere delusion.] And Vamṣidhara explains this line as: between devotees of Hari and Hara in the form of: one is superior and the other is inferior – is just ignorance, ajñānam.

The bloggers, while accusing the ‘modern-day neo-advaitins’ of hiding Sridhara’s verses, have themselves dishonestly hidden this crucial ending line of Sridhara which says: the dispute among the bhaktas is mere delusion. This one line completely changes the perception of Sridhara’s verses, elucidated clearly by Vamśidhara. Any reader, by seeing also that last comment of Sridhara will get the correct purport of the verses, not as distorted by the bloggers to make those verses appear disfavoring Rudra and Brahma. While the neo-advaitins’ alleged ‘hiding’ of these verses of Srīdhara does no damage to the Vedāntic and therefore Vedavyāsa’s position of Hari-Hara abheda and Trimurti aikya, it is the cunning hiding of the crucial ending comment of Sridhara Swamin: तत्तद्भक्तानां तु कलहो मोहमात्रम् इति SB 10.88.5-7 [‘the disputes between the devotees of trimūrtis, however, is mere delusion.] is the real damage to the ideal perception one has to have about Sanātana Dharma and the gods thereof.

Also, Veda Vyāsa himself is censuring the bigots such as these bloggers by saying that the dispute between who is superior is mere delusion. Thus Veda Vyasa puts in the dock all the vaishnava Acharyas who held the saguṇa deity Vishnu alone to be supreme as they are ignorant of the purport of the shāstra. Only Shankara has steered clear of such petty thinking and bigotry. None can succeed in proving that Shankara’s usage of names such as Nārayana, Vishnu, Vāsudeva, etc. in the prasthanatraya refers to this deity who is identified and restricted by the vaishnavas as Lakshmipati. Sridhara swamin’s true intentions having been revealed now, the bloggers can never claim his support for their bigotry. In the Mandukya Kārikā bhāshya of Shankara 4.1 we have:

// ज्ञानस्यैव पुनर्विशेषणम् — ज्ञेयैर्धर्मैरात्मभिरभिन्नम् अग्न्युष्णवत् सवितृप्रकाशवच्च यत् ज्ञानम्, तेन ज्ञेयाभिन्नेन ज्ञानेन आकाशकल्पेन ज्ञेयात्मस्वरूपाव्यतिरिक्तेन, गगनोपमान्धर्मान्यः संबुद्धः संबुद्धवान्नित्यमेव ईश्वरो यो नारायणाख्यः, तं वन्दे अभिवादये । द्विपदां वरं द्विपदोपलक्षितानां पुरुषाणां वरं प्रधानम्, पुरुषोत्तममित्यभिप्रायः । उपदेष्टृनमस्कारमुखेन ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वदर्शनमिह प्रकरणे प्रतिपिपादयिषितं प्रतिपक्षप्रतिषेधद्वारेण प्रतिज्ञातं भवति ॥//

Only those who have studied the Advaita darśana under traditional Acharyas can recognize that the Nirguna tattvam is what is being spoken of in the above passage. For Shankara ‘Nārayana’ is the Purushottama tattvam, none other than the Guru tattvam, upadeṣṭṛ. It is the Dakshināmūrti tattvam of Advaita.

Further, Veda Vyasa says in the sūta samhita that the trimurtis are not within the jīvavyūha and are not under ignorance. Sridhara’s verse too says that by the word: guṇa-yantṛ-svarūpiṇām – which means: the three are the masters of their guṇas and not victims. Vamśīdhara too endorses the above view of Veda Vyasa that Rudra is not a jīva.

[Meaning of the word ‘yantṛ’ of the verse विष्णु-ब्रह्म-शिवानां च गुण-यन्तृ-स्वरूपिणाम् of Sridhari for 10.88.5-7 http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=yantR&direction=SE&link=yes&choice=yes ]

The bloggers go about saying that Rudra and Brahma are subject to those gunas. Veda Vyasa contradicts that. Vamśidhara, in the commentary to the Bhāgavatam First canto, 2.23 gives a very long description of the vedantic position by citing several passages from the shruti and smrits to show how there is mention of all the three being born of each other, etc. and what is the purpose behind such contradictory statements in the scripture. There are both shruti and smriti passages to show that Rudra is the source from whom Vishnu and Brahma were born, Brahma is the progenitor of Rudra and Vishnu and Vishnu is the one who brought forth Rudra and Brahma. In fact there is one claim that Rudra was born of Narayana’s wrath (how can Narayana be wrathful, being an embodiment of sattva according to bigots?). There is another mention elsewhere that Rudra is a product of Brahma’s wrath. And then the Praṣnopanishat and bhashya teach that Prajapati (Brahma) is the one appearing in the form of Rudra and Vishnu. Thus there is no finality at all about the so-called ‘birth’ of Rudra, which itself shows that such statements are not to be taken on their face value. Those who have not had traditional teaching of the Vedanta but depend on academic scholars and translations arrive at such faulty conclusions which are no way supported by Veda vyasa.

Thus, form the statements of Veda Vyasa and those who have correctly understood him, there is absolutely no case for the ill-founded, ignorance-based, view that some portions like the Shiva Sahasranama and shiva stutis are interpolations in the MB. It is only a laughable proposition of those outside the vedic sampradaya and wallow in such bigotry. The academic scholars who also dabble in such matters are clearly ignorant of the Vedantic purport, not having had traditional learning, and hence their views are to be rejected as ‘those of a fool’ as Shankara has said in the BGB: asampradāyavit mūrkhavadeva upekṣaṇīyaḥ. They cannot succeed in giving even a single reason that will stand scrutiny for their ‘conclusions’ as to why SS and Shiva stuti cannot and should not be in the MB. The Andhra Bharata (11 – 14 CE) (endorsed as an authentic and dependable work by the author of the Tamil book ‘Shankararum Vaiṇavamum’) and the Bhāratamanjarī (11 CE) amply contain these sections. The Madhvas too admit of the genuineness of this. None can succeed in proving their interpolation in the MB for they will never be able to produce the ‘original’ version of the MB to act as the base reference document. One such scholar said: The MB has been overhauled so many times that it is impossible to say which was the original one that Veda Vyasa wrote. All their reasoning is completely faulty and holds no water in the face of Veda vyasa’s purport captured only by the non-vaishnava commentators that uphold Hari-Hara abheda and Trimūrti aikya. In fact Sridhara swamin’s and Vamśidhara’s comments only eminently endorse Shankara’s commentary on the VS for the names: bhūtakṛt, etc.

Also there is little reasoning in the frivolous argument:
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html

// For your kind information the great Shankara whom you tend claim as Shaiva/Advaitin and what not, has not even bothered to write a commentary on the spurious Siva Sahasranama. Had it really been part of original Mahabharata, why did Shankara choose Vishnu sahasranama and not the Siva Sahasranama (it appears just after Vishnu Sahasranama in the interpolated Mahabharata) This itself is sufficient to prove that your claim is absolutely dubious (BTW, venkat G claims that he knows the mission of Vyasa, WOW. Vyasa and Adi Shankara might be laughing his heart out looking at these pseudo advaitins)//

Let’s see who is being laughed at. First, there is no niyama that Shankara should comment on all the sahasranamas, whether in the MB or elsewhere. None can impose such a rule on any commentator. Secondly, Shankara sees the VS as a document that brings out the nirguna and saguna aspects of Brahman. The deity involved is of little value for the advaitin that Shankara is. That is why he cited verses from Bhavishyottara to show Trimurti aikya (in the introduction to VSB) and from Shivapurana to establish Hari-Hara abheda (for the name Rudra 114). That is the purpose of an advaitin: to establish abheda at every available opportunity. If the VS satisfied this condition, there is no need for Shankara to go about commenting on other lists like the SS. Someone might ask: Why did not Shankara comment on the Lalitāsahasranama, which is also extremely popular? By the same logic of these people one can object and conclude: since Shankara has not commented on several other Upanishads like Maitrāyaṇi, Kaivalyopanishat and dozens of the 108 which advaitins admit, all these un-commented Upanishads are bogus, compositions of some scholars. There is no end to such foolishness. There is an ‘aśokavanikā nyāya’ to demonstrate this myopic vision: Rāvaṇa imprisoned Sītā in a particular garden which is named Aśokavanam. Someone asked: when there were so many gardens at his disposal, why did he place here in that garden?
http://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=a%C5%9Bo&lang=sans&iencoding=deva&action=

अशोकवनिकान्याय
m. the rule of the grove of aśoka – trees (applied to cases in which a preference of any particular thing among many cannot be accounted for, just as rāvaṇa – kept sītā – in an aśoka – grove, but might equally well have kept her in a grove of other trees),

So, Veda Vyasa and Shankara will be laughing at these foolish suggestions. When they had no bheda buddhi between Shiva and Vishnu, the bigots are trying their best to superimpose on them the bheda buddhi and mislead their gullible readers.

The Sūta samhitā verses which have undoubtedly inspired Sridhara Swamin are:

हरिब्रह्मादिदेवान् ये पूजयन्ति यथालम्
अचिरान्न परप्राप्तिेस्तेषामस्ति क्रमेण हि
[Those who worship Hari, Brahma, etc. as dictated by their own ability, will not attain the Supreme (liberation) quickly, but only gradually.]
(Compare this with the last verse cited above from Sridhara Swamin. There Sridhara replaces Hari (above) with Rudra.)
रुद्रं ये वेदविच्छ्रेष्ठाः पूजयन्ति यथाबलम्
तेषामस्ति परप्राप्तिरचिरान्न क्रमेण तु
[Those who worship Rudra as dictated by their own ability, will quickly attain the Supreme (liberation) quickly and not gradually.]
(Compare this with the penultimate verse cited above from Sridhara Swamin. There Sridhara replaces Rudra (above) with Hari.)

The above concept, keeping aside the deity glorified, stands demonstrated in the BG. There the Lord says four types of people seek Him: those seeking relief from distress, those seeking wealth, those after knowledge and those who have realized the Truth. Clearly, the first two categories are not concerned about the Liberation-giving capacity of the Lord; they set their goal to limited ends and approach the Lord to satisfy them. It is not the fault of the Lord that He grants only what they seek on the maxim: ye yathā mām prapadyante tān tathaiva bhajāmyaham [As they seek so they get]

Vamśīdhara has explained that such statements apparently glorifying one deity and denigrating the other are directed at increasing the bhakti of those bhaktas of that deity that is glorified and no more. He calls this by the famous ‘nahi nindā’ maxim where the denigrating of A is not to really put him down but to extol the greatness of B that is being exhorted/enjoined in the text to be worshiped/followed, etc. Hence there is no real difference at all between the trimurtis. This is the view of Vaidikas such as Shankara. Clearly such view is rejected by vaishnava acharyas who are bigots. The very foundation on which they weaved their systems is such bigotry. These views of abheda /aikya are anathema to the bigots and hence they hide those from their gullible readers, hoodwinking them permanently. Since the idea behind such apparently contradictory verses is explained in the above manner (nahi nindā nyāya), all sentences/verses of Sridhara swamin or any other commentator, or Veda Vyasa or anyone anywhere has to be read with this rider / rule that is specified above. Only then the correct understanding of those specific passages will come about. If this ‘nahi nindā’ maxim is not kept in mind while reading those statements, one will be denying himself the right understanding and end up in bigoted views.

I have uploaded some images from Vamśīdhara’s commentary on these URLs:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/y8xxoaenccaw5gv/Vamshidhara+1.2.23.docx
In the above, in Sanskrit, one can read the explanation Vamśidhara has given for the SB 1.2.23, culminating on Trimūrty aikya.

The following three images constitute one document, (Vamśidhara on Sridhara Swamin’s SB 10.88 own verses/commentary) :

http://www.mediafire.com/download/bj45r5k7v2dsssk/Vam%C5%9B%C4%ABdhara+1+SB10%2C88.docx

http://www.mediafire.com/download/vkez3iivlrvhu0k/Vamshidhara+2+SB10.88.docx

http://www.mediafire.com/download/b9mzro4s1gkj8wz/Vamshidhara+3+SB10.88.docx

The blogger also dishonestly tries to portray his school as innocent:
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/03/keshi-suktam-and-sharabha-narasimha.html

// This interpretation of bhagavad rAmAnuja is why our acharyas, despite insisting Vishishtadvaita as the ultimate truth and refuting other philosophies, never personally attacked Shankara, Madhva, Gaudiyas, etc and had respect for them as Vaishnavas. And we wish to preserve this great trait of sri vaishnava siddhAntha on this blog.//

What a blatant lie!! Ramanujā’s notoriety in personally badmouthing Shankara is there for everyone to see and is only next to unprintable comments of Madhva:
See what badmouthing Ramanuja in his ‘Śrībhāṣyam’ indulged in against Shankara extending to Sureshwara and Sarvajnātman:

//तदिदमौपनिषदपरमपुरुषवरणीयताहेुतुगुणविशेषविरहिणां अनादिपापवासनादूषिताशेषशेमुषीकाणां अनधिगतपदवाक्यस्वरूपतदर्थयाथात्म्यप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमाणवृत्त-तदितिकर्तव्यतारूपसमीचीनन्यायमार्गाणां विकल्पासहविविधकुतर्ककल्ककल्पितमिति न्यायानुगृहीतप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमणवृत्तयाथात्म्यविद्भिः अनादरणीयम् ।//
(as quoted by MM Śrī S.Subrahmaṇya Śāstri in his foreword to the book ‘Upaniṣad bhāṣyam’ published by the Mahesh Research Institute, Varanasi) Ramanuja accuses Shankara (and Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman):

1. As those devoid of appreciation for the auspicious attributes of the Lord (‘kapyāsam’ episode) and hence unfit to be commentators of the Upanishads, etc.
2. As those soaked in immense, beginningless, sinful tendencies
3. As those who are ignorant of fundamentals of epistemology and its application
4. As those who engage in intolerant fallacious argumentation
5. And therefore all right-knowing/thinking people should reject them (Shankara, Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman).

The blogger’s word: bhagavattattvAsahiShNavaH is only a rephrasing of Ramanuja’s: तदिदमौपनिषदपरमपुरुषवरणीयताहेुतुगुणविशेषविरहिणां अनादिपापवासनादूषिताशेषशेमुषीकाणां (aupaniṣada-paramapuruṣa-varaṇīyatāhetuguṇaviśeṣavirahiṇām anādipāpavāsanādūṣitaśemuṣīkāṇām)

Both the blogger and Ramanuja agree that Advaitins starting from Shankara, Sureshwara and Sarvajnātman, up to the present Acharyas, owing to their ‘beginningless sinful tendencies’, are ‘intolerant of the true nature of the Lord’.

Such being the case, the bloggers, in blatant defiance to their Founding Acharya, are putting up Shankara, Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman and others as their brand ambassadors, having realized well that Ramanuja is a failed champion of Vaishnavism. So much for their ‘staunch’ following of their school. They spend a lot of time ‘researching’ advaitic works and write nonsense in the name of ‘authentic’ blogs.

Dishonesty, hiding uncomfortable portions, etc. is the norm of these bloggers. Veda Vyasa, Sridhara Swamin, etc. have clearly revealed these bloggers’ true colors. All those who laud their dishonest and misinterpreted blogs without having the capacity to detect the misinformation and distortions therein, are also grouped under ‘deluded/ignorant’ by Veda Vyasa and Sridhara Swamin. In my earlier articles I have demonstrated how Shankara has cited from a tāmasa purana (a concept which vaidikas do not approve of), the Shiva purana, to establish Hari-Hara abheda in the VSB. Now, it is the turn of Sridhara swamin who brings out the purport of the Sūta Samhita (Skandapurana, also ‘tāmasa’) to establish Hari-Hara abheda and Trimūrti aikya. The pronouncement of both Veda Vyasa and Sridhara Swamin, and by extension, Vamshidhara, that fighting to show this or that deity as supreme is sheer ignorance, immaturity, is very significant. Like anādi avidyā-driven samsāra, the Hari-Hara supremacy dispute is also anādi. Otherwise Veda Vyasa would not include this remark in the Skanda purana and Sridhara swamin would not endorse it. Now, of course, it is one more reason to treat the Skanda purana as ‘tāmasa’ since it openly disallows Vishnu-supremacy!! And now, lo, Sridhara Swāmin has joined that elite club of ‘tāmasa’. Veda Vyasa and Sridhara Swamin have dealt a direct blow to the very mischievous, ill-conceived, ignorance-based, concept: ‘Defending Vaishnavism as the Supreme Vedic position’ as unvedic and void ab intio and therefore untenable.

With this crucial explicit message [तत्तद्भक्तानां तु कलहो मोहमात्रम् इति SB 10.88.5-7] deliberately blocked out, the damage done to the audience of their blogs goes undetected. It is only when pointed out and put in public domain that people will stand warned about such miscreants masquerading as custodians of dharma. That alone is the purpose of this article.

Om Tat Sat

The URLs for the latest parts of the article series are –

Prasnopanishat – http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-Prashnopanishat—Part-6.ashx

Mundakopanishat – http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-muNDakopaniShat—Part-16.ashx

‘Vāsudeva’, ‘Achyuta’ in Advaita

In the Bhagavadgitā Bhāṣya 4.6, we find a sentence thus: प्रकृतिं स्वां मम वैष्णवीं मायां त्रिगुणात्मिकाम्, यस्या वशे सर्वं जगत् वर्तते, यया मोहितं सत् स्वमात्मानं वासुदेवं न जानाति, तां प्रकृतिं स्वाम् //Prakṛti, the Māyā of Viṣṇu consisting of the three gunas, under whose; spell the whole world exists, and deluded by which one does not know one’s own Self, ‘Vāsudeva';  -by subjugating that Prakṛti of Mine..//

Is this ‘Vāsudeva’ identifiable with the person ‘Vāsudeva’ or the Saguṇa Brahman or the Tattvam that is named ‘Vāsudeva?’  In order to decide on this we can apply this test: The bhāṣyam says that under the spell of Māyā, one is not able to know one’s true nature/self that is Vāsudeva. Supposing one has overcome the spell of māyā, then the knowledge should be ‘I am/my true nature is Vāsudeva’.  If that Vāsudeva is a person, then the knowledge of the one who has the right realization will have to be: I am Vāsudeva, the son of Devaki-Vasudeva, born in Mathura, grew up in Gokula, played with the gopis, slayed Kamsa, etc. etc. But from the Vedanta, especially from Shankara’s bhāṣyas we do not find this to be the proper realization of the Self. Also, such a realization of a person-vāsudeva is of no use since the Lord Himself says in the BG 4th ch. beginning: श्री भगवानुवाच बहूनि मे व्यतीतानि जन्मानि तव चार्जुन।तान्यहं वेद सर्वाणि न त्वं वेत्थ परन्तप।।4.5।। 4.5 The Blessed Lord said O Arjuna, many lives of Mine have passed, and so have yours. I know them all, (but) you know not, O scorcher of enemies! Identifying with a person(ality) who has taken birth and also gone will be of no real value to be cherished as liberation.

Nor does the name / entity Vāsudeva mean the saguṇa brahman.  This is because the saguṇa brahman is one endowed with māyā as upādhi and is admitted purely for the purpose of accounting for the world-creation, duality, samsāra management, etc. This has no ontological status in Vedanta. Realizing this as one’s true self is not taught anywhere nor is it possible and useful in liberating a jiva. By the method of elimination, finally the term ‘VAsudeva’ of the bhAshyam has to be the Tattvam known by that name.  That Tattvam has been variously defined in the puranas such as the one that pervades everything/one that is the substratum of everything in creation, etc. as for example, stated in the Viṣṇuprāṇa: सर्व्वाणि तत्र भूतानि वसन्ति परमात्मनि । भूतेषु च स सर्व्वात्मा वासुदेवस्ततः स्मृतः ।। ६-५-८० ।। [All the beings (creation) rests in That Supreme Self.  Also That Supreme Self rests / resides in all beings.  Such a one is called ‘vāsudeva’.] The ‘resting’ of all beings/creation ‘in’ That and That ‘residing’ in all creation has to be of the manner of a superimposition-substratum for otherwise a physical resting will require the vāsudeva to be made of parts. Only things made of parts can have a physical support-supported relationship.  If ‘vāsudeva’ is made of parts, it is perishable, being a created entity. Also, it will have to be insentient. Thus the realization ‘I am vāsudeva’, as the Vedantic Tattvam alone is meant by the bhāṣyam cited above.

Another reference: In the BGB 18.66: माम् एकं सर्वात्मानं समं सर्वभूतस्थितम् ईश्वरम् अच्युतं गर्भजन्मजरामरणवर्जितम् ‘अहमेव’ इत्येवं शरणं व्रज, न मत्तः अन्यत् अस्ति इति अवधारय इत्यर्थः । //śaraṇam vraja, take refuge; mām ekam, in Me alone, the Self of all, the same in all, existing in all beings, the Lord, the Imperishable, free from being in the womb, birth, old age and death-by knowing that ‘I am verily That’. That is, know it for certain that there is nothing besides Me.// Here again, the name ‘Achyuta’ of the bhāṣya does not refer to the deity/divine person.  Why? It is the teaching here that the aspirant has to identify himself as ‘I am that’.  Such an identification is not taught with the deity. Thus such names in the bhāṣya do not refer to the deity/person but to the Nirguṇa Brahman, the Tattvam. The word ‘achyuta’ is explained by the bhāṣyam itself as: the One that is responsible for all creation/actions (read Kenopanishad first few mantras), that is free of birth, old age, etc. This explanation exactly defines the word ‘achyuta’, that which has no ‘chyuti’, fall, transformation and destruction.

Om Tat Sat

Here are two articles in the Series for reading:

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-Prashnopanishat—Part-7.ashx

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-muNDakopaniShat—Part-17.ashx

A new book with the above title has been published recently.

The book is a short rendering of the fundamentals of Advaita Vedanta  in a lucid style.
A file containing a few scanned pages from the book giving some details and also the list of publications of ‘Vedanta Bharati.’ can be downloaded from:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/e4214qg8v9z70cb/Brhmasathyam0001.pdf

Pages: about 160, Price: Rs Sixty only.

Copies can be procured from the ‘Vedanta Bharati’, C.M.Road, Krishnarajanagara, 571602, Mysore Dist. Karnataka, India.

Translator’s Note

When I read the Kannada original of this book, I found it to be very well written, presenting the salient aspects of the Advaita Darśana in a lucid and yet scholarly manner.  I felt an urge to render it in English for the benefit of a larger audience.  When I expressed this idea to His Holiness Śrī Śaṅkara Bhāratī Swāminaḥ, he readily consented and blessed me with the condition: ‘Complete it soon’.  While on the work of translation I had the direct experience of the’pariśrama’, labour, exerted by the Vidvān, Dr.M.L.Narasimhamūrti, Professor of Advaita Vedanta, Rashtriya Sanskrit Samsthān, Tirupati, who had authored the original.

The books  (Kannada and English versions) will be available in the following address at Bangalore:

Sri Ramashankara Prasada

No.537, 22nd Cross, BSK 2nd Stage,

Bangalore 560070       Ph. 080-26714992

Pl. phone Sri Nagaraj at 94499 12121 and go to the above place.  He is the one who manages that office.

One can also contact this email for placing orders: ysysmath@yahoo.com

Passages teaching ‘vastu pariccheda abhāva’ for Brahman

There are innumerous passages in the śruti, smṛti and purāṇas to denote that Brahman is free of the limitation caused by objects. That is, there are no objects really that can cause any limitation to Brahman. In other words, if there are objects/entities that are admitted other than, different from, Brahman on absolute terms, then there is no way that Brahman can remain ananta, infinite. Finitude can occur on three grounds: time, space and objects. Brahman is eternal and there is no time-wise limitation to It. Being all-pervading, in and out, Brahman is free of space-wise limitation. Having no objects other than Itself, Brahman is free of object-wise limitation too. In order to make this last aspect clear there are several passages in the scriptures:

1. सत्यंज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म । (Brahman is Existence, Consciousness and Infinite) (Taittiriya Up. 2.1). The Bhāṣyam for this, in part, in particular the anantam epithet is:

कथं पुनर्वस्तुत आनन्त्यम्? सर्वानन्यत्वात् । भिन्नं हि वस्तु वस्त्वन्तरस्य अन्तो भवति, वस्त्वन्तरबुद्धिर्हि प्रसक्ताद्वस्त्वन्तरान्निवर्तते । यतो यस्य बुद्धेर्निवृत्तिः, स तस्यान्तः । तद्यथा गोत्वबुद्धिरश्वत्वान्निवर्तत इत्यश्वत्वान्तं गोत्वमित्यन्तवदेव भवति । स चान्तो भिन्नेषु वस्तुषु दृष्टः । नैवं ब्रह्मणो भेदः । अतो वस्तुतोऽप्यानन्त्यम् । कथं पुनः सर्वानन्यत्वं ब्रह्मण इति, उच्यते – सर्ववस्तुकारणत्वात् । सर्वेषां हि वस्तूनां कालाकाशादीनां कारणं ब्रह्म । कार्यापेक्षया वस्तुतोऽन्तवत्त्वमिति चेत्, न; अनृतत्वात्कार्यस्य वस्तुनः । न हि कारणव्यतिरेकेण कार्यं नाम वस्तुतोऽस्ति, यतः कारणबुद्धिर्विनिवर्तेत; ‘वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) एवं सदेव सत्यमिति श्रुत्यन्तरात् ।

[How again is Brahman infinite object-wise? Since It is non-different from everything. An object that is different from another object, limits the latter. The awareness about the other object is annulled by the awareness of the object that is being perceived at present. That which limits the consciousness (awareness) of the other object is the limiter of the latter. Just as cow-awareness is thwarted by the horse-awareness and thus the latter is certainly the limiter of the former. Such a limitation is seen in objects that are different from each other. Not so is a difference with respect to Brahman. Therefore Brahman is infinite object-wise too. How again is Brahman non-different from everything? This is said thus: Since It is the cause of all objects. Brahman is the Cause of all objects including time and space. Objection: Brahman is object-wise limited, finite, from the standpoint of Its effects. Reply: No, since the object called ‘effect’ is unreal. Never does an object remain different from its cause so as to thwart/annul the cause-awareness. For, the Chā.up. 6.1.4 teaches: ‘all clay-transformations are mere words and the material cause, clay, alone is real.’ Likewise ‘existence alone is real’ teaches another passage.

Continues the bhāṣya:

आकाशो ह्यनन्त इति प्रसिद्धं देशतः; तस्येदं कारणम् ; तस्मात्सिद्धं देशत आत्मन आनन्त्यम् । न ह्यसर्वगतात्सर्वगतमुत्पद्यमानं लोके किञ्चिद्दृश्यते । अतो निरतिशयमात्मन आनन्त्यं देशतः । तथा अकार्यत्वात्कालतः ; तद्भिन्नवस्त्वन्तराभावाच्च वस्तुतः । अत एव निरतिशयसत्यत्वम् ॥] [It is quite well known that space, ākāśa, is infinite. Brahman is the cause of even space and therefore Brahman-Atman is infinite. It is not seen anywhere in the world that something all-pervading issuing forth from a finite cause. Therefore Atman’s infinitude is absolute. And since Brahman is not caused, that is, It is not a product, It is infinite time-wise too. (that which is a product, being absent before its creation, and after its destruction, is indeed finite time-wise and Brahman being uncaused, and thus indestructible, is ever existent and hence infinite time-wise too). And since there is no object other than Brahman, It is infinite object-wise too. Therefore alone is Its absolute Existence as well. ]

2. The Tai.up. 2.6.1 says, in part: इदं सर्वमसृजत । यदिदं किञ्च । तत्सृष्ट्वा । तदेवानुप्राविशत् । तदनुप्रविश्य । सच्च त्यच्चाभवत् । …सत्यं चानृतं च सत्यमभवत् । [Brahman created all this and whatever is in creation and experienced as ‘this’. Having created It entered It. And became everything that is real and false…] The bhāṣya says: एतत्सर्वमभवत्, सत्यं परमार्थसत्यम्; किं पुनस्तत्? ब्रह्म, ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ इति प्रकृतत्वात् । यस्मात्, सत्त्यदादिकं मूर्तामूर्तधर्मजातं यत्किंचेदं सर्वमविशिष्टं विकारजातमेकमेव सच्छब्दवाच्यं ब्रह्माभवत्, तद्व्यतिरेकेणाभावान्नामरूपविकारस्य, तस्मात् तत् ब्रह्म सत्यमित्याचक्षते ब्रह्मविदः । [ Brahman became all this. Since all transformation that is denoted as formed and un-formed is a manifestation of Brahman alone, being non-existent as different from It, therefore Brahman is called ‘Satyam’.]
3. The Bṛ.up. 1.4.10 teaches ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्तदात्मानमेवावेत् । अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति । तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत् ।[Brahman existed before. It knew Itself as ‘I am Brahman.’ Therefore It became all. The relevant bhashyam is:

तस्मात् — यत्प्रविष्टं स्रष्टृ ब्रह्म, तद्ब्रह्म, वै-शब्दोऽवधारणार्थः, इदं शरीरस्थं यद्गृह्यते, अग्रे प्राक्प्रतिबोधादपि, ब्रह्मैवासीत्, …..तस्मात् एवं विज्ञानात् तद्ब्रह्म सर्वमभवत् – अब्रह्माध्यारोपणापगमात् तत्कार्यस्यासर्वत्वस्य निवृत्त्या सर्वमभवत् ।

(Therefore) That Brahman that has created the world and entered into it, that Brahman, ‘vā’ is for emphasis, idam: that which is available in the body, was Brahman alone before the knowledge too.  Upon knowing Itself as ‘I am Brahman’, …it realized Its true nature of being ‘All’.

Here too, the Upaniṣad teaches that the nature of Brahman is to be ‘All’. That is being free of vastu-pariccheda, object-wise limitation.

4. The Bṛ.up. 2.4.14 teaches: यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं जिघ्रति तदितर इतरं पश्यति तदितर इतरं शृणोति तदितर इतरमभिवदति तदितर इतरं मनुते मदितर इतरं विजानाति यत्र वा अस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्तत्केन कं शृणुयात्तत्केन कमभिवदेत्तत्केन कं मन्वीत तत्केन कं विजानीयात् । येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयाद्विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयादिति ॥ १४ ॥ [ “For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what,  what should one see and through what, what should one hear  and through what, what should one speak and through what,  what should one think and through what, what should one  know and through what? Through what should One know That  owing to which all this is known—through what, my dear,  should one know the Knower?”] In this passage too, just as the Bṛ.up.1.4.10 shown above, the ‘corrected’ vision of infinitude is taught through the words ‘sarvam’, ‘All’. In fact the corrected vision transcends the knower-knowing-knowledge tripuṭī, along with the instrument of knowing. This is an unmistakable mark of vastu-pariccheda abhāva to teach Brahman as Infinite. The anvaya-vyatireka method is involved in this mantra too, just as in the 1.4.10 where it is implied. In the state of ignorance, there is finitude, bondage. In the vision of Knowledge, there is infinitude, liberation.
5. The famous passage पुरुष एवेदं सर्वम् (All this is verily the Puruṣa, Brahman) of the Puruṣa sūkta too teaches Brahman as one devoid of object-wise limitation. There is this explanation from the Dvaita school for this mantra: The identity between the ‘all’ and ‘Puruṣa’ is not the one of advaita but it signifies only a dependence of the all on the Puruṣa for its very existence, sattā. However, such a view only culminates in the ‘all’ being non-different from the category of the ‘rope-snake’ where alone there is dependence of the imagined snake on the real rope for its very existence. Ultimately such an explanation as above will render the ‘all’ no different from a superimposition. And thru that, the Advaitic identity.
6. The Māṇḍūkya upaniṣad too teaches that everything is non-different from the Supreme: सर्वं ह्येतद्ब्रह्मायमात्मा ब्रह्म सोऽयमात्मा चतुष्पात् ॥ २ ॥ [All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters.]
7. The Chāndogya up. 7.25.2 teaches: आत्मैवेदं सर्वमिति[All this is verily the Ātman]
8. The Muṇḍakopaniṣat 2.2.11 too teaches on the same lines as the above: ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्ताद्ब्रह्म पश्चाद्ब्रह्म दक्षिणतश्चोत्तरेण ।
   अधश्चोर्ध्वं च प्रसृतं ब्रह्मैवेदं विश्वमिदं वरिष्ठम् ॥ १२ ॥ [11 That immortal Brahman alone is before, that Brahman is behind, that Brahman is to the right and left. Brahman alone pervades everything above and below; this universe is that Supreme Brahman alone.]
9. The Bṛ.up 2.4.6 makes this teaching extremely lucid: ब्रह्म तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो ब्रह्म वेद क्षत्त्रं तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनः क्षत्त्रं वेद लोकास्तं परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो लोकान्वेद देवास्तं परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो देवान्वेद भूतानि तं परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो भूतानि वेद सर्वं तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनः सर्वं वेदेदं ब्रह्मेदं क्षत्त्रमिमे लोका इमे देवा इमानि भूतानीदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा ॥ ६ ॥[“The brahmin rejects one who knows him as different from the Self. The kshatriya rejects one who knows him as different from the Self. The worlds reject one who knows them as different from the Self. The gods reject one who knows them as  different from the Self. The beings reject one who knows them as different from the Self. The All rejects one who knows it as different from the Self. This brahmin, this kshatriya, these  worlds, these gods, these beings and this All — are that Self.]
10. The Smṛti, Bhagavadgītā 7.19 emphatically teaches the mode of realization of the Self: बहूनां जन्मनामन्ते ज्ञानवान्मां प्रपद्यते । वासुदेवः सर्वमिति स महात्मा सुदुर्लभः ॥ १९ ॥ [19 At the end of many births the man of Knowledge attains Me, (realizing) that Vasudeva is all. Such a high-souled one is very rare.] Shankaracharya’s commentary:

बहूनां जन्मनां ज्ञानार्थसंस्काराश्रयाणाम् अन्ते समाप्तौ ज्ञानवान् प्राप्तपरिपाकज्ञानः मां वासुदेवं प्रत्यगात्मानं प्रत्यक्षतः प्रपद्यते । कथम् ? वासुदेवः सर्वम् इति । यः एवं सर्वात्मानं मां नारायणं प्रतिपद्यते, सः महात्मा ; न तत्समः अन्यः अस्ति, अधिको वा । अतः सुदुर्लभः, ‘मनुष्याणां सहस्रेषु’ (भ. गी. ७-३) इति हि उक्तम् ॥ 7.19 Ante, at the end, after the completion; bahūnām, of many; janmanām, births, which became the repository for accumulating the tendencies leading to Knowledge; jnānavān, the man of Knowledge, who has got his Knowledge matured; directly prapadyate, attains; mām, Me, Vāsudeva, who am the inmost Self; (realizing)-in what way?-iti, that; Vāsudeva is sarvam, all. Sah, such a one, who realizes Me [Here Ast. adds the word Narayana.-Tr.] thus as the Self of all; is mahatma, a high-souled one. There is none else who can equal or excel him. Therefore he is su-durlabhah, very rare among thousands of men, as it has been said (in verse 3).

11.  The Viṣṇu purāṇa brings out the above teaching thus: सकलमिदमहं च* *वासुदेवः*

*परमपुमान्*परमेश्वरः स एकः ।

इति मतिरचला भवत्यनन्ते

हृदयगते व्रज तान्विहाय दूरात् ॥ 3.7.32 ||

[‘All this including me is nothing but Vāsudeva, the supreme Person (uttama puruṣaḥ), the supreme Ishwara, One alone.’ He who has fixed his mind thus in the Infinite Brahman that is established in his heart (‘yo veda nihitam guhāyām parame vyoman’ of the Taittiriya which teaches that the Supreme has to be realized in the heart) – will never be touched by death, samsāra).

Shankara cites another verse from the same Vishnupurāṇa in that

introduction, a little later:

*अहं हरिः सर्वमिदं जनार्द्दनो* नान्यत् ततः कारणकार्य्यजातम् ।

ईदृङूमनो यस्य न तस्य भूयो भवोद्भवा द्वन्द्वगदा भवन्ति ।। 1.22.86 ।।

(‘I am Hari, all this (universe) is Janārdana, there is none other than Him

as cause-effect combine. He who has thus realized will never be caught in samsāra.)

12. Apart from the above kind of ‘postive’ teaching of ‘all’ being Brahman, there is the ‘negative’ kind of teaching too to drive home the same message: Bṛ.up.4.4.19: मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन । मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥ १९ [ ‘Through the mind alone is Brahman to be realized. There is in It no diversity. He goes from death to death who sees in It, as it  were, diversity.’ ] All such non-advaitic explanations for the above mantra such as ‘this mantra only denies difference between the various Avatāras of Viṣṇu as Rāma and Kṛṣṇa and one who holds such absolute difference will go from death to death’ does not convey the Upaniṣadic purport. For, the Upaniṣad is never of the opinion anywhere that the perception of difference between Rāma and Kṛṣṇa is the cause of samsāra. The Upaniṣad comes to redeem us from ignorance that is the cause of samsāra. Anyone with a basic knowledge of purāṇa will know that Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, etc. are only manifestations of one Viṣṇu and there is no absolute difference between those forms/persons. The Upaniṣad need not therefore teach that such difference is censurable. On the other hand, it is not common knowledge that the perception of difference, duality, nānātva, is what is samsāra and the knowledge that annuls this is the one of Ekatva. Innumerable passages such as ‘यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मैवाभूद्विजानतः । तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ॥ ७ ॥ [7     To the seer, all things have verily become the Self: what delusion, what sorrow, can there be for him who beholds that oneness? ] teach us that it is the knowledge of Unity, oneness, that redeems one from delusion and misery, the manifestations of samsāra.

The foregoing passages from the śruti, smṛti and purāṇa are only a representative sample of several such passages that unmistakably teach that Brahman is devoid of the finitude caused by object-wise difference. In other words, if there are objects/persons/entities that are admitted to be absolutely different, atyanta bheda, from Brahman, then Brahman cannot be admitted to be ananta. Vastu-pariccheda will bring about paricchinnatva, finitude, limitation, in Brahman, by that very vastu, object/person/entity, that is admitted to be different from Brahman. Thus the Vedanta does not admit of such a finitude in Brahman. The Advaitic commentaries alone bring out in no unmistakable terms this aupaniṣadic ānantya of Brahman. In non-advaitic interpretations the ānantya of Brahman is only compromised as they do not admit of the vastu-pariccheda abhāva taught by the innumerable passages cited above. To sum up, the word ‘sarvam’ is the key to understand the negation of vastu-pariccheda in Brahman-Ātman.

Om Tat Sat

Veda Vyāsa was not a Bigot

Veda Vyāsa, true to his loyalty to the Veda, has, in the Mahābhārata (MB) and the various purāṇas, has portrayed both Viṣṇu and Śiva as the Supreme Brahman. While it is well known that the vaiṣṇavas have undertaken a lot of pains to highlight the Hari-supremacy and oftentimes explicitly showing Śiva in poor light, sometimes using the Mahābhārata and other purāṇas, the authentic Śiva-supremacy portions have by and large not highlighted or even obfuscated without showing them at all. The intolerance of those bigots goes to the extent of caricaturing Śiva as a ‘tāmasa devatā’, not correctly understanding the purport of those references in the MB that speak of Śiva’s emergence/manifestation from the ‘wrath’ of Viṣṇu or Brahmā. Sri Appayya Dikṣita is the one who brought out the correct understanding of the term ‘wrath’ to set right the propaganda of the bigots. Here is an endeavor to bring to the fore just a sample of those portions from the Mahābhārata that speak of Śiva’s supreme personality. A few excerpts from Sri Appayya Dikṣita’s ‘Brahma tarka stava’ are also provided in this regard as further supportive material to show the Śiva supremacy.
Here are a few verses from the Mahābhārata, 13 Ānuśāsanika parva:
http://bombay.indology.info/mahabharata/text/UD/MBh13.txt

13014182a स एष भगवान्देवः सर्वतत्त्वादिरव्ययः
13014182c सर्वतत्त्वविधानज्ञः प्रधानपुरुषेश्वरः
13014183a योऽसृजद्दक्षिणादङ्गाद्ब्रह्माणं लोकसंभवम्
13014183c वामपार्श्वात्तथा विष्णुं लोकरक्षार्थमीश्वरः
13014183e युगान्ते चैव संप्राप्ते रुद्रमङ्गात्सृजत्प्रभुः
13014184a स रुद्रः संहरन्कृत्स्नं जगत्स्थावरजङ्गमम्
13014184c कालो भूत्वा महातेजाः संवर्तक इवानलः
13014185a एष देवो महादेवो जगत्सृष्ट्वा चराचरम्
13014185c कल्पान्ते चैव सर्वेषां स्मृतिमाक्षिप्य तिष्ठति
13014186a सर्वगः सर्वभूतात्मा सर्वभूतभवोद्भवः
13014186c आस्ते सर्वगतो नित्यमदृश्यः सर्वदैवतैः

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13a014.htm

//Thou art he that hadst created from thy right side the Grandsire Brahma, the Creator of all things. Thou art he that hadst created from thy left side Vishnu for protecting the Creation. Thou art that puissant Lord who didst create Rudra when the end of the Yuga came and when the Creation was once more to be dissolved. That Rudra, who sprang from thee destroyed the Creation with all its mobile and immobile beings, assuming the form of Kāla of great energy, of the cloud Samvartaka (charged with water which myriads of oceans are not capacious enough to bear), and of the all consuming fire. Verily, when the period comes for the dissolution of the universe, that Rudra stands, ready to swallow up the universe. Thou art that Mahadeva, who is the original Creator of the universe with all its mobile and immobile entities. Thou art he, who, at the end of the Kalpa, stands, withdrawing all things into thyself. Thou art he that pervadest all things, that art the Soul of all things, thou art the Creator of the Creator of all entities.Incapable of being seen by even any of the deities, thou art he that exists, pervading all entities. //
This description, especially the statement that Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra are created from Mahādeva, corresponds to the Atharvashikha shruti that has been cited by Rāmanuja too. It can be noticed that while Ramanuja, only after a struggle, could identify the ‘Śambhu’ of that mantra with Viṣṇu, Appayya Dikṣita has no difficulty in identifying the Śambhu with Lord Mahadeva, Paramaśiva, the consort of Pārvati.

The MB continues:
//He is indestructible and Supreme Brahman. He is both existent and non-existent. Agitating both Prakriti and Purusha by means of His energy, He created therefrom the universal lord of creatures, viz., Brahma. Who is there that is competent to tell the virtues of that god of gods, that is endued with supreme Intelligence? Man is subject to conception (in the mother’s womb), birth, decrepitude, and death. Being such, what man like me is competent to understand Bhava? Only Narayana, O son, that bearer of the discus and the mace, can comprehend Mahadeva. He is without deterioration. He is the foremost of all beings in attributes. He is Vishnu, because of his pervading the universe. He is irresistible. Endued with spiritual vision, He is possessed of supreme Energy. He sees all things with the eye of Yoga. It is in consequence of the devotion of the high-souled Krishna to the illustrious Rudra whom he gratified. O Bharata, in the retreat of Badari, by penances, that he has succeeded in pervading the entire universe. O king of kings, it is through Maheswara of celestial vision that Vāsudeva has obtained the attribute of universal agreeableness,–an agreeableness that is much greater than what is possessed by all articles included under the name of wealth. 1 For a full thousand years this Madhava underwent the austerest penances and at last succeeded in gratifying the illustrious and boon-giving Siva, that Master of all the mobile and the immobile universe. In every new Yuga has Krishna (by such penances) gratified Mahadeva. In every Yuga has Mahadeva been gratified with the great devotion of the high-souled Krishna. How great is the puissance of the high-souled Mahadeva,–that original cause of the universe,–has been seen with his own eyes by Hari who himself transcends all deterioration, on the occasion of his penances in the retreat of Badari undergone for obtaining a son. 2 I do not, O Bharata, behold anyone that is superior to Mahadeva. To expound the names of that god of gods fully and without creating the desire of hearing more, only Krishna is competent. This mighty-armed one of Yadu’s race is alone competent to tell the attributes of the illustrious Siva. Verily, O king, only he is able to discourse on the puissance, in its entirety of the Supreme deity’

Says the MB:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13a017.htm

//Thou art Kāla or Time which is the universal destroyer……Thou art the mighty ape Hanuman that aided Vishnu in the incarnation of Rama in his expedition against Ravana. …. Thou art eternal and immutable as also dependent on thyself….Thou art that Brahma who was unable to see thy end….. Thou art he who is endued with innumerable rays of light, who brings forth the universe, and who is of the form of that Soma which is drunk in sacrifices. Thou art Vyasa, the author of the Puranas and other sacred histories….Thou art he who rescues thy creatures from death (by granting them Emancipation). Thou art the cleanser of all including Brahma himself.. Endued with omnipotence, he it is that gives Emancipation to those that worship him. Thou art of terrible wrath (which thou displayest at the time of the universal dissolution). Thou ownest for thy offspring, beings higher than men and deities (viz., Brahma and Vishnu).Thou art of the form of that Vishnu who floats on the waters after the universal dissolution.(markandeya vision)//
[While there is a popular belief that it is Viṣṇu that is seen on the pipal leaf at the time of dissolution, here Vyasa says it is the form of Shiva. Shiva is the Lord of Dissolution, Pralya, as stated in the foregoing.]

[One can also notice the correct meaning of ‘wrath’, which is personified by Rudra, the power that brings about the praḷaya, cosmic dissolution. Not knowing this, the vaiṣṇavas have erred by portraying Śiva as tāmasa and try to show that Viṣṇu alone is sāttvic. The negative sense attributed to ‘wrath’ has been corrected by Appayya Dikṣita by specifically delving on this topic in his work ‘Brahmatarka stava’.]

Says the MB:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13a018.htm
“Vasudeva said, ‘Upamanyu, who seemed to blaze with effulgence like the Sun, said unto me,–Those sinful men that are stained with unrighteous deeds, do not succeed in attaining to Isana. Their dispositions being stained by the attributes of Rajas and Tamas, they can never approach the Supreme Deity. It is only those regenerate persons who are of cleansed souls that succeed in attaining to the Supreme Deity. Even if a person lives in the enjoyment of every pleasure and luxury, yet if he be devoted to the Supreme Deity, he comes to be regarded as the equal of forest recluses of cleansed souls. If Rudra be gratified with a person, he can confer upon him the states of ether Brahma or of Kesava or of Sakra with all the deities under him, or the sovereignty of the three worlds. Those men, O sire, who worship Bhava even mentally, succeed in freeing themselves from all sins and attain to a residence in heaven with all the gods. A person who raises houses to the ground and destroys tanks and lakes indeed, who devastates the whole universe, does not become stained with sin, if he adores and worships the illustrious Deity of three eyes. A person that is destitute of every auspicious indication and that is stained by every sin, has all his sins destroyed by meditating upon Siva. Even worm and insects and birds, O Kesava, that devote themselves to Mahadeva, are enabled to rove in perfect fearlessness. Even this is my settled conviction that those men who devote themselves to Mahadeva become certainly emancipated from rebirth. After this, Krishna again addressed Yudhishthira the son of Dharma in the following words.
[There is an erroneous notion among some sectarians that Shiva cannot grant mokṣa. This is dispelled by the above statement of Veda Vyasa through the words of Kṛṣṇa. ]
Veda Vyasa was not intolerant. He has given the status of Supreme Brahman to both Shiva and Narayana. He is the foremost Hari-Hara abheda vādin. http://sanskritdocuments.org/mirrors/mahabharata/unic/mbh12_sa.html

‘Rudro nārāyaṇaścaiva ekatattvam dvidhākṛtam…’ रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधाकृतम् |लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु ||२४|| [Rudra and Nārāyaṇa are one Principle appearing as two.]
In innumerable places in the Bhagavata and other puraṇas Veda Vyasa has brought out the trimūrti aikya too apart from Hari-Hara abheda. While he has said in the MB that Rudra and Brahma are expressions of Vishnu, he has also said that the trimurtis emanate from Shiva. In other puranas such as the Śiva and Liṅga, he has narrated the story of Brahma and Vishnu going in search of the Head and Feet of Shiva.
LiP, 1, 18
viṣṇur uvāca
ekākṣarāya rudrāya akārāyātmarūpiṇe
ukārāyādidevāya vidyādehāya vai namaḥ // LiP_1,18.1 //
tṛtīyāya makārāya śivāya paramātmane
sūryāgnisomavarṇāya yajamānāya vai namaḥ // LiP_1,18.2 //
agnaye rudrarūpāya rudrāṇāṃ pataye namaḥ
śivāya śivamantrāya sadyojātāya vedhase // LiP_1,18.3 //
vāmāya vāmadevāya varadāyāmṛtāya te
aghorāyātighorāya sadyojātāya raṃhase // LiP_1,18.4 //
īśānāya śmaśānāya ativegāya vegine
namo ‘stu śrutipādāya ūrdhvaliṅgāya liṅgine // LiP_1,18.5 //
hemaliṅgāya hemāya vāriliṅgāya cāṃbhase
śivāya śivaliṅgāya vyāpine vyomavyāpine // LiP_1,18.6 //
vāyave vāyuvegāya namaste vāyuvyāpine
tejase tejasāṃ bhartre namastejo ‘dhivyāpine // LiP_1,18.7 //
jalāya jalabhūtāya namaste jalavyāpine
pṛthivyai cāntarikṣāya pṛthivīvyāpine namaḥ // LiP_1,18.8 //
śabdasparśasvarūpāya rasagandhāya gandhine
gaṇādhipataye tubhyaṃ | guhyādguhyatamāya te // LiP_1,18.9 //
anantāya virūpāya anantānāmayāya ca
śāśvatāya variṣṭhāya | vārigarbhāya yogine // LiP_1,18.10 //
saṃsthitāyāmbhasāṃ madhye āvayormadhyavarcase
goptre hartre sadā kartre | nidhanāyeśvarāya ca // LiP_1,18.11 //
acetanāya cintyāya cetanāyāsahāriṇe
arūpāya surūpāya | anaṅgāyāṅgahāriṇe // LiP_1,18.12 //
bhasmadigdhaśarīrāya bhānusomāgnihetave
śvetāya śvetavarṇāya | tuhinādricarāya ca // LiP_1,18.13 //
suśvetāya suvaktrāya namaḥ śvetaśikhāya ca
śvetāsyāya mahāsyāya | namaste śvetalohita // LiP_1,18.14 //
sutārāya viśiṣṭāya namo dundubhine hara
śatarūpavirūpāya | namaḥ ketumate sadā // LiP_1,18.15 //
ṛddhiśokaviśokāya pinākāya kapardine
vipāśāya supāśāya | namaste pāśanāśine // LiP_1,18.16 //
suhotrāya haviṣyāya subrahmaṇyāya sūriṇe
sumukhāya suvaktrāya | durdamāya damāya ca // LiP_1,18.17 //
kaṅkāya kaṅkarūpāya kaṅkaṇīkṛtapannaga
sanakāya namastubhyaṃ | sanātana sanandana // LiP_1,18.18 //
sanatkumārasāraṅgam āraṇāya mahātmane
lokākṣiṇe tridhāmāya | namo virajase sadā // LiP_1,18.19 //
śaṅkhapālāya śaṅkhāya rajase tamase namaḥ
sārasvatāya meghāya | meghavāhana te namaḥ // LiP_1,18.20 //
suvāhāya vivāhāya vivādavaradāya ca
namaḥ śivāya rudrāya | pradhānāya namonamaḥ // LiP_1,18.21 //
triguṇāya namastubhyaṃ caturvyūhātmane namaḥ
saṃsārāya namastubhyaṃ | namaḥ saṃsārahetave // LiP_1,18.22 //
mokṣāya mokṣarūpāya mokṣakartre namonamaḥ
ātmane ṛṣaye tubhyaṃ | svāmine viṣṇave namaḥ // LiP_1,18.23 //
namo bhagavate tubhyaṃ nāgānāṃ pataye namaḥ
oṅkārāya namastubhyaṃ | sarvajñāya namo namaḥ // LiP_1,18.24 //
sarvāya ca namastubhyaṃ namo nārāyaṇāya ca
namo hiraṇyagarbhāya | ādidevāya te namaḥ // LiP_1,18.25 //
namo ‘stvajāya pataye prajānāṃ vyūhahetave
mahādevāya devānām | īśvarāya namo namaḥ // LiP_1,18.26 //
śarvāya ca namastubhyaṃ satyāya śamanāya ca
brahmaṇe caiva bhūtānāṃ | sarvajñāya namo namaḥ // LiP_1,18.27 //
mahātmane namastubhyaṃ prajñārūpāya vai namaḥ
citaye citirūpāya | smṛtirūpāya vai namaḥ // LiP_1,18.28 //
jñānāya jñānagamyāya namaste saṃvide sadā
śikharāya namastubhyaṃ | nīlakaṇṭhāya vai namaḥ // LiP_1,18.29 //
ardhanārīśarīrāya avyaktāya namonamaḥ
ekādaśavibhedāya | sthāṇave te namaḥ sadā // LiP_1,18.30 //
namaḥ somāya sūryāya bhavāya bhavahāriṇe
yaśaskarāya devāya | śaṅkarāyeśvarāya ca // LiP_1,18.31 //
namo ‘ṃbikādhipataye umāyāḥ pataye namaḥ
hiraṇyabāhave tubhyaṃ | namaste hemaretase // LiP_1,18.32 //
nīlakeśāya vittāya śitikaṇṭhāya vai namaḥ
kapardine namastubhyaṃ | nāgāṅgābharaṇāya ca // LiP_1,18.33 //
vṛṣārūḍhāya sarvasya hartre kartre namonamaḥ
vīrarāmātirāmāya | rāmanāthāya te vibho // LiP_1,18.34 //
namo rājādhirājāya rājñāmadhigatāya te
namaḥ pālādhipataye | pālāśākṛntate namaḥ // LiP_1,18.35 //
namaḥ keyūrabhūṣāya gopate te namonamaḥ
namaḥ śrīkaṇṭhanāthāya | namo likucapāṇaye // LiP_1,18.36 //
bhuvaneśāya devāya vedaśāstra namo ‘stu te
sāraṅgāya namastubhyaṃ | rājahaṃsāya te namaḥ // LiP_1,18.37 //
kanakāṅgadahārāya namaḥ sarpopavītine
sarpakuṇḍalamālāya | kaṭisūtrīkṛtāhine // LiP_1,18.38 //
vedagarbhāya garbhāya viśvagarbhāya te śiva

brahmovāca
virarāmeti saṃstutvā | brahmaṇā sahito hariḥ // LiP_1,18.39 //
etatstotravaraṃ puṇyaṃ sarvapāpapraṇāśanam
yaḥ paṭhecchrāvayedvāpi | brāhmaṇān vedapāragān // LiP_1,18.40 //
sa yāti brahmaṇo loke pāpakarmarato ‘pi vai
tasmājjapetpaṭhennityaṃ | śrāvayedbrāhmaṇāñchubhān // LiP_1,18.41 //
sarvapāpaviśuddhyarthaṃ viṣṇunā paribhāṣitam // LiP_1,18.42 //

A gist, not exact translation, of the above is:
The Linga
The sages said, “We know that a linga is Shiva’s image. But why is Shiva worshipped in the form of a linga?”
Lomaharshana recounted the following story.
Many years ago, at the end of a destruction, there was water everywhere in the universe and the universe was shrouded in darkness. Vishnu slept on the water in his form of Narayana.
Brahma discovered Vishnu sleeping thus and woke him up. Failing to recognize Vishnu, he asked, “Who are you and what are you doing here?”
Vishnu woke up and noticed Brahma standing there. He smiled and said, “How are you, Brahma? Is everything well with my son?’
“How dare you call me your son?’ demanded Brahma. “I am Brahma, the lord of everything. I am the creator of the universe. How dare anyone call me his son?”
“You seem to have forgotten everything,” said Vishnu. “I am Vishnu and you were born from me. That is the reason why I addressed you as my son.”
Brahma did not accept this and started to fight with Vishnu. While the two were thus grappling, a shining linga suddenly appeared. It was almost as if the linga had emerged to settle Brahma and Vishnu’s dispute. The linga rose way up into the sky and it seemed to have no beginning or end.
“What on earth is this pillar of fire doing here?” Vishnu asked Brahma. “Let us investigate it. Why don’t you go up and see where it ends? As for me, I shall proceed downwards. Let us meet after a while and compare notes.”
Brahma agreed to do this. He adopted the form of a swan and flew up. Vishnu adopted the form of a boar and went down. No matter how further down Vishnu went, he could find no end to the linga. Nor could Brahma discover its upper extremity.
They returned and were amazed to find that neither had been able to find the end of the linga. They realized that they must be in the presence of a power that was greater than their own. They therefore began to pray to the linga and the sound of the mantra (incantation) om echoed all around the linga. Shiva appeared from within the linga in the form of a sage named Vedanama. He told them that it was the linga which was the origin of the universe. It was from the linga that the primordial egg (anda), the origin of the universe, had been created.

//As per the sixth chapter titled Liṅgapratiṣṭhāvarṇanam of the Kedārakhaṇḍa within the Māheśvarakhaṇḍa of Skandapurāṇa, the Ketakī flower gave a false testimony that Brahmā had seen the top of the cosmic and ever-expanding Liṅga. As a result Śiva cursed the flower that it will never be used in the worship of Śiva.//

The verse describing the curse is (Sk.Pu. 1.1.6.63)

सुगन्धकेतकी चापि अयोग्या त्वं शिवार्चने।
भविष्यसि न सन्देहो अनृता चैव भामिनी॥

There are accounts in the Devī Bhāgavata and the Śiva Purāṇa also.//

//In the Devī Bhāgavata, the account occurs in the thirty-third Adhyāya of the fifth Skandha. The curse of Śiva is described in the verses (DB 5.33.44-47)//

तदाकर्ण्य हरेर्वाक्यं महादेवः सनातनः॥ कुपितः केतकीं प्राह मिथ्यावादिनि मा वद। गच्छतो मध्यतः प्राप्ता पतिता मस्तकान्मम॥ मिथ्याभिभाषिणी त्यक्ता मया त्वं सर्वदैव हि। ब्रह्मा लज्जापरो भूत्वा ननाम मधुसूदनम्॥ शिवेन केतकी त्यक्ता तद्दिनात्कुसुमेषु वै।

Translation by Svāmī Vijñānānanda under http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk05ch33.htm
//32-39. The Risi said :– O King! Hearing thus the divine word, both of them became ready and began energetically to measure the length of the wonderful Lingam that stood in front of them. Visnu went down to Pâtâla and Brahmâ went up to Âkâs’a to measure the Lingam and thus to ascertain their superiority. Going down some distance Visnu got tired and doing his best, when he could not find out the end of the Lingam, he returned and remained at the desired meeting place. On the other hand, Brahmâ was ascending to the skies when he got one Ketakî flower dropping from the head of the Lingam. He became over glad and returned also to the desired meeting place. Brahmâ became very much elated with vanity and when he returned, he at once showed that flower to Visnu and spoke thus the false words :– “O Visnu! This Ketakî flower has been obtained from the head of the Lingam. I have brought this to you simply that you would recognise it and be convinced in your heart.” Hearing these words of Brahmâ, Visnu saw the Ketakî flower and said :– “O Brahmâ! Who is your witness in this matter? He whose words are true, who is equal to all, who is intelligent, pure, and always of good conduct, he can be the witness in such matters of dispute.”//

The eternal Mahâ Deva, hearing the words of Visnu, spoke thus to Ketakî with great anger, “O Liar! Do not utter such false words; You dropped down from My head and Brahmâ while ascending up, picked you up on the way. Now as you have told a lie, I will never take you; you are henceforth forsaken by Me.” Brahmâ was then very much put to shame; he bowed down to Visnu; Mahâ Deva, forsook the Ketakî flower from that date.

English translation of the whole chapter can be read under the above link.
A Mahatmā is the one who unifies the various beliefs/followings. Veda Vyasa was the pioneer in that. He explicitly denounced the differentiation/fight over the supremacy of Hari or Hara:
Veda Vyasa says in the Sūtasamhitā 4 yajñavaibhavakhaṇḍa, sūtagītā 2nd chapter:
http://www.transliteral.org/pages/z140113230508/view
अस्ति रुद्रस्य विप्रेन्द्रा अन्तःसत्त्वं बहिस्तमः
विष्णोरन्तस्तमः सत्त्वं बहिरस्ति रजोगुणः
अन्तर्बहिश्च विप्रेन्द्रा अस्ति तस्य प्रजापतेः
अतोऽपेक्ष्य गुणं सत्त्वं मनुष्या विवदन्ति च
हरिः श्रेष्ठो हरः श्रेष्ठ इत्यहो मोहवैभवम्
सत्त्वाभावात्प्रजानाथं वरिष्ठं नैव मन्वते (40 -42)
The above cited last verse says: On the basis of ‘sattva’ deluded people dispute whether Hari or Hara that is superior. Alas! What a play of delusion!! Exclaims Veda Vyasa. Sridhara Swamin says at the end of that set of verses/commentary:
तत्तद्भक्तानां तु कलहो मोहमात्रम् इति (Bhāgavatam 10.88.5-7)
[‘the disputes between the devotees of trimurtis, however, is mere delusion.] And Vamśīdhara, another commentator to the Śrīmadbhāgavatam who elucidates Śrīdhara Swamin too, explains this line as: since there is none that is lesser among the three, the disputes among their bhaktas in the form of: one is superior and the other is inferior – is just ignorance, ajñānam.
amakrishna Paramahamsa: Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: p.165 : //There was fighting even between Shiva and Rama. Shiva was Rama’s spiritual Guru. After a little fighting, they made it up and became once more as good friends as ever. But the fighting went on among their followers. The gibbering of the ghosts and the chattering of the monkeys could not so easily be quieted down.//

//How wonderful is its power! It entangles even a Divine Incarnation and makes Him Delusive pow- suffer from hunger, thirst, sorrow, power of Maya, misery, like an ordinary mortal. Do you not see how Rama, the Divine Incarnation, suffered for Sita? How with great sorrow, He wept bitterly when Sita was stolen away from Him ? In the Hindu mythology there is a story that Vishnu incarnated in the form of a boar to
Vishnu. He did not care to return to his Heaven, “He wanted to live as a boar. He had some little ones and He was happy with them. The Devas of the heaven thought: “How is it that our Lord does not comeback? What has happened ?” Then they went to Shiva and asked Him to persuade Vishnu to return to His heaven. Shiva came and entreated Him, but He was taking care of His young ones and paid no heed. Then Shiva tore open His body with His triad and freed Him from His self-delusion. Vishnu then laughed and returned to His heavenly abode. Such is the power of Maya! To go beyond its realm and rise above the Gunas (qualities) is extremely difficult. He who has attained to God has transcended Maya with its qualities. p.260//
Shankaracharya says in his ‘māyāpañcakam’:
http://athma-spiritualbliss.blogspot.in/2012/08/maya-panchakam-of-shankaracharya.html
Vidhi-hari-hara-vibhedhamapyakhande,
Batha virachayya budhānapi prakāmam,
Bhramayati hari-hara-bhedha-bhavā,
Nagaṭhitaghaṭanāpaṭīyasī māyā. 5
5. Alas! Maya, which is adept at making the impossible happen, creates in Brahman which is homogeneous, without any parts, distinctions such as Brahma, Vishnu and Siva and thereby perplexes even the learned by making them look upon Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva as different from one another.

Thus it is clear that it is out of delusion that people think Hari-Hara bheda is absolute.

Vamśīdhara, commenting on the Srimadbhāgavatam says that all acts of Vishnu involving slaying the wicked has a Shiva-amśa in it since it is done in krodha:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/y8xxoaenccaw5gv/Vamshidhara+1.2.23.docx
In the above document the author has given innumerable references from the shruti, smrti, bhāgavatam and other puranas to establish that One Brahman alone, with a view to engage in the creation, sustenance and dissolution takes up the form of Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra. These three deities represent rajas, sattva and tamas. The author hastens to add that the very mention of tamas should not remind the reader of sloth, sleep, etc. that are the effects of tamas. The tamas mentioned here is the power that is essential to the work of destruction. Hence, the author says, even in the widely-admitted Viṣṇu acts of slaying of the wicked and establishing order, the slaying aspect is done not without the role of Rudra and only the establishing order is that of Viṣṇu. Hence, as taught in the Bhāgavatam Dakṣa yajna episode by Bhagavan that the knowledge of the oneness of the three: Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra, alone is conducive to mokṣa, peace. And therefore the difference between the three is mere ignorance.

Shankara Bhagavatpāda too, in the footsteps of Veda Vyasa, never encouraged sectarianism. For him Hari and Hara were one and the same: In his Viṣṇu sahasranāma bhāṣya Shankara says:

While commenting on the name ‘Śiva’ occurring as the 27th name in the Viṣṇu sahasra nāma (VS), Sri Shankaracharya says: निस्त्रैगुण्यतया शुद्धत्वात् शिवः ‘स ब्रह्मा स शिवः..’ (कै.उ.८) इत्यभेदोपदेशात् शिवादिनामभिः हरिरेव स्तूयते । [being free of the three guṇas (sattva, etc.), He is Śiva. Since the Kaivalyopaniṣat instructs that He is non-different from Brahmā, Śiva…’ by the names Śiva, etc. Hari Himself is praised.
Shankara says for the name ‘bhūtakṛt’ (5th name), तमोगुणमास्थाय स रुद्रात्मना भूतानि कृन्तति कृणोति हिनस्तीति भूतकृत् [(Viśṇu) as Rudra, assuming Tamoguṇa, destroys all beings. Hence He is called ‘bhūtakṛt’.]
Shankara does not speak of a ‘separate’ Shiva/Rudra here; he makes it clear that the Vishnu about whom he is commenting in the VS, is assuming tamoguṇa to destroy the world. The word kṛntati, hinasti, show the cruelty involved in the act of killing/destroying. None can wish away these natural emotions manifesting when one engages in slaying the opponent.
For the name ‘Rudra’ (114) of the VS, Shankara cites the following Shivapurana verse:
रुद्दुःखं दुःखहेतुर्वा तद्रावयति नः प्रभुः ॥ रुद्र इत्युच्यते सद्भिः शिवः परमकारणम् ॥ 6.9.14 to say that Shiva is the Supreme Cause of the creation.

From MB Drona parva:
http://sanskritdocuments.org/mirrors/mahabharata/unic/mbh07_sa.html
Also available in:
http://bombay.indology.info/mahabharata/text/UD/MBh07.txt
The translations given below are not very perfect; they are only indicative. One may read the available translations from the appropriate source.
व्यास उवाच||

महान्तमेतमर्थं मां यं त्वं पृच्छसि विस्मयात् |
तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि ते सर्वं समाधाय मनः शृणु ||५०||

[Ashvathāma had asked Vyasa: ‘Why, with what power, did the Āgneya astra go in vain?’ To this Vyāsa replied: I shall reply this great question of yours.]

योऽसौ नारायणो नाम पूर्वेषामपि पूर्वजः |
अजायत च कार्यार्थं पुत्रो धर्मस्य विश्वकृत् ||५१||
[This Nārāyaṇa is born before all. He was born for a particular purpose as son of Dharma, the Viśvakṛt]

स तपस्तीव्रमातस्थे मैनाकं गिरिमास्थितः |
ऊर्ध्वबाहुर्महातेजा ज्वलनादित्यसंनिभः ||५२||
[He engaged in severe penance on the Maināka mountain. He held up his hands.]

षष्टिं वर्षसहस्राणि तावन्त्येव शतानि च |
अशोषयत्तदात्मानं वायुभक्षोऽम्बुजेक्षणः ||५३||
[For sixty thousand years and hundreds by surviving on air]
अथापरं तपस्तप्त्वा द्विस्ततोऽन्यत्पुनर्महत् |
द्यावापृथिव्योर्विवरं तेजसा समपूरयत् ||५४||
स तेन तपसा तात ब्रह्मभूतो यदाभवत् |
ततो विश्वेश्वरं योनिं विश्वस्य जगतः पतिम् ||५५||
ददर्श भृशदुर्दर्शं सर्वदेवैरपीश्वरम् |
अणीयसामणीयांसं बृहद्भ्यश्च बृहत्तरम् ||५६||
[As a result of such severe penance Nārāyaṇa beheld that being most difficult to be seen, who is smaller/subtler than the subtlest and greater than the great.]

रुद्रमीशानमृषभं चेकितानमजं परम् |
गच्छतस्तिष्ठतो वापि सर्वभूतहृदि स्थितम् ||५७||

[That is Rudra, the Lord who dwells in everyone’s heart. One is reminded of the BG 18.xx ‘Īśvaraḥ sarvabhūtānām..’ verse]

दुर्वारणं दुर्दृशं तिग्ममन्युं; महात्मानं सर्वहरं प्रचेतसम् |
दिव्यं चापमिषुधी चाददानं; हिरण्यवर्माणमनन्तवीर्यम् ||५८||

[Rudra’s great prowess is stated here]

पिनाकिनं वज्रिणं दीप्तशूलं; परश्वधिं गदिनं स्वायतासिम् |
सुभ्रुं जटामण्डलचन्द्रमौलिं; व्याघ्राजिनं परिघं दण्डपाणिम् ||५९||

शुभाङ्गदं नागयज्ञोपवीतिं; विश्वैर्गणैः शोभितं भूतसङ्घैः |
एकीभूतं तपसां संनिधानं; वयोतिगैः सुष्टुतमिष्टवाग्भिः ||६०||

जलं दिवं खं क्षितिं चन्द्रसूर्यौ; तथा वाय्वग्नी प्रतिमानं जगच्च |
नालं द्रष्टुं यमजं भिन्नवृत्ता; ब्रह्मद्विषघ्नममृतस्य योनिम् ||६१||

यं पश्यन्ति ब्राह्मणाः साधुवृत्ताः; क्षीणे पापे मनसा ये विशोकाः |
स तन्निष्ठस्तपसा धर्ममीड्यं; तद्भक्त्या वै विश्वरूपं ददर्श ||६२||

दृष्ट्वा चैनं वाङ्मनोबुद्धिदेहैः; संहृष्टात्मा मुमुदे देवदेवम् ||६२||

अक्षमालापरिक्षिप्तं ज्योतिषां परमं निधिम् |
ततो नारायणो दृष्ट्वा ववन्दे विश्वसम्भवम् ||६३||

वरदं पृथुचार्वङ्ग्या पार्वत्या सहितं प्रभुम् |
अजमीशानमव्यग्रं कारणात्मानमच्युतम् ||६४||

[Beholding the Rudra, the Viśvarūpa, Nārāyaṇa, bowed to Him. He appeared with His consort Pārvatī. He is the Cause. One is reminded of the Atharvaśikhopaniṣad where Shambhu is taught as the Jagatkāraṇam from whom Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra emerged.]

अभिवाद्याथ रुद्राय सद्योऽन्धकनिपातिने |
पद्माक्षस्तं विरूपाक्षमभितुष्टाव भक्तिमान् ||६५||

[The lotus-eyed one, Hari, bowed respectfully the odd-formed-eyed Hara.]

त्वत्सम्भूता भूतकृतो वरेण्य; गोप्तारोऽद्य भुवनं पूर्वदेवाः |
आविश्येमां धरणीं येऽभ्यरक्षपुराणां तव देव सृष्टिम् ||६६||

सुरासुरान्नागरक्षःपिशाचान्नरान्सुपर्णानथ गन्धर्वयक्षान् |
पृथग्विधान्भूतसङ्घांश्च विश्वांस्त्वत्सम्भूतान्विद्म सर्वांस्तथैव ||६७||

[The entire variegated creation has sprung from You, O Rudra]

ऐन्द्रं याम्यं वारुणं वैत्तपाल्यं; मैत्रं त्वाष्ट्रं कर्म सौम्यं च तुभ्यम् ||६७||

रूपं ज्योतिः शब्द आकाशवायुः; स्पर्शः स्वाद्यं सलिलं गन्ध उर्वी |
कामो ब्रह्मा ब्रह्म च ब्राह्मणाश्च; त्वत्सम्भूतं स्थास्नु चरिष्णु चेदम् ||६८||

अद्भ्यः स्तोका यान्ति यथा पृथक्त्वंताभिश्चैक्यं सङ्क्षये यान्ति भूयः |
एवं विद्वान्प्रभवं चाप्ययं च; हित्वा भूतानां तत्र सायुज्यमेति ||६९||

दिव्यावृतौ मानसौ द्वौ सुपर्णा; ववाक्षाखः पिप्पलः सप्त गोपाः |
दशाप्यन्ये ये पुरं धारयन्ति; त्वया सृष्टास्ते हि तेभ्यः परस्त्वम् ||७०||

भूतं भव्यं भविता चाप्यधृष्यं; त्वत्सम्भूता भुवनानीह विश्वा ||७०||

भक्तं च मां भजमानं भजस्व; मा रीरिषो मामहिताहितेन |
आत्मानं त्वामात्मनोऽनन्यभावो; विद्वानेवं गच्छति ब्रह्म शुक्रम् ||७१||

अस्तौषं त्वां तव संमानमिच्छ; न्विचिन्वन्वै सवृषं देववर्य |
सुदुर्लभान्देहि वरान्ममेष्टानभिष्टुतः प्रतिकार्षीश्च मा माम् ||७२||

[Grant me boons that are dear to my heart – so asked Hari of Hara]

तस्मै वरानचिन्त्यात्मा नीलकण्ठः पिनाकधृक् |
अर्हते देवमुख्याय प्रायच्छदृषिसंस्तुतः ||७३||

[Nīlakanṭha obliged Nārāyaṇa with the boons]

नीलकण्ठ उवाच||

मत्प्रसादान्मनुष्येषु देवगन्धर्वयोनिषु |
अप्रमेयबलात्मा त्वं नारायण भविष्यसि ||७४||

[[Nīlakanṭha said: By My grace, you Nārāyaṇa, will be of unequalled strength among humans, gods and other divine beings.]

न च त्वा प्रसहिष्यन्ति देवासुरमहोरगाः |
न पिशाचा न गन्धर्वा न नरा न च राक्षसाः ||७५||

न सुपर्णास्तथा नागा न च विश्वे वियोनिजाः |
न कश्चित्त्वां च देवोऽपि समरेषु विजेष्यति ||७६||

न शस्त्रेण न वज्रेण नाग्निना न च वायुना |
नार्द्रेण न च शुष्केण त्रसेन स्थावरेण वा ||७७||

कश्चित्तव रुजं कर्ता मत्प्रसादात्कथञ्चन |
अपि चेत्समरं गत्वा भविष्यसि ममाधिकः ||७८||

[Due to My grace, You, Nārāyaṇa, will not be harmed/killed by any of the beings or weapons of this creation. Also in the event of your entering a battle, you will be more powerful than Me, Rudra.]
व्यास उवाच||

एवमेते वरा लब्धाः पुरस्ताद्विद्धि शौरिणा |
स एष देवश्चरति मायया मोहयञ्जगत् ||७९||

Vyāsa concluded his reply to Ashwatthāma’s question: These boons were secured by Shourie (Hari) (from Rudra). Hari, wanders this earth deluding beings with Māyā. ]

तस्यैव तपसा जातं नरं नाम महामुनिम् |
तुल्यमेतेन देवेन तं जानीह्यर्जुनं सदा ||८०||

[Of His (Nārāyaṇa’s) penance has Arjuna, the Nara, been born. Arjuna is equal to Nārāyana. Thus Vyāsa answered Ashvatthāma’s question on how/why indeed Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna remained unaffected by the Āgneya missile that was released against them.]

The above episode of the MB is also reflected in the Harivamśa:
http://www.mahapashupatastra.com/2011/12/top-n-reasons-to-call-bhagawatam-bogus.html
“yathA mainAkamAshritya tapastvamakaroH prabho |
tathA mama varaM kR^iShNa saMsmR^itya sthairyamApnuhi |
avadhyastvamajeyashcha mattaH shUratarastathA |
bhavitAsItyavochaM yattattathA na tadanyathA |” (Harivamsa Purana 2:74:37-38)

“O kRiShNa! As you did penance staying on mainAka, you received a boon from me. Be firm in your mind, remembering that boon. You can not be killed, you can not be conquered, and you will be more valiant than me. All this will happen as told by me. None will be able to change this”.
It is because of this that wherever there is a ‘fight’ reported between Rudra and Nārāyaṇa, in the MB or the Vālmiki Rāmāyaṇa or anywhere else, where Nārāyāna is invariably the winner. This is the boon granted by Shiva to Nārāyaṇa: you will be more valiant than me.
Obfuscating this fact, the bigoted ones try to show Śiva as someone inferior who is subdued by Nārāyaṇa.
Here is a comment by a blogger:
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2015/02/we-have-noticed-that-our-poor-comrade.html?showComment=1430147511845#c6988428377073593775
//That Appayya was under severe attack can be seen in his own works where he frequently contradicts himself – in one place, he says Sri Rama was suffering the effects of karma, while in another place, he negates it by saying Rama is verily Parabrahman. In one place, he says the Ganga from Shiva’s hair is different from the one emerging from Trivikrama’s foot – the former being “pure” Ganga and latter being “impure” (shows his hatred for Vishnu here) – but contradicts it elsewhere by saying Ganga on Shiva’s head comes from Vishnu’s feet.

He also contradicts himself philosophically – at times arguing for a “sadA shiva” above nArAyaNa by arguing that it is “nArAyaNAt param brahma” in the nArAyaNa sUkta, at times equating nArAyaNa to shiva and declaring nArAyaNa is Parabrahman, at times saying Uma and Vishnu are “shaktis” of Shiva, etc. This shows his utter inability to prove shiva paratva in any manner whatsover.//
Response to the above:
It can easily be appreciated that the ‘objections’, if that is what they are, stated above, actually apply to Veda Vyāsa rather than Appayya Dikṣita. As someone who is not a bigot, Veda Vyasa has portrayed both Śiva and Nārayana as the Supreme. In the Vālmiki Ramayana itself we see a set of verses where Rama laments on his misfortunes, blaming his past karma. We also see Rama being spoken of as the Supreme in that text itself.
Aranya Kandam sarga 63:
स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः।
उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।
विपुले शोके in intense grief, निमग्नः plunged, सः that, रामः Rama, सशोकम् with sorrow, रुदन् crying, शोकवशाभिपन्नम् who was caught in sorrow, लक्ष्मणम् Lakshmana, उष्णम् hot, विनिश्वस्य sighing, व्यसनानुरूपम् in his grief, वाक्यम् these words, उवाच said.
Plunged in deep grief, Rama heaved hot sighs and said these words to griefstricken Lakshmana, weeping:
न मद्विधो दुष्कृतकर्मकारी मन्ये द्वितीयोऽस्ति वसुन्धरायाम्।
शोकेन शोको हि परम्पराया मा मेति भिन्दन्हृदयं मनश्च।।3.63.3।।
I think there is none on earth like me who has performed such forbidden acts. One grief after the other is successively piercing my heart and my mind.
पूर्वं मया नूनमभीप्सितानि पापानि कर्माण्यसकृत्कृतानि।
तत्रायमद्यापतितो विपाको दुःखेन दुःखं यदहं विशामि।।3.63.4।।
In the past I had certainly done some sinful deeds I often liked the consequences of which have descended on me now as I am experiencing one sorrow after another. [Here is where the ‘anapahatapāpmatvam’ (lack of freedom from sins) of Rāma is brought out by Himself. The blogger’s tirade on Shiva in the śatapathabrāhmaṇa is replayed, and returned with compliments by Vālmiki, with some changes though, in this episode of the Rāmāyaṇa.]

राज्यप्रणाशस्स्वजनैर्वियोगः पितुर्विनाशो जननीवियोगः।
सर्वाणि मे लक्ष्मण शोकवेगमापूरयन्ति प्रविचिन्तितानि।।3.63.5।।
O Lakshmana, loss of kingdom, separation from kith and kin, death of father, separation from mother–all these thoughts augment my sorrow faster and in greater measure.

It is only those who are bigoted that cannot rise to the heights of Veda Vyasa and Appayya Dikshita by not subscribing to the often-paraded bigoted view: Hari alone is the Supreme.
The above blogger’s remark that Appayya did not succeed in proving Shiva-paratva also is misguided. Appayya has very clearly stated why he undertook the task of bringing to light Shiva-supremacy:
// viShNurvA shankaro vA shruti-shikhara-girAmastu tAtparya-bhUmiH
na-asmAkam tatra vAdaH prasarati kimapi spaShTam-advaita-bhAjAm |
kintu-Isha-dveSha-gADhAnala-kalita-hRRidAm durmatInAm duruktIH
bhanktum yatno mama-ayam nahi bhavatu tato viShNu-vidveSha-shankAm ||

The meaning of the above beautiful verse is:

‘I have not the slightest objection, to anyone coming to any conclusion, that the spirit of the Vedas and the Vedantas, declare either Vishnu or Shiva as the First God. I am a follower of the Advaita doctrine. I have no difference between Shiva and VishNu. But if in order to establish Vishnu as the main God, if somebody starts abusing Shiva or hates him, I cannot bear it. There are as many proofs or pramanas in the Vedas, Vedantas, Puranas and Agamas to establish that Shiva is a mighty God, as there are to prove that Vishnu is a powerful one. However, I am propagating my religion and indulging in debate and disputation, only to persuade everyone not to hate Shiva. Let no one have the slightest doubt that I either hate or wish to denigrate Lord Vishnu simply because I praise the grace and greatness of Lord Shiva.’
The sublime devotion of Dikshita to Lord Vishnu is fully seen from his great work ‘Varadaraja stava’ where he has sung in ecstatic poetry about Lord Varadaraja of Kanchipuram. Vaishnavas declare that Vishnu is the supreme being and that Shiva has a lower status, being a mere jiva. Sri Dikshita however proves in his ‘Ratna-traya-parIkShA’ that Shiva, Vishnu, Ambika, all the three are the same, viz., the supreme reality, and proves it with the pramanas taken from the puranas, vedas and agamas. //
The above is quoted from the book: ‘Sri Appayya Dikshita’ (p.66,67) by Dr.N.Ramesan, IAS.
At the beginning of his ‘brahmatarka stava’ too Appayya Dikṣita clarifies: तत्र साधकोपन्यासेन बाधकोद्धारेण च प्रतिपादनीयः । [It is incumbent upon me to establish the Shiva-supremacy by both supporting evidence and also negating/refuting those views that deny supremacy to Shiva.] He has also dwelt upon the topic of some misguided elements portraying Shiva as a tāmasa deity by analyzing the meaning/purport of the tamoguṇa that is associated with the cosmic destruction-function of the creation.
The blogger says: // This shows his utter inability to prove shiva paratva in any manner whatsoever.//
Again, the purpose with which Appayya Dikṣita ventured into this endeavor is missed by the blogger. It is not with a view to establish ‘Shiva-alone-is supreme’. His intention, as stated by himself in the above-cited verse, is to show that the scriptures afford enough support to both Shiva and Vishnu supremacy. This is exactly what Veda Vyasa also has done through his various works. In fact it was the non-Advaitic Acharyas that came after Shankaracharya that utterly failed in their efforts to establish the bigoted Vishnu-alone-supreme doctrine. This is proved by the fact that the largest following among vaidikas, the smarthas, have never subscribed to such bigoted views. Their Hari-Hara abheda acceptance is reflected amply in their culture, daily worship, temple association, maṭha affiliations, giving both Shiva and Vishnu names to children, etc. The bigoted view is confined to a separate section of the vaidikas and not by the smartha community that is inclusive in its character. For the vaishnavas giving Shiva-related names to children is reprehensible. So, the failure is only of those who tried to push the Vishnu alone is supreme ideas into society, resulting in the dividing of the vaidika community on sectarian lines. Their achievement is only this, by doing that which is antithetical to what Veda Vyasa and Shankara did.
Appayya Dikshita in the Brahmatarka stave has also eminently established that the entire Vishvarupa darshana (not just the destruction-related part) had by Arjuna as depicted in the Bhagavadgita, is that of Lord Shiva alone. One can read those portions from the work which has ample supporting evidences given by the author himself. He has analyzed the tamas attributed to Shiva and proved with innumerous citations from the Ramayana, Mahabharata, etc. that Rama and Krishna/Vishnu were subject to sloth, wrath, etc. Dikshita has also proved in that work that there is not a single instance of Shiva being born of a womb or disappearing/dying whereas Rama and Krishna/Vishnu have undergone womb-stay before birth and also disappeared/died. However, Appayya never shows Rama or Krishna or Vishnu in a negative way; he hastens to add that they were none other than the Supreme Brahman, ever omniscient, etc. That is what sets apart Appayya Dikshita from all others who only ended up painting Shiva in poor light in their bigotry to parade Vishnu as the only-supreme. Thus, contrary to the blogger’s erroneous assessment, Appayya Dikṣita’s efforts have met tremendous success in that the time-immemorial Hari-Hara abheda of the Veda, MB, puranas, etc. have been given a further boost, a rejuvenation, a greater strength, for the non-vaiṣṇava vaidikas.
Madhusudana Saraswati too, in that tradition of Veda Vyasa, has only upheld Hari-Hara abheda. He has written a detailed commentary to the Shiva mahimna stava where twin-commentary to verses are given, one for Shiva and another for Vishnu. At the end of the commentary he explicitly says that he has with great pains done this kind of a commentary only to convey the message to those deluded people that there is absolutely no difference between Hari and Hara, an undeniable feature repeatedly coming from the words of Veda Vyasa. Narayana himself, in the MB tells Shiva: There is absolutely no difference between us.
Thus, it can be easily seen that it is the illustrious Advaita tradition alone, starting from Shankaracharya (whose very name, as reiterated by Sureshwaracharya, is that of Shiva, which name the bigoted elements would not even like to take or give to their children), Vidyaranya, Madhusudana Saraswati, Appayya Dikṣita right up to the Acharyas of the smartha following, both pontiff and scholar, have upheld and nurtured, protected and handed down to the subsequent generations the Hari-Hara abheda enshrined in the Veda, brought out ably by Veda Vyāsa. None other than the Advaita tradition can truly claim to be part of this Veda Vyāsa tradition.
For more details on the several concepts covered above one can read the following articles:  (all these articles are available in the ‘archives’ of this blog: adbhutam.  By suitably navigating or by copying the article name to the browser and giving a search, it will show up:
The Role of Lord Śiva in the Bh.Gītā 11th Chapter
‘KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE’
SHANKARACHARYA WAS NOT A VAISHNAVA
ŚRĪDHARA SWĀMIN MISREPRESENTED
THE ‘KEŚĪ SŪKTAM’ COMMENTARY – A TRAVESTY OF VEDĀNTA
AN ETYMOLOGY FOR THE NAME ‘RUDRA’?
AN ETYMOLOGY FOR ‘RUDRA’? – 2
TRIMURTI AIKYA – THE FEMININE VERSION
WAS MADHUSŪDANA SARASWATI A BIGOT?
TURIYA SHIVA OF THE KAIVALYOPANISHAT
MADHUSUDANA SARASWATI MISREPRESENTED
’Tad-viṣṇoḥ paramam padam’
SHIVA-VISHNU ABHEDA IN THE KAIVALYOPANISHAT
WHO IS THE ‘UTTAMA PURUṢA’ ?
The ‘Bhāratamanjari’ of Kshemendra
THE ANDHRA MAHA BHARATAMU – A SHORT STUDY
MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SHIVA
All the above articles bring out the true tradition initiated by the Veda and Veda Vyasa.
Om Tat Sat

Knowing Brahman Completely

The purpose of the delineation of Brahman in the śāstra is to enable the aspirant to get the direct knowledge thereof.  It is not that the scripture wants the aspirant to get a partial knowledge of Brahman for it is an impossibility and also absurd for there are no parts in Brahman.  Qualitatively too it is impossible to know Brahman in some less or more measure for such concepts are all alien to Vedanta.

There are attributes to Brahman mentioned in the scripture and these are grouped under the name ‘vibhūti-s’, manifestations of Brahman available for experiencing in the world, here or hereafter.  But then there is also the statement that there are no limits to such manifestations and that makes the attributed/vibhūti endowed Brahman not a candidate of being the content of the liberating knowledge, which demands ‘complete’ knowledge of Brahman.  Thus, it makes the attributeless Brahman, that is, Brahman without any vibhuti-s, alone to be the crucial content of the liberating knowledge.  The following is a compilation of a sample of statements from the śāstra in support of the above.

1. In the Puruśa sūktam we have: The first few statements mentioning the manifestation: http://www.greenmesg.org/mantras_slokas/vedas-purusha_suktam.php

सहस्रशीर्षा पुरुषः सहस्राक्षः सहस्रपात् ।
स भूमिं विश्वतो वृत्वात्यतिष्ठद्दशाङुलम् ॥१॥
Sahasra-Shiirssaa Purussah Sahasra-Akssah Sahasra-Paat |
Sa Bhuumim Vishvato Vrtva-Atya[i]-Tisstthad-Dasha-Angulam ||1||

Meaning:
1.1: The Purusha (The Universal Being) has Thousand Heads, Thousand Eyes and Thousand Feet (Thousand signifies innumerable which points to the omnipresence of the Universal Being),
1.2: He envelops the World from all sides (i.e. He pervades each part of the Creation), and extends beyond in the TenDirections ( represented by Ten Fingers ), पुरुष एवेदं सर्वं यद्भूतं यच्च भव्यम् ।
उतामृतत्वस्येशानो यदन्नेनातिरोहति ॥२॥
Purussa Evedam Sarvam Yad-Bhuutam Yacca Bhavyam |
Uta-Amrtatvasye[a-I]shaano Yad-Annena-Ati-Rohati ||2||

Meaning:
2.1: The Purusha is indeed All this (Creation) in essence; That which existed in the Past, and that which will exist in theFuture,
2.2: Everything (i.e the whole Creation) is woven by the Immortal essence of the Great Lord (Purusha); by becoming Foodof which (i.e. by getting consumed in Whose Immortal essence through surrender) one transcends the gross world (and becomes Immortal). एतावानस्य महिमातो ज्यायाँश्च पूरुषः ।

एतावानस्य महिमातो ज्यायाँश्च पूरुषः । पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि ॥३॥
Etaavaanasya Mahima-Ato Jyaayaash-Ca Puurussah |
Paado-Asya Vishvaa Bhuutaani Tri-Paad-Asya-Amrtam Divi ||3||

Meaning:
3.1: The Purusha is Greater than all the Greatness (which can be expressed by words),
3.2: His One Foot has become all these (visible) Worlds, and His Three Feet rests in the Immortal World of theTranscendence. त्रिपादूर्ध्व उदैत्पूरुषः पादोऽस्येहाभवत्पुनः ।
ततो विष्वङ् व्यक्रामत्साशनानशने अभि ॥४॥
Tri-Paad-Uurdhva Udait-Puurussah Paado-Asye[a-I]ha-Abhavat-Punah |
Tato Vissvang Vya[i-A]kraamat-Saashana-Anashane Abhi ||4||

Meaning:
4.1: The Three Feet of the Purusha is raised high Above (in Transcendental Realm), and His One Foot becomes the Creation again and again.
4.2: There, in the Creation, He pervades all the Living ( who eats ) and the Non-Living ( who does not eat ) beings.

Up to the ‘Etāvānasya mahimā’ is the description of the vibhūti.  Immediately after that the veda says: ‘ato jyāyānścha pūruṣaḥ’ (highlighted in blue) [The Puruṣa, Brahman, is greater than the vibhūti, transcends the vibhūti. ]  And goes to explain how the Puruṣa is pervading the creation and yet transcends it.  Sāyanācārya comments:

The world of the past, present and the future is entirely the glory, mahimā, of the Puruśa, His own splendor and not His true nature.  The true Puruṣa is ‘greater’ than this mahimā.  The entire creation is His one quarter and the three quarters are what He transcendentally is.

This very sūkta says later: It is that transcendental Puruṣa that is stated to be the subject matter, content, of the realization: वेदाहमेतं पुरुषं महान्तम्, आदित्यवर्णं तमसः परस्तात्….

Verse XVI:

I know that great Purusha, lustrous as the Sun beyond darkness. The Wise One, having made all the forms appear, gave them names, and uttered these as they were.

Verse XVII:

One who knows Him whom Dhata (Creator) first revealed, and so did Sakra (Indra) who fully knew the four quarters, becomes immortal here. There is no other way.

The ‘darkness’ mentioned above is the entire causal ignorance and the world that is its effect.  In the Bh.Gitā 9.33 the Lord has said:

अनित्यम्-असुखं लोकमिमं प्राप्य भजस्व माम्
anityam-asukhaM lokamimaM praapya bhajasva maam.h
## Having come to this ephemeral and miserable world, you do worship Me.##

Surely this is not the svarūpa of the Puruṣa and hence the correct way of understanding the true nature of the Puruṣa is as what is stated in the foregoing with the Puruṣa sūktam teaching.

2. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka upaniṣat says:

1.4.7  अकृत्स्नो हि स प्राणन्नेव प्राणो नाम भवति । वदन्वाक्पश्यंश्चक्षुः शृण्वञ्श्रोत्रं मन्वानो मनस्तान्यस्यैतानि कर्मनामान्येव । स योऽत एकैकमुपास्ते न स वेदाकृत्स्नो ह्येषोऽत एकैकेन भवत्यात्मेत्येवोपासीतात्र ह्येते सर्व एकं भवन्ति । तदेतत्पदनीयमस्य सर्वस्य यदयमात्मानेन ह्येतत्सर्वं वेद ।  [ People do not see the Self,  for when viewed in parts It is incomplete: It is  called the vital breath (prana); when speaking, the organ of  speech; when seeing, the eye; when hearing, the ear; when  thinking, the mind. These are merely Its names according to Its  functions. He who meditates on one or another of Its aspects does not know, for It is then incomplete: the Self is separated from Its totality by being associated with a single characteristic.  The Self alone is to be meditated upon, for in It all these  become unified.]

So, here too is the teaching that the attributed Brahman is not the one to be known, realized, for liberation.  Also, there is no pramāṇa in the śāstra that Brahman is realized in parts, portions or percentages, for liberation.  This is because, Brahman is partless.  To impose parts in It, the partless Whole, is to limit It.

3. The Praśnopaniṣat concludes with the revered Ācārya Pippalāda declaring to his pupils at the end of his instruction: तान्होवाचैतावदेवाहमेतत्परं ब्रह्म वेद नातः परमस्तीति ॥ ६. ७ ॥ [7     Pippalāda said to them: Thus far, indeed, I know the Supreme Brahman; there is nothing more than this.] Shankara comments here: तान् एवमनुशिष्य शिष्यान् तान् होवाच पिप्पलादः किल एतावदेव वेद्यं परं ब्रह्म वेद विजानाम्यहमेतत् । न अतः अस्मात् परम् अस्ति प्रकृष्टतरं वेदितव्यम् इत्येवमुक्तवान् शिष्याणामविदितशेषास्तित्वाशङ्कानिवृत्तये कृतार्थबुद्धिजननार्थं च ॥ [‘I know thus far alone, this Supreme Brahman that is worthy to be known. Beyond this there is not anything higher to be known.   Thus did he say this in order to remove from the disciples any doubt that there might still remain something unknown; and also in order to generate in them the conviction that they had attained the final goal. ]
4. Further there is the teaching of the Bhagavadgītā on the knowledge of the ‘complete’ Brahman:

मय्यासक्तमनाः पार्थ योगं युञ्जन्मदाश्रयः ।
असंशयं समग्रं मां यथा ज्ञास्यसि तच्छृणु ॥ १ ॥
The Blessed Lord said O Partha, hear how you, having the mind fixed on Me, practicing the Yoga of Meditation and taking refuge in Me, will know Me with certainty and in fulness. 

ज्ञानं तेऽहं सविज्ञानमिदं वक्ष्याम्यशेषतः।
यज्ज्ञात्वा नेह भूयोऽन्यज्ज्ञातव्यमवशिष्यते।।7.2।।

[7.2 I shall tell you completely of this Knowledge which is combined with realization, [From the statement, ‘jnāsyasi, you will know’, in the earlier verse, one may conclude that the Lord is speaking of indirect or theoretical knowledge. The word ‘idam, this’ rules out such a conclusion; and it has also been said that this Knowledge is ‘savijnānam, combined with direct experienece, realization'; it is Consciousness.] after experience which there remains nothing else here to be known again.] ।7.2।। Shankara’s commentary: ज्ञानं ते तुभ्यम् अहं सविज्ञानं विज्ञानसहितं स्वानुभवयुक्तम् इदं वक्ष्यामिकथयिष्यामि अशेषतः कार्त्स्न्र्येन। तत् ज्ञानं विवक्षितं स्तौति श्रोतुः अभिमुखीकरणाय यत् ज्ञात्वा यत् ज्ञानं ज्ञात्वा न इह भूयः पुनः अन्यत् ज्ञातव्यंपुरुषार्थसाधनम् अवशिष्यते नावशिष्टं भवति। इति मत्तत्त्वज्ञो यः सः सर्वज्ञो भवतीत्यर्थः। अतो विशिष्टफलत्वात् दुर्लभं ज्ञानम्।।

The word ‘kārtsnyena’ in the bhāṣyam is very significant for it refers to the verse-word ‘aśeṣataḥ’ (without any remainder, completely).  It can also be appreciated that the chapter concludes 7.29 with the word ‘kṛtsnam’ for Brahman. Now, if the Lord had intended that ‘Brahman cannot be known completely but in parts/percentages’ He would not be saying that He is now delineating Brahman in all Its fullness. And that He intends that this complete knowledge alone is the liberating one is also clear from the verse that there will be nothing remaining for you to be known.  This goes against the erroneous thinking that ‘None can know Brahman completely and that one can only end up knowing It partially, in percentages according to one’s capacity.’  Such a thinking is dispelled by the Lord in yet another verse in this chapter itself:

मनुष्याणां सहस्रेषु कश्चिद्द्यतति सिद्धये।
यततामपि सिद्धानां कश्चिन्मां वेत्ति तत्त्वतः।।7.3।।

7.3 Among thousands of men a rare one endeavors for perfection. Even of the perfected ones who are diligent, one perchance knows Me in truth.

Thus, going by the 7.2, the ‘tattvataḥ’ in 7.3 cannot  be anything but the complete knowledge and anything other than that will not be a ‘complete’ knowledge.

There is this reference in the BG 18^th ch. using this word ‘tattvataḥ’ (‘in truth’) to show that such a knowledge alone is the liberating one:

भक्त्या मामभिजानाति
यावान्यश्चास्मि तत्त्वतः ।
ततो मां तत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा
विशते तदनन्तरम् ॥ ५५ ॥

18.55 Through devotion he knows Me in reality, as to what and who I am. Then, having known Me in truth, he enters (into Me) immediately after that (Knowledge).

Shankara’s comments: भक्त्या माम् अभिजानाति यावान् अहम् उपाधिकृतविस्तरभेदः यश्च अहम् अस्मि विध्वस्तसर्वोपाधिभेदः उत्तमः पुरुषः आकाशकल्पः तं माम् अद्वैतं चैतन्यमात्रैकरसम् अजरम् अभयम् अनिधनं तत्त्वतः अभिजानाति। ततः माम् एवं तत्त्वतः ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरं मामेव ज्ञानानन्तरम्। नात्र ज्ञानप्रवेशक्रिये भिन्ने विवक्षिते ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम् इति। किं तर्हि फलान्तराभावात् ज्ञानमात्रमेव? क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि (गीता 13।2) इति उक्तत्वात्।।

One can see the resemblance of the above verse to the Puruṣa sūkta: ‘yāvān’ of the verse and ‘etāvān’ (setting a limit to the manifestation) of the sūkta.  That is exactly what is in the Lord’s mind as brought out beautifully by Shankara’s, a translation of which is given here below. The word ‘Uttama Puruṣa’ is also significant, which is taught in the 15^th chapter as ‘He who is beyond the kṣara and akṣara, the manifest world. And the ‘ato jyāyāmścha pūruṣaḥ’ of the sūktam is also annotated subtly in the verse and clearly in the bhāṣya: the Puruṣa transcends the manifest world (which is the vibhūti) and He is the absolute One, the one to be known for liberation: vedāhametam puruṣam mahāntam…tamasaḥ parastāt, beyond ignorance signified by the kṣara and akṣara puruṣas.

// he knows; mām, Me; tattvatah, in reality; as to yāvān, what I am, with the extensive differences created by limiting adjuncts; and yah asmi, who I am when all distinctions created by the limiting adjuncts are destroyed– Me who am the supreme Person comparable to space [In points of all-pervasiveness and non-attachment.] and one-without-a-second, absolute, homogeneous Consciousness, birthless, ageless, immortal, fearless and deathless. Tatah, then; jnātvā, having known; mām, Me, thus; tattvatah, in truth; viśate, he enters into Me, Myself; tadanantaram, immediately after that (Knowledge).//

The 7^th chapter has this crucial verse too at the end:

जरामरणमोक्षाय मामाश्रित्य यतन्ति ये।
ते ब्रह्म तद्विदुः कृत्स्नमध्यात्मं कर्म चाखिलम्।।7.29।।

7.29 Those who strive by resorting to Me for becoming free from old age and death, they know that Brahman, completely…

Shankara: ते यत् ब्रह्म परं तत् विदुः कृत्स्नं समस्तम्  [One can see the consistency here:  For the 7.1 Shankara had commented for the word ‘samagram’ as ‘samastam’ (completely), and here at the end of the chapter too Shankara says for the word ‘kṛtsnam’ (which is only another word for samagram) = ‘samastam’.

5. That the knowledge of the attributed / vibhūti endowed Brahman does not constitute the complete knowledge is brought out from the fact that the 18.55 teaches that the aspirant gets the knowledge of ‘yāvān’ (the attributed) and ‘yaḥ’ (the absolute). In other words, as taught by the sāyaṇa commentary for the Puruṣa sūktam, the attributed manifestation of the Puruṣa is not absolute and only relative and therefore not true and the transcendental, attributeless, absolute nature alone is true.
6. There are statements in almost all the Upaniṣads that the aspirant ended up securing the liberating knowledge. Nowhere is it stated that such knowledge is about an incomplete Brahman.

Thus, to conclude, the Puruṣa sūktam method of delineating the mahimā (attributed/vibhūti endowed) of Brahman as the one in the relative plane and the transcendental (Puruṣa) as the absolute one is amply translated in the Bhagavadgītā verses that have been taken up for this study in the foregoing.  That all this has the solid correspondence in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka mantra cited above is also to be remembered.  To sum up, the attributed Brahman is not the complete One and the knowledge of the latter alone leads to liberation.  There is also no basis for the thinking that Brahman is known in parts/percentage as per one’s capacity for liberation. This is because, the BG 7^th ch. also teaches that the knowledge has to be something that has no remainder.  If Brahman is admitted to be known according to one’s capacity, there will always be something, more or less, remaining that is not known, for the thinking is: Brahman cannot be known completely.   Such knowledge is useful for upāsana to enable the aspirant to subsequently attain the complete knowledge, when his mental capacity gains further strength to grasp the subtle attributeless Brahman.

Om Tat Sat

The following article is based on a recent conversation initiated  by a Kannada/Telugu smartha in a blog: