Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

The legal definition of the above maxim is:

http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/suppressio-veri-suggestio-falsi/

Meaning of Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

Suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of what is false. 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 521, 525.

The above maxim is demonstrated in the following ‘reply’ given by the blogger to an unsuspecting questioner:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/a-note-to-our-readers.html

The question:

AnonymousDecember 20, 2016 at 6:58 AM

Dear Swamy,

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namah,

Humble Pramanams to Devareers. Thank you very much for this marvelous blog. adiyen is slowly go through it and learning more.

Just one small question. How does one be both mayavadi in philosophy and at same time be Vaishnava in religious practise ? If we are worshipping Vasudeva as the Supreme meaning we are His Servants and owned by Him and our purpose is to serve Him. Then philosophically, how the parabrahmam, and the jiva be one and the same?

Can Devareers please briefly enlighten adiyen on this small doubt.

Thanking you,
Gautam

To this the ‘reply’ from the blogger is as follows:

My observations to this ‘reply’ are given in italics in between [ ]

AaryamaaDecember 21, 2016 at 7:18 AM

We have answered this earlier. Advaita posits the Self as the sole reality only in the pAramArthika sath. However, until such realization occurs, duality exists in the vyAvahArika sath. Within this lower level of reality, every being is distinct from each other and as such, there exists an Ishvara, sriman nArAyaNa, who resides in Sri Vaikunta, who is sarvAntaryAmin and has everyone as his vibhUtIs, who is to be resorted to for attaining the ultimate state.

[The above is not true. Advaita as taught by Shankara does not posit Nārāyaṇa as someone residing in Vaikunta. Nor is it true that everyone is his Vibhūti. There is no compulsion that one must resort to Narayana to attain the ultimate state. Shankara has on many occasions in the prasthānatraya bhāṣya taught that an aprokṣajñānin when worshiped can grant the jñāna that results in mokṣa. One instance is the Muṇḍakopaniṣat bhāṣya for the mantra 3.2.1:

स वेदैतत्परमं ब्रह्म धाम यत्र विश्वं निहितं भाति शुभ्रम् ।
उपासते पुरुषं ये ह्यकामास्ते शुक्रमेतदतिवर्तन्ति धीराः ॥ १ ॥

भाष्यम्

यस्मात् स वेद जानाति एतत् यथोक्तलक्षणं ब्रह्म परमं प्रकृष्टं धाम सर्वकामानामाश्रयमास्पदम्, यत्र यस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि धाम्नि विश्वं समस्तं जगत् निहितम् अर्पितम्, यच्च स्वेन ज्योतिषा भाति शुभ्रं शुद्धम्, तमप्येवंविधमात्मज्ञं पुरुषं ये हि अकामाः विभूतितृष्णावर्जिता मुमुक्षवः सन्तः उपासते परमिव देवम्, ते शुक्रं नृबीजं यदेतत्प्रसिद्धं शरीरोपादानकारणम् अतिवर्तन्ति अतिगच्छन्ति धीराः बुद्धिमन्तः, न पुनर्योनिं प्रसर्पन्ति । ‘न पुनः क्व रतिं करोति’ (?) इति श्रुतेः । अतस्तं पूजयेदित्यभिप्रायः ॥

He who knows Brahman that is the abode of the entire creation, that which shines by its own splendor, him, this jñānin, too, whoever worships/meditates upon, without the desire for worldly pleasures, as the Supreme Brahman, is freed from rebirth. Therefore one must worship the jñānin.

This idea is stressed in the final mantra of the Praśnopaniṣad too where the disciples of Sage Pippalāda, express their gratitude for having bestowed the liberating knowledge.

Also, the Kenopaniṣad bears proof for this fact. Indra did not worship Viṣṇu in that Upaniṣad episode but adored Umā and from her was bestowed the liberating knowledge. Shankara says: umā is verily brahmavidyā and since she is ever inseparably with the Omniscient Ishvara, she knows (the Truth). 

So, there is no compulsion that one must worship or resort to Nārāyaṇa alone for attaining the supreme knowledge/liberation. This fact has been suppressed by the blogger in this ‘reply’ thereby suggesting a false idea.]

As an analogy, bhakti towards Ishvara in advaita is like a dream. Until you wake up, it is real and thus whatever you do is taken as valid. I know saying it is like a dream is not entirely doing justice to advaita’s concepts of mithya (of which I frankly haven’t delved much into), but as a rough example, it will serve.

Thus, until advaitins attain the “perfect jnAna” by their philosophy, they are vaishnavas who serve vishNu with bhakti just like any other vishishtadvaitin or dvaitin. That vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins criticize them by saying they are inferior does not undermine their vaishnavatva in anyway.

[The above idea is also completely false. Advaitins do not consider themselves to be vaiṣṇava-s and are not compelled by Shankaracharya to serve Viṣṇu. Krishna himself says in the BG: tad viddhi…. Paripraśnena sevayā….’ [serve the Jñānin devoutly and he will bestow the knowledge to you]. Further, by the above reply the blogger is undermining the nature of Viṣṇu by making him no different from an ignorant man who is susceptible to partiality. If Advaitins also worship Viṣṇu with bhakti ‘just like any other vishishtadvaitin or dvaitin’, why would Viṣṇu make them ‘inferior’ to vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins? Has not the Lord said in the BG that he is the same with his devotees/beings? Also, the bhakti that the blogger claims that Advaitins are endowed with for Viṣṇnu, is not the ‘just like’ the vishishtadvaitins’ and dvaitins’ for the Advaitin never considers vaikunta as his ultimate abode in liberation. This fact is either unknown to the blogger or he is suppressing it from his gullible questioner and thus suggesting what is false regarding Advaita. Also, he has suppressed from the questioner the fact that Ramanuja has not accorded the ‘vaiṣṇava’ status to Shankara or advaitins. He carefully evades this information from his readers. Thus, the blogger is suggesting a weird ‘gradations among vaiṣṇavas’ theory that is completely inacceptable and illogical.]
Shankara identifies only vishNu as this Ishvara is seen by his commentary on the nAma “kathitaH” in the sahasranAma as follows:

vedAdibhir-ayameka eva paratvena kathita kathita iti kathitaH | sarvairvedaiH kathita iti vA kathitaH | “sarve vedA yatpadamAmananti”, “vedaishca sarvairahameva vedyaH”, “vede rAmAyaNe puNye bhArate bharatarSabhaH! adau madye tathA cAnte viSNuH sarvatra gIyate” iti shruti-smRtyAdi-vacanebhyaH |

Translation: He (Vishnu) is known as kathitaH since He alone is declared as supreme by the Veda and Vedic texts; or He who is described by all the Vedas. The following statements from the shruti (Vedas) and smRtis confirm this:

“All the Vedas describe His status.” (Kathopanishad 1.2.15),

“I alone am to be known from all the Vedas” (Bhagavad Gita 15.15),

“Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata!” (Harivamsa, 3.132.95).

“He who has sound intellect as his charioteer and controlled mind as the bridle, reaches the end of the road, which is the highest place/state of vishNu (katOpanishad, 3.9).
[The above is another falsehood coming from the blogger to deceive the gullible questioner. Read the true purport of Shankara’s commentary on the word ‘kathitaḥ’ here:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/bnv2x1qgji3dd5u/Kathitah_F.pdf   ]
Note that Shankara even quotes the katOpanishad’s “paramaM padaM” with reference to vishNu as saguNa ishvara, identifying both sri vaikunta as an abode and the higher state of pAramArthika.

[The above is also false information. There is absolutely no reference to saguṇa Īśvara in that mantra for it is a teaching, adhyātma yoga, to attain the Nirguṇa Brahman. Also, Vaikunta is not the abode Shankara is teaching or even remotely suggesting there as the final destination of the Advaita sādhaka. In fact the word ‘padam’ is not a geographical place. Shankara has clarified what ‘padam’ means in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka bhāṣya, for example, as in several other places:

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 ‘pada-vit’ (knower of the padam) 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 pada-vit.  [It should be noted that the Sanskrit root ‘pad’ has the meaning ‘gam’ which has also the meaning ‘know’.] Therefore, according to Shankara, the word ‘padam’ means the very svarupam of Brahman, known by the name ‘Viṣṇu/Vāsudeva’ in the Kaṭha 1.3.9 upaniṣad/bhāṣyam.  The word ‘padam’ and ‘sthānam’, therefore by no means ‘indicate’ any abode or krama mukti.  In fact it is laughable that the blogger is making such a silly suggestion in a completely sadyomukti prakaraṇa.  This is because he is ignorant about the difference between ‘upāsya brahman’ and ‘jñeya brahman’ and their fruits in Advaita.

As to a place (like vaikunta) shankara says in the Mundaka bhashya 3.2.6:   देशपरिच्छिन्ना हि गतिः संसारविषयैव, परिच्छिन्नसाधनसाध्यत्वात् । ब्रह्म तु समस्तत्वान्न देशपरिच्छेदेन गन्तव्यम् । यदि हि देशपरिच्छिन्नं ब्रह्म स्यात्, मूर्तद्रव्यवदाद्यन्तवदन्याश्रितं सावयवमनित्यं कृतकं च स्यात् । न त्वेवंविधं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति। अतस्तत्प्राप्तिश्च नैव देशपरिच्छिन्ना भवितुं युक्ता ॥ [going or travelling implies that the destination is limited by space and is clearly within samsāra since the means and the end (a place like vaikunta) are limited. On the other hand Brahman, being the all, is not to be attained as a limited place is attained. If Brahman were to be limited to a place, then like a formed object, it will have a beginning and end, dependent on something else, made of parts and therefore ephemeral and a product. Brahman cannot be of this kind. Therefore it is reasonable that ‘attaining Brahman’ is never attaining a limited place.]   

Mundaka 1.2.12:

अतः किं कृतेन कर्मणा आयासबहुलेनानर्थसाधनेन इत्येवं निर्विण्णोऽभयं शिवमकृतं नित्यं पदं यत्, तद्विज्ञानार्थं विशेषेणाधिगमार्थं स निर्विण्णो ब्राह्मणः गुरुमेव आचार्यं शमदमादिसम्पन्नम् अभिगच्छेत् । शास्त्रज्ञोऽपि स्वातन्त्र्येण ब्रह्मज्ञानान्वेषणं न कुर्यादित्येतद्गुरुमेवेत्यवधारणफलम् ।

Here Shankara uses the word ‘padam’ to indicate the Goal, Brahman.  And the aspirant wants to ‘know’ it and not ‘go’ to it.  Vijṇānārtham for which Shankara comments: by specifically, clearly, without doubt, realizing, adhigamanam.  And he adds: even if one is an expert in a discipline, he aught not to embark on brahma jnana anveṣaṇam, enquiry into the knowledge of Brahman, all by himself, without resorting to the Guru.  So, the padam is svarupam, Brahman, and it is to be known, and not to be reached physically by going. Thus, there is no reference to any vaikunta by Shankara even implicitly. It is only the desperate wishful thinking of the blogger in order to force Shankara to incorporate the vaiṣṇava-all-important vaikunṭha somewhere and somehow in the bhāṣyas. One can easily see through such stealthy attempts.]

The other important references from the VSN Bhāṣya itself that the blogger has deliberately suppressed from the gullible questioner are:

• The reference by Shankara from the (tāmasa) Śivapurāṇam for the name ‘Rudra’ of the VSN: ‘śivaḥ paramakāraṇam’ – Śiva is the Supreme Cause.
• The identification of the name ‘soma’ with Umāpati Śiva
• The Hari-Hara abheda verses Shankara has cited from the Harivamśa, Bhavishyottara, etc. at the beginning of the VSN bhāṣya. One such verse makes all the names of Viṣṇu applicable to Śiva too and the upāsana of the former, that of the latter as well; and hence non-difference between the two.
• More than anything the verse, unreferenced, Shankara has cited for Hari being subject to delusion (ignorance): स्वमायया स्वमात्मानं मोहयन्द्वैतमायया । गुणाहितं स्वमात्मानं लभते च स्वयं हरिः ॥

[By his own Māyā, deluding himself with the illusion of dvaita, Hari Himself comes to see himself endowed with guṇas.]

In the commentary of Shankaracharya to the Viṣṇu sahasranāma (VSN) the following verses are cited for explaining the verse पवित्राणां पवित्रं यो……

सर्पवद्रज्जुखण्दस्तु निशायां वेश्ममध्यगः ।

एको हि चन्द्रो द्वौ व्योम्नि तिमिराहतचक्षुषः ॥

[Just as a piece of rope appears as snake and just as the single moon appears as two to a diseased eye..]

आभाति परमात्मा च सर्वोपाधिषु संस्थितः ।

नित्योदितः स्वयंज्योतिः सर्वगः पुरुषः परः ॥

अहंकाराविवेकेन कर्ताहमिति मन्यते ।

[…so too the Paramātman appears in all the upādhis.  He is truly the ever-emergent, self-luminous, all-pervading, Puruṣa the Supreme, owing to the non-discrimination between the ego and the Self thinks himself to be the doer.]

Which ‘vaiṣṇava’ will tolerate the above?

The reference in the Kenopaniṣad bhāṣya to Umāpati as ‘sarvajña Īśvara’ with whom Umā is forever (just as in the above VSN ‘soma’)

The blogger knows very well that the above references are inimical to his pet theory. Hence alone, by suppressing crucial references such as the above, the blogger has given a completely falsified picture of Shankara and Advaita to the unsuspecting reader of his blog.  Here is what that poor questioner acknowledges after reading the false information the blogger has handed him:

// AnonymousDecember 22, 2016 at 7:47 AM

Thank Aaryamaa Swamy very much for the detailed reply. It was very enlightening. adiyen is slowly going through all blog pages and learning more. Thank you very much creating such a detailed and researched blog by grace of Azhwars and Purvacharyas. //

One can only pity those ‘readers’ who are unable to check things for themselves and have to settle for such lies not realizing that they have been taken for a ride.

Om Tat Sat

Ramanuja 1000 – A ‘tribute’ from his ‘humble’ followers

A short article on the above topic is available here for download:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/nw59e9a94la4vso/Ramanuja_1000_K.pdf

Om Tat Sat

 Here is a pdf on the above topic. Sri Satchidanandendra Sarswati Swamina (SSS) has studied the Mādhyamika Kārikā-s of Nagarjuna along with the commentary of Chandrakirti and also the Kārikā-s of Gaudapada and given an account of how Advaita and Buddhism differ.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/ka88cp1dt2eddk3/Advaita_and_Buddhism_SSS.pdf

I thank my friend Sri Pramod Bharadwaj for his effort in making this document in a convenient pdf format from a larger book of the author.

regards

Why brahma jnAna is capable of sarva nivritti ?

See an interesting post on this topic here:

http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2017-March/044839.html

Sri Paramashivendra Saraswati (1600 – 1700), Guru of Sri Sadashiva brahmendra, composed this work: ‘Dahara vidya prakasha’. Download at:

An interesting observation by a Viśiṣṭādvaitin

Read post here:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/advaitin/conversations/messages/69230

Om Tat Sat

Here is the link to a very informative and rewarding conversation with Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan by Sri Prashant Parikh:

The work ‘sarva mata sangraha’ is authored by an advaitin whose identity is unknown.

About the ‘Sankarsha’ kANDa

The ‘Sankarasha’ kANDa is a four-chapter appendix (parishiShTa) to the 12-chapter purva mimamsa shAstra. There is a lot of confusion about this appendix, as can be seen here:

quote

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

• Coming back to the basics, you mentioned that the Vedanta is a complete system that accepts the nyAya of both the pUrva and Uttara mImAMsA sUtras. Are there any other mImAMsA sUtras accepted in the Vedanta darshana?

Ans. Yes. In addition to the pUrvamImAMsA sUtras and the Uttara mImAMsA sUtras, the Vedanta and the mImAMsA schools accept the “madhyamakANDa” also known as “daivI mImAMsa”, “saMkarShakANDa” or “devatAkANDa sUtras”, which are authored by kAshakRRitsna. They are considered to be later part of the pUrvamImAMsa sUtras. Sri Jayatirtha, a guru in the mAdhva tradition provides us with the detail that these sUtras begin with “athAto daivI”, meaning it is begun to explain the nature of the devatAs described in the Veda.

Shabarasvamin, the commentator on the pUrvamImAMsA sUtras, as well as all Vedantins including from Shankara, Ramanuja (Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 3.3.43) up to Madhusudana Saraswati (in prasthAnabheda) accept this work.

unquote

Here are some scholarly inputs that clear the confusion:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/isTTwlbO_3w    That which appears within brackets [ ] are added here in clarification/translation of Sanskrit lines.

Vidwan Sri Korada Subrahmanyam’s post in 2013:

Quote:

// नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

1. Samkaracarya and Ramanujacarya quoted सङ्कर्ष(ण)काण्डसूत्रम् in प्रदानाधिकरणम् – सू . प्रदानवदेव तदुक्तम् (3-3-28-43) –

शां भा – तदुक्तं सङ्कर्षे – नना वा देवतापृथकग्ज्ञानात् इति ।

भाष्यरत्नप्रभा –

 संकर्षो देवताकाण्डम् ।

न्यायनिर्णयः –

 संकृष्यते कर्मकाण्डस्थमेव अवशिष्टं कर्म संक्षिप्य उच्यते इति संकर्षो देवताकाण्डम् , तस्मिन्निति यावत् ।

[Anandagiri, to the commentary of Shankara, says: the word ‘sankarSha’ is derived thus: the remnant portion of karma that is actually part of the karmakANDa is summarized (sankRuShyate) and this is called ‘devatAkANDa’]

अप्पय्यदीक्षिताः परिमळे –

  यद्यपि संकर्षकाण्डो न देवताविचारार्थं प्रवर्तितः । किन्तु द्वादशलक्षण्यविचारितनानाविषयन्यायविचारात्मकः तत्परिशिष्टः , तन्त्रप्रसङ्गवत् उपदेशातिदेशसाधारण्येन प्रकीर्णकः प्रवर्तितः । न हि तत्र देवताविचारेण उपक्रम उपसंहारो वास्ति । …… तथापि संकर्षे देवताविधानरहितेषु उपांशुयाजादिषु देवता अस्ति न वा , प्रयाजादिषु देवतावाचिनः समिद्बर्हिरादिशब्दाः दर्शपूर्णमासाङ्गप्रसिद्धसमिद्बर्हिरादिपराः तदन्यपरा वा ….. इत्यादिदेवताविचारभूयस्त्वात् भूम्ना संकर्षकाण्डस्यैव देवताकाण्डा इत्यपि व्यवहारो’स्तीति तस्य  तेनोपादानम् ।

[Appayya Dikshita says in the Parimala:The Sankarsha’ kANDa is not initiated to discuss about devata. The portions not included in the 12-chapter main purva mimamsa shAstra is discussed here in the Sankarsha’ kANDa. There is neither a discussion of devata-s in the beginning – upakarama, or at the end, upasamhara, of the Sankarsha’ kANDa. Yet, since there is a lot of discussion as to whether there is a devata involved in certain shrouta karmas or not, etc. this Sankarsha’ kANDa has an appellation that it is devatA kANda.]

श्रीभाष्ये —

1. तदुक्तं संकर्षणे – नाना वा देवतापृथक्त्वात् ।

2.तदाह वृत्तिकारः – वृत्तात् कर्माधिगमादनन्तरं ब्रह्मविविदिषेति ।

3.संहितमेतच्छारीरकं जैमिनीयेन षोडशलक्षणेनेति (कर्मब्रह्मशास्त्रयोः ऐकशास्र्यम् – see महावाक्यविचारः for details)

निगमान्तदेशिकाः – शतदूषणी —

देवताकाण्डशेषतया श्रीभाष्यकारैः परिगृहीतम् । ’तदुक्तं संकर्षे’ इति हि सूत्राण्युदाहरन्ति।

[Sri Vedanta Desika in the ShatadUShaNI alludes to the Sribhashya citing the sutra from devatA/sankarsha kaanda]

वेदान्तसारः – श्रीरामानुजाः —

अधीतवेदस्य हि पुरुषस्य कर्मप्रतिपादनोपक्रमत्वात् वेदानां कर्मविचारः प्रथमं कार्य इति ’अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा’ इत्युक्तम् । कर्मणां च प्रकृतिविकृतिरूपाणां धर्मार्थकामरूपपुरुषार्थसाधनतानिश्चयः , ’प्रभुत्वादार्त्विज्यम् इत्यन्तेन’ ।

प्रस्थानभेदे मधुसूदनसरस्वती —

तथा सङ्कर्षकाण्डमध्यायचतुष्टयात्मकं जैमिनिप्रणीतम् । तच्च देवताकाण्डसंज्ञया प्रसिद्धमपि उपासनाख्यकर्मप्रतिपादकत्वात् कर्ममीमांसार्गतमेव ।

शबरस्वामी (10-4-32) —

स्विष्टकृद्विकारश्च वनस्पतिरिति संकर्षे वक्ष्यते ।

द्वादशाध्याये —

ननु नैव पशोर्हविष्कृदस्ति औषधार्था अवहननार्था वा यथा पत्नी तुल्यवच्छ्रूयते इति संकर्षे वक्ष्यति ।

So here , Sriramanuja , by quoting the first Sutra of पूर्वमीमांसा and the last Sutra (प्रभुत्वात्…) of Samkarsanakanda , it can be surmised that – according to Ramanuja the षोडशलक्षणी is applicable to कर्म ।

वेदार्थसंग्रहे रामानुजाः —

अश्रुतवेदान्तानां कर्मण्यश्रद्धा मा भूदिति देवताधिकरणे अतिवादाः कृताः, कर्ममात्रे यथा श्रद्धां कुर्यादिति सर्वमेकं शास्त्रमिति वेदवित्सिद्धान्तः।

आगमप्रामाण्ये यामुनाचार्याः –

भगवतो जैमिनेः कर्मणः फलोपन्यासःकर्मश्रद्धासंवर्धनाय ।

Scholars feel that – it is विंशतिलक्षणी मीमांसा – षोडशलक्षणी शबरस्वामिप्रणीता (जैमिनिप्रणीता – this correction has been incorporated here after consulting the author of this post, who acknowledged that it was an error during typing the post), चतुर्लक्ष्णी बादरायणप्रणीता ।

Even present day Visistadvaitins feel that Kasakrtsna was not at all the author of Sankarsakanda.

प्रस्तावना (p xx) by  समुद्राल वेन्कटरङ्गरामानुजाचार्युलु (Editor) – Samkarsakanda of Jaimini Muni (Sri Venkateswara Vedic Uni , Tirupati, 2009 —

एवंच सङ्कर्षकाण्डकर्तृत्वविषये जैमिनिकर्तृत्वं काशकृत्स्नकर्तृत्वमिति द्विधा अभिप्रायभेदे सति , कृत्स्नस्य देवताकाण्डस्य षोडशाध्यायस्य जैमिनिप्रणीतत्वकथनमेव समुचितं प्रतिभाति ।

श्रीभाष्यकारादिवचनानुसारेण , तत्पूर्वतनशाङ्करवचनानुसारेण , पूर्वतन्त्रभाष्यादिवचनेन च तथैव प्र्तिपन्नत्वात् ।

विशिष्टाद्वैत does not have any special interest in सङ्कर्षणकाण्ड ।

The only thing to note is they have too much of respect for वेदान्तदेशिक / निगमान्तदेशिक ।

I have a copy of सङ्कर्षकाण्ड  with a commentary , भाट्टदीपिका (भाट्टच्न्द्रिका), of  भास्करराय ( S S V Vedic Uni, Tirupati, 2009).

Since Devatakanda is in the middle of  विंशतिशलक्षणी , some may style it – मध्यमकाण्ड also .

There are two available commentaries on Samkarsakanda – by Devaswami and by Bhaskararaya.

The later mostly depends on the former  and follows भाट्टचन्द्रिका of Khandadeva .

Any more doubts are welcome.

धन्यो’स्मि

—

Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

Unquote

Here is another paper, on the contribution of KhaNDadeva to the purvamimamsa disciple:

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/131796/6/06_chapter%201.pdf

In this paper too the scholar is very clear that the Sankarsha kANDa is not at all about upasana or any particular devata and it is fully about/connected to the karmakANDa alone:

[ जैमिनीयेषु सूत्रेषु द्वादशाध्यायीं व्याप्नुवन्ति । इयं चैव द्वादशाध्यायी प्राधान्येन व्यवस्थितता. धर्मविचारात्मिका । परन्तु अत ऊर्ध्वमपि अस्ति चतुरध्यायात्मकः शेषः यं सङ्कर्षकाण्ड इत्याचक्षते । अयं च सङ्कर्षकाण्डः देवताकाण्ड इति उपासनाकाण्ड इति, कश्चित् सङ्कर्षणकाण्ड इति च प्रसिद्धात्. देवतोपासनापरतया उद्धियमाणाद्* ग्रन्थाद् अन्यः * । अयं नैव उपासनादेवतासम्बद्धः । अयं. कर्मकाण्डसम्बद्ध एव, जैमिनिना प्रणीतश्च । अस्य च देवस्वामिना प्रणीतं प्रतिसूत्रभाष्यं …]  [underlining by me for highlighting]

Vidwan Sri Mani Dravid Sastrinah too in his paper ‘daivi mimamsa’,   http://www.mediafire.com/file/9i9vok9nj6j21cv/daivamimamsa.pdf   after citing the passages from many sources concludes that the work said to contain the words ‘sa vishnuraaha hi, etc.’ cited by Madhva, Vedantadeshika, etc. is not available today. However, the sutra cited by Shankara in the Brahma sutra bhashya, as from SankarSha, is available in the  ‘Sankarasha’ kANDa that is admitted as the extension of the Purvamimamsa shaastra of 12 chapters, is accessible at present and contains the sutra and the vichara also is the same as cited by Shankara. This work alone is admitted by purvamimamsakas such as Shabara swamin. And that this text is different from the ‘devata kANDa’ stated above is clear to those who have familiarity with the ‘Sankarasha’ kANDa.’: 

‘प्रदानवदेव तदुक्तम्’ (ब्र.सू.3.3.42) इति सूत्रे तदुक्तमिति पदं व्याचक्षाणैः श्रीभाष्यकारैः- ‘यथा इन्द्राय राज्ञे…तदुक्तं संकर्षणे – नाना वा देवतापृथक्त्वात् – इति’ इति सूत्रमुद्धृतम्। (अत्र सांकर्षणे इति, संकर्षे इति पाठान्तरमुपलभ्यते।) अत्र ‘ इन्द्राय राज्ञे ’ इत्याद्युदाहृतवाक्ये कृतो विचारः शांकरभाष्येऽपि निर्दिष्टः इदानीमुपलभ्यमाने पूर्वमीमांसाशेषभूते संकर्षकाण्डे तथैवोपलभ्यते। तदेव संकर्षकाण्डं पूर्वमीमांसकैरपि शबरस्वाम्यादिभिः समादृतम्। तच्च पूर्वोक्तदेवताकाण्डादन्यदेवेति तद्दर्शिनामेव स्पष्टमित्युपरम्यते।

It is also pertinent to note that the Sarva darshana Sangraha of Madhavacharya (Swami Vidyaranya), in its chapter on Jaimini Darshana confines itself to the 12 chapters and does not include or mention the Sankarsha KAnDa of four chapters.

Sri Madhusudana Saraswati, in his commentary to the Mahimnastotram, verse 7, has dealt with the various schools of thought and this particular essay there is available as a separate work called ‘prashthAna bheda’. There, while he mentions succinctly the subject dealt with in each of the 12-chapters of ‘karmamimamsa’ and an even greater detail, running to a full page, about the four-chapter Brahmasutras, by giving the subject matter of each pada of the four chapters, does not give any such detail about the four-chapter sankarsha kaanda (which even the works Sarva Mata Sangraha and Prapancha hridaya give) apart from just saying that it is composed by Jaimini, it is popular by the name devatA kANDa and since it is deliberating on the action called upasana, is an integral part of the karma mimamsa alone.

From this vague remark about the sankarSha kANDa by Madhusudana Saraswati, it appears that he has not examined the work physically.  This we presume from the fact that the sankarsha kANDa is not about upasana at all but only about shrauta karma.

It is also pertinent to note that even the available popular sankarsha kANDa which contains the sutra cited by Shankara (and Ramanuja), has a commentary by Devaswami, (and which is distinct from the supposed, unavailable, text that contains the sutras such as ‘sa viShNuraaha hi..’) is not taught or studied as part of the curriculum for purva mimamsa shastra in the institutions where this discipline is taught.

Thus, going by the various accounts of scholars who have familiarity with the Purva Mimamsa shaastra and its various works, there is no material to conclude that the author of the purva mimamsa shAstra, Jaimini, has ordained Vishnu as the Supreme god or Brahman. Even the work that is spoken of by Advaitins such as the ‘Sarva Mata Sangraha’ and ‘Prapancha hridaya’ as containing four chapters is not the same as the Sankarsha KaNDa that is full of shrouta karma-related discussions alone and not any upasana.

It is also discernible from the various citations that the ‘sa vishnurAha hi, etc.’ is first seen in Madhva’s work and not before.

Hence, there is absolutely no basis for the following claim:

quote:

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

• Is this portion of the saMkarShakANDa that proclaims Vishnu as the parabrahman accepted by all, or only by some schools of Vedanta? It is reported by some indologists that these four sUtras are nowhere to be found in extant editions of the Sankarsha Kanda. What do you say?

Ans. This stems from the wrong notion that some of the sources used by Vedantins of certain schools are of “questionable authenticity”. To a true vaidika, such a doubt should not arise as all traditional vedAntins accept it.

For the record anyway, let us answer this. Swami Vedanta Desikan, Madhvacharya, and Jayatirtha have all quoted the four sUtras beginning “ante harau… brahmetyAcakShate”.

The “sarvamata saMgraha” which is the work of a post-Madhva advaitin mentions the following detail about saMkarShakANDa, confirming that the above four sUtras were originally present in the concluding portion of that work:

“evaM madhyamamImAMsA sarvadevatAtmano hareH pratipAdiketi saguNabrahmaparA bhavati”

[Thus, the conclusion of the madhyama-mImAMsA shows that its object is the Saguna Brahman, who is Hari, the antarAtmA of all devatas.]

This again shows that ancient advaitins considered only Vishnu to be Saguna Brahman who is the inner soul of all other deities.

unquote.

Madhusudana Saraswati, in the very verse of the Mahima stotram where his long essay on the different schools of thought is present, at the end says: haripakShe api evam. [What has been stated in this verse as pertaining to Hara, is the same as pertaining to Hari as well] And while introducing the next verse says: एवं सर्वशङ्कोद्धारेण हरिहरस्वरूपं निरूप्य….[Having thus presented the true nature of Hari and Har by settling all doubts…] At the end of the work he says:

भूतिभूषितदेहाय द्विजराजेन राजते |

एकात्मने नमो नित्यं हरये च हराय च ||

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.

हररशंकरयोरभेदबोधो भविु 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.]

All advaitins right from Gaudapada onwards to the present day have been Hari-Hara abheda, Trimurti-aikya Vaadins. There is no room for them to impose on their followers Vishnu ‘alone’ as saguna brahman, even though there have been Acharyas whose ishTa devatA has been Vishnu, Narasimha, Rama and Krishna.  That did not make them bigots.

See also:  https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/would-madhusudana-saraswati-ever-mean-this/

Eminent scholar of VishishTAdvaita, Vidwan Sri K.E.Devanthan who is almost always a part of the discussions involving the three schools,   http://www.svvedicuniversity.ac.in/press/vccharge.php  was in Bangalore a few months ago delivering a talk at the Purna prajna Vidya peetha ( a Madhva institution).  While addressing the gathering, where I was present, he turned to the scholars of Dvaita seated in the front row and said ‘You and we accept the ‘sa vishnuraaha hi..’ which the Advaitins do not accept’.

Om Tat Sat

Advaita Vedanta Brahma Jnana Yoga in the Kurmapuranam

The chapter under consideration of the Kurmapuranam is a fine teaching of Brahmavidya.

The teaching of Brahmavidya in this chapter is complete in the sense that it teaches the Brahma svarupam, the kind of realization, brahmabhaavah, the saadhana – enquiry, the adhikari – the one with chittashuddhi and bhakti – indicated by karma anushthana, bhakti sadhana, worship of Shiva, shiva-mantras Rudram, etc. A number of Upanishadic passages are explicitly or implicitly paraphrased here.  The Bhagavadgita and the Brahmasutras too are implicitly woven into the verses here. One can also see how a crucial word in the Shaankara Brahma Sutra bhashya – ब्रह्मभावश्च मोक्षः is contained in this chapter verbatim.

This writing, of some 26 pages, can be studied by those who are not exposed to the teaching of Vedanta, as an introduction manual. For those who are versed with the Vedanta, this will serve the purpose of a revision, especially, mananam. The article can be downloaded here:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/9ob5kzdel8l6voh/Advaita_Vedanta_Brahma_Jnana_Yoga_in_the_Kurmapuranam.docx_F.pdf

Om Tat Sat

‘Vārtikānusāriṇī Vedānta paribhāṣā’ – Vidvān Sri K.Krishna Jois

In his commentary to the Narayana Suktam, Sayanacharya, expounding the expression ‘ nārāyaṇa paraṁ brahma’ (nārāyaṇa is the supreme brahman) says: पुराणेषु नारायणशब्देन व्यवह्रियमाणो यः परमेश्वरः स एव परम्  उत्कृष्टं सत्यज्ञानानन्दादिवाक्यैः प्रतिपाद्यस्य ब्रह्मणस्तत्त्वम् | अतो नारायणः पर एवात्मा न अपरो मूर्तिविशेषः |’

A note on the term ‘jyoti’:  It is quite natural that those who have no exposure to the Vedanta think that terms like ‘jyotis, deva, aaditya varnam.. etc. teach that Brahman has certain physical (or alaukika) light, brightness, etc. and therefore is not nirguna brahman, which cannot have any name   Such a childish idea is summarily negated by Shankara in more than one place. Here one telling instance is presented from the BGB 18.50:

I just read the Anandagiri vyakhyanam for the very first mangala shloka of Sureshwaracharya’s Brihadaranyaka Bhashya Vartikam. I felt extremely amazed at the great depth of meaning the verse conveys. Anandagiri Acharya has brought out the deep purport of the verse in many ways. A study of just the vyakhyanam, a lengthy one indeed, will surely be rewarding. One can get a fairly good overview of the Vedanta shaastra. The schools that are opposed to Vedanta are given a reference with the particular words in the verse that refute them. That way one gets to know the essence of those schools. The prameya and pramana bhaaga of Vedanta is very beautifully brought out in the vyakhya for the very first verse. The anubandha chatushtayam too is briefly stated to make the discourse a complete one in all respects. I am posting the vyakhya, in several images here for those interested to savor the dish.

I have shared the images, five in number, constituting the vyakhyanam on Facebook and here are the links to those images, in that order:

1.   https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2034205893259428&set=a.697484646931566.1073741827.100000101118270&type=3&theater

2.   https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2034210756592275&set=a.697484646931566.1073741827.100000101118270&type=3&theater

3.  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2034211663258851&set=a.697484646931566.1073741827.100000101118270&type=3&theater

4.  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2034222163257801&set=a.697484646931566.1073741827.100000101118270&type=3&theater

5,  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2034213229925361&set=a.697484646931566.1073741827.100000101118270&type=3&theater

warm regards

Here is a post on two verses of the Srimadbhaagavatam which brings out the core Advaitic Nirguna Brahma lakshanam. Sridhara Swamin’s commentary and Hemadri’s commentary to the Muktaaphalam for the same verse/s is also given.

In the Vishnu Purana there is a stuti of Vishnu by Deva-s.  This stuti, as explained by Sridhara Swamin, has a saguna and nirguna part:

A post on the above topic, along with Desamangalam Arya’s commentary, is available here:

Where is the overlap between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman?

In advaita, the concept of Saguna Brahman has been introduced to explain the creation of the world, the maintenance, etc. and through this, more importantly, to enable the aspirant to relate to Brahman. Since no relation is possible with Nirguna Tattva, the aspirant being no different from it, yet, in the process of realizing this identity there is the need for relating with the Saguna Brahman through bhakti, upasana, etc.

‘Vishnu-Hiranyagarbha identity’ – Shankara in VSN Bhashya

While commenting on the name ‘agrajah’ – first born, in the Vishnu Sahasra Nama (891), Shankara says: अग्रे जायते इति अग्रजः हिरण्यगर्भः [One who is born first is called agrajah, hiranyagarbhah] and cites the Rg.Veda हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे…in support of this.

Shankara has cited this mantra in the 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 — समवर्ततेति अजायतेत्यर्थः — तथा, ‘स वै शरीरी प्रथमः स वै पुरुष उच्यते । आदिकर्ता स भूतानां ब्रह्माग्रे समवर्तत’ इति च ।

In the shruti-smriti the birth, etc. of Prajapati is stated ‘Hiranyagarbha was born at the beginning..he is the Lord of all the beings….’  ‘samavartata’ means ‘ajaayata’, ‘was born’. The Adikarta of all beings, Brahma, was born at the beginning.

In BSB 1.3.13 Shankara says:  जीवानां हि सर्वेषां करणपरिवृतानां सर्वकरणात्मनि हिरण्यगर्भे ब्रह्मलोकनिवासिनि सङ्घातोपपत्तेर्भवति ब्रह्मलोको जीवघनः ।   Hiranyagarbha is the samashti jiva and resides in Brahmaloka.  In BSB 1.4.1:  या प्रथमजस्य हिरण्यगर्भस्य बुद्धिः, सा सर्वासां बुद्धीनां परमा प्रतिष्ठा ; सेह महानात्मेत्युच्यते…   Hiranyagarbha is the Prathamaja, called Mahat. This idea Shankara reiterates in the Kathopanishat too. In Gita bhashya:   यतः ब्रह्मणः हिरण्यगर्भस्य अपि आदिकर्ता कारणम् अतः तस्मात् आदिकर्त्रे ।    You are the creator of Brahma, Hiranyagarbha.

Thus, the Brahma-Hiranyagarbha-Prathamaja-identity is admitted by Shankara and the entity being a created one too. Yet, Shankara also admits of the Brahman (Vishnu)-Hiranyagarbha identity. Just as he has admitted the Vishnu-Virat (another created entity, lower than Hiranyagarbha) identity in the Mundaka Bhashya. In two more places the term ‘Hiranyagarbha’ occurs in the VSN and in the first place Shankara cites the same Rg.veda mantra. In the second instance says Brahman is the cause of Hiranyagarbha and hence that name.

We thus find that the Karya-kaarana ananyatvam principle is upheld by Shankara.  The same is found in the Vishnu Puranam too.

ब्रह्मरूपधरो देवस्ततोऽसौ रजसा वृतः  ।

चकार सृष्टिं भगवांश्चतुर्वक्रधरो हरिः  ॥ १,४.५० ॥ [The Lord Hari, the four-faced, enveloped by Rajoguna, is the one, taking the form of Brahma, engaged in creating.], the krodha expressed by Brahma, which came to be designated as ‘Tamasa Rudra’, is actually of Hari. In the schema of Vedanta taught by the VP, as Sridhara Swamin has pointed out, Brahma and Rudra are avatara-s of Brahman, Vishnu.

For ‘bhUtakrt’ Shankara gives two meanings: The one resorting to Rajo guna, in the form of Virinchi (Brahma) (विरिञ्चिरूपेण) creates the beings: Bhutakrit. The one resorting to tamoguna, as Rudra, रुद्रात्मना destroys beings, and so bhutakrit. It is interesting to see that the Hindi translation for both the triteeyaa forms Shankara has used, virinchi-rupena and rudraatmanaa, is ब्रह्मारूपसे, रुद्ररूपसे. Even in the below stated triteeyaa of Shankara, विश्वप्रपञ्चरूपेण, the Hindi translation is: विश्वप्रपञ्चरूपसे. Only those who have fundamental knowledge of Sanskrit can appreciate this. Others will get confused and end up in funny interpretations. Sridhara swamin too, in the Bhagavatam commentary stated: One Brahman alone performs the three cosmic functions taking the three forms: brahma rupena, vishnu rupena and rudra rupena. All this is in perfect agreement with Shankara: Brahman alone takes various forms through maya.

One can appreciate this further by the name ‘anantarupah’ (932) where Shankara says: अनन्तानि रूपाणि अस्य विश्वप्रपञ्चरूपेण स्थितस्य इति अनन्तरूपः [Infinite are the forms of Brahman which appears as the expansive world]. This is consistent with the BG chapters 10 and 11 and Shankara’s bhashya. Thus for Veda Vyasa, Shankara and all advaitins, the entire world of varied forms and names is only a manifestation of Brahman through the agency of Maya/Shakti. Any difference across beings and between Brahman and beings will render Brahman tainted with svagatabheda-defect and vastu paricchinnatva defect.

Om Tat Sat