[Advaita-l] viShNusUri

[venkata subramanian]

i had not checked this mail box for about a week or so, and today after posting a mail on the topic "Sahasramana Book" i saw this whole series on the above topic.
 
What I actually meant first was, the Vidwans of Mathur, (Not Mathura - Jaldhar, Mathur is a small village near Shimoga, a village which is inherited with a fine Agrahara with "Smarthas residing in it; who are considered to be well versed in the tradition of Vedas and Smrithis, who are generally regarded up well in Karnataka, and many of whom are disciples of Holenarsipur Sri Swami Sachdanendra Saraswathi, had learnt, Vyakarana, Prasthanathreya Bhashyas well), Chapter "Sri Rudra(m)" found in the Yajur Veda, cannot be held as an "Upanishad" since the Vidwan who told me this, said that, its contents are to be equated to what the Gita explains in Chapter 11.   He said, that we cannot hold Sri Rudra as an Upanishad, since that is not in tradition so held.  this is what he said.
 
Then i referred to him again, the issue brought out by Swami Amritananda's English Translation, a copy of which i too have, he said, vishnu suri has written so, yes, but tradition does not hold so.   i understood that probably, he is taking side with the traditionally accepted Sayanacharya's commentary and where, even according to Swami Amritananda, Sri Rudra chapter is not held as an Upanishad Per se by Sri Sayanacharya.  
 
When Ravi Mayavaram was mentioning about Vishnu Suri, and his commentary on Sri Rudra Chapter, i thought to add this information that i got from those revered Pandits.
 
ONLY BECAUSE, THE VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY SUCH LEARNED & TRADITIONAL VEDIC PUNDITS, i thought it appropriate to express that fact, since, i am under the impression that this list respects the tradition as equal and important to Knowledge. Had i not been sure that such pandits would say something correct and generally reliable, i would not have posted it so bold.
 
As rightly pointed out by Sri Rama Subramanian, i meant the Chapter "Sri Rudra" i missed the "m", and NEVER to the Deity Sri Rudra, which was never intended in my message, for i was only talking about the Chapter of Rudra and not the deity at all.  This error was read differently by Ravi Mayavaram, and i did not even see these postings these days.  By the way, why for this, i should be dubbed all these....., if am not a believer in the Acharya's Advaita, i would never be a member in this group at all.  i too belong to a proper Smartha community only.
 
"nothing more or nothing less"  - i meant that the matter of content in sri Rudra Chapter and the Gita 11th chapter not the deity again.
 
Ravi Mayavaram has sent his apology to me, thank him for that, for otherwise, i would be missing this good club, wherein i have learnt good things like - Sri Rama's answer to my doubt on Cause & Effect in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya (Sa Deepa Ghatashya Upalabhatwat) and later Sri Acharya's remark on "Alata chakravat...in Mundaka"
 
Regards,
Venkat.

Ravi Mayavaram <ravi at ambaa.org> wrote:

Here I am asking about viShNu sUri and his background, you come back and
tell me that "Rudra is nothing more or nothing less than what he is
described as in 11th chapter on gItA". Is it is a plan to derail this 
thread to a discussion war?

Kindly tell me, why should I go to gItA, 11th chapter in gItA to learn
about Rudra. Even if I do, I will consider Him same and no different 
tnan Lord Krishna. But I would rather understand rudra directly as he 
is described in Rudram and using verses on him texts like mahAnArAyaNa. 
Besides ask yourself and your vaiShNava friends whether they will 
consider viShNu/nArAyaNa as nothing more than son of aditI (as some hare 
krishna-s do) based on the same chapter.

To be fair to viShNu sUri, you should consider him along with sAyana, 
bhaTTa bhAskara, abhinava Sankara and other commentators. It is unfair 
to bring gItA to put down rudra. sAyana interprets rudram from karma 
point of view, bhaTTa bhAskara from upAsana and abhinava Sankara argues 
quoting the big three (shruti, smRti, purANa) that it is an upaniShad 
and it teaches jnAna. But it is viShNu sUri, who explains how from an 
adhyAtmika view point.[from Swami Atmananda's introduction]. And I find 
it perfectly valid to spend effort and explain rudram like that. The 
question is whether rudram is merely for karma or it teaches jnAna also. 
The question is not whether Rudra is supreme or not. He is nothing but 
the supreme. And it is perfectly valid based on shruti to consider Rudra 
as the supreme brahman and meditate on him on that way.

I regret sending you a nasty personal e-mail on Monday. I should have 
waited a day or two and then reacted.

Ravi



venkata subramanian wrote:
> Well, i may add just one thing here. Vishnu Suri's Rudra Bhashya
> tries to put forth the theory that Sri Rudra is an Upanishad.
> 
> i spoke with Pandits from Mathur on this, they said that tradition
> does not hold so. Sri Rudra - is to be equated, according to them,
> to the 11th Chapter of the Gita, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Namaste, Venkat
> 




_______________________________________________
want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
Need assistance? Contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


Thanks & Regards,
Venkat.

Sadgurubhyo Namah.
		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo! Personals