[Advaita-l] Fwd: Shankara authenticates Shiva as the son of Brahma
dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 13 05:57:43 CDT 2016
Resending since original message is too big -
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *D Gayatri* <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 13 August 2016
Subject: Shankara authenticates Shiva as the son of Brahma
To: Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, V Subrahmanian <
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
//By all means say that Vishnu is the Vedantic Brahman, but please do not
say that Shiva is not, and please do not try to superimpose your parochial
views on Shankara BhagavatpAda. //
Please read Shankara's commentary on Brihadaranyaka upanishad, 1.4.11,
before accusing me of superimposing my so-called parochial views on
Shankara. Please do not accuse your opponents without verifying the facts.
Now, regarding your point on Kena upanishad bhashya, I find it speculative.
On Saturday, 13 August 2016, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com
> "Thus, for Shankara bhagavatpAda, Shiva is a created entity."
> Not true.
> If you see Kenopanishad bhAshya for mantra 12 in the third khanda, it is
> clear that BhagavatpAda considers Lord Shiva to be the sarvajna Ishvara
> Here is the Kena mantra which talks about Indra approaching Brahman in the
> form of Yaksha(a brilliant form of a pillar of light). As soon as an
> arrogant Indra nears that pillar of light, the light disappears. Indra is
> disappointed and feels chastened. Uma devi then appears in front of him.
> स तस्मिन्नेवाकाशे स्त्रियमाजगाम बहु शोभमानामुमां हैमवतीं तां होवाच
> किमेतद्यक्षमिति ॥ १२ ॥
> He beheld at the very spot a lady, very beautiful and of golden lustre,
> Uma Haimavati. He asked her, who is this Yaksha.
> In the bhAshya to this mantra, Shankara BhagavatpAda explains the meaning
> of Haimavati. He says:
> उमैव हिमवतो दुहिता हैमवती नित्यमेव सर्वज्ञेनेश्वरेण सह वर्तत इति
> (Alternatively) Haimavati means, the daughter of HimavAn, the HimAlayas -
> Uma who is eternally together with the omniscient Ishvara.
> Who else but Lord Shiva could BhagavatpAda have in mind when he was
> referring to as that Omniscient Ishvara who Uma is always associated with?
> By all means say that Vishnu is the Vedantic Brahman, but please do not
> say that Shiva is not, and please do not try to superimpose your parochial
> views on Shankara BhagavatpAda. BhagavatpAda did not consider Lord Shiva to
> be anything but Ishvara himself - as he did Lord Vishnu.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list