[Advaita-l] Fwd: Shankara authenticates Shiva as the son of Brahma

[V Subrahmanian]

On Saturday, 13 August 2016, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 4:48 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> nirguNa does not always imply nirvishesha.
>
>
> All visheshas accrue only from the gunas and therefore nirguna implies
> nirvishesha.
>
>
>
>> It is Ishwara who creates and destroys as mentioned clearly in the 6th
>> mantra of Mandukya upanishad.
>
>
> But this Ishwara is not the sole subject matter of the second sutra.
>
>
>> nirvishesha Brahman is beyond Ishwara, as the fourth. It neither creates
>> nor destroys anything.
>
>
> The world can emerge from the NB and also stay there and dissolve as a
> superimposition. That is what is meant by Shankara in BSB 2.1.1. quotes.
>
>
>> There is no second entity in that state. It cannot even be denoted by
>> terms like Brahman or Atman.
>
>
> The Fourth in mantra 7 is indeed taught as 'Atman.' Aham Brahmasmi is not
> about the Ishwara.
>
>
>> Please read bhagavatpAda's commentary on neti neti, if you think I am
>> making things up. The nirvishesha Atman is indicated by silence as is
>> mentioned in BSB. Shankara also quotes Narayana telling to Narada (from Mbh
>> Shanti parva), that his true nature is not even the vishwaroopa.
>
>
> So what? That Narayana is only saying that he is NB. Through silence one
> can never teach. Shankara cites that instance only to show that no word is
> applicable to the Supreme truth. Yet, Atman, Brahman, Sat, Turiya, Bhūman,
> etc. are employed by the Upanishads to teach the Nirguna tattvam.
>
>
>
>>
>> I would like to point out here that you are also contradicting yourself.
>> In your article on paradox, you say that Narayana, who is beyond avyakta,
>> is the ishtha devata of Shankara. Now you are saying that no deity is
>> beyond avyakta. I suggest you resolve your contradiction first.
>>
>
> I suggest you read that correctly. I have said ‘iṣṭa devatā *tattvam*’.
> Tattvam is NB.
>
>
>>
>> Regarding your other question, there is a discussion in BSB, that prANa
>> does not mean vital force when it is indicated as creator etc, but it means
>> supreme Brahman who alone is the cause. Same is the case with other words
>> like Akasa etc. If you are unable to find it, let me know. I can help.
>>
>
> Pl. quote the portion. I have known of a Mandukya bhashya where Shankara
> says the term 'prāṇa' in a particular Chandogya mantra is applied to the
> Brahman which is the layasthanam, the avyakta, and not nirguna brahman from
> where realized souls do not return.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>