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

[D Gayatri]

It would be meaningless to invoke ishtha devata tattvam, if it is different
from ishtha devatha.


On Saturday, 13 August 2016, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Saturday, 13 August 2016, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 4:48 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > 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.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org <javascript:;>
>