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

[V Subrahmanian]

In the invocatory verse for the Taittiriya Upanishad bhashya, Shankara pays
obeisance to no deity whatsoever but the Nirguna Tattvam:

yasmājjātam jagat sarvam........tasmai jnānātmane namaḥ.

So also at the beginning of the Mandukya bhashya, the prayer is to the
nirguna tattvam.



On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:47 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>