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

[D Gayatri]

The feeling is mutual. I too think this is getting ridiculous. I think you
are seeing arthavada to suit your convenience. Please apply your own
arthavada logic to the kena upanishad bhashya quote and you will realize
that Shiva has nothing to do with that episode. The term sarvajna Ishwara,
is neutral.

Now its my turn to say - Whatever may be your agenda, I want to play no
further role in it and recuse myself from this discussion with you.

Regards
Gayatri


On Saturday, 13 August 2016, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is getting a little ridiculous.
>
> You still have not provided any substantive response to the Kena bhAshya
> quote - apart from dismissing it as speculation, and now you are saying
> that we are wrong in dismissing something which is clearly arthavAda?
>
> Whatever may be your agenda, I want to play no further role in it and
> recuse myself from this discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 13 Aug 2016 3:08 p.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> I am not sure we should brush aside everything that we find to be
>> inconvenient as arthavAda. For the mImAmsaka, the entire brahma jignAsa
>> portion is arthavAda!
>>
>> I am not aware of Sri Shankara calling himself a sinner anywhere in his
>> bhAshyas. For the third point, please see my other response.
>>
>> Regards
>> Gayatri
>>
>> On Saturday, 13 August 2016, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','agnimile at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> Firstly it is arthavAda, not to be taken literally.
>>>
>>> Secondly, you have several similar instances in slokas composed by
>>> mahAtmAs, some by Shankaracharya himself, where for the benefit of ajnani
>>> devotees, he says that I am a sinner, ajnAni, please help me Lord. It
>>> doesn't mean Shankaracharya is an ajnAni or a sinner, it is said on behalf
>>> of such devotees.
>>>
>>> Thirdly, as I have said Rudra is an amshA. When Sri Rama was lamenting
>>> over the loss of Sita one cannot say that the sarvajna Narayana is
>>> lamenting, and for that lament to be cited as a reason to deny Narayana's
>>> Ishvaratvam.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>
>>> On 13 Aug 2016 1:02 p.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alright, you have a point. So I will explain why you can't compare
>>>> birth of Rudra from Prajapati to that of Ishwara taking an incarnation.
>>>> This is because, the baby Rudra, in the satapatha brahmana episode, cries
>>>> that he is not free from sins. Certainly, this is not the mark of Ishwara,
>>>> since Ishwara is always free from sins.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Gayatri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>