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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,
Shankaracharya's views on who is being referred to as Yaksha from the Kena
vAkya bhAshya:

न ह्यन्यत्र परादीश्वरान्नित्यसर्वज्ञात्परिभूयाग्न्यादींस्तृणं वज्रीकर्तुं
सामर्थ्यमस्ति । ‘तन्न शशाक दग्धुम्’ (के. उ. ३-६)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Kena_vakya&page=03#KP_C03_V06>इत्यादिलिङ्गाद्ब्रह्मशब्दवाच्य
ईश्वर इत्यवसीयते ।...ईश्वरेच्छया तु तृणमपि वज्रीभवतीत्युपपद्यते

None apart from the Nitya, parA, sarvajna Ishvara could have the capability
to subdue Agni by making even a blade of grass into the very vajrAyudha
itself. From the evidence in the Upanishad which said "He couldn't even
burn a corner of the blade of grass", it is clear that here Ishvara, the
meaning of the term saguNa Brahman is referred here... By Ishvara's mere
thought, a blade of grass can take the potency of vajrA.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 14 Aug 2016 7:36 p.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Shri Venkatraghavanji
>
>
> On 14 August 2016 at 17:17, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why speculate? From Shankara केन वाक्य भाष्य for the 12 th mantra:
> >
> > अभिप्रायोद्बोधहेतुत्वात् *रुद्रपत्नी उमा* हैमवतीव बहु शोभमाना विद्यैव
> >
> > From केन पद भाष्य:
> >
> > उमैव हिमवतो दुहिता *हैमवती नित्यमेव सर्वज्ञेनेश्वरेण सह वर्तत* इति
> >
> > What else is there to say?
>
>
> Firstly, it is debatable whether the vAkya bhAshya was really written
> by Shankara. Vidyavachaspathi Panoli who translated the prasthana
> traya bhashyas, thinks that the vAkya bhAshya is mistakenly attributed
> to bhagavatpAda.
>
>
> Be that as it may, let us come to your point. Why does the word
> Ishwara here not refer to Shiva? It is because in that particular
> portion of the Kena upanishad and the bhAshya, the neuter gender is
> used for brahman (tat and enat). Therefore, in this entire episode,
> brahman is not treated as a person at all, having a wife and kids.
> Note that Indra asks Uma - "kim etat yaksham", "what is this yaksha?"
> and not "who is this yaksha?" His question is addressed in the neuter
> gender. Therefore there is no way Indra could have thought that Uma
> was associated forever with a male companion. Hence, the word Ishwara
> here does not denote Shiva.
>
>
> You may disagree, but I have presented my view.
>
>
> Regards
> Gayatri
>