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

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

In the Aitareya Bhashya -
ऐतरेयोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमः अध्यायः । तृतीयः खण्डः । मन्त्रः १४ - भाष्यम्

तस्मादिदन्द्रो नामेदन्द्रो ह वै नाम तमिदन्द्रं सन्तमिन्द्र इत्याचक्षते
परोक्षेण । परोक्षप्रिया इव हि देवाः परोक्षप्रिया इव हि देवाः ॥ १४ ॥
इति तृतीयः खण्डः ॥
भाष्यम्
यस्मादिदमित्येव यत्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म सर्वान्तरमपश्यत् न परोक्षेण,
तस्मात् इदं पश्यतीति इदन्द्रो नाम परमात्मा । इदन्द्रो ह वै नाम
प्रसिद्धो लोके ईश्वरः । तम् एवम् इदन्द्रं सन्तम् इन्द्र इति परोक्षेण
परोक्षाभिधानेन आचक्षते ब्रह्मविदः संव्यवहारार्थं
पूज्यतमत्वात्प्रत्यक्षनामग्रहणभयात् । तथा हि परोक्षप्रियाः
परोक्षनामग्रहणप्रिया इव एव हि यस्मात् देवाः । ***** किमुत सर्वदेवानामपि देवो
महेश्वरः**** । द्विर्वचनं प्रकृताध्यायपरिसमाप्त्यर्थम् ॥


Here Adi Sankara has said Maheshvara is the God of all gods. We
usually use Mahesha and Maheshvara for Siva only like Brahma, Vishnu
and Maheshvara.
Famous Sloka is also there to prove it.

Gurur Brahma Gurur Vishnuh Gurur Devo Maheshvarah

In some other places he has praised Vishnu or Narayana also as the
Supreme. Therefore we must conclude he accepted Hari-Hara Abheda only.
He did not see difference between them.


On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:10 AM, D Gayatri via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> So, Shankara uses the masculine for that entity, yaksham, now revealed as
>> Brahman (neuter). So, there is nothing wrong in Indra understanding Uma as
>> the consort of Ishwara.
>
>
> If the Ishwara is Shiva, neuter gender cannot be used *at all*. It is
> Indra who has used neuter gender when talking to Uma. The fact that
> Indra uses neuter gender is significant. There is no way Indra could
> have thought that Uma was associated with a male companion, since he
> has used neuter gender to refer to the yaksha.
>
>
> The use of masculine, Atm;a (mandukya 7th mantra),
>> feminine 'devatā' (chandogya 6th chapter) and neuter 'Brahman' (Br.up.
>> 1.4.10 aham brahma asmi) are just a few examples where all three genders are
>> used across the upanishads to denote the Ultimate Truth.
>
>
> Do you mean Shankara is referring to nirguNa brahman (ultimate truth)
> when he uses sarvajna Ishwara? Then Shiva, as the husband of Uma, is
> ruled out because nirguNa brahman is nobody's husband.
>
>
>  In fact Shankara
>> cites a Jabala upanishad where occurs 'tvam  vā ahamasmi devate (sambodhana
>> for feminine), aham vai tvamasi' in the nirguna brahma context of
>> realization.
>
>
> But we are not talking about nirguNa brahman here. We are talking of
> Shiva who is very much masculine.
>
>
>> In the famous chandogya tat tvam asi, the other part of the sentence is: tat
>> satyam, sa ātmā tat tvam asi. Here, the sentence starts with the subject
>> tat, satyam, in neuter and says, sa ātmā, in the masculine. This is
>> explained as, since the Tat is taught as the self, atmā, the masculine is
>> used.
>
>
> Yes, masculine, feminine, neuter can all be used when referring to
> nirguNa brahman, but here we are talking of Shiva and not nirguNa
> brahman.
>
>
>> Shankara's comment for the earlier mantra: अथवा उमैव हिमवतो दुहिता हैमवती
>> नित्यमेव सर्वज्ञेनेश्वरेण सह वर्तत इति ज्ञातुं समर्थेति कृत्वा तामुपजगाम ।
>> Also denotes a masculine 'Ishwara'. Indra thought 'Because Umā is forever
>> with the Sarvajna Ishwara, therefore (the particle 'iti' has that meaning,
>> iti kāraṇāt), she will know the identity of the yaksham. This, Shankara
>> gives as an alternative meaning, after having first said 'Vidyā, knowledge,
>> appeared there in the feminine form of Uma.' So, even if Umā is not vidyā
>> itself, yet by her very eternal association with the Omniscient Ishwara she
>> knows' that is the thinking of Indra, according to Shankara.
>
>
> If Indra really thought of a masculine Ishwara, he would not have used
> the neuter gender when asking about the yaksha to Uma. Indra would
> have asked about a masculine yaksha. The fact that Indra asks about a
> neutral Yaksha shows that Indra never thought this Ishwara was
> masculine. Hence, there is no way this Ishwara could be Shiva. Indra's
> very own question proves that.
> _______________________________________________
> 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



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh