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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Haha, I appreciate your verbal / mental gymnastics. I do have an answer to
your point, but let us leave it at this. I think this discussion is going
to only lead to ego reinforcement, which this very Upanishad AkhyAyika is
warning us against. I will sign off with Shankara's words attributed to Uma
devi - यूयं तत्र निमित्तमात्रम् । तस्यैव विजये |

Harih Om.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM, D Gayatri via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Alright, let us say Indra did not think that the yaksha was same as
> sarvjna Ishwara, with whom Uma is associated. Let us also say this
> sarvajna Ishwara is Shiva only. Indra also does not know that this
> sarvajna Ishwara with whom Uma is associated, is brahman, for if he
> already knew, then there is nothing else to know. (So here sarvajnatva
> does not imply brahmatva). So far so good.
>
> Now note that Shankara uses the word Ishwara to refer to Indra himself
> in 3.11 and in 3.12, it is not Indra. This is an important point.
>
> Later Uma reveals that this yaksha is brahman. She does not say that
> this yaksha is the same as the one with whom I am associated. Shankara
> calls this as both brahman and Ishwara, but given that Ishwara in 3.11
> is not same as Ishwara in 3.12, there is no way to connect the Ishwara
> in 3.12 with the Ishwara in 4.1, for neither Shankara nor the
> upanishad says that the this brahman is the same Ishwara with whom Uma
> is associated. So there is no way Indra could have known that the
> sarvajna Ishwara with whom Uma is associated is brahman. Hence, there
> is no reason to suppose that this brahman is Shiva.
>
> Regards
> Gayatri
>
> On 15 August 2016 at 13:07, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, but that is an attribution made by Shankara. Remember the context of
> > this mantra is that Indra does not know who or what this Yaksha is. He
> has
> > not made the connection that this Yaksha is in fact Ishvara.
> >
> > So his thought pattern, according to Shankara is - I don't know what this
> > Yaksha is. But this lady Uma, because she is sarvajna Ishvara's wife,
> should
> > be knowledgeable due to her association with her omniscient husband.
> > Therefore, she will be able to tell me who or what this unknown entity,
> > Yaksha is.
> >
> > His thought pattern is not - this Yaksha is Ishvara. Here comes his wife,
> > she can tell me about her husband, Ishvara who is this Yaksha. If he
> already
> > knew that Yaksha is Ishvara, he doesn't need Uma to repeat it to him.
> >
> > Regards
> > Venkatraghavan
> >
> >
> > On 15 Aug 2016 8:29 a.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Shankara says that it is *Indra's* thought that Uma was forever
> >> associated with sarvajna Ishwara. Please check the bhAshya again.
> >> These are Indra's thoughts according to Shankara.
> >>
> >> On 15 August 2016 at 12:46, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > I don't think you have understood my point.
> >> >
> >> > Indra did not use the neuter gender to refer to Uma's husband, he used
> >> > it to
> >> > refer to Yaksha. Indra makes no reference to Uma's husband at all.
> >> >
> >> > Only Shankara makes reference to Uma's husband as Sarvajna Ishvara,
> and
> >> > not
> >> > when he is talking about Yaksha, when he is talking about Uma always
> >> > being
> >> > associated with Him. And there is no gender confusion there at all.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Venkatraghavan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 15 Aug 2016 7:58 a.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Shri Venkatraghavanji
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > If you are saying that because the neuter gender is used in the
> >> >> > pronoun
> >> >> > (एतत्), Siva cannot be referred to because he is male,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I am saying, if Indra thought that the companion of Uma who was
> >> >> sarvajna Ishwara, was a male (being her *husband*), then he would not
> >> >> have used neuter gender to refer to the sarvajna Ishwara. I also
> >> >> invite you to check the translation of Swami Gambhirananda. He uses
> >> >> the neutral word "God" everywhere in this context for Ishwara and
> does
> >> >> not interpret it as Shiva. So your assumption that Ishwara here
> refers
> >> >> to Shiva is no more than speculation.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> and no masculine
> >> >> > entity can be referred to, then by that logic, the Upanishad cannot
> >> >> > be
> >> >> > referring to ईश्वर as that Yaksha either - because the word ईश्वर
> is
> >> >> > masculine in gender too.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, that interpretation would be wrong, because Shankara
> >> >> > repeatedly
> >> >> > says that the Yaksha is indeed ईश्वर only.
> >> >>
> >> >> Let me point out that yaksha can be used both in neuter and masculine
> >> >> gender.
> >> >>
> >> >> Having said that, consider the following -
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. ayam AtmA brahma - here Atman is masculine and brahman is neuter
> >> >> but there is no problem with Atman referring to brahman.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. Mohini is Vishnu - here Mohini is feminine and Vishnu is
> masculine,
> >> >> but there is no problem with Mohini referring to Vishnu.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3. Brihannala is Arjuna - here Brihannala is (I think) feminine and
> >> >> Arjuna is masculine, but there is no problem with Brihannala
> referring
> >> >> to Vishnu
> >> >>
> >> >> Hence there is no problem with the word yaksha referring to the word
> >> >> Ishwara, even if the former is used in neuter gender.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >> Gayatri
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>