[Advaita-l] Krishna is Shiva's child (was Re: Shankara authenticates Shiva as the son of Brahma)

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Mon Aug 15 05:24:45 CDT 2016

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:20 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The existence of multiple etymologies does not invalidate any particular
> etymology. All etymologies are equally valid and all are equally applicable
> to Keshava. The author of VSN bhashya, uses all these etymologies to
> indicate the same entity, Vishnu.

To think that Shankara comments on each of the names there as applicable
'only' to the four-armed deity called 'Vishnu' is the folly.  For Shankara
that entity is Brahman of which one or some of the forms are relatable to
Vishnu the consort of Lakshmi.  For several names Shankara has commented
with the idea that it is nirguna brahman. For 'Rudra' Shankara gives an
etymology from Shiva purana that says: shiva is the supreme cause. Thus,
for Shankara that name in the VSN is shiva-param. Soma is alternatively
commented as 'one with umā, shiva' (not narasimha).  Bhutakrit, etc. at the
beginning is commented upon by shankara as 'one enitity taking three forms
to perform the functions, assuming three gunas.'

> It is not as if each etymology refers to a different entity, which would
> be a ludicrous proposition. And since one of the etymologies implies that
> Kesava is the controller of brahmA and rudra, there is no way keshava could
> have arisen from rudra.

The 'control' etymology refers to Brahman that is the substratum of the
trimurtis. 'Controlling' is no more than being the source of the existence
of the three murtis. It is a passive one. So, that Brahman is beyond the
three murtis that are all created. Hence, it is quite possible for Keshava
the one with beautiful hairs to have arisen from Shiva, the one beyond the
three murtis. At that level the Vishnu beyond the three murtis and the
Shiva beyond the three murtis are non-different, Brahman.

> Thus, the interpolators of the Mahabharata, in this context, did a
> remarkably poor job.

Thus, none can prove any interpolation here. Those who allege that are only
doing an extremely poor job.

> On Monday, 15 August 2016, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.co

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list