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

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

This whole discussion started with authentic critical edition of
Mahabharata. Here I will show a Critical Edition is Impossible. Every
Mahabharata version is corrupt including Critical Edition. Therefore
your argument based on
authentic Mahabharata as Critical Edition published in modern India is wrong.

Why? Because in Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya the great Madhvacharya has said

grantho.apyevaM viluLitaH kimvartho devadurgamaH | kalAvevaM vyAkulite
nirNayAya prachoditaH || 2.5  hariNA nirNayAn vachmi
vijAna.nstatprasAdataH  || 2.6
shAstrAntarANi saJNjAnan vedAMshchAsya prasAdataH |  deshe deshe tathA
granthAn dR^ishhTvA chaiva pR^ithagvidhAn || 2.7

5 - 7. When the original work itself is so altered, What is there to
say of its meaning which is intelligible (even) to the Devas only with
difficulty.  When the work had thus become altered in the Kali age,
under the direction of Hari for its clear understanding, I shall state
the settled truths having known them through His grace, and also
having well known the other (extinct) works and all the Vedas through
His grace, and also having examined the various editions existing in
several places.

In Madhva's time many many centuries back itself Mahabharata was so
corrupt and he says even gods can understand it with difficulty.

If Sukhthankar or someone in modern India is trying to do a critical
edition he is sure to fail because he is not a god. Therefore the
Critical Edition itself is corrupt and has many interpolations and
deletions.

What about Adi Sankara's references from Mbh? We have to not take them
as Primary Supporting texts. They should be taken with the rest of the
Bhashya and meaning should such as agreeing with rest of the Bhashya.

But you are taking them as Primary texts and making false assumptions.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:11 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Namaste Sir
>
> You are welcome to take up your "kutarka" charge with the translators (
> hopefully, they are alive, hale and healthy, by God's grace). I can only
> assure you that I had no part to play in these translations. I have nothing
> further to add.
>
> Regards
> Gayatri
>
>
> On Monday, 15 August 2016, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> Namaste
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:26 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Namaste
>> >
>> > Well known translations of Shankara bhAshyas are available by Swami
>> > Gambhirananda and Swami Madhavananda. You can consult them to know if
>> > any of
>> > these instances is really referring to Shiva.
>> No need to consult translations which may be inaccurate. It is alright
>> to take Siva with general meaning Áuspicious' but we have to take
>> Vishnu and Narayana also with general meanings only. Or if you take
>> Vishnu and Narayana as particular God you have to take Siva also as a
>> particular God. You cannot take Siva as general meaning and Vishnu as
>> a particular God. It is Kutarka or bad logic.
>>
>>
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh