[Advaita-l] Shankara authenticates Shiva

[Venkatraghavan S]

//Then Shankara quotes the words of Brahma, to his son Shiva, that the
> Pursusha (Narayana) is the inner Self etc
>
> Because of the following, we can say that this incident is
> authenticated by Shankara -
>
> 1. There is a natural continuity in this episode  of the Mahabharata
> and Sri Shankara's quotes follow the exact same sequence and are also
> naturally continuous. A pUrva-paksha is presented first and then the
> pUrva-paksha is refuted and the siddhAnta is presented.
>
> 2. All the quotes are present at the same place in BSB.
>
> 3. None of this section contradicts advaita-vedAnta. It is perfectly
> compatible with advaita-vedAnta because it says there is in reality
> only one purusha.
//

Namaste Gayatriji,
I'm afraid I do not agree with the methodology that you have used in the
section above to conclude that the incident is authenticated.

To understand why, you will have to bear with me a bit. Whenever
interpreting any text, we have to consider what is the holistic teaching
and what is the spirit of the message conveyed - not merely the letter.

This latter bit (looking at the spirit of the message and going beyond the
letter in some places) can only be gained when the teaching is studied
through tradition, via a sampradAya. Merely studying the text academically
and at times out of context, will not give the right meaning.

If you look at the sampradAya, be it the Sringeri matha, or any other
Shankara affiliated matha, Hari Hara abheda is preserved everywhere. Most
mathas perform regular ChandramoulIshvara pUjas, ShivarAtri is observed as
are Rama Navami, Gokulashtami etc. All traditional AchAryas and
mathAdhipatis follow this Hari-Hara abheda in both letter and spirit.

So coming to the Mbh text in question, you have to bear this religious
context in mind when interpreting the text.

Every purANa, itihAsa, or vedic story has two components - a message
component and a story component. The message is the tAtparya, not the story.

Now Shankara quotes the words of Brahma to Shiva in his bhAshya you say.
What he is emphasising is the philosophy - there is one purusha, he is
Brahman. He is Narayana. Who is this Narayana?- to understand this we have
to look at the teaching holistically. When we do so, we will know that
Shankara is not talking about a devatA, but NirguNa chaitanyam.

That is the important bit here. Not that the Shiva is the son of Brahma -
that is merely the story component. Nowhere in Shankara's bhAshya does he
simply quote a story just for its sake. It's always that the message he is
focusing on.

We cannot extrapolate that because he quotes a philosophical statement, he
agrees that the story is fact. We cannot therefore conclude that he
considers Shiva as less than Ishvara. It doesn't agree with the Shankara
sampradAya that has been preserved in an unbroken line till today.

Let us consider Shankara's treatment of jAbala Upanishad.

//Shankara considers verse 3 as mere arthavAda since it directly
contradicts his philosophy that jnAna alone leads to moksha.//

I agree partly with you, chanting anything or worshipping any Ishvara -
whether Shiva or Vishnu, is not going to lead to moksha, directly.

Whenever such a quote is mentioned in the Veda, what is meant is that such
a karma/upAsana is an indirect means to moksha. That karma/upAsana leads to
chitta shuddhi, chitta shuddhi leads to guru prApti, which leads to
shravana manana nidhidhyAsana prApti, which leads to jnAna and jnAna gives
moksha. This paramparA sAdhana (indirect means, through chitta shuddhi)
leading to moksha is referred to in several places in Acharya's bhAshya.

So by Shankara's omission to mention that Jabala mantra here, one should
not conclude  that he considers the mantra as wrong. If he did, he would be
contradicting the shruti, which says Sri Rudram is a means to moksha.
Nobody, however great an AchArya they may be, can contradict the shruti.
Shankaracharya would never do so.

Secondly, arthavAda doesn't necessarily mean that what is said is wrong.
Typically arthavAda is classified as 1)nindA (a rebuke, intended to
prohibit some action), 2)stuti (praising something, intended to impel some
action), 3)prakriti (an action performed by some great person, to induce
others to do so) and 4) purAkalpa (a description of some past event).

Alternatively, it is classified as guNavAda (a statement contradicted by
another pramANa), anuvAda (a statement that is already known through
another pramANa), bhutArthavAda (an occurrence which happened in the past).

This jAbala Upanishad can viewed as a stuti, to impel one to chant the
Rudram but it cannot be dismissed as a guNavAda, a falsehood.

To do so, on the flimsy grounds of Shankara's failure to quote that mantra,
would be incorrect. It needs to be interpreted as stated above.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 18 Aug 2016 7:03 a.m., "D Gayatri via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> Then Shankara quotes the words of Brahma, to his son Shiva, that the
> Pursusha (Narayana) is the inner Self etc
>
> Because of the following, we can say that this incident is
> authenticated by Shankara -
>
> 1. There is a natural continuity in this episode  of the Mahabharata
> and Sri Shankara's quotes follow the exact same sequence and are also
> naturally continuous. A pUrva-paksha is presented first and then the
> pUrva-paksha is refuted and the siddhAnta is presented.
>
> 2. All the quotes are present at the same place in BSB.
>
> 3. None of this section contradicts advaita-vedAnta. It is perfectly
> compatible with advaita-vedAnta because it says there is in reality
> only one purusha.
>
>
>

> It is more interesting to note that even though Shankara quotes from
> verses (sections) 2, 4 and 5, he does not quote from verse 3, which is
> supposedly in the middle of these verses. This could either mean the
> verse (section) 3 is an interpolation (high probability given that it
> is much shorter compared to other verses) or Shankara does not agree
> that chanting the rudram is a means to immortality or (this is my
> favorite argument, since many people have employed it here), Shankara
> considers verse 3 as mere arthavAda since it directly contradicts his
> philosophy that jnAna alone leads to moksha.
>
> Hence, it is to be concluded that in the jAbAla upanishad, Shankara
> does not authenticate rudram chanting, even though he quotes other
> verses from the upanishad. As I said, here the key is not whether the
> text is long or short, but whether there is continuity in the topics
> addressed and whether the sections are compatible with
> advaita-vedAnta.
>
> A final point. There are instances, not only in the Mbh, but also in
> puranas, saying that visiting this sacred place or that sacred place,
> leads to this world or that world or even immortality and moksha.
> Given that the core of advaita-siddhAnta is that jnAna alone leads to
> moksha, all these instances should be taken as (again, I will quote
> the favorite argument of members here) *arthavAda*.