[Advaita-l] [advaitin] The 'Parabrahman' of Advaita

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Subbuji wrote:
------------------------------------
ऋतँ सत्यं परं ब्रह्म पुरुषं कृष्णपिङ्गलम्। ऊर्ध्वरेतं विरूपाक्षं विश्वरूपाय वै नमो नमः ॥ This occurs in the Mahanarayana upanishat of the Taittiriya āraṇyaka 1.12. Sāyana says that the deity here is Umāmaheśvara. This adds to the point that 'the sandhyāvandana mantras are not completely Viṣṇu-specific' as the commenting person claims. This is in addition to the information given in the recent article: https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/a-false-propaganda-vi%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%87u-and-sandhyavandanam/

Also, Sāyaṇa does not give the impression, as the commentator of the blog claims, that the Aitareya brāhmaṇa first mantra is anything about the supremacy of Vishnu. It is about a ritual where offerings are made to various deities, including Viṣnu, like all other deities, in a certain order, which no way means any supremacy of Vishnu.  

-----------------
Subbuji - Just couple of comments; it just so happened that I am a Vaishavaite too!

In the recent Swami Paramarthanandaji's Kenopanishat class - in the story discussed in tthe 3rd chapter in the place of yaksha, uma appears, when Indra comes there to inquire, who is that Yaksha. - for those who are familiar with the story.

A Swami Interpreted uma as rearrangement of Om - that involves A - U - m - with rearrangement it becomes U +m+ A = UmA, essentially indicating the Om kaara swaruupinI - standing for Shruti. Uma -also can be Swaraswati, Swamiji said.

In the Vaishnava tradition - Om that involves A - U - M; A stands for Vishnu (aksharaanaam akaarosmi - even though one can interpret the akaara as nirvikaara), U stands for Lakshmi and M stands for Jiiva. and Jiive can reach A through U - via Laskhmi - Hence Shree Vaishnava concept of moksha via Shree.. Lakshmi can stand of course for the prakRiti.  In the purusha suukta - purusha is identified as - husband of Lakshmi - hRiischate lakshmIsca patnyou - who is ahOrAtre paarshvE-

The vishunu sahasranaamaavali starts with Vishvam and then VishnuH - Hence the creation -Visvam and the one who pervades the creation - vyaapakatvaat - VishnuH. 

Hence umAmeheswara can be Laksmiipati!

Parabrahman is not created too when the so-called creation itself has no beginning, how can there be beginning for the creator? Even in vishishtaadvaita - the creation is beginning-less and avidyaa is there with the jiivas - although the avidya they define is different from maaya and involves in not recognizing the supremacy of Lord - Shesha-Shesheebhaava.  The karma that contributes to creation is therefore beginning-less. 

Hence, in principle, discussion on saguna  Brahman in terms of Vishnu vs Shiva is futile discussions. The major problem in Moksha is - as per their description - it is still desha-kaala-vastu parichinnam - limited - space-wise, time-wise and object-wise, some of these limitations are dismissed by them by axiomatic declarations. 

No desire to get into saguna ruupa Iswara - discussions - but could not resist to point out possibility of counter interpretations to justify the claims.

My 2C.
Hari Om!
Sadananda