[Advaita-l] Padmapada's invocation and commentaries

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 2:02 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:

> //While* that* Lord Shiva was donning the ashes, *this*, Shankaracharya,
> is bereft of the vibhūti called aishvarya: aishvaryalakshanavibhūti
> vidhuraḥ. Anyone with elementary Sanskrit knowledge will be able to see
> this. //
>
> Commentary does not use "vibhUti" but "bhUti".
>

Tattvadipanam   - This is correct. While typing I had said vibhūti instead
of bhūṭi.  But that does not change the meaning of the compound word:
aishvaryalakshana bhūti vidhuraḥ. Bhūti is given a viśeṣaṇa, adjective:
aishvaryalakṣana. (there is the famous Mundakopanishad mantra: tasmāt
ātmajñam hyarchayet bhūtikāmaḥ [Therefore, let the one desirous of wealth
propitiate/worship the Knower of the Self]  When the two words are combined
it is aishvaryalakshana-bhūti. Tena vidhuraḥ, devoid of that glory. Nowhere
the bhasma is brought here in this compound.

First he gives the meaning for the word 'bhūti' of the verse to apply to
Shiva: bhūtiḥ=bhasitam. Then he says: tadanuliptāgāraḥ = Shiva is the one
whose body is smeared with bhasma. Then the vailakshanya is brought out:
Shankara, on the other hand, is devoid of the bhūti that is aishvarya.
Nowhere does this mean that the commentator is holding that 'Shankaracharya
is without bhasma.'


> The commentary is saying he is devoid of wealth and ashes.
>

The commentary is not saying this at all. If it is indeed saying that, the
construction of the sentence should have been: aishwaryabhūtibhyām
vidhuraḥ.  The vigraha of this compound would be: aishvaryam tathā bhūtiḥ =
aishvaryavibhūtī. tābhyām (dual number) vidhuraḥ.  But the actual sentence
found there is: aishvaryalakshana bhūti vidhuraḥ.  The word lakshana is the
one that indicates the adjective for bhūti.  Since the word bhūti has both
the meanings: bhasma and aishwarya, the commentator is specifying that it
is the latter (in the case of Shankaracharya) in order to ward off the
former meaning.


> bhUti is given the meaning of bhasitam, or ashes, by the commentary itself.
>

Yes. this is correct. But that is applicable to Shiva as I have shown
above.

Anybody can see the commentary for which the link to the image has been
provided.

vs