[Advaita-l] Padmapada's invocation and commentaries

[Raghav Kumar]

Excellent explanation by Sri Subramanian ji. While the word bhUti refers to
bhasma in the context of Lord Shiva, it is the absence of bhUtiH or outer
wealth in the case of Sankara bhagavatpAda. (nirastabhUtiH)

The wellknown verse from muNDaka clarifies this further
Atmajnam ki arcayed bhUtikAmaH meaning 'may the one who seeks bhUtiH or
worldly wealth worship the knower of the Self'.  (Although funnily some
godmen do dispense bhUtiH or ashes too!! )

The last two posts by Sri Subramaniam ji and word by word clear explanation
by Sri Venkataraghavan ji clinch the issue. We can say conclusively that
shri padmapAda was comparing his guru to Lord Shiva.

We should thank the narayanastra blogspot for highlighting this shloka.

Om

Esp. as seen in the verse
On 04-Sep-2016 3:32 pm, "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>