[Advaita-l] Bigotry can't get any worse
Aditya Kumar
kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 3 05:32:54 EST 2018
Shiva linga is the highest form of worship in vedic religion. I urge v subrahmaniamji to post more emails regarding bhamati of vachaspati mishra. His prasthana is more consistent and reasonable via a vis shankaras sutra bhashya.
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2/2/18, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Subject: [Advaita-l] Bigotry can't get any worse
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "Aditya" <searchpow at gmail.com>
Cc: "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, 2 February, 2018, 12:30 PM
Bigotry can't get any worse
The Bhamati 1.3.24 BSB on the bhashya
for the sutra 'शब्दादेव
प्रमितः'
cites this following verses while
putting forward the prima facie view that
the jiva and not the Paramatma, is the
one that is taught as ' angushtha
maatrah purusha' (the purusha is of the
size of the thumb):
अपि च
जीवात्मनः
स्पष्टमङ्गुष्ठमात्रत्वं
स्मर्यते
'अङ्गुष्ठमात्रं
पुरुषं
निशिचकर्ष यमो
बलात्' इति ।
[Yama, forcefully pulled away the '
purusha of the size of the thumb' and
set out on the journey to the
pitruloka...] Bhavishya puranam.
The Bhamati continues, in support of
this idea:
नहि सर्वेशस्य
ब्रह्मणो यमेन
बलान्निष्कर्षः
कल्पते । [Indeed it is
impossible to propose that the Supreme
Lord Brahman can be pulled away
forcefully by Yama.] And in
substantiation of this statement cites a verse
from the of the Vishnu Purana:
यमो हि जगौ
'हरिगुरुवशगोऽस्मि न
स्वतन्त्रः प्रभवति
संयमने ममापि विष्णुः'
इति
। [Yama indeed said 'I am under the
control of Hari, the Superior, and not
independent. Vishnu is the one capable
of controlling me as well.]
The statement of Vachaspathi Mishra
that Yama cannot pull away forcefully
the 'Supreme Lord, Brahman' and the
immediate citing of a verse that says
that such a Supreme Lord Brahman is
Vishnu proves that he had no
reservations in holding Vishnu to be
the Supreme Brahman.
We have the bigoted blogger maligning
Vachaspathi Mishra (VM), the renowned
Advaita Acharya, who wrote the famous
Bhamati as 'a non-vedantin, a shaiva,
etc.':
https://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_3.html#advaitavishnu
And also see http://www.mediafire.com/download/n9q6kdu3dnr4l4z/VM%
27s+Crime.pdf
Much to the chagrin of the blogger, the
author of the Kalpataru (commentary
to the Bhamati), Swami Amalananda, whom
he tried to promote as a
'vaishnava-advaitin' favoring the cause
of Vaishnavism of the Ramanuja
brand, has himself said in no
unequivocal terms that the author of the
Bhamati was an aparoksha jnani, in his
concluding part of the Kalpataru.
This very Swami Amalananda, in this
very work, Kalpataru, authenticated the
Prapanchasara as a work of Shankara and
even cited a verse from it. It is
very well known that the Prapanchasara
is the complete antithesis of all
that is Vaishnavite. There is
everything in it that holds all deities as
upasya, as giving moksha and has even a
verse that holds Hari and Hara as
to be worshiped on par.
Now, added to all this, is this
statement of VM himself where he holds
Vishnu to be the Supreme. If he was
really a 'Shaiva', he would never have
held Vishnu to be the Supreme Brahman.
In fact there was no need for him to
make that statement; he could have
simply cited the verse from the VP and
that would have served his purpose of
portraying the prima facie view. That
he has done what he has speaks volumes
of his Hari-Hara abheda acceptance
as all other Advaitins before and after
him have been.
The sole cause of the blogger's hatred
towards VM is primarily triggered by
his own shiva-hatred. The crime of VM
was that, in all innocence, he paid
obeisance to Lord Shiva in his
invocation to the Bhamati:
षड्भिरङ्गैरुपेताय
विविधैरव्ययैरपि ।
शाश्वताय
नमस्कुर्मो वेदाय च
भवाय च ॥३॥
Even a mere obeisance to Shiva would
not have caused so much rage in the
blogger, for the invocation qualifies
Shiva with the adjective: शाश्वताय
which means 'eternal.' For the
fanatical vaishnava, no one other than
Vishnu can be eternal. He would
not have been so much disturbed if the
Bhamati had given that adjective to
just the Veda, but it went on to
include Bhava, Shiva, too as the one
qualified by that adjective. So much
for the fanaticism of someone who has
received modern education.
It is to be noted that VM nowhere
denigrated Vishnu. In fact he has
referred to Vishnu as 'Bhagavan', an
undoubtedly exalting honorific, while
paying obeisance to Veda Vyasa:
ब्रह्मसूत्रकृते
तस्मै वेदव्यासाय
वेधसे ।
ज्ञानशक्त्यवताराय
नमो भगवतो हरेः ॥५॥
VM praises Veda Vyasa as the jnana
shakti avatara of Bhagavan Hari.
Of course, when one's heart is filled
with hatred to Shiva, the intellect
to recognize a Hari-stuti in the
immediate proximity, is sadly clouded.
Now, the Bhamati's statement about
Vishnu as the Supreme Brahman, strikes
on the face of the blogger's fanatical
animosity towards Shiva and, by
extension, the author of the Bhamati,
and all smartas. Even a
vishishtadvaitin has recognized the
Bhamati citing the verse above:
http://thiruppul.blogspot.in/2016/08/blog-post_16.html
பீஷ்மர்
நகுலனுக்கு
வர்ணித்ததைப்
பராசரர்வர்ணித்தார்.
இந்தஸம்வாதத்தில்
ஸ்ரீசங்கரர்
முதலிய அத்வைதப்
பெரியார்களுக்கு
விசேஷ ஈடுபாடு.
யமன்
பாடினான்
என்று"ஹரிகுருவஶகோऽஸ்மி
ந ஸ்வதந்த்ர:
ப்ரபவதி
ஸம்யமதே
மமாபி விஷ்ணு:"
(*हरिगुरुवशगोऽस्मि न
स्वतन्त्र: प्र्भवति
संयमते ममापि
विष्णु:) என்ற
சுலோகத்தை பாமதீ
க்ரந்தம்
உதாஹரித்தது. *
It is really unfortunate that so much
animosity to Shiva, the smarta
sampradaya and the Acharyas of the
Advaita tradtion (who have been maligned
by projecting them as supporters of the
bigoted strand of vaishnavism)
emerges from someone who has his roots
in the very smarta tradtion that he
has continuously maligned:
(These are from public domain)
Here is a Tamil blog where he has
admitted his smarta roots:
As ' கந்தர்வன்' on
January 29, 2010 this blogger wrote in :
*http://www.tamilhindu.com/2010/01/sivarama-darshanam-by-kamban/
<http://www.tamilhindu.com/2010/01/sivarama-darshanam-by-kamban/>*
// (நான்
ஸ்ரீவைஷ்னவன் அல்லன்;
சங்கர சம்பிரதாயத்தை
அடியொற்றி வந்த அத்வைத
குலத்தவன்)//
[The translation is: 'I am not a Srivaishnava; I belong to
the Advaita lineage that has adhered to
the Shankara sampradaya.']
And in this page too refers to his
'conversion' to the Ramanuja following:
https://narayanastra.blogspot.in/search?q=father
How can there be such Shiva-hatred and
hatred for those who worship Shiva?
If Vaishnavism needs to stay afloat by
means of cheap gimmicks such as
hatred, bigotry, factually false
proclamations, etc, indeed one has to pity
that 'ism.' Those who have
partnered with such a mentality will have to
seriously reconsider their stand.
Rather than promoting Srivaishnavism such
behaviour only blotches the image of
that school and its founding fathers
and those who have nurtured it.
Om Tat Sat
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list