[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
 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
 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
 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'
 । [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,
 And also see  http://www.mediafire.com/download/n9q6kdu3dnr4l4z/VM%
 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:
 विविधैरव्ययैरपि  ।
 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:
 तस्मै वेदव्यासाय
 वेधसे  ।
 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:
 முத‌லிய‌ அத்வைத‌ப்
 விசேஷ‌ ஈடுபாடு.
 ந‌ ஸ்வ‌த‌ந்த்ர‌:
 மமாபி விஷ்ணு:"
 (*हरिगुरुवशगोऽस्मि न
 स्वतन्त्र: प्र्भवति
 संयमते ममापि
 विष्णु:) என்ற‌
 சுலோக‌த்தை  பா‌ம‌தீ
 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 :
 // (நான்
 ஸ்ரீவைஷ்னவன் அல்லன்;
 சங்கர சம்பிரதாயத்தை
 அடியொற்றி வந்த அத்வைத
 [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:
 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/
 To unsubscribe or change your options:
 For assistance, contact:
 listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list