[Advaita-l] Narayanashrama 13 - 14 CE cites a verse that Amalananda has cited

[V Subrahmanian]

Narayanashrama 13 - 14 CE cites a verse that Amalananda has cited.

Narayanashrama is stated to be the disciple of Atmananda.  His co-disciple
was Shankarananda, the Guru of Vidyaranya.  In Shankarananda's lineage
comes Amalananda, the author of the Bhamati-Kalpataru.

In the Atharvashira Upanishad Dipika, Sri Narayanashrama (1275 - 1350),
while commenting on the Upanishad words:

http://vinaysv.blogspot.com/2013/

रुद्रमेकत्वमाहुः । रुद्रो हि शाश्वतेन वै पुराणेनेषमूर्जेण तपसा नियन्ता ।

In the commentary Narayanashrama says:

He who is denoted by the word 'Bhagavan' is Maheswara alone. He alone is
the Shuddha Brahman. By his own glory, mahimaa, he has attained various
forms. By his eternal, infinite, ancient, immutable, powerful, aishwarya
and tapas Rudra is the impeller, controller, of all beings. The eternality
of Aishwarya and Tapas of Rudra is because of the ten undiminishables..
Thus is stated:


ज्ञानं वैराग्यमैश्वर्यं तपः सत्यं क्षमा धृतिः । १०.४०
द्रष्टृत्वमात्मसंबोधो ह्यधिष्ठातृत्वमेव च ।।
अव्ययानि दशैतानि नित्यं तिष्ठन्ति शंकरे ।१०.४१  [This is in the
Kurmapurana  https://sa.wikisource.org/s/411 ]

[The undiminishing qualities are declared in the purANa as “knowledge,
state of being detached, lordship, austerity, truth, patience, firmness,
creatorship, knowledge of the Atman, rulership, these are the ten
indestructible ones that exist in Shankara”.]

[This verse (of Vayu Purana) is cited by Amalananda in the Kalpataru while
explaining the mangala shloka of Vachaspati Misra in the Bhamati, where the
latter says:

षड्भिरङ्गैरुपेताय विविधैरव्ययैरपि  ।
शाश्वताय नमस्कुर्मो वेदाय च भवाय च  ॥३॥

The prayer of V.Misra in the Bhamati says: Bhava is shashvata, eternal.  It
is for explaining the eternality that Amalananda cites the verse stated in
the foregoing.

We see that:

1.  What V.Misra says about Shankara (Shiva) is stated by the Atharva Shira
Upanishad itself that Shiva is shashvata. And the commentator
Narayanashrama, who preceded Amalananda in lineage is citing the same verse
to substantiate the Upanishadic adjective of 'shaashavata' of Shiva. Thus,
there is not only upanishad pramana for what Vachaspati Misra has said but
there is concurrence between what his commentator and  the latter's
purvacharya have said, citing the same vayu purana verse, in substantiation
of shaashvatatva of Shiva.

What is even more striking is that the 13 CE commentator does not indulge
in 'converting' the Para Brahman, Shiva, of the Atharva Shira Upanishad.
Nor is he cooking up a story (like what we find in Rangaramanuja's
commentary for this Upanishad) to deny the Parabrahman status to Shiva by
resorting to alibis like 'saying as antaryami, shareera-atma bhava, etc.)
Narayanashrama does not feel the compulsion to resort to a load of grammar
to derive the meanings of various words in the Atharva Shira Upanishad.
This is called laaghava kalpana and ruju, where there is no need for
klishta kalpanam as is found in the other commentary.   In other words,
there is no convoluted explanations in Narayanashrama's commentary.  It is
easy and straightforward.

The above commentary also brings out the distinguishing feature of the
Vedantin as opposed to a theologian that the former is happy with accepting
any deity for the status of Para Brahman.  Narayanashrama has commented on
the other Upanishads like Gopala Tapini and Rama Tapini where the Para
Brahman is not Shiva. He makes the comment there, just as the commentary of
Shankara for the Nrsimha Tapini, that 'the formed, saguna deity is used as
a means to teach the formless, nirguna Brahman.'  Thus, the Vedantin has no
compulsion to convert a deity of an Upanishad in order to make his
siddhanta stand. He does not find himself on a 'sticky wicket'  when he
encounters a particular deity that is not of his liking being portrayed as
Para Brahman in an Upanishad. This feature is found only in the
commentators of the Advaita parampara.

Another point the above commentary brings to the fore is:  Much before
Vidyaranya and Appayya Dikshita the idea of non-difference between Hari and
Hara is well established among the Advaita Acharyas.  Right from Gaudapada,
Shankara, Sureshwara, Sarvajnatman, etc. through Narayanashrama,
Shankarananda, Amalananda, up to the present day Advaitins, this feature
can be discerned from their works. Sarvajnatman has prayed to Ganapati as
the vishvakrit, the all-creator, in his invocation to the Sankshepa
shaariraka.

Also, if the Kurma/Vayu Purana is taamasic for the reason that they portray
Shiva (also) as Para Brahman, by the same count, the Upanishads such as
Atharva Shira/shikha, Kaivalya, Jabala, etc. too are taamasic. If a deity
in an upanishad can be 'converted', the same can be done in a purana too.

Om Tat Sat