[Advaita-l] Was Shankaracharya a Vaishnava??
agnimile at gmail.com
Sun Jun 14 04:50:13 EDT 2020
Namaste Raghav ji,
"So the word nArAyaNa used by Shri Shankara shows that he is not a
I suppose it depends on what the word vaiShNava means.
If it means someone who believes that Brahman has form, we too are
vaishNavas for we too agree that Brahman takes on the form that is dear to
the upAsaka to bless him.
However, we don't stop there. We say that all that exists is that viShNu
alone. Therefore, anything that appears to be different from Him, we hold
not to be real. The appearance of difference is merely that, an appearance.
When we, who say that all that exists is that mahAviShNu, how can we be
Who is anyone to say we are not one with Ishvara?
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020, 17:35 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun, 2020, 10:50 PM P R via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > I have had this question for a long time whether Shankaracharya was a
> > Vaishnava
> > I have listed a few reasons for it
> > 1. The Geetha Bhashya starts with the mangalacharana as Narayanaha paro
> > avyaktha.
> That shloka itself is enough to assert that Sri Shankara was not a
> vaiShNava. It says this world of names and forms (the anDa) has arisen from
> the avyakta (the unmanifest latent state in which names and forms are
> absent). And nArAyAna is parah i.e., distinct from and more subtle.
> That clearly indicates that for Shri Shankara, 'nArayaNa' is formless and
> free of attributes. He is not a mUrta form with chaturbhuja etc., in his
> bhAShyas. So the word nArAyaNa used by Shri Shankara shows that he is not a
> He says in the ‘vAkya vRitti’ through an opening verse: yasya prasAdAt
> ahameva vishnuH, mayyeva sarvam parikalpitam cha.
> So Sri Shankara here says, by GYAnam,. "I am Vishnu himself (ahameva
> viShNuh)" - not "I am a vaiShNava"!
> These topics have all been discussed in detail on this forum before.
> You can check out
> 2. Geetha Adhyaya 18 Shloka 61
> > Ishwara sarva bhutanam hrudeshe arjuna tishtathi
> > Here shankaracharya comments as Eshwara eshanasheelaha narayana ityartha
> Excerpted from the previous link -
> The word narayana has been explained by the sAyana bhashyam in the narayana
> sukta explanation with the famous verse:
> “आपो नारा इति प्रोक्ताः आपो वै नरसूनवः । अयनं तस्य ताः प्रोक्तास्तेन
> नारायणः स्मृतः” as the etymological meaning of the word given in puranas.
> For the words ‘vishvam nArAyanam..’ SAyana says that vishvam is narayana
> since it is superimposed in that sentient being. It does not mean any
> connection with vaikuntha, etc. If one realizes narayana as the consort of
> Lakshmi etc.,that does not constitute true advaitic knowledge. It is not
> tattvam of narayana. It is mithya jnanam alone, though it will help the
> sadhaka progress further to gain the nirguna brahma jnanam. This is
> because Shankara has stated in the BSB 2.1.14 that all the attributes such
> as omniscience, omnipotence are superimposed by avidya and get dispelled
> upon the arising of the knowledge of the absolute truth. Thus, vishnu
> jnanam is not what the vaishnavas take it to be. It is ajnanam in the
> advaitic supreme point of view. It has a different connotation in advaita.
> What non-advaitins think is the tattvam of Vishnu is ignorance as per
> 3. The 3 amnaya peethas established by him were in vaishnava places viz
> > badrinath ,puri,dwaraka. Some people also believed that he had stayed in
> > kanchi for a long time which has the shrine of Varadaraja
> > 4. During his mother's last days,shankaracharya gave him Krishna mantra
> > upadesha and composed bhaja govindam
> That is incorrect. Sri Shankara did not compose bhaja govindam at his
> mother's last phase. In any case he brahmapadam tvam pravisha viditvA (by
> knowledge, gain the Brahma padam)
> 5. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad :- eshate mama atma antaryami amrutaha
> > here while commenting shankaracharya has given the mening of antaryami as
> > narayana
> > Due to all these points and many more too, I have had this question.
> Please throw some light on this
> > Regards
> > Dr Pradyumna R
> Sometimes these type of questions that Shankara was a vaiShNava etc., are
> propounded by some narrow-minded and fanatical Vaishnava preachers and they
> only misuse out of context quotations from shri Shankara bhAShya to push
> their sectarian agenda. A holistic study of the commentaries leaves no
> doubt that Shankara unfolds only non-dual brahman.
> Also there is not a *single* reference to Lakshmi Devi, the consort of
> Vishnu, who is supposed to intercede etc.
> All bhakti or devotion for Ishvara is validated and nurtured in Advaita.
> But theological sectarianism is dismissed. It's obvious.
> > <
> > >
> > Virus-free.
> > www.avg.com
> > <
> > >
> > <#m_7141328381467287370_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 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