[Advaita-l] Was Shankaracharya a Vaishnava??

[Venkatraghavan S]

True. So to answer the original question - was Shankaracharya a vaiShNava -
the answer is, if anyone is to be called a vaiShNava, it is shankaracharya
and his adherents, because it is only in advaita that the vyutpatti of
विष्णु as व्यापनशील: achieves the fullness of meaning.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 5:59 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Here is an example for Shankara holding 'Vasudeva' to be non-different
> from the one who realizes That:
>
> युक्तः समाहितः सन् आसीत मत्परः अहं वासुदेवः सर्वप्रत्यगात्मा परो यस्य सः
> मत्परः, ‘न अन्योऽहं तस्मात्’ इति…  Bhagavadgita 2.61:
>
> तानि सर्वाणि संयम्य युक्त आसीत मत्परः ।
> वशे हि यस्येन्द्रियाणि तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता ॥ ६१ ॥
>
> The Bhashya passage says: Bhagavan says the one who is on the way to
> acquiring the aparoksha jnanam would have Me, Vasudeva, the innermost Self
> (beyond the five koshas), to be his Supreme goal. This translates as 'I am
> not different from Him' (in other words, 'I am Vasudeva') at the
> aspirant-end.
>
> Thus, the identity with Vasudeva is stated by Shankara.  Such an idea is
> anathema to non-Advaitins.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:56 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 2:30 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Raghav ji,
>>> "So the word nArAyaNa used by Shri Shankara shows that he is not a
>>> vaiShNava."
>>>
>>> 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
>>> termed a-vaiShNava?
>>>
>>
>> In Bh.Gita:
>>
>> यान्ति देवव्रता देवान्पितॄन्यान्ति पितृव्रताः ।
>> भूतानि यान्ति भूतेज्या यान्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम् ॥ २५ ॥
>>
>> In this bhashya:  यान्ति मद्याजिनः मद्यजनशीलाः वैष्णवाः मामेव यान्ति ।
>>
>> Some non-advaitins show this bhashyam and question: Look Shankara has
>> accepted that 'Vaishnava-s' are the ones that attain the Supreme, even
>> though the shloka does not use that term.
>>
>> To this I reply: the Vaishnava-s that Shankara is meaning are not the
>> ones that you mean: For Shankara 'attaining to the Lord' is Brahma atma
>> aikya jnanam and not going to that loka and residing with the formed
>> Bhagavan.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Who is anyone to say we are not one with Ishvara?
>>>
>>
>> As you say, the  Advaitic 'Vaishnava' is non-different from Vishnu, the
>> Vyaapana shiila, and not an entity that has a form by default and someone
>> who is ever different from everything else in creation. So, the concept of
>> vastu pariccheda raahityam is also embedded in Shankara's idea of
>> Vishnu/vaishnava.
>>
>> regards
>> subbu
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>