[Advaita-l] ***SPAM*** Vijayendra tirthas reply to appaya

[Kaushik Chevendra]

Refuting Appayya Dikshita’s claim that the Upanishad hails Shiva as
Parabrahman, Vijayendra Tirtha first explains that the preceding mantra
refers to nArAyaNa in the cave of the heart:
hR^itpuNDarIkaM virajaM vishuddhaM vichintya madhye vishadaM vishokam.h
achintyamavyaktamanantarUpaM shivaM prashAntamamR^itaM brahmayonim.h
Meaning (According to ShrI Vijayendra): The Lord described in the
Upanishads, in the heart (hRit punDarIkaM), devoid of rajas (virAja),
removed from tamas (vishuddhaM), to be thought of  (vichintya) as prior to
meditation on the object of contemplation and after saluting the guru,
hence the middle (madhyE), clear to the devotees (vishadaM), free from
grief due to rajas and tamas (vishokaM), the inconceivable (achintyaM),
unmanifest to the ignorant (avyaktaM), unlimited form (anantarUpaM), most
auspicious (shivaM), bestowing grace and anger depending on the action
(prashAntaM), whose form is the Supreme Goal of Attainment (amRtaM), the
Cause of the four-faced Brahma (brahmayOniM).
ShrI VijayEndra says that this is a description of nArAyaNa owing to the
adjectives of supremacy.
Then, the guru explains that the following portion of the subsequent mantra
actually does talk about Shiva, the husband of pArvati, who should be
meditated upon to attain nArAyaNa described earlier:
tathAdimadhyAntavihInamekaM vibhuM chidAnandamarUpamadbhutam.h
umAsahAyaM parameshvaraM prabhuM trilochanaM nIlakaNThaM prashAntam.h .
Meaning: Therefore on account of not existing prior to creation (tathA),
meditating on the One (Rudra) who is absent in beginning, middle and end,
ie, one who is other than nArAyaNa (AdimadhyAntavihInaM),  having a form
that is opposite (arUpaM) to that form (of nArAyaNa) which is bliss and
consciousness without limit (vibhuM chidAnandaM), the wonderful (adbhutaM),
 who is accompanied by Umadevi, who is known as “paramEshvara”, the master
(prabhuM), the three-eyed (trilOchana), the blue-necked (nIlakaNtha, the
peaceful (praShAntaM),
Then, he avers that it talks about nArAyaNa again by the words –
dhyAtvA munirgachChati bhUtayoniM samastasAkShiM tamasaH parastAt.h
Meaning: The munis reach him (nArAyaNa) who is the Cause of all Beings
(bhUtayOnIm), the Omniscient (samastasAkshiM), who is free of contact with
matter (tamasaH parastAt)
So, according to shrI vijayEndra, this Upanishad is instructing upAsakas to
meditate on Rudra in order to gain parOkSha jnAna of nArAyaNa and attain
moksha. Simply put, he says that meditation on Rudra leads to parOkSha
jnAna of nArAyaNa.
shrI vijayEndra ingeniously interprets “tathAdimadhyAntavihInaM” as an
adjective of Rudra as follows –
It is known from the shruti that Rudra is created by nArAyaNa  - “nArAyaNAt
rudrO jAyatE” – Thus, the deity accompanied by Uma was not present in the
beginning of the creation. This is indicated by “tathA” – As he was not
present during creation, he can be understood to be without beginning,
middle and end.
The term “hIna” refers to “absence”. Rather than taking “AdimadhyAntavihInaM”
as “having no beginning, middle and end”, it should be understood as “absent
in beginning, middle and end”.
By saying “absent in beginning, middle and end”, it is meant that it refers
to a condition in which there is absence of being more or less – basically,
a state of being devoid or uncreated. So, it indicates a Being (Rudra) who
was not “more” or “less”, ie, he was devoid, or did not exist in the
beginning of creation. In other words, the “absence of more or less”
indicates a being other than nArAyaNa, the creator of brahma, who did not
exist prior to creation and thus refers to Rudra.
Thus, the term “AdimadhyAntavihInaM” denotes that Rudra is a being
different from nArAyaNa, who did not exist prior to creation. “tathA”
according to shrI vijayEndra tIrtha implies – therefore (as Rudra did not
exist prior to creation), he is understood as being absent in the
beginning, middle and end.
He interprets “vibhuM chidAnandamarUpaM” by taking “arUpaM” as a form
opposite to that of the form of the Lord (nArAyaNa) that is unlimited
consciousness and bliss, implying Rudra is limited. This grammatical
rendering allows him to reinterpret the mantra as referring to Rudra.
ShrI vijayEndra tIrtha further adds that this differentiates Rudra from the
entity previously referred to as the supreme by adjectives of “hR^it
punDarIkaM…vichintyaM”, etc.
He finally says that if all the adjectives are taken as denoting Rudra,
then the terms “vichintya”, “dhyAtva”, “madhya”, “tathA” and
“AdimadhyAntavihInaM” become useless.
Sir this is a reply of vijayendra to appaya. Is there a counter for this?