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

[V Subrahmanian]

All that he has said stands automatically refuted as 1. There is a
commentary by an Advaitin of the 13th Century, several centuries before
Vijayendra. 2. Swami Vidyaranya has condensed that Upanishad in his
Anubhuti Prakasha in verse form by upholding Shiva only. 3. The Suta
Samhita of the Skanda Purana too condenses this Upanishad again upholding
Shiva alone as Para Brahman. Many others have held this to be of Shiva
Supreme, some puranas have used words in this upanishad to give explicit
meaning that Shiva alone is of this Upanishad.

Achintyam - this word he says applies to Narayana. But Valmiki Ramayana has
used this epithet for Shiva. I have written on this.

So, no effort needs to be taken by us to refute him.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 7:10 PM Kaushik Chevendra via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://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
>