[Advaita-l] Fwd: Bhagavatpada ~ a shakta - Natraj Maneshinde's post

[V Subrahmanian]

Visit this to view the full post with important images and comments:
https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/vjSqASnkBvo
Without visiting the above link you will be missing the complete post.



https://www.facebook.com/natraj.maneshinde/posts/pfbid02jSmUqsdFNQDhRMeRhdHaiVM5mKPMsVDsxF87wEcG1pguDkrDVY4CbfeDv2EPSCqil
===================
Bhagavatpada ~ a shaakta
===================
A bunch of fanatics are obsessed with branding Bhagavatpada as a Vaishnava
due to numerous references to words like Narayana/Vasudeva in the Bhashya.
When seen in the proper context, Narayana/Vasudeva of the Bhashya mean
Nirguna Brahman and not ‘merely’ Chaturbhuja, Rama-ramana Vishnu. It is
this Nirguna Brahman which assumes forms/names of Vishnu,Brahma,Shiva etc
to bless the sadhakas. But few people tend to restrict Narayana/Vasudeva
referenced in the Bhashya to Chaturbhuja Vishnu only.
Such being the case, what is stopping us from interpreting terms like
Para-devata (used in stri-linga) and chit-shakti occurring in the Bhashya
to mean Parachiti Jagadamba ? Please peruse the following sections of the
Bhashya where Brahman is called ‘Para-devata’ ( and addressed in
stri-linga) and Chit-shakti.
1. Brahma-sutra bhashya :
सर्वोपेता च तद्दर्शनात् ॥ ३० ॥ (2.1.30)
एकस्यापि ब्रह्मणो विचित्रशक्तियोगादुपपद्यते विचित्रो विकारप्रपञ्च
इत्युक्तम् ; तत्पुनः कथमवगम्यते — विचित्रशक्तियुक्तं परं ब्रह्मेति ;
तदुच्यते — सर्वोपेता च तद्दर्शनात् । सर्वशक्तियुक्ता च परा
देवतेत्यभ्युपगन्तव्यम् । कुतः ? तद्दर्शनात् । तथा हि दर्शयति श्रुतिः
सर्वशक्तियोगं परस्या देवतायाः — ‘ सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः
सर्वमिदमभ्यात्तोऽवाक्यनादरः’ (छा. उ. ३ । १४ । ४) ‘ सत्यकामः सत्यसङ्कल्पः’
(छा. उ. ८ । ७ । १) ‘ यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्’ (मु. उ. १ । १ । ९) ‘ एतस्य वा
अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ विधृतौ तिष्ठतः’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ८ ।
९)इत्येवंजातीयका ॥ ३० ॥
2. Kenopanishad pada bhashya
प्रतिबोधविदितं मतममृतत्वं हि विन्दते । आत्मना विन्दते वीर्यं विद्यया
विन्दतेऽमृतम् ॥ ४ ॥ (2.4)
‘अविज्ञातं विजानताम्’ (के. उ. २ । ३) इत्यवधृतम् । यदि
ब्रह्मात्यन्तमेवाविज्ञातम् , लौकिकानां ब्रह्मविदां चाविशेषः प्राप्तः ।
‘अविज्ञातं विजानताम्’ (के. उ. २ । ३) इति च परस्परविरुद्धम् । कथं तु
तद्ब्रह्म सम्यग्विदितं भवतीत्येवमर्थमाह — प्रतिबोधविदितं बोधं बोधं प्रति
विदितम् । बोधशब्देन बौद्धाः प्रत्यया उच्यन्ते । सर्वे प्रत्यया विषयीभवन्ति
यस्य, स आत्मा सर्वबोधान्प्रतिबुध्यते सर्वप्रत्ययदर्शी चिच्छक्तिस्वरूपमात्रः
प्रत्ययैरेव प्रत्ययेष्वविशिष्टतया लक्ष्यते ; नान्यद्द्वारमन्तरात्मनो
विज्ञानाय ।
Please look at the comments for translations.
In both the aforementioned contexts, Brahman only is referred by the words
Para-devata and Chitshakti. But, what was the need for Bhagavatpada to use
these very words which are clearly suggestive of Jagadamba? And, if one can
argue for Vaishnava leaning of Bhagavatpada by the use of words like
Narayana/ Vasudeva, we may as well consider Bhagavatpada a shaakta , as he
had no hesitations in addressing the Brahman as Para-devata and
Chit-shakti. Besides, Acharyapada’s love for Bhagavati Paravati is clearly
evident in Kenopanishad bhashya where in he describes Giriraj’s daughter
Uma as sakshast Brahma-vidya.
Hence, if we are to consider Bhagavatpada a Vaishnava, we have evidence to
consider him a Shaakta as well.


My comment:
The Chandogya Upanishad 6th chapter also calls Brahman, the Sat, in the
feminine gender: Devataa. सा इयं देवता ऐक्षत् . In fact the Vaishnavas have
a problem in this: They portray their Brahman as a Male, Vishnu, whose wife
is Lakshmi.