[Advaita-l] Shanmatha Sthapanam by Adhisankaracharya

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Raghav ji,

In the article on Shan mata I have shared, I have pointed out the
fundamental rule that the Mundaka Upanishat itself lays down:

An aparoksha Atma Jnani is upasya/worthy of worship for both the
adhikArin-s - swarga and moksha. Shankara reasons, in the second case:
Since that Jnani has realized himself as the adhishThAnam of the creation,
he is capable of granting moksha to someone who worships him with that
goal.

From this rule what follows is: It is sufficient for X to be an upAsya if X
is a Jnani.  In the Kenopanishat, Uma is a Jnani. Shiva is a Jnani. In the
Chandogya 7th chapter Sanatkumara who is really Skanda is a Jnani.  Surya
and Yama are Jnanis. No need to mention about Vishnu/Krishna. As I have
shown in that article, the Taittiriya Aranyaka has some eight Gayatri
mantras which Sayana says a mumukshu must do japa of. In that eight are
Nandi, Gauruda, Hiranyagarbha Brahmaa, Ganapati and Durga apart from Shiva
and Vishnu.  Shankara, being a Vaidika to the core, would not have any
objection to having all of these Gayatri deities as saguna Brahman and
therefore upasya.

That said,  there is a correction in your depiction:  It is the Gaudiyas
that hold Krishna higher  than Vishnu (not Madhva).

There is one reference, a verse itself, in the Bh.Gita 11th chapter:
Arjuna, after witnessing the Vishwarupa, no longer able to bear the fierce
grandeur thereof, pleads Krishna to resume his chaturbhuja form, which is
his default form and hence benign. This verse has led to the question: Did
Krishna in the Mahabharata/Bhagavatam always appear in the chaturbhuja form?

Finally, for Shankara, the names Vasudeva, Vishnu and Narayana are all
primarily Nirguna Brahman and secondarily upAsya Brahman. Hence alone we
find him accept Vasudevo'ham in the Bh.Gita and Narayano'ham in the
Vivekachudamani.  Actually the latter is a statement in the Kundika
upanishad.

Incidentally, the following verses of the VC are verses from the Kundika
Upanishad, one of the 108 listed in the Muktikopanishat for which Upanishad
Brahmendra commentary is there. Numbers within the brackets are of the
Kundika Upanishad.
Link for the text of the Upanishad:
https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/kundika.html

नारायणोऽहं नरकान्तकोऽहं
पुरान्तकोऽहं पुरुषोऽहमीशः ।
अखण्डबोधोऽहमशेषसाक्षी
निरीश्वरोऽहं निरहं च निर्ममः ॥ ४९५ ॥ (17)

मय्यखण्डसुखाम्भोधौ बहुधा विश्ववीचयः ।
उत्पद्यन्ते विलीयन्ते मायामारुतविभ्रमात् ॥ ४९७ ॥ (14 in the above link)

आकाशवत्कल्पविदूरगोऽह -
मादित्यवद्भास्यविलक्षणोऽहम् ।
अहार्यवन्नित्यविनिश्चलोऽह -
मम्भोधिवत्पारविवर्जितोऽहम् ॥ ५०० ॥ (16)

न मे देहेन सम्बन्धो मेघेनेव विहायसः ।
अतः कुतो मे तद्धर्मा जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्तयः ॥ ५०१ ॥  (15)

न साक्षिणं साक्ष्यधर्माः संस्पृशन्ति विलक्षणम् ।
अविकारमुदासीनं गृहधर्माः प्रदीपवत् ।
देहेन्द्रियमनोधर्मा नैवात्मानं स्पृशन्त्यहो ॥ ५०६ ॥ (23)

जले वापि स्थले वापि लुठत्वेष जडात्मकः ।
नाहं विलिप्ये तद्धर्मैर्घटधर्मैर्नभो यथा ॥ ५१० ॥ (24)

निष्क्रियोऽस्म्यविकारोऽस्मि
निष्कलोऽस्मि निराकृतिः ।
निर्विकल्पोऽस्मि नित्योऽस्मि
निरालम्बोऽस्मि निर्द्वयः ॥ ५१६ ॥ (25)

सर्वात्मकोऽहं सर्वोऽहं सर्वातीतोऽहमद्वयः ।
केवलाखण्डबोधोऽहमानन्दोऽहं निरन्तरः ॥ ५१७ ॥ (26)

स्वमेव सर्वतः पश्यन्मन्यमानः स्वमद्वयम् ।
स्वानन्दमनुभुञ्जानः कालं नय महामते ॥ ५२५ ॥ (27)

गच्छंस्तिष्ठन्नुपविशञ्शयानो वान्यथापि वा ।
यथेच्छया वसेद्विद्वानात्मारामः सदा मुनिः ॥ ५२९ ॥ (28)

warm regards
subbu




On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:56 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sangeerth ji
>
> 1. You may note that nowhere in PTbhAShya, there is any reference to the
> chaturbAhu shankha-chakra-dhArI form as the meaning of the word Vishnu.
> Otherwise if we insist on literal interpretation, then we should take the
> "Bhagavad Gita as it is", and switch to the Madhva tradition where Bhagavan
> Krishna is greater than Vishnu who is a mere emanation of Sri Krishna.
> Would Sri Vaishnavas accept the Madhva position on Vishnu being inferior to
> dvi-bAhU Krishna Bhagavan, based on a literal reading of the Gita as you
> suggest.
> Therefore a literal reading of the Gita is not possible, as it goes against
> SriVaishnavism.
>
> 2. As for looking for a declaration within PTB that "I am the great
> shanmata sthApaka Acharya", it is irrelevant. It's enough to show that
> Shankara did not privilege a shankha chakra form of Ishwara over other
> forms like the umAsahAya form (the yaxa who was pUjaniyaH Shiva for whom
> Umah HaimavatI is the consort).
>
> Therefore atleast the umApati and Vishnu forms of Ishvara are both given
> the same status in PTbhAShya based on kena (and shvetashvatara) upanishad
> bhAShyas and gItA bhAShyas.
>
> I request Subbu ji to share if he has encountered verses showing
> descriptions of any other upAsya forms in PTB as being saguNa Brahman equal
> to Shiva-Vishnu. My understanding is that as per brahmasUtra bhAShya,
> although not all upAsya forms are equally exalted as saguNa Brahma, even
> some select kArya-brahma upAsanas including Omkara upAsana is equivalent to
> the highest upAsya. (granting the Shiva or Vishnu upAsya forms are the
> highest based on gIta/kena/shvetashvatara.  (And discounting the vinAyakas,
> saptabhaginIs etc.)  In other words, there is a certain prima facie
> reference in PTB of saguNa Brahma forms in Kena/shvetashvatara for
> Shiva-form and Gita etc for Vishnu-form.
>
> 3. Sri Shankara shows that both meanings for the word "Vishnu" are valid in
> different contexts viz.,
> A. As an exalted divine form (upAsya devatA)
> B. Formless Consciousness which underlies all forms.
>
>
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan, 2025, 2:54 pm Sangeerth P via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for your kind reply sir. I have posted my question only as a
> > seeker.* I am sorry if it has hurt you personally. *As I told you,* I am
> > very new to Shankaracharya *and I am eager to know about his philosophy.
> I
> > am from the Ramanuja tradition. My question is when we say that the same
> > Brahman has manifested in different forms and it has created six matas.
> We
> > don't see this in Vaishnava sect. For example, Vishnu taking avatara of
> > Varaha or Narasimha or Matsya has not created a separate sect or Varaha
> or
> > a separate sect of Narasimha. All joins down to a single sect called
> > Vaishnava. Then how can we use this logic at all, to tell that the same
> > Brahman manifested as 6 gods.
> > Regards
> > Sangeerth P
> > 8608658009
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 2:41 PM Kaushik Chevendra <
> > chevendrakaushik at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 4. As per one *Panini* sutra we can tell that Nara+Ayana=Naraayana, can
> > >> indicate only one person then how can one understand that Adishankara
> is
> > >> Shanmata stapanaacharya where he gives equal status for all the 6 gods
> > as
> > >> Saguna Brahman.
> > >
> > > Does the singular noun Narayana apply to Rama, krishna , narasimha ,
> > > vishnu? Why can't it apply to 6 gods? Just as Vishnu is rama,
> krishna,etc
> > > he is also the other 5 gods as well. This is the logic.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> Sangeerth P
> > >> 8608658009
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > >>
> > >> 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: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > 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: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>