[Advaita-l] Shankara authenticates Shiva as the son of Brahma

[D Gayatri]

Alright, let us say Indra did not think that the yaksha was same as
sarvjna Ishwara, with whom Uma is associated. Let us also say this
sarvajna Ishwara is Shiva only. Indra also does not know that this
sarvajna Ishwara with whom Uma is associated, is brahman, for if he
already knew, then there is nothing else to know. (So here sarvajnatva
does not imply brahmatva). So far so good.

Now note that Shankara uses the word Ishwara to refer to Indra himself
in 3.11 and in 3.12, it is not Indra. This is an important point.

Later Uma reveals that this yaksha is brahman. She does not say that
this yaksha is the same as the one with whom I am associated. Shankara
calls this as both brahman and Ishwara, but given that Ishwara in 3.11
is not same as Ishwara in 3.12, there is no way to connect the Ishwara
in 3.12 with the Ishwara in 4.1, for neither Shankara nor the
upanishad says that the this brahman is the same Ishwara with whom Uma
is associated. So there is no way Indra could have known that the
sarvajna Ishwara with whom Uma is associated is brahman. Hence, there
is no reason to suppose that this brahman is Shiva.

Regards
Gayatri

On 15 August 2016 at 13:07, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but that is an attribution made by Shankara. Remember the context of
> this mantra is that Indra does not know who or what this Yaksha is. He has
> not made the connection that this Yaksha is in fact Ishvara.
>
> So his thought pattern, according to Shankara is - I don't know what this
> Yaksha is. But this lady Uma, because she is sarvajna Ishvara's wife, should
> be knowledgeable due to her association with her omniscient husband.
> Therefore, she will be able to tell me who or what this unknown entity,
> Yaksha is.
>
> His thought pattern is not - this Yaksha is Ishvara. Here comes his wife,
> she can tell me about her husband, Ishvara who is this Yaksha. If he already
> knew that Yaksha is Ishvara, he doesn't need Uma to repeat it to him.
>
> Regards
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> On 15 Aug 2016 8:29 a.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Shankara says that it is *Indra's* thought that Uma was forever
>> associated with sarvajna Ishwara. Please check the bhAshya again.
>> These are Indra's thoughts according to Shankara.
>>
>> On 15 August 2016 at 12:46, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I don't think you have understood my point.
>> >
>> > Indra did not use the neuter gender to refer to Uma's husband, he used
>> > it to
>> > refer to Yaksha. Indra makes no reference to Uma's husband at all.
>> >
>> > Only Shankara makes reference to Uma's husband as Sarvajna Ishvara, and
>> > not
>> > when he is talking about Yaksha, when he is talking about Uma always
>> > being
>> > associated with Him. And there is no gender confusion there at all.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Venkatraghavan
>> >
>> >
>> > On 15 Aug 2016 7:58 a.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Shri Venkatraghavanji
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > If you are saying that because the neuter gender is used in the
>> >> > pronoun
>> >> > (एतत्), Siva cannot be referred to because he is male,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I am saying, if Indra thought that the companion of Uma who was
>> >> sarvajna Ishwara, was a male (being her *husband*), then he would not
>> >> have used neuter gender to refer to the sarvajna Ishwara. I also
>> >> invite you to check the translation of Swami Gambhirananda. He uses
>> >> the neutral word "God" everywhere in this context for Ishwara and does
>> >> not interpret it as Shiva. So your assumption that Ishwara here refers
>> >> to Shiva is no more than speculation.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> and no masculine
>> >> > entity can be referred to, then by that logic, the Upanishad cannot
>> >> > be
>> >> > referring to ईश्वर as that Yaksha either - because the word ईश्वर is
>> >> > masculine in gender too.
>> >> >
>> >> > However, that interpretation would be wrong, because Shankara
>> >> > repeatedly
>> >> > says that the Yaksha is indeed ईश्वर only.
>> >>
>> >> Let me point out that yaksha can be used both in neuter and masculine
>> >> gender.
>> >>
>> >> Having said that, consider the following -
>> >>
>> >> 1. ayam AtmA brahma - here Atman is masculine and brahman is neuter
>> >> but there is no problem with Atman referring to brahman.
>> >>
>> >> 2. Mohini is Vishnu - here Mohini is feminine and Vishnu is masculine,
>> >> but there is no problem with Mohini referring to Vishnu.
>> >>
>> >> 3. Brihannala is Arjuna - here Brihannala is (I think) feminine and
>> >> Arjuna is masculine, but there is no problem with Brihannala referring
>> >> to Vishnu
>> >>
>> >> Hence there is no problem with the word yaksha referring to the word
>> >> Ishwara, even if the former is used in neuter gender.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Gayatri