[Advaita-l] viShNusUri

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

I think Sri Venkata Subramanian was equating the rudram mantras to
chapter 11 of the BG. I don't think he meant to say that rudra, a
saguNa aspect of brahman, is to be known from chapter 11 of the gItA.
At least that's the way I read it. Perhaps Sri VS can clarify. Part of
the confusion may be due to the fact that Kannadigas say "Rudra" for
the rudra prashnam, whereas Tamils and Malayalees tend to use rudram.

But coming to the comment that the rudram (rudra prashnaH) cannot be
regarded as an upanishad: That may be the view of some, but as Ravi
pointed out abhinava sha.nkara would diasagree. I would have to check,
but I believe Bhatta Bhaskara also calls this a upanishad. Further,
why is chapter 11 in the BG any inferior to upanishads? I think it is
equal to an upanishad. Compare some of the verses with upanishadic
statements like bhIShA.asmAdvAdaH pavate | bhiShodeti sUryaH | etc
(tatittiriiya aanadavalli).

Moreover, there is a strong tradition of the rudra prashnam being
considered especially in connection with moksha (refer the jAbAla,
kaivalya used by sha.nkara). Check out the ending of the rudram - namo
rudrebhyo, etc - it's sarvam khalvidam brahma in a more poetic
fashion!

Moreover, many mantras are capable of different levels of meanings.
Sri Chandrashakhara Bharati of Sringeri has pointed out the
sandhyaavandana can be interpreted in many levels, from worshiping the
physical sun right up to adoration of the supreme brahman. He points
out that the meaning depends on the mental capacity of the performer.
So it is with the rudram.

But the rudram is indeed one of those very special mantras. It's
universally acclaimed in shruti, smR^itikAra-s, the mahAbhArata and
the purANas.

Rama

On Apr 6, 2005 6:58 AM, Ravi Mayavaram <ravi at ambaa.org> wrote:
> 
> Here I am asking about viShNu sUri and his background, you come back and
> tell me that "Rudra is nothing more or nothing less than what he is
> described as in 11th chapter on gItA". Is it is a plan to derail this
> thread to a discussion war?