[Advaita-l] Bhakti in Advaita Tradition

[Ramanan Subramanian]

>
> When we call someone as vaiShNava, in textual terms, it usually refers to
> an
> individual who has vaiShNava dIkSha.
>
> Similarly shaiva & shAkta. Being a viShNu bhakta does not automatically
> make you
> a vaiShNava in the same way as being a shiva bhakta does not make you a
> shaiva.
>
>
I have a doubt regarding this: In 9.25, Shankara expands Lord Krishna's
words "yAnti madyAjinaH api mAm" as: "yAnti madyAjinaH madyAjinaH
madyajanashiilAH *vaiShNavAH* " (my devotees,  In what sense is the plural
term "vaiShNavAH" used? Only those who have the diikShA?


>
> There was a time when I aggressively argued that prapa~nchasAra,
> saundaryalahari  etc were by shankara, but these days I take my words back.
>
>
Amalananda Saraswati quotes one verse from it in Kalpataru and attributes it
to "AcAryAH" (this could either mean in plural or to Shankara
respectfully... i am not sure). Narayaneeyam of Narayana Bhattathiri also
refers to the work in the 90th dashaka. Interestingly though the same
chapter is quoted in both these instances. Hence, the case of prapanchasara
is not that easy to dismiss. It calls for further research in the matter.