[Advaita-l] sapta-mAtR^ika-s in ShAnkara GItA BhAShyam

[Satish Arigela]

Oh just saw this gem from shrI Anand:

 Bhaskar: Thank you for the note. I will take a look into those.

>Anand Hudli Writes:

 >The emphasis of both 9.25 and 17.4 is on the
>Worshipper, not so much on the Worshipped. 

No. You got it wrong.

> The whole idea of 17.4 is to show how we can infer the sattva, or
>other guNas in a person, by looking at what he worships. 

And 17.4 says worshipping the sapta mAtR^ika-s shows the person to be
of tAmasik disposition clearly

>If he worships the
>Gods he is sAttvika, if he worships Yakshas, etc. he is rAjasika, and if he
>worships Pretas and Bhutas, he is tAmasika.

Bad censorship! How come you left out the sapta mAtR^ika-s which were mentioned 
in the commentary along with preta-s and bhUta-s?

I suggest you avoid playing tricks like these.

> Then you say Vinayaka and the sapta Matrikas
>are clubbed with the pretas and bhUtagaNas. 

It is not me saying it.. it is the bhAShya which clubs the matR-s with preta-s 
and bhUta-s.

See again: pretAn bhUtagaNAMshcha *saptamAtR^ikAdIMshcha* anye yajante tAmasAH 
janAH

 >The only logical conclusion is that the two
>sets- that mentioned by the shankara and that mentioned in the Puranas- are
>not the same. 

It is not enough that one shouts that the sapta mAtR^ika-s mentioned in 17.4 and 
mentioned elsewhere in purANa-s are different. Please show it with some 
reference. Or if you have a different list please share the same with me or with 
the list. I am not completely challenging you here. As I mentioned in the post, 
I would with interest take notes and learn about the existence of a different 
set of sapta mAtR^ika-s

There is nothing new or of worth in your other statements.

>This is getting ridiculous.

Apparently nothing can be more ridiculous than you recent post on the topic with 
the boring repetition and censorship you seem to indulge in.

Thanks