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

[D Gayatri]

That is completely irrelevant. There are no invocations for BSB etc.

On Saturday, 13 August 2016, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> In the invocatory verse for the Taittiriya Upanishad bhashya, Shankara pays
> obeisance to no deity whatsoever but the Nirguna Tattvam:
>
> yasmājjātam jagat sarvam........tasmai jnānātmane namaḥ.
>
> So also at the beginning of the Mandukya bhashya, the prayer is to the
> nirguna tattvam.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:47 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2016, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 4:48 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> nirguNa does not always imply nirvishesha.
> >>
> >>
> >> All visheshas accrue only from the gunas and therefore nirguna implies
> >> nirvishesha.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> It is Ishwara who creates and destroys as mentioned clearly in the 6th
> >>> mantra of Mandukya upanishad.
> >>
> >>
> >> But this Ishwara is not the sole subject matter of the second sutra.
> >>
> >>
> >>> nirvishesha Brahman is beyond Ishwara, as the fourth. It neither
> creates
> >>> nor destroys anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> The world can emerge from the NB and also stay there and dissolve as a
> >> superimposition. That is what is meant by Shankara in BSB 2.1.1. quotes.
> >>
> >>
> >>> There is no second entity in that state. It cannot even be denoted by
> >>> terms like Brahman or Atman.
> >>
> >>
> >> The Fourth in mantra 7 is indeed taught as 'Atman.' Aham Brahmasmi is
> not
> >> about the Ishwara.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Please read bhagavatpAda's commentary on neti neti, if you think I am
> >>> making things up. The nirvishesha Atman is indicated by silence as is
> >>> mentioned in BSB. Shankara also quotes Narayana telling to Narada
> (from Mbh
> >>> Shanti parva), that his true nature is not even the vishwaroopa.
> >>
> >>
> >> So what? That Narayana is only saying that he is NB. Through silence one
> >> can never teach. Shankara cites that instance only to show that no word
> is
> >> applicable to the Supreme truth. Yet, Atman, Brahman, Sat, Turiya,
> Bhūman,
> >> etc. are employed by the Upanishads to teach the Nirguna tattvam.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I would like to point out here that you are also contradicting
> yourself.
> >>> In your article on paradox, you say that Narayana, who is beyond
> avyakta,
> >>> is the ishtha devata of Shankara. Now you are saying that no deity is
> >>> beyond avyakta. I suggest you resolve your contradiction first.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I suggest you read that correctly. I have said ‘iṣṭa devatā *tattvam*’.
> >> Tattvam is NB.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regarding your other question, there is a discussion in BSB, that prANa
> >>> does not mean vital force when it is indicated as creator etc, but it
> means
> >>> supreme Brahman who alone is the cause. Same is the case with other
> words
> >>> like Akasa etc. If you are unable to find it, let me know. I can help.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Pl. quote the portion. I have known of a Mandukya bhashya where Shankara
> >> says the term 'prāṇa' in a particular Chandogya mantra is applied to the
> >> Brahman which is the layasthanam, the avyakta, and not nirguna brahman
> from
> >> where realized souls do not return.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org <javascript:;>
>