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

[D Gayatri]

>
> The term 'Ishvara' is quite popular only with Shiva. Even in the MB this
> name occurs for Shiva alone.

This is not correct. The term Ishwara is used innumerable times in the
BSB by Shankara bhagavatpAda and in no case does it denote Shiva.
BhagavatpAda also calls Narayana as Ishwara in his BrihadAranyaka
upanishad bhashya and Bhagavad Gita Bhashya. In the BG itself, this
term is used both in a neutral sense and to denote Krishna. Nowhere in
the BG is the word Ishwara used for Shiva.


>Also, anyone with a basic exposure to our
> scriptures will know without tutoring that it is with Shiva that Uma resides
> eternally.  No one need to speculate on this.

It is pure speculation to say that just because Uma has shown Brahman
to Indra, the Brahman must be Shiva. If it were Shiva and Shankara was
a Shaivaite, he must have taken the opportunity to say this. But he
does not.

>> And Shankara himself does not consider Shiva to be Brahman because in BU
>> 1.4.11, he considers Shiva as created. And he authenticates the portions of
>> the Mahabharata where Shiva is treated as son of brahma. Thus, there is no
>> way Shankara would consider Shiva as Brahman.
>
>
> Shankara considers Shiva as Brahman in the Prshnopanishat bhashya.  It is no
> speculation there. He clearly says, even when the mantra is silent that it
> is as Rudra Brahman annihilates and as sowmya  (vishn) protects. Anyone with
> basic exposure knows that the trimurtis have specific functions.

You have completely misread the Prashna upanishad Bhashya. There,
Prana is treated as creator, preserver and destroyer. Here brahman is
being spoken of as everything. Such verses are pretty common. "sa
brahma sa shiva sendraH" speaks of Narayana himself as performing the
functions of creation, destruction etc. In Mahabharata, at many places
it is said that Vishnu himself is creator and destroyer. Even Shankara
bhagavatpAda quotes a purANa in his BSB 2.1.1 which shows that
Narayana is the creator and destroyer. I am merely following Shankara
bhagavatpAda.

>
> Further, on your own logic, since the Br.up.1.4.11 is about the 'creation '
> of the stated deities and etc. ityevamādīni as Shankara agrees, and also
> with the prasiddhi that Shankara talks of, the creation of Vishnu is
> authenticated by Shankara, even if Shankara expressly does not say so (just
> as you held that even if Shankara expressly does not cite the verse, by just
> citing some portions of that section, he authenticates the entire section)
> as Shankara's prasiddhi is very well known for those who have done the
> Krishna yajur veda adhyayana.

The above conclusion is wrong because Shankara says that Narayana is
the supreme Atman in his BSB. That is why I said your article
contradicts Shankara siddhanta.

>
> Also, since you have cited from the bloggers approvingly, by your own logic,
> you authenticate, following them, the VSN bhashya as that of Shankara.

Nowhere have I said that the VSN bhashya is written by Shankara. I
only used the blog to quote from Madhvacharya's commentary on the
Mahabharata. So I will not bother replying to the rest of the portion
of your message.

>
> Finally, you will never be able to prove that Rudra in the pranshna bhashya
> is any other than Shiva.

Actually, that is what I am saying. In his BU bhAshya, 1.4.11,
Shankara takes Rudra as created and here I take Rudra to mean Shiva
only and no one else. Because Rudra is mentioned as Pashupathi and the
Rudra that is Pashupathi is Shiva only. Thus, it is clear that
Shankara takes Rudra as created.