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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:06 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > 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.
>

I meant when used as 'Ishvara uvācha'. This occurs in the MB. The instances
in the BSB and BGB are not referring to Shiva. But the Kenopanishat bhashya
is quite unique. The context too.

>
>
> >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.
>

With whom does Umā, the daughter of Himavān, reside eternally, according to
you?  Only because Shankara is no vaishnavaite either that he does not
bring in Vishnu in the Kena bhashya.

>
> >> 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.


Yes, that is what even I am saying: It is one Brahman that takes the form
of the trimurtis to perform those three key cosmic functions. Those names
of the trimurtis is also very popular. Why should Shankara bring in the
name Rudra there even though the mantra does not say so? He sees the word
veeryena samharan there and associates Rudra with that function.

इन्द्रस्त्वं प्राण तेजसा रुद्रोऽसि परिरक्षिता ।
त्वमन्तरिक्षे चरसि सूर्यस्त्वं ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥ ९ ॥
भाष्यम्
किंच, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, तेजसा वीर्येण रुद्रोऽसि संहरन् जगत्
। स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः सौम्येन रूपेण
। त्वम् अन्तरिक्षे अजस्रं चरसि उदयास्तमयाभ्यां सूर्यः त्वमेव च सर्वेषां
ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥
And you alone protect, says Shankara, adding the word saumyena, from the
word parirakshitā, which is also quite well known that it is Vishnu he has
in mind.   The commentator adds: in the form of Vishnu, etc.

Rudra is associated with destruction and in the BG 11 th ch. Krishna says:
I am kāla, out to destroy the creation.  And I have shown that the same
Krishna says in the MB that it is Rudra, known as Kāla, as distinct from
himself, that slayed all those who lost their lives in the war. The prashna
bhashya is quite plain, One entity taking various forms to perform the
cosmic functions.


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.
>

Yes, that Narayana, that is beyond avyakta, that, in association with maya
takes various forms to perform various functions. Shankara has also stated
in that place itself that it is Kshetrajna, nirguna, where the avyakta
resolves into.

>
>
> > 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.
>

The Supreme Atman is nirguna brahman in Advaita. Narayana is beyond
avyakta. So, the deity Rudra if as a pati of a group is created, by the
power of 'etc.' of the bhashya, the others who are left unlisted too who
are patis of any group, are deemed to have been created. This conclusion is
inescapable for anyone who follows Shankara's bhashya there.

> >
> > 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.
>

Let me point out to you that by your above logic, the other entities listed
in the Prashna mantra like Indra and surya are also Brahman, uncreated.
Just because the BU 1.4.11 says Rudra is created you do not want to include
*that* Rudra in the prashna bhashya.  See the below details of the 1.4.11
BU:

Indra, varuna, soma, parjanya, yama, mrtyu and Ishāna are listed along with
Rudra and the unlisted etc. iti, which Shankara takes iti evamādīni, others
such as these.

Now the prashna mantra has Indra and Surya are there specifically named and
in the next mantra parjanya is there. From this list indra and parjanya are
in the BU mantra, as ones created.  Now, going by your logic, indra and
parjanya are also to be deemed Brahman, the uncreated and Rudra in the
bhashya is uncreated Brahman, distinct from the created pashupati of the
BU!!  Where is a Rudra well known as distinct from the Rudra pashupati,
unless it is one of the 11?
ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीदेकमेव तदेकं सन्न व्यभवत् । तच्छ्रेयोरूपमत्यसृजत
क्षत्रं यान्येतानि देवत्रा क्षत्राणीन्द्रो वरुणः सोमो रुद्रः पर्जन्यो यमो
मृत्युरीशान इति ।  ॥ ११ ॥
भाष्यम्
 इन्द्रो देवानां राजा, वरुणो यादसाम्, सोमो ब्राह्मणानाम्, रुद्रः पशूनाम्,
पर्जन्यो विद्युदादीनाम्, यमः पितॄणाम्, मृत्युः रोगादीनाम्, ईशानो भासाम् —
इत्येवमादीनि देवेषु क्षत्राणि ।