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

[D Gayatri]

> The Upanishad did not suggest that Himavan's daughter is what is meant by
> Uma in that name for Narasimha.  There may be a name similar to that for
> Lakshmi.  That is beside the point.  We are interested only the Himavan's
> daughter uma.

Nor does Shankara suggest that Shiva is brahman anywhere in his
bhAshyas whereas he says explicitly that Shiva is created in his
bhashya on BU (going around in circles again, aren't we?)


> In fact, the words Rudra and Pashupathy are also applied by vaishnavas to
> Vishnu and a commentary is also given. By that, the BU creation of Rudra, as
> pashupathy, is applicable to Vishnu alone and nothing in the BU upanishad
> says that Vishnu is the uncreated one.   I have seen this bigoted attitude:
> Whenever Rudra is praised, it is actually Vishnu is praised.  Whenever Rudra
> is created or born, it is Shiva.  Surely, advaitins have no such
> compulsions.


Here, we should look at what bhagavatpAda says and he says Narayana is
uncreated paramAtman. Rest all, I should say are your personal
conclusions.