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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:07 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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?)
>

He says Shankara is Sarvajna Ishwara in Kena bhashyam.  In advaita that is
nothing but Brahman. He also says Rudra is the annihilating power in the
Prashna bhashya. That is also Brahman as per the janmādi sutra. Brahman can
not perform that function without the upādhi of Rudra and the other
functions without the respective upadhis that are Vishnu and Brahma.

>
>
> > 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.
>

That Narayana beyond avyakta is what is meant there which is Nirguna
Brahman, Turiya. If one takes that Narayana to be the formed, located,
attributed one then that is anātmā, abrahma for Shankara, as per the Kena
bhashya. If this is understood there is no problem.
If that Narayana is different from Rudra and any other, then it is finite,
vastu paricchinna. Shankara has explained what this means in the Taittiriya
bhashya for the term 'anantam.'
Your personal views cloud your understanding of the bhashya.