[Advaita-l] Shankara authenticates Shiva

[Ravi Kiran]

Dears

Thanks for your clarifications.

Unless the original author clarifies the intent clearly behind these posts
and attempt to claim for accepting Vishnu alone as vedAntic Brahman, it
seems this whole thread is not just of "academic" interest or from
individual sAdhana reference, but targeted with "other" interests is what
the readers could presume ?

Regards




On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Sujal Upadhyay <sujal.u at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> It is possible that we may have wrong understanding about shAstra-s.
> Opinion of Adi Sankara is considered as final.
>
> The point here is that one says - only viShNu is considered as Brahman by
> Adi Sankara and so only he is worthy of worship, not Siva. So those
> worshiping Siva or any other devi / devatA are not following Adi Sankara.
> If accepted or unanswered, this claim may result in collapse of faith and
> mistrust in saints, forefathers and tradition that is being followed since
> generations by those worshiping anya-devatA (other God than viShNu). Some
> members reply to this claim and quote to support generally accepted view of
> many forms, one God philosophy.
>
> -----
>
> According to some, Adi Sankara only praised nArAyaNa / viShNu as supreme.
> Siva / rudra was born and hence is not of equal status as that of viShNu.
> The claim is that this is the opinion of bhagavadpAda himself.
>
> There are others who after studying commentaries and those following
> traditional adviata and / or adhere to any of the Sankara mathas say that
> Adi Sankara whenever, in his commentaries on prasthAntraya, he mentioned
> viShNu / nArAyaNa, then he does not refer to caturbhuja viShNu. It is
> formless Brahman. Adi Sankara accepted other forms like Siva, Adi Sakti,
> etc as forms of Ishvara. Adi Sankara didn't denigrate status of any deity.
> Contradictory opinion is that viShNu can exist as both saguNa and nirguNa,
> but as a form of Ishvara, only viShNu is praised by Adi Sankara. Siva was
> created or born and hence cannot be Ishvara. Hence worshiping viShNu is the
> only one worthy of worship, not Siva.
>
> The presumption is that only saguNa viShNu can renounce his mAyA can enter
> into nirguNa state. However, IMO, this is not true. When nirguNa Brahman is
> mentioned by any name, be it Siva or viShNu, it does not matter, as it is
> nirguNa and nirAkAra. In mANDukya Up. the word Siva which refers to Atman
> is used. Siva of mANDukya Up. (comprising of 12 verses) is not umApati or
> saguNa Brahman. There are references quoted by Adi Sankara who accept Siva
> / rudra i.e. umApati as saguNa Brahman. So just like viShNu, Siva too is
> both saguNa andnirguNa.
>
> The problem with only viShNu can be both saguNa and nirguNa is that other
> commentaries like viShNu sahasranAma, kena Up, and various stotra-s
> atrributed to Adi Sankara and commented by pUrvAchArya-s are not taken into
> account. The reason is that many western scholars have considered other
> works as wrongly attributed to Adi Sankara. Then there are passages that
> contain praises of Siva as Brahman. They are interpreted as that ultimately
> belonging to viShNu. If one fails to interpret, then they are dubbed as
> 'interpolations'. The ways of determining authenticity of any verse of
> authenticity of attribution to Adi Sankara are limited and at times a
> result of tunneled vision. We have examples like MadhusUdan SarasvatI,
> vidyAraNya svAmI and appaya dikshita who composed hymns or have written
> commentaries on anya-devatA i.e. devatA other than their IshTa devatA). All
> these are also considered as interpolations. Even commentaries like
> mAnasollAsa on dakShiNAmurty stotra are rejected, just because writing
> style is different than Brahma sUtra commentary which, the Self acclaimed
> or academic scholars, consider as 'undoubtedly authentic'.
>
> So the basic tenets of advaita re objected, commentaries, stotra-s are
> rejected, verses of upanishads, mahAbhArata and purANa-s are considered as
> interpolations. It times large portion like the whole Santi parva of
> mahAbhArta, uttara khaNDa of padma purANa, etc are considered as
> interpolations. Many upanishads are considered as fabricated, or a later
> day creation some claimed to be created in 16th century. Even his
> biography, Sankara digvijaya' is rejected for various reasons. Removal of
> all these references makes things difficult to convey that Adi Sankara
> didnt denigrate anya-devatA. Are you getting my point?
>
> I am not pointing out to any member of this list, but I have seen a few
> vaiShNava-s outside this list and at times in my mail communication that
> they go on to the extent of hating advaita, Adi Sankara, dubbing advaita s
> mAyAvAda, etc. Then there are those who will try their best to prove Adi
> Sankara meant 'viShNu is Brahman' and will quote commentaries in support of
> their claim. Since commentaries are quoted, it is taken seriously. Hence
> certain people reply to these claim quoting commentaries form scriptures
> and using logic.  When replied, they will claim verses are 'interpolated',
> but as per my knowledge, I have not seen any valid reason given by those
> who are rejecting verses as interpolation. There are always counter
> replies, hence it's always back to square one.
>
>
> Dont worry, advaita has stood the test of time. When nothing more is left
> to logically argue, hopefully, even this discussion will come to be end.
>
> OM
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste
>>
>> Based on Sruti or bhAshya refs, one may accept Vishnu as vedAntic Brahman
>> (Ishwara) while other may accept Shiva as vedAntic Brahman (Ishwara) while
>> some other may accept yet another. (at vyavahArika)
>>
>> Why is there a need to establish or claim, based on these refs, that
>> Vishnu
>> or Shiva alone as vedAntic Brahman, while refuting the other ?
>>
>> Is it because of the reality is invested in both Vishnu and Shiva, that
>> one
>> needs to be negated completely from Ishwaratva, so that the other alone
>> can
>> be given the Ishwara status ?
>>
>> Pl share the contextual background behind these sharings of viewpoints or
>> observations..
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>