[Advaita-l] Padmapada's invocation and commentaries

[V Subrahmanian]

A correction:

//No. Only the first commentary suggests that and the second never says
that and that too as an alternative.  //

must read:

No. Only the first commentary suggests that, that too as an alternative.  The
second never says that.

regards
vs

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:41 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:06 PM, D Gayatri via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> There has been some discussion about padmapada's iinvocation verse
>> here and one particular member accused me of misleading the "gullible"
>> readers (as if readers are not intelligent enough!). I have been
>> accused of distorting the meaning of the commentaries.
>>
>> A good friend of mine has sent me link to the commentaries on
>> Padmapada's verse in Sanskrit, which explain the meaning of the verse.
>> The friend also pointed to me, the relevant portions of the
>> commentaries. I give full credit to my friend for this post.
>>
>> The commentaries can be found here and can be verified by anyone -
>>
>> http://www.dli.gov.in/data2/upload/0052/746/PTIFF/00000147.tif
>>
>> The readers can look at two of the commentaries 1. RujuvivaraNam and
>> 2. tattvadIpanam
>>
>> Both the commentaries indicate that Shankara did not don bhasma and
>> the last commentary states that Shankara is being differentiated from
>> the other prasiddha Shankara (Shiva).
>>
>> 1. RujuvivaraNam
>>
>>  For “nirastabhUtim”, the explanation given is “bhasmarahitaM
>> nirastaishvaryaṃ  vA” (bhasmarahitam means without ashes,
>> nirastaishvaryam means without wealth). Thus the RujuvivaraNam is
>> saying that (Adi) Shankara did not don the bhasma and he is also
>> without wealth.
>>
>> 2. tattvadIpanam
>>
>> This one says - "prasiddha Shankara vilakshaNam paramahamsa parAyaNam
>> ShankarAchAryam namAmi....". The commentary then goes on ....
>> “vailakshaṇyamAha...."
>>
>> Thus the commentator is clearly differentiating the prasiddha Shankara
>> (Shiva) from (Adi) Shankaracharya.
>>
>> For bhUtih, the commentator says -
>>
>>  bhUtiḥ -- bhasitam (ashes), tadanuliptagAtraḥ saḥ (sah here refers to
>> prasiddha Shankara or Shiva) । ayaṃ (this refers to Adi Shankara)
>> tvaiSvaryalakshaNabhUtividhuraH”
>>
>> (Adi) Shankara is bhUtividhurah - i.e, he is devoid of ashes.
>>
>
> The above is a patently wrong translation of the commentary. The correct
> translation is:
>
> While* that* Lord Shiva was donning the ashes, *this*, Shankaracharya, is
> bereft of the vibhūti called aishvarya: aishvaryalakshanavibhūti
> vidhuraḥ. Anyone with elementary Sanskrit knowledge will be able to see
> this.
>
>
>>
>> Over all we must note two things -
>>
>> 1. Both commentaries say that (Adi) Shankara did not don the bhasma
>>
>
> No. Only the first commentary suggests that and the second never says that
> and that too as an alternative.
>
>>
>> 2. The second commentary explicitly says that (Adi) Shankara is being
>> differentiated from the other prasiddhi Shankara (Shiva)
>>
>
> That differentiation is only for the purpose of showing that the Original
> Lord Shiva alone has incarnated as Shankaracharya. That vailaksanya is also
> only done when the two individuals have something in common.  Here both
> Shiva and Shankara are one entity but only appearing in different forms.
> While so incarnating Shiva alone is found here without what he is found in
> Kailasa.
>
>>
>> Therefore, neither did (Adi) Shankara don the bhasma, nor was he
>> considered an incarnation of Shiva by Padmapada.
>>
>
> This conclusion is wrong.
>
> A human, Shankara Acharya or anyone, can be compared with God only when
> there is a very special accomplishment with that human.  Just because two
> individualṣ share the same name that does not warrant a
> comparison/contrast.
>
> We have examples of Vāchaspati Misra being compared to Brahmā, Vācaspati,
> by Amalananda in the Kalpataru.  There too there is the double meaning:
> Misra is such an accomplished scholar that he is a god among all other
> scholars, vibudhāḥ (which also means gods).
>
> We have another famous case of Vidyaranya in the Mādhaviya Shankara
> Vijayam where he says: Lord Shiva, gave up the Mouna (Dakshinamurti)
> Silence and the abode under the Banyan Tree and came down to the earth as
> Shankaracharya (to speak, write etc.)
>
> Thus, only when an extraordinary accomplishment is seen in a human a
> comparison with God is made.  That is what is made by Padmapada and
> Sureshwara.  Everyone knows, without being informed specially, that the
> name 'Shankara' is a name of Lord Shiva. Yet, Sureshwara says twice that
> Shankara bears the name of Lord Shiva only to signify that he is an
> incarnation.
>
> regards
> vs
>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Gayatri
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>
>