Clarifications on Sankara's posts. (EDIT)

[Guest guest]

There are three arguments.

 

1) According to Sankara, Saghuna Brahman is only Narayana. He does

not use any other name.

 

That is not a true statement. I will give one reference from

Sankara's bhashyas to prove this. There are many but I am choosing

two to keep it short and from his bhashyas because one can always say

that Sankara did not write the stotras.

 

In Sv. Up. 1.12, Adi Sankara writes,

 

Eternal peace is for those - and not for others - who are

discriminating and who realize in their hearts Him who - being one,

the controller, and the inner Self of all - makes a single form

multifarious (Ka. 2.2.12). So also in the "Siva Dharmottara" it is

shown that yogins remain concentrated in their hearts :

"The yogis realize Siva in their hearts. .... He who realizes the

***all pervading Siva*** has Him seated in the heart

 

In Sv. Up. 3.2, di Sankara writes,

 

Since "Rudra" is, inded, one, by His very nature; therefore, the

knowers of Brahman the seers of supreme Reality did not wait in

anticipation of another "deity". And hence it is said ekah rudrah na

dvitIyAya tasthu. .. He resides within all beings.

 

So it is not true that Sankara only used Narayana to indicate Saghuna

Brahman. He also used names such as Rudra & Siva. And did not say it

refers to antaryamin Narayana as some say.

 

2) Even Kanchi Mahaperiyaval says that Adi Sankara uses the name

Narayana alone.

 

Sri Vaishnavas say that Adi Sankara was a vyavaharika vaishnava but

contemporary smarthas have deviated from his teachings by becoming

worshippers of siva and sakti. Just as they are wrong based on

evidence shown above, it would be wrong if maha periyaval said that

also. In his case it would be worse because he will be admitting that

Sankara did not write Soundarya Lahari or Sivananda Lahari. He will

also be contradicting his own statements on Siva Vishnu Abhedam. But

he does not say that Sankara uses the name Narayana ALONE.He simply

says the acharya has used the name NARAYANA. ALONE has been added by

the writer.

 

3) Inspite of the central importance Sankara gave to Narayana, the

contemporary advaitins dont.

 

It is very clear that for Adi Sankara Sri Govinda was the dearmost

deity. It is expected given that he is lord siva. He definitely

quotes Vishnu as Ishwara out of context when there is opportunity to

not mention Krishna, Vishnu or Kesava. In fact, he is the first one

to quote that Kesava means controller of Brahma (Ka), Siva (Isa) and

Vishnu (Va). This is quoted even by Visvanatha Cakravarthy Thakur. As

maha periyaval mentions he wanted the Sankaracharyas to offer

obeisances to Narayana by uttering the nama of Narayana and

remembering Him, when some one offers obeisances to them. Until

today, this is practised. But it is by no means true that Sankara did

not give importance to other forms of the lord (as per his

philosophy). He has written Sivananda Lahari, Soundarya Lahari,

Kanakadhara Stotram and slokas as Ganesha, Subrahmanya etc glorifying

them as givers of liberation, the highest purushartha as per Sankara.

In Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya dedicated to glorifying Vishnu, he

first establishes equality of Siva & Vishnu. The only way we can

establish that Sankara was a vyavaharika vaishnava is by pushing all

the evidence to the contrary under the carpet.

 

On a side note, Sri Vaishnavas say that Appayya Dikshidhar wrote Siva

Vishishtadvaita Bhashyam and also invented so many slokas glorifying

other deities. Assuming he was a scholar capable of doing this and

did so out of a crooked bent of mind deviating from his own

purvacharyas with the sole purpose of defeating Vaishnavas, why dont

the Sri Vaishnavas who say this in 20th century produce one evidence

that this was countered by Sri vaishnava purvacharyas in Appayya

Dikshidar's own time ? They are silent on it as expected after making

a sweeping statement against all hagiographical evidence. Let so

called brahmins first speak truth.

 

[Ram, I have said this before and I will say it again. You need to quote your

sources. It's not fair to attribute such accusations without proof they were in

fact said. Please remember this in future postings. -moderator]

 

All this is not to say that Sankara is right and that he cannot be

criticized. Vaishnavas are free to do so by all means using sastra

and logic or even sarcasm. Ane let truth prevail.

 

achintya, subash r <rajaasub> wrote:

> "Sri Chandrasekarendra Sarawati Swamigal or

> Mahaperiyaval as he is called by those who respect him

> does not say that Sankara gave the

> position of Ishwara to Narayana. He is quoting the

> opinion of Sri Vaishnavas here when he says "there are

> some who hold that Sankara worshipped only MahA

> vishnu". Then he quotes Sankara to say how it is

> incorrect understanding of Sankara's works. "

>

> : NO, By no means does he say the it is only the

> Vaishnavites opinion, as you claim. He says the

> Vaishnavites use the fact that Sankara referred to

> ISwara as Narayana alone in his bhashyas to justify

> their claim that Sankara was a Vishnu worshipper. To

> clarify things fully, I shall post an alternative link

> in the next para. The question here is not whom

> Sankara gave the position of IShwara to, the question

> here is why Sankara chose only the name 'Narayana' in

> his bhashyas.

>

> There is an article called "Namo Namah" where Maha

> Periyava hypothesises the reasons why Adi Sankara

> referred to Ishwara as 'Narayana alone' in his

> bhashyas. The link is

> ttp://www.kamakoti.org/miscl/namoh1.html

>

> This link unambiguously accepts that Sankara used the

> name 'Narayana alone' when referring to Ishwara in his

> bhashyas.

>

> excerpts

> --------

> "Therefore, wherever Vedanta refers to Paramatma as

> Jagat-karana-sakthi, Prapancha-mahasakthi,

> Saguna-bhramman, Iswaran, with an implicit suggestion

> of attributed Form, where Murthy Rupa is indicated,

> the Acharya has used NARAYANA as the name…"

 

> : Sankara's works are frozen. We have to analyze the

> reasons why he gives preeminence to Narayana in his

> works unlike Advaitins who simply choose to ignore

> this phenomenon.

>