Adi Shankara - A Covert VaiSNava

[Guest guest]

The Advaitins of today are portraying Adi Shankara as a philosopher who was a Smarta.

 

They don't even care to consider the basic tenets of his Advaita and his concept of Saguna and Nirguna Brahmans.

 

The fact is that Adi Shankara never considered all the deities to be same(as Smartas do).

 

The above point is clear from his commentaries on Brahma Sutras, Upanishads, Bhagavad gItA and SrI ViSNu SahasranAma.

 

I will quote from the first three of the four commentaries(excl. ShasranAma bhASya as it will refer to ViSNu by all means).

 

I don't consider the various stotras claimed to be written by him as any authority in this matter as no Advaita AchArya has ever cited these stotras before the 15th century AD.

 

So, definitely these were not written by Sri Adi Shankara as if they had been written by him then his faithful followers would have written TIkAs on them or atleast cited from those stotras.

(Note: all the commentaries attributed by me to Adi Shankara have been cited by ancient Advaitins and also tIkAs have been written on them by various scholars).

 

 

Now, let us see what Sri Shankara offers us in his commentaries:

 

Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad (3 - 7 - 3):

 

text: "ya: prthivyAm tiSTan...." (antaryAmi brAhmaNa)

 

Commentary:

 

"ya: - IDrgIshvaro nArAyaNAkya:,

 

prithvIm - prithvIdevatAm,

 

yamayati - niyamati svavyapAre,

 

antara: - abhyantarastiSTan,

 

eSa te AtmA - te tava mama ca sarvabhUtAnAm ca ityupalakSaNArtthametat"

 

"Such great controller(Ishvara) by the name 'nArAyaNa' resides within the deity of earth(prithvIdevatA) and makes it do His work. He is the inner dweller(antarAtmA) of you , me and all beings."

 

 

Here the text of the Upanishad does not specify the name of any deity but Sri Shankara specifically says that the deity is Narayana.

 

Also note that the inner dweller is considered as the Brahman. This amounts to the fact that Shankara accepted only Narayana as the Brahman(Saguna).

 

Some modern Advaitins try to say that Shiva is the Nirguna Brahman. But this argument falls flat on its own face as Shankara has made it clear that Nirguna Brahman is the only AtmA which actually exists and it does not have any face, form, name or characteristics. Infact, no deity can be called the Nirguna Brahman as all the deities are part of the illusion that is being suffered by Nirguna Brahman.

 

Anyway going back to Shankara,

 

MunDaka Upanishad Bhashya:

2-1-4:

 

text:".....sarvabhUtAntarAtmA"

 

commentary: "eSa devo viSNurananta: pratama sharIrI trailokyadehopAdhi: sarveSAm bhUtAnAm antarAtmA"

 

Meaning: "The deity called as ViSNu and Ananta is the foremost among those with body(Saguna Brahman), the one who has all the three worlds as his body and the one who is the inner dweller of all beings".

 

 

 

VedAnta sUtra Bhashya (brahma sUtra bhashya):

 

2-2-42:

 

text : "utpatyasambhavAt"

 

Here Adi Sankara says that the PancarAtra system cannot be accepted due to impossibility of origination of souls. He considers the birth of Pradyamna, Aniruddha, Samkarshana from Vasudeva as creation of souls and hence says it as unacceptable.

 

But he goes on to say:

 

Commentary:

"tatra yattAva ducyate yo(a)sow nArAyaNa: parovyaktAt prasiddha: paramAtmA sarvAtmA.... ....yadapi tasya bhagavato(a)bhigamanAdi na pratiSiddhyate||"

 

 

Translation:

"Concerning this system we remark that we do not intend to controvert the doctrine that Narayana, who is higher than the Undeveloped, who is the Highest Self(paramAtmA), and the Self of all(sarvAtmA), reveals himself by dividing himself in multiple ways; for various scriptural passages, such as 'He is onefold, he is threefold' (Ch. Up. 7. 26. 2), teach us that the highest Self appears in manifold forms. Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing concentration of mind on Narayana which appears in the Bhagavata doctrine under the forms of reverential approach(abhigamana), for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from Smriti and Scripture(Sruti)."

 

 

Note that Adi Shankara does not oppose the Bhagavata doctrine that Narayana is Paramatma and Sarvatma and that he acknowledges them to be true. Also, he accepts that the unceasing concentration of mind on Narayana is correct and is a way to moksha(when a particular thing is accepted by the commentator of Brahma Sutras, it means that he accepts it as a way to moksha as the Sutras define Brahman and the way to attain Moksha by reaching Brahman).

 

also note that when Shankara refutes Shaiva(PAshupata) religion, he does not say that he accepts Shiva as the Supreme. he refutes that religion completely.

 

Advaitins! please think on this.

 

 

 

Bhagavad gItA BhaSya:

 

Avatarika:

" Adi kartA nArAyaNAkhyo viSNu: bhowmasya brahmaNa: brAhmaNatvasya ca abhirakshaNArtham devakyAm vasudevAdamshena krSna: kila sambabhUva"

 

Meaning:

 

"The most ancient creator of the world, Narayana a.k.a ViSNu, took avatar in this world as KrSna, son of Devaki and Vasudeva to save the Brahmins and their religion."

 

Here, Sri Shankara very clearly calls ViSNu as the most ancient creator(Adi karta) by which he makes it clear that ViSNu is Parambrahman.

 

 

Commentaries on various Slokas of the gItA:

 

3-30:

"mayi deve parameSvare sarvagye sarvAtmani vAsudeve"

 

VAsudeva is called as Parameshvara(Supreme Lord), Sarvagya(all knower), sarvAtmA(one who dwells in everything).

 

similarly in various places, he calls ViSNu as the Supreme. I will give the mUla commentary::

 

8-5:

"parameshwaram viSNum"

 

4-35:

"vAsudeve parameshware"

 

7-14, 13-2:

"Ishwarasya viSNo:"

 

7-15:

"parameshwaram nArAyaNam"

 

12-20:

"viSNo: parameshwarasya"

 

13-18:

"mayi parameshware sarvagye paramagurow vAsudeve"

 

14-26:

"Ishwaram nArAyaNam"

 

15-3:

"vAsudevAkyAm 'parabrahmA'bhidheyabhUtam"

 

Note: Here Shankara directly refers to Lord VAsudeva as Parabrahman.

 

 

13-10:

"na anyo bhagavato vAsudevAt para: asti ata: sa eva na: gati"

 

Translation:

"No one is greater than Bhagavan Narayana and hence He alone is our gati"

[Guest guest]

Bhagavad gItA bhashya:

 

7-17:

 

"ekabhaktishca - anyasya bhajanIyasya adarshanAt"

 

Meaning:

"Lord Krishna is Ekabhakti because no one else is found who is worthy of worship."

 

That is the end of all doubts. No one else is found worthy of worship. Only ViSNu is worthy of worship.

 

not said by me. but by Adi Shankara.

 

 

11-43:

 

text: " na tvat samo(a)stiabhyadhika: kuto(a)nya:"

 

Commentary: "kasmAt gurutra: tvam ityAha - na tvat sama: - tvat tulya asti.......... niratishayaprabhAva! ityartha:"

 

Meaning:

"The answer for the question 'Why You are greater than all others?' is said. There is NO ONE EQUAL TO YOU. There cannot be two Ishwaras. If there are many Ishwaras, the world cannot run. There is no one even equal to You. How can someone be greater than You in all the three worlds? O one with matchless and unimaginable prowess! - this is the meaning."

 

Note: Sri Shankara says that no one is equal to ViSNu nor greater than Him. Thus, the argument that all deities are equal or that Shiva and ViSNu are equal falls flat on face.

 

Advaitins! The Smarta argument may be yours but not that of Sri Adi Shankara.

 

 

4-12:

"mokshapradAnena"

 

Meaning:

"One who confers the boon of Moksha".

 

only the Brahman can confer Moksha. Thereby once again he says that ViSNu is the Brahman and also that he confers the boon of Moksha.

 

 

2-51:

text: "padam gacchantya nAmayam"

 

Commentary: "padam paramam viSNo: mokshAkyam gacchanti"

 

Note: He considers that attaining Paramam Padam of ViSNu is Moksha.

 

 

similar thoughts are found in the following commentary lines:

 

18-62:

"sthAnam ca mama viSNo: paramam padam prApsyasi shAshvatam nityam"

 

Here he says that Paramam Padam is a place(sthAnam) and that the moksha attained by reaching it is permanent(shAshvatam nityam).

 

18-56:

"shAshvatam nityam vaiSNavam padam avyayam"

 

15-4:

"tata:- pashcAt;

 

yat padam - vaiSNavam ;

 

tat parimargitavyam :: parimArgaNam - anveSaNam, gyatavyamityartha: ;

 

yasmin - pade ;

 

gatA - praviStA: ;

 

na nivartanti - na Avartante;

 

bhUya: - puna: samsArAya"

 

Meaning:

"One who enters ViSNu's paramampadam never returns to this samsAra again."

 

 

 

Also, Atanu normally argues that "ViSNo paramam padam" means "Visnu is Supreme Feet".

 

But this is wrong. "viSNo" means "of Visnu".

 

So, the actual meaning would be "Paramam Padam of ViSNu".

 

Also, "padam" is not even considered as mere feet but as the abode of ViSNu by Sri Shankara.

 

 

 

KaThopanishad bhashya:

 

1-3-9:

"tad viSNo: - vyApana shIlasya brahmaNa: paramAtmano vAsudevAkyasya: ;

 

paramam - utkrSTam;

 

padam - sthAnam; "

 

note: 'padam' is taken to mean as 'sthAnam'(place). Thus Shankara takes 'paramam padam' to mean as 'Supreme Place/Abode'.]

 

ViSNu is referred to as the all pervading deity who is paramAtmA and whose name is VAsudeva.

 

 

Finally, the point to be noted is that the words 'VAsudeva', 'ViSNu' etc are taken as Proper nouns, not as common nouns or adjectives, by Shankara.

 

the word 'nArAyaNa' refers to Lord ViSNu alone. This is made clear by PAninI his sutra - "pUrvapadAt samgyAyAm aga:".

 

The words 'nArAyaNa', 'rAmAyaNa' are governed by this sutra. Using this rule, VaiSNavas prove that ViSNu alone is Parambrahman.

 

It is clear from the above quotes from Shankara's commentaries that Shankara considered only Lord ViSNu as Parambrahman and not any other deity.

 

That settles the matter.

[Guest guest]

I think the mathas Sankara established are far more qualified to speak on Adi Sankara and his teachings than you are. If Sankara became a Vaishnava he would've declared that he was a Vaishnava, but he never did. The Mathas he himself established all teach the Smarta approach. He believed the 'forms' of God were all manifestations of Brahman and that nothing was higher than Brahman. If he was talking about the Gita, it is obvious that Vishnu or Krishna would be the supreme one. But he's done the same for all the forms of God in different manifestations, e.g. Sri Rudram.

 

Before you still try to make out he was a vaishnava ask yourself why Vaishnava acaryas such as Ramanuja and Madhva don't believe he was a vaishnava and had no problem seeing his as a Smarta, though they disagreed with Advaita philosophy.

 

So if you think Sankara wasn't Smartha, do you also think he also wasn't an Advaitist? Is Advaita a made up philosophy of his followers Or is Sankara the teacher of Vaishnava Advaita?

 

I've heard that Ramanuja and Madhva cam from the Smarta tradition but left it to become Vaishnavas, but I'm not sure if this is true.

[Guest guest]

Sanskrit is only 25% of the pie of vaishnavism. It more full of vernacular languages. Most bakthy movements are for a social identity than having any individual relevance. Individual relevance is only with spirituality. Bakthy movement, like christianity or islam, is more for a social and distinct identity.

 

I personally support this bakthy based distinction of social identity. This is far better than a psuedo portfolio based distinction of political parties, say as a comparison.

 

Krishna, narayana, rama, ...based bakthy distinction is all fine for a social identity. It's also fine that it reflects on a locality's belief. So it's wrong to go convert a rama bakth into a krishna bakth, just as I beleive it's wrong for a hindu to be converted into christianity. The question is what's the societal value of such a conversion, than an ego satisfaction of a particular group.

 

And what more, Krishna, narayana or rama or the dashavatars are all about how personalities with strongest of spiritual nature play their roles as kings or strategists etc. So ultimately there is nothing wrong in having a social identity based on bakthy, be it rama or krishna or narayana, as their teachings are all about spiritual living for the individual. Just as an example, BG is not for developing a social identity, it is more for an individual. So it's all fine.

 

As bakthy has evolved more from a period of social oppression, the weaker sections of the society are well represented than say an intellect speaking sanskrit. So for example, women paly an important role. And their local women deity is all prayed in their local language, not sanskrit.

 

The poor tribal farmers around tirupati who lived on borrowed money and farming on unpredictable weather conditions, balaji was their god to provide them hope. And also form an identity against the lenders. It didn't matter to them whether that balaji was orginaly of a buddhist origin and later was considered a vishnu form. Just didn't matter. Thanks to those farmers prospering today, and some good focus for different sections, it's a big temple today. Balaji is a spiritual person and wants to be relieved from his mundane liabilities. Anyone who pays for his liabilities receives luck, as he allows balaji to continue in his spiritual bliss. The poor tribals and farmers around tirupati knew this for true. Now their original slokas were not in sanskrit.

 

So vaishnavism focusing on sanskrit is only to counter advaithic beliefs. Thus one would wonder why on earth are vaishnavites wasting time, quoting sanskrit scriptures to prove a point. Over and above that, these allegation that sankara didn't write but it was someone else who wrote. Instead, the vaishnavites should join the rest of the majority to thank the stars that such scriptures have been passed down the generations, against all the odds.

 

Vaishnavites should stop quoting scriptures, and instead do something to contribute value to society. Thanks to sanakara, the vaishnavites get to know of sanskrit, and get to read the vedas (regardless of wierd vaishnavite interpretations).

 

Vaishnavites can find several bakthy scriptures on vernacular language & fulfilling, instead of labouring to intepret vedas which are from a spiritual/advaithic thinking. Sankara's was a very classical non-dual philosophy, compared to many other non-dual philosophers at that time. Sankara's philosophy was hugely successful, compared to those other non-dual philosphers of that time. The change he led in his lifetime with advathic philosophy is truely remarkable, and unparalleled. It shall continue to be so, may be an appropriate thought.

[Guest guest]

When I quoted from Shankara's works, I only tried to convey to others what he has actually said and that what the so called Adavitins of today want us to believe is certainly not Sri Shankara's pie.

 

Vaishnavism is clearly based on Vedic scriptures and the vernacular songs of devotion are emant only to induce Bhakti in the hearts of people. It doesn't mean that Vaishnavism is based on vernacular languages. The fact that Vaishnavism is based on Vedas can be clearly seen from the works of Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya etc.

 

______________

It didn't matter to them whether that balaji was orginaly of a buddhist origin and later was considered a vishnu form.

______________

 

 

'Silappadhikaaram' - a Tamil classic written by a Jain monk,Sri Ilango, clearly refers to Tirupati(Venkatam) as the Abode of ViSNu and the deity as ViSNu(tirumAl - tamil name of ViSNu). I don't think you believe that Balaji is a Buddhist deity. It is only because of the huge money involved that people of various faiths call the deity as their own though from the very ancient times, it has been regarded as ViSNu.

 

Also, Balajio was not a deity of the nearby farmers alone, the Silappadhikaaram says that a Brahmin from South Tamil Nadu goes to the temple to have a darshan of the Lord which means that even from the most ancient days, it has been a place of pilgrimage.

 

 

 

_______________

Vaishnavites should stop quoting scriptures, and instead do something to contribute value to society. Thanks to sanakara, the vaishnavites get to know of sanskrit, and get to read the vedas (regardless of wierd vaishnavite interpretations).

_______________

 

Why should we stop quoting the scriptures? Infact only VaiSNavas have been able to interpret the Vedas in a non contradictory manner. If you dont like their interpretations, the fault is with your mind and their interpretations are not at all weird.

 

Also, was it due to shankara that vaisnavas got to know of sanskrit? Dramidacarya, Tanka and Bodhayana had written treatises on Brahma Sutras even before Shankara and after all all the Vaisnava Puranic literature were in Sanskrit centuries before the birth of Sankara and these have been cited by Sankara himself.

 

Also, the aim of the thread is to show that Shankara was a Vaisnava and it has been proved from his commentaries.

 

as for the stotras which are attributed to Shankara, I am ready to accept them as written by Shankara if you are able to show any that an Advaitin before 1000 A.D. has cited these verses or stotras.

 

A person's philosophy can be known only through his commentaries on the scriptures and that is what I have done , to show that Shankara was a VaiSNava at heart who accepted only Narayana as Saguna Brahman.

 

If anyone wishes to refute this, then let them cite those passages from Shankara's commentaries in which Shankara has accepted some other deity as Saguna Brahman.

 

I have already made it clear that no deity(incl. Narayana and Shiva) can be Nirguna Brahman as Nirguna makes it clear that it has no name, shape, form, charateristics etc. and also it nothing but the only true soul which has been covered by maya due to which it has thought itself to be many(deities, living and non-living beings) and has given rise to this illusionary world.

 

so, let the debate on this thread be based on Shankara's own commentaries and his philosophy.

 

The aim of the Advaitins is to become one with Nirguna Brahman or attain the abode of Narayana.

 

Let the Advaitins understand this fact.

[Guest guest]

_______________

I think the mathas Sankara established are far more qualified to speak on Adi Sankara and his teachings than you are. If Sankara became a Vaishnava he would've declared that he was a Vaishnava, but he never did. The Mathas he himself established all teach the Smarta approach. He believed the 'forms' of God were all manifestations of Brahman and that nothing was higher than Brahman.

_______________

 

Show me how many maths established by him are now citing his commentaries in their philosophical discourses. The maths are no longer the representatives of Advaita philosophy. You speak like those people who say that only the 'eminent'(Marxist) historians can say anything about Indian history/ Ayodhya dispute.

 

Who told you that Shankara never declared himself as a Vaisnava, infact his commentaries cited above show that he accepts ViSNu alone as Saguna Brahman. Show me a single line from his Vedanta Sutra Bhashya where Shankara says that all the Gods are manifestations of Brahman?

 

Shankara never says so. Shankara's approach is very clear. the real Brahman(Nirguna) is a single true soul(jiva) which under illusion(maya) thinks itself to be many and hence this illusionary world is seen. In this world, Shankara accepts that there is a Saguna Brahman who creates, sustains and destroys all by Himself. Shankara says that this Saguna Brahman is Narayana and Narayana alone.

 

 

 

_______________

If he was talking about the Gita, it is obvious that Vishnu or Krishna would be the supreme one. But he's done the same for all the forms of God in different manifestations, e.g. Sri Rudram.

_______________

 

Shankara has not written any commentary on the Rudram.

 

Also, even going by your idea, why must he say in his gita bhashya that no deity is equal or greater to Krishna or that no other deity is worthy of worship??

 

Think well. read his commentaries and then arrive at a decision. don't arrive at a decision and then read the facts.

 

Also, I have shown from his Upanishad bhashyas that even in those palces where the text does not mention the name of the deity, Shankara clearly refers to the deity as Narayana and Narayana alone. He would not have done so if he was a smarta.

 

In his Brahma Sutra Bhashya, Shankara accepts that Narayana is Parambrahman and that Moksha can be attained by worshipping Him. He does not say so for any other deity. How can you call him to be a 'Smarta'?

 

_______________

Before you still try to make out he was a vaishnava ask yourself why Vaishnava acaryas such as Ramanuja and Madhva don't believe he was a vaishnava and had no problem seeing his as a Smarta, though they disagreed with Advaita philosophy.

_______________

 

Ramanuja and Madhva do not consider him to be a complete VaiSNava as he says that everything in this world is illusion and also because he says that there is another Brahman 'Nirguna Brahman' apart from Narayana. Ramanuja or Madhva NEVER say that Shankara was a Smarta. Infact, the scholars of the school of Ramanuja have cited his acceptance of ViSNu alone as Saguna Brahman and shown that all true Vedantists have accepted only ViSNu as Parambrahman and not any other deity.

 

The Advaita philosophy says that in a world devoid of maya there is no Ishwara and jivas but only one soul which is formless, nameless and without any characteristics. That Nirguna Brahman is said as 'Gnana svarupa' by some advaitins. Hence, proper VaiSNavas like Ramanuja and Madhva oppose his systems as it does not accept an eternal Ishvara - Jiva relationship.

 

 

 

_______________

So if you think Sankara wasn't Smartha, do you also think he also wasn't an Advaitist? Is Advaita a made up philosophy of his followers Or is Sankara the teacher of Vaishnava Advaita?

_______________

 

This shows that you have not read my post carefully. I have clearly said that Shankara is an Advaitin by explaining his philosophy in brief and by referring to his disciples as Advaitins. There is no philosophy by the name - Vaishnava Advaita. Of course, if you think that calling ViSNu alone as Saguna Brahman is 'VaiSNava advaita' then his philosophy says the same and you can name it in that way if you like.

 

 

 

If you oppose my views, then cite those verses from Shankara's commentaries which say that all the deities are Saguna Brahman. Don't blabber like those BMAC people who harp on the word 'eminent historians'.

 

I have made my case by citing many verses. Till now, no one has cited any verses to the contrary much less prove my hypotheses to be wrong. This is a vindication of my position.

[Guest guest]

It's is said that every one true nature is spiritual nature. It's the nature of the spirituality in each one of us. And the spirituality is the same as bramhan, the universal self. This spiritual nature is each is called narayana.

 

Narayana in each living being is different, as is demonstrated in the unique perception we have of each of the dasha avatars.

 

Narayana is the nature of the spirituality. It's is supreme. As can be read in viveka chudamani, the true nature is each is spiritual nature. The nature of the ego is ignorance and it's like moss upon clear water.

 

Sankara's non-dual philosophy is unique as it disregards material nature as mere ignorance. There are other non-dual schools of philosophy which regards material nature as also natural to the person, but prompts each one to gradually focus on the spirituality. So sankara's non-dual philosphy is truely classical, and a much bigger success than other non-dual schools of that time. This is what makes india so unique.

 

Narayana is spiritual nature. The focus of hinduism is over above the experience of spirituality. The focus of hindusim is on spiritual nature (thanks to shankara). This focus on spiritual nature, makes hinduism special, while most other religions might at best approach a spiritual experience for the individual. In a nut shell, Narayana is the edge.

[Guest guest]

The problem, Sri Ravilochan, is that you are expending yourself in paltry ground. Most people here I suspect can't understand/speak Sanskrit and are quite ignorant of the scriptures to give a quote by quote argument. There are such people no doubt in the heart of India but the number well versed in English and coming to websites like these is extremely limited. While I very much appreciate your points (accept or not), I am afraid your flag of victory is almost ridiculous. Naturally in a website like this and an open forum, those who come from the Smarta or other traditions will tend to speak from a cultural background and a basic understanding of the scriptures, but cannot profess mastery of the ins and outs and give such arguments. At least, you must bear with such of us, as I am sure you are used to. (It is like: if a Christian missionary goes to a village and argues down with logic and science, all the simple beliefs of the village peasant, the village peasant cannot really quote from the Vedas or the Gita, but if rooted in their past, can speak from their heart in defense of their religion. If not, may get converted: this is not victory for the missionary who is profitting of their ignorance.) I will give you my peasant's defence.

 

The Smarta viewpoint at once allows us to praise the ParaBrahman as Narayana and concentrate upon Him as Vishnu with four arms and the discus and the Gada. We never feel lessened in seeing Shankara praise Saguna Brahman as Narayana, for we understand his final stance of non-duality as giving the ultimate picture. All the scriptures that praise the Lord as Narayana are in our favor, except we are a bit smart (as our Guru Sri Shankara) that though we may think, remember and adore our King only in his stately dress, we know he is just the same were he to wear an ordinary man's dress. So we don't need to go to all the scriptures (photographs of our King) and prove that our King can appear in other dresses as well, and that those who admire him in other ways are some how mistaken. We know how far to take the importance of labels and where to quit. The emphasis of the Vaishnava is at a lower level than the Smarta, for the Vaishnava is caught up with the dress of the King and cannot understand the labels are subservient to the King Himself. Thus the Vaishnava must (and please do) quote the scripture and raise a holler. The Smarta sees this as almost childish and usually does not spend the time arguing with such Vaishnavites.

 

To my Smarta brothers and sisters: never be intimidated by such arguments. Our all embracing, non-fanatical approach to religion and also the Guru of our tradition are a bit out-of-reach for outsiders brought up with a fanatical bend of mind.

 

On the other hand, I am happy to see this attempt on the part of staunch Vaishnavites to accept Shankara as one among them. This is in the traditions of every school of thought accepting the Vedas and interpreting according to itself. If you can accept my Guru, even if in a different manner than myself, still I am happy. Thank you for that.

[Guest guest]

Adi Sankracharya was incarnation of Lord Shiva. But can you pls explain how Mahadev Shiva appeared like Brahma was created from the naval of Lord Vishnu. If, you can quote the scripture were it is mentioned also please.

Hari Bol1

[Guest guest]

Adi Shankaracharya praising Lord Shiva, Shivananda Lahari 100:

 

"Oh Shambhu, all this praise I feel is enough,

Though I never wrote anything that is false.

When Lord Brahma and other Gods,

List all the great Gods,

They always put you as first.

And when your devotees search for the greatest God,

The other gods are moved away like the chaff from the grain,

And you are reckoned as the best among best of all grains."

 

And Maa Paravati, Soundary Lahari 81,82:

 

"Oh Parvati! the lord of the mountains presented to you in the form of a (wedding) gift, heaviness and vastness having cut (them) from his own flanks. Therefore this your vast, heavy mass of the hips and loins behind conceals the entire earth and reduces (it) to lightness (in comparison).

 

Oh You! Oh daughter of the mountain! Oh knower of Vedic injunction! you exist having vanquished both : the trunks of elephants and the stalk portion of the golden plantain tree, by both thighs, (and) both frontal globes on the fore head of the elephant of Indra, by the two knees which are well rounded and hard from prostrations to the husband (Siva)."

 

And Lord Ganeshwara, Sri Ganesha Pancharatnam 5:

 

"I constantly reflect upon that single-tusked god only,

whose lustrous tusk is very beautiful,

who is the son of Lord Shiva, the god of death,

who tears asunder all obstacles,

and who dwells forever in the heart of Yogis."

[Guest guest]

"was created from the naval of Lord Vishnu. If, you can quote the scripture were it is mentioned also please."

 

Padmanabha is doing puja with his right hand to Shiva in his shayana posture. And feeds into the creator from his naval.

 

The right hand is considered pure and demonstrates shraddha in doing pooja to shiva. The feeds through the naval to the creator is involuntary.

 

The temple is in trivandrum.

[Guest guest]

It is very clear that Mahadev is worshiping Lord Ram and Krishna.

Hanuman ji is the Avatar of Mahadev.

Please quote a clearly where it is mentioned how Lord Shiva appeared?

Please no man made stories.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Please quote a clearly where it is mentioned how Lord Shiva appeared?

It is mentioned in the Bhagavatam, but that is in relation to Rudra, who is an expansion of Shiva.

 

 

The right hand is considered pure and demonstrates shraddha in doing pooja to shiva. The feeds through the naval to the creator is involuntary.

Narayana's entire body is considered pure, so much so that worshipping his lotus feet purifies our hearts of all contamination. The idea that his right hand somehow indicates something "clean and pure" is ridiculous. Narayana blessed bali by placing His foot on Bali's head. In the common world the foot is considered unclean.

 

As far as Brahma being "fed" through the lotus stem:

 

Within the lotus stem is the 14 bhuvanas, all the planets within our perception. The lotus is the Satya loka, the topmost planetary system where Lord Brahma resides. Lord Brahma dwells within that abode, he is not linked to a feeding tube like a baby in the womb. You should refer to scripture and not to fertile imaginations.

[Guest guest]

I do consider it fair that there is nothing special about right hand that's more pure than the rest of the body. I agree. So I used the word 'demonstrates' in my note.

 

There is a vaishnavite obcession with creation. Conisdering the 'creator' as a high-point to figure out who the supreme god is.

 

Lord padmanabha clearly indicates that the spiritual self is the focus as is demonstrated by the right hand worshiping shiva. Rest is all automatic, as follows:

-The bhumi devi in pure harmony with you (in natural sense this means, no tsunamis, earthquakes, draughts etc..)

-The maha lakshmi is there with pure prospserity (natural sense this means, wealth, prosperity, plentitude, sharing attitude..)

-The wise people around you continuing to be around you and take guidance from you (natural sense...good company.. & opportunity to serve society)

-Creator is fed by you from the naval, like how food may be digested involuntarily (in natural sense.. wisdom of the three vedas..no more dellusions..)

[Guest guest]

FIRST OF ALL, THIS THREAD WAS CREATED TO PROVE THAT SRI SHANKARA WAS NOT A SMARTA. IF YOU THINK HE IS A SMARTA, THEN CITE FROM HIS COMMENTARIES TO SHOW THAT HE WAS A SMARTA. JUST DONT WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME BY POSTING SOMETHING ELSE.

 

INSTEAD OF SHOUTING LOUD THAT SHANKARA WAS A SMARTA, PROVE HE WAS ONE FROM HIS COMMENTARIES.

 

YOU PEOPLE BEHAVE LIKE THOSE BMAC HISTORIANS WHO SHOUT AT THE TOP OF THEIR VOICE THAT THERE WAS NO TEMPLE IN AYODHYA BUT WHEN SHOWN THE PROOF JUST IGNORE ANY DEBATE ON IT FOR THE FEAR OF A DRUBBING. COME OUT OF SUCH MINDSET.

 

 

_______________

All the scriptures that praise the Lord as Narayana are in our favor, except we are a bit smart (as our Guru Sri Shankara) that though we may think, remember and adore our King only in his stately dress, we know he is just the same were he to wear an ordinary man's dress.

_______________

 

My argument has been very simple. Inhave cited from Shankara's own commentaries. I have not given any opinion of mine. If you think Shankara is a smarta then show it from his commentaries that he was one.

 

all your examples about King's dress is ridiculous. We identify our Lord when takes birth as a human. But we will certainly not acept someone who is not a king to be a king.

 

______________

So we don't need to go to all the scriptures (photographs of our King) and prove that our King can appear in other dresses as well, and that those who admire him in other ways are some how mistaken.

______________

 

the usual smarta way of wobbling out of arguments. If scriptures are not essential then why did every acharya including Shankara cited from the scriptures and make it very clear that their argument is based on the scriptures. They too could have said just like you - " we know that this is right. hence we need not cite from scriptures."

 

this argument is as good as saying that a particular person is the murderer and we need not show any proof in the court as we know it. sheer bluff.

 

also, you say that all deities are one God. thats the crux of your argument. then the scriptures(Vedas) go wrong. for they say 'BhIsoteti sUrya:' - that Sun does his work out of fear of God. how can the one who commands and one who fears be one and same?

 

 

 

 

 

_____________

The Smarta sees this as almost childish and usually does not spend the time arguing with such Vaishnavites.

_______________

 

of course, you never argue with VaiSNavas because you cannot show that your position is correct because it is utterly wrong.

 

Shankara does not acept your point of view. He clearly says that no one is greater than ViSNu or equal to Him. also he says that only ViSNu is worthy of worship.

 

lets see. if he was a smarta then why does he identify parambrahman with only Narayana and not with any other deity?

 

you just close your eyes. you never see the truth and then say that only you are correct. funny though.

 

 

_______________

On the other hand, I am happy to see this attempt on the part of staunch Vaishnavites to accept Shankara as one among them.

______________

 

we don't accept Shankara as one among us. he was an advaitin(not a smarta). but we do acept his position that there is no one equal to or greater than Narayana as it goes well with our views. but we do not accept hIs idea of a nirguna brahman.

[Guest guest]

_________________

Adi Shankaracharya praising Lord Shiva, Shivananda Lahari 100:

 

And Maa Paravati, Soundary Lahari 81,82:

 

Ganesha pancharatnam

_________________

 

Now I have clearly shown in my posts that the stotra granthas which are claimed to have been written by Shankara surfaced after 1400 A.D. only while Shankara was definitely in the 9th century A.D. at the latest which leaves a time gap of around 500 whole years.

 

no Advaitin before 1400 A.D has ever cited these works nor have they written any traetise on them despite the fact that numerous treatises exist upon his commentaries. it is highly impossible that his followers will not even quote a whole bunch of his works for more than 500 years. why quote from them, they did not even mention that such works actually exist.

 

hence, I have not cited from 'Bhaja Govindam' as well.

 

the works cited by you were first quoted by Appaya Dikshita - the person who has the dubious distinction of citing previously unknown Upanishads, granthas and slokas. These were written by him and foisted upon others and vedas. This is very clear from the fact that not even a single person before him has ever cited the works/unknown Upanishads cited by him.

 

my argument is based on facts. If you think otherwise, then provide proof to the contrary. let debates be based on facts and not on slogan raising and one's own convictions.

 

so dont make a mockery of this thread by posting from the stotra granthas.

 

the philosophy of a person is always to found in his commentaries on Prasthanathraya(Upanishads, Bhagavad GIta and Brahma Sutras). So from his commentaries on the above three and prove that he was a smarta.

[Guest guest]

The smartas are very funny. A case has been made by presenting certain solid facts. If the person is to be proved wrong then his citations must be refuted. these people instead just write whatever comes to their mind without even minding to refute a single point raised.

 

This is one of the most dubious debates I have noted apart from the debate on Ram temple in ayodhya where the 'secular'(God knows the meaning!) historians in similar tactics. they said that the temple party's case was wrong without citing even a single proof to the contrary.

 

please come out of such dogmas and let there be a fair debate. I dont say that I am always correct. I made this post on reading some of Shankara's commentaries. I read them to understand what Sri Shankara says and his idea of Adavita. If you think that my conclusion is wrong then provide proof to the contrary and let us have an honest debate.

 

dont indulge in slogan shouting and unilaterally passing judgements that the other side just cant/dont understand the truth. the question is 'whether Adi Shankara was a smarta?' My answer is 'NO'. if you think to the contrary then provide proof to prove me wrong.

[Guest guest]

nArAyaNIyam (90-5) of Shri nArAyaNa bhaTTatri:

 

"shri shankaro(a)pi........gato(a)nte||"

 

commentary of Shri deshamangalavarya(another advaitin):

 

"kinca| shri shankara bhagavad.......na tu shiva stutipara:||"

 

"Shri Shankara bhagavad padacarya wrote his commentaries on Shahasranama and other granthas(Gita etc) calling You as Parambrahman despite the fact that they be also interpreted as hailing Shiva. Even in his last breath, he attained Moksha by singing Your(ViSNu's) pAdAdikesha varNanam(hailing His form from Feet to Head) and not by singing Shiva's glory."

 

what more do you need? these are from sources whose originality can be verified unlike those of 'Shankara vijayam'(written 600 years after Shankara's period) and the stotra granthas which are claimed by Smartas to be written by Shankara.

 

Also note that nArAyaNa bhaTTatri is a very famous advaitin who argued that Advaita is the true philosophy and his love for Advaita cannot be questioned. so also his knowledge about it. only the works of such people can be taken as a pramana. note that he has cited Shankara's commentaries. He s not like the present day Advaitins who don't even care to quote from his commentaries and foist their own thoughts upon others under the garb that they are Shankara's.

 

Shankara vijayam is claimed to be written by VidyAranya but hen the work was first cited only around 1550 A.D(200 years after Vidyaranya), which proves that Vidyaranya did not write it.

 

anyway, this was just a supplement.

 

you can always prove me wrong by citing those verses from his commentaries which say that he was smarta.

[Guest guest]

I never heard of Narayana Bhattatri although I am familiar with the Soundarya Lahari which you claim is not Shankara's work. You will have to explain why Soundarya Lahari is not Shankara's work. Because it praises Shiva?

 

And I suppose if I raise the question of Shankara founding a Sharada temple in Shringeri, you are going to say he did not do it. Or maybe it was actually a Krishna temple and the Smarthas secretly replaced Krishna by Sharada one night?

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Narayana referred by adi shankara is formless. As I said before, it is a manifested nature of the spirituality. It's their in each of us, is covered by ego due to delusions.

 

Spirituality = Bramhan

Spiritual nature = true nature = narayana

narayana = nature above all the three gunas, Nirguna

 

All the dasha avtars were narayans. Their spiritual nature was so different from each other. Even within krishna's lifetime, krishna's approach towards do's and don'ts seemed unpredictable for a common deluded person. It's possibile to see the common spiritual nature of the dasha avatars, and accept them as one narayana just as we recognize krishna's different approaches in his one lifetimes as krishna's own. This is narayana.

 

Narayana or spiritual nature requires spiritual knowledge as a pre-requisite. Without spiritual knwoledge, there is no point discussing on narayana, as its meaning will get limited to a form.

 

Rama narayan........Krishna Narayan

Mujhme Narayana......Tujhme Narayan

Narayan.....Narayan...Narayan....Narayan..

[BinduMadhav]

 

The Advaitins of today are portraying Adi Shankara as a philosopher who was a Smarta.

......

13-10:

"na anyo bhagavato vAsudevAt para: asti ata: sa eva na: gati"

Translation:

"No one is greater than Bhagavan Narayana and hence He alone is our gati"

Ah, my dear Ravilochan . Continuing our tradition of bashing the Smartas, right? Keep at it, my friend. One day you will convert everyone to the Sri Krishna Sampradaya or you will understand that great scholars like Shankaracharya saw no difference between Vishnu and Shiva. Both are born out of our fertile imaginations. But hey, each to his own. If you feel the same compulsion that Christian Missionaries feel about making this world fall in love with Jesus Christ and no one else, more power to you. Of course, in your case, you are trying to make everyone fall in love with Vishnu or Krishna. Not that it makes any difference to me. I already love Krishna.

Bindu Madhav

[Guest guest]

_______________

I never heard of Narayana Bhattatri although I am familiar with the Soundarya Lahari which you claim is not Shankara's work. You will have to explain why Soundarya Lahari is not Shankara's work. Because it praises Shiva?

_______________

 

That is the problem. Many adavitins of today do not know their great Acaryas except perhaps Adi Shankara.

 

Now, Soundarya Lahari speaks about Shakti and not Shiva. It seems you have not even cared to read it.

 

I have given reasons as to why it is not a work of Adi Shankara. Because, before 1400 A.D., no advaitin has ever cited these works(stotras) nor have they said that Shnakara has written the stotras by these names. surely no follower will neglect any work of their Acharya. this shows that it was written sometime later.

 

 

_______________

And I suppose if I raise the question of Shankara founding a Sharada temple in Shringeri, you are going to say he did not do it. Or maybe it was actually a Krishna temple and the Smarthas secretly replaced Krishna by Sharada one night?

_______________

 

 

Very bad of you. what made you to think that I will give such stupid reasons? all my posts have been based on logic and proper reasoning. not baseless slogan shouting.

 

as for your question, I am still not sure as to whether Adi Shankara actually established Mathas because as an Advaitin who called the whole world as maya and who advocated detachment from material world as the way to moksha, would he ever establish mathas which need money to function and which are always close to material world. anyway I am not sure about this. can anyone of you give a historical proof for this(like any copper palte inscriptions or inscriptions on stone or from any manuscript before 1000 A.D)? I would be really thankful if you provide me such proof.

 

also, even if we take that the sharada peeth was established by Sri Adi shankara, even then it does not make him a smarta. Sharada(Sarasvati) was worshipped even by Jains and Vaishnavas.

[Guest guest]

_______________

Ah, my dear Ravilochan . Continuing our tradition of bashing the Smartas, right?

_______________

 

I have never indulged in bashing the smartas or for that matter any person belonging to an Indic religion.

 

I have only oppossed their way of assigning wrong meanings to Sanskrit words and wrongly interpreting the vedas to suit them. If they do like the Virashaivas who cite mainly only from Puranas and do not indulge in misinterpreting Vedas, there would be no problem.

 

 

 

______________

you will understand that great scholars like Shankaracharya saw no difference between Vishnu and Shiva. Both are born out of our fertile imaginations. But hey, each to his own.

_______________

 

Can you give a single quotation from Shankara's commentaries to show that Shankara did not see any difference between them and that he considered them to be one and same?

 

all the citataions i have made are from Sri Shankara's own commentary. you have not even cited a single line from his commentaries and also you are stuffing your own imaginations upon him. absolutely wrong. never indulge in such things. if you say Shankara was a smarta then prove it from his commentaries and not by indulging in slogan shouting.

 

till now no one has cited a single line from his commentaries which say that Shankara was a smarta. this definitely vindicates my position.

 

 

_______________

Of course, in your case, you are trying to make everyone fall in love with Vishnu or Krishna. Not that it makes any difference to me. I already love Krishna.

_______________

 

sorry. I am not trying to make everyone fall inlove with Vishnu. I may try to do so infuture. but certainly i am not doing that now. the present thread is to show that Shankara's Saguna Brahman was Narayana alone and that he was not a smarta but somewhat a Vaishnava in the sense that he accepted Vaikuntha(abode of visnu) as a place from which one will never return(moksha sthana) and that Visnu is the sarvAntaryAmi and also that he is the Parambrahman who has no one equal or greater to Him and who is the only deity worthy of worship.

 

now the posts being made by you and others are making me to laugh. if you have no 'paricaya' with Shankara's commentaries, you need not have posted on this thread. or if you had wished to prove me wrong then you could have cited from his commentaries(if at all there are such words) to prove that he was a smarta. but here you did neither of the above and are just passing your own judgements. just like the marxist historians who said that Shri Goel's list of 2000 temples destroyed by Muslim invaders is wrong even when they were not able to provide a single proof to the contrary.

 

 

and finally, what is say is that Sankaracarya was not a smarta and so let the smartas don't claim him to be one. there were other great smartas and they could accept them to be their forerunners but leave Shankara alone for his concept was Advaita with a Vaisnavite tint and certainly not smarta vada.

[Guest guest]

_________

Narayana referred by adi shankara is formless.

_________

 

I am sorry. according to Sri Adi Shankara Narayana is Saguna brahman with a definite form.

Let us see from his commentary:

 

MunDaka Upanishad Bhashya:

2-1-4:

 

text:".....sarvabhUtAntarAtmA"

 

commentary: "eSa devo viSNurananta: pratama sharIrI trailokyadehopAdhi: sarveSAm bhUtAnAm antarAtmA"

 

Meaning: "The deity called as ViSNu and Ananta is the foremost among those with body(Saguna Brahman), the one who has all the three worlds as his body and the one who is the inner dweller of all beings".

 

NOTE: FOREMOST AMONG THOSE WITH A BODY. HE HAS A DEFINITE FORM.

 

Nirguna brahman is only formless as per Sri Shankara and it does not even have a name and so you cannot call it as Narayana.

 

 

 

As I said before, it is a manifested nature of the spirituality. It's their in each of us, is covered by ego due to delusions.

 

Spirituality = Bramhan

Spiritual nature = true nature = narayana

narayana = nature above all the three gunas, Nirguna

 

All the dasha avtars were narayans. Their spiritual nature was so different from each other. Even within krishna's lifetime, krishna's approach towards do's and don'ts seemed unpredictable for a common deluded person. It's possibile to see the common spiritual nature of the dasha avatars, and accept them as one narayana just as we recognize krishna's different approaches in his one lifetimes as krishna's own. This is narayana.

 

Narayana or spiritual nature requires spiritual knowledge as a pre-requisite. Without spiritual knwoledge, there is no point discussing on narayana, as its meaning will get limited to a form.

 

Rama narayan........Krishna Narayan

Mujhme Narayana......Tujhme Narayan

Narayan.....Narayan...Narayan....Narayan..

[Guest guest]

 

_________

Narayana referred by adi shankara is formless.

_________

 

I am sorry. according to Sri Adi Shankara Narayana is Saguna brahman with a definite form.

Let us see from his commentary:

 

MunDaka Upanishad Bhashya:

2-1-4:

 

text:".....sarvabhUtAntarAtmA"

 

commentary: "eSa devo viSNurananta: pratama sharIrI trailokyadehopAdhi: sarveSAm bhUtAnAm antarAtmA"

 

Meaning: "The deity called as ViSNu and Ananta is the foremost among those with body(Saguna Brahman), the one who has all the three worlds as his body and the one who is the inner dweller of all beings".

 

NOTE: FOREMOST AMONG THOSE WITH A BODY. HE HAS A DEFINITE FORM.

 

Nirguna brahman is only formless as per Sri Shankara and it does not even have a name and so you cannot call it as Narayana.

 

 

 

sorry in the previous message i just forgot to delete the quoted text. please bear with it.