Shankara - a Vaishnava?

[shivsomashekhar]

I am continuing the discussion here so as to not derail the other thread from its original topic.

Quoting Shankara's Brahma sutra Bhashya (translated by Gambhirananda) -

From 3.2.13 -
Opponent: Since two classes of Upanishadic texts, speaking of Brahman as with form and also as without form, are in existence, how can it be asserted that Brahman is formless alone?

Sutra 3.2.14 - Brahman is only formless to be sure, for that is the dominant note (of the Upanishads).

Shankara's commentary on 3.2.14 (select portions) - Brahman is surely to be known as having no form constituted by color, etc., and not as having it. <snip> It is neither gross, nor minute, neither short or long. Without prior or posterior, without interior and exterior (Brhadaranyaka). Hence, in sentences of this kind, the formless Brahman alone, just as it spoken of by the texts themselves, has to be accepted. But the other texts, speaking of Brahman with form, have the injunctions about meditations as their main objectives. So long as they do not lead to contradictions, their apparent meanings should be accepted. But when they involve a contradiction, the principle to be followed for deciding one or the other is that, those that have the formless Brahman as their main purport are more authoritative than the others. It is according to this that one is driven to the conclusion that Brahman is formless, though texts having both purports are in evidence.

Clearly, Shankara, in accordance with the Advaita doctrine, does not accept eternal forms of any God, including Vishnu. Forms are only accepted for meditative purposes and no hierarchy is established among them.

When Shankara says Narayana is Brahman, it does not mean that Narayana is the *only* God or form identified with Brahman, nor does it establish a hierarchy of Gods (Any such conclusion is baseless). Shankara never claimed to be a Vaishnava or a Shaiva nor did he ever see any divine form as bigger than another. Nor did anyone else in the tradition. Finally, interpretations of Shankara's words by people outside the tradition are summarily overridden by the interpretation within the tradition.

The attempt to color Shankara as a Vaishnava appears to be peculiar to the Shri Vaishnava tradition. I am not aware of Tattvavadins making such a claim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When Shankara says Narayana is Brahman, ..

That is what I too say. Krishna is Brahman, so is Rama, so is Shiva, so too is Shakti; because there is none other than Brahman (Ekameva adviteeyam - Verily it is one without a second).

I go on to say, as I have said many times, Hitler, Stalin, Jesus, Mohammad, Pot Pot, Osama and you name it, the stone on the bank of River Indus and the Piranha in River Amazon, and the bear in Alaska, the Kiwi in New Zealand jungle, and the alien from Kepler-63 in Andromeda galaxy; they are all none other than Brahman (Sarvam khalu idam Brahma - All things here are Brahman).

Advaita brooks no distinctions. Brahman is the universal substrate, name and forms differ.

 

[Chakra]

I am continuing the discussion here so as to not derail the other thread from its original topic.

Quoting Shankara's Brahma sutra Bhashya (translated by Gambhirananda) -

From 3.2.13 -
Opponent: Since two classes of Upanishadic texts, speaking of Brahman as with form and also as without form, are in existence, how can it be asserted that Brahman is formless alone?

Sutra 3.2.14 - Brahman is only formless to be sure, for that is the dominant note (of the Upanishads).

Shankara's commentary on 3.2.14 (select portions) - Brahman is surely to be known as having no form constituted by color, etc., and not as having it. <snip> It is neither gross, nor minute, neither short or long. Without prior or posterior, without interior and exterior (Brhadaranyaka). Hence, in sentences of this kind, the formless Brahman alone, just as it spoken of by the texts themselves, has to be accepted. But the other texts, speaking of Brahman with form, have the injunctions about meditations as their main objectives. So long as they do not lead to contradictions, their apparent meanings should be accepted. But when they involve a contradiction, the principle to be followed for deciding one or the other is that, those that have the formless Brahman as their main purport are more authoritative than the others. It is according to this that one is driven to the conclusion that Brahman is formless, though texts having both purports are in evidence.

Clearly, Shankara, in accordance with the Advaita doctrine, does not accept eternal forms of any God, including Vishnu. Forms are only accepted for meditative purposes and no hierarchy is established among them.

I accept that Advaita doesn't accept any form in the parmarthika sath, where nirguna brahman is the only entity that exists. But that is different from the vyavaharika sath, where differences and different deities, most importantly Saguna Brahman, do exist. So when I say Shankara was a Vaishnava, what I mean is that he accepted Vishnu as the Saguna Brahman. The support for this can be seen in my post in "New Deities". Just note that Vaishnava doesn't mean a follower of Ramanuja/Madhva. It simply means worship of Vishnu as supreme. That is the case of Shankara in the vyvaharika sath.

When Shankara says Narayana is Brahman, it does not mean that Narayana is the *only* God or form identified with Brahman, nor does it establish a hierarchy of Gods (Any such conclusion is baseless).

Can you quote any place where Shankara said that Brahma, Rudra, Indra, Vayu, etc are Brahman? I think when Shankara says in Gita that other devas cannot understand Krishna, that makes it clear that there is a hierarchy.

Shankara never claimed to be a Vaishnava or a Shaiva nor did he ever see any divine form as bigger than another. Nor did anyone else in the tradition. Finally, interpretations of Shankara's words by people outside the tradition are summarily overridden by the interpretation within the tradition.

Well, Shankara uses the term Vaishnava to represent people who attain the eternal fruit of liberation and Madhusudhana Sarasvati says that Advaitins are the best Vaishnavas in Siddhantha Bindu.

The attempt to color Shankara as a Vaishnava appears to be peculiar to the Shri Vaishnava tradition. I am not aware of Tattvavadins making such a claim.

I have absolutely nothing to gain by claiming that Shankara is a Vaishnava, because I reject Advaita anyway. Also, I am interested in your comments regarding my post in "New Deities". Regardless, @तत्त्वप्रह्व can probably clarify.

adiyen

 

[kalyan]

The op starts the topic by trying to impose his views on us not wanting to actually know the truth. I think this topic has been discussed already in axlyz thread.
Based on Adi Shankara authentic commentaries he says Vishnu is supreme brahman and there cannot be 2 supremes. Brahma comes from Vishnu and Rudra comes from Brahma

 

[Aupmanyav]

Axlyz, Vyavaharika is a God-damned place, many things happen. North Koreans are made to eulogize the Kims and Sunnis, Baghdadis. But it is a part of (our seemingly) life, we cannot escape it. Yes, in Vyavaharika, our seers have found that for most people, it is good to worship Narayana, Krishna, Rama, Shiva, Shakti. It stabilises us and propels us to 'dharmic' action, so that we have a peaceful society.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is done so that he can prove that the verse is supporting Advaita and such. When I referred you to particular verses, I wanted you to read Shankara's commentary, which appear to be pro-Vaishnava.

Every BhagawadGita verse will not support 'Advaita', unless one forgets the 'Saguna Brahman' form of Lord Krishna and considers it to be 'Nirguna Brahman'. Going thru Sankara's Bhashya will be difficult for me (though I will try it), it is serious reading, which will not benefit me in any way. I am comfortable with both the views. Rama, Shiva, Shakti also are 'Saguna Brahman', along with Narayana and Krishna. Then there is a 'Nirguna Brahman' (Ek-Onkar). 'Nirguna' can have any name or form. I have hitched my boat to that 'Nirguna Brahman' who is also the 'Saguna Brahman'. Not belonging to a sect gives me this flexibility. I hope you will understand. Regards and as Tattva says - SriKrishnarpanamastu. I am at peace. I am a Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta and Smarta, all at the same time.
Hinduism has a call for that - 'Alaaaakh Niranjan'.
"Word niranjan means spotless, Pure, Supreme being, Unpainted, Devoid of all Objectifications, without any bad quality (attributes), active, truth full, great, a gift of god. Niranjan (Diode) in Sanskrit means the one without blemishes or the one who is spotless and pure." - Wikipedia
What the heck, they mention so many gunas and then say it is 'nirguna'.

 

[Chakra]

Every BhagawadGita verse will not support 'Advaita', unless one forgets the 'Saguna Brahman' form of Lord Krishna and considers it to be 'Nirguna Brahman'.

So are you trying to tell me that Saguna Brahman is not a part of Advaita? Anyway, I made a mistake. I meant to say that he would add his commentary so he could show that the Gita is actually in accordance with his views, not in particular nirguna brahman vada.

Going thru Sankara's Bhashya will be difficult for me (though I will try it), it is serious reading, which will not benefit me in any way. I am comfortable with both the views. Rama, Shiva, Shakti also are 'Saguna Brahman', along with Narayana and Krishna. Then there is a 'Nirguna Brahman' (Ek-Onkar). 'Nirguna' can have any name or form. I have hitched my boat to that 'Nirguna Brahman' who is also the 'Saguna Brahman'. Not belonging to a sect gives me this flexibility. I hope you will understand. Regards and as Tattva says - SriKrishnarpanamastu. I am at peace. I am a Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta and Smarta, all at the same time.

Great. I am glad that makes you happy. But this thread is to discuss what Shankara says. Sure, you can think that Rama, Shiva, Shakti are all Saguna Brahman, but that doesn't mean that Shankara thinks so. So, in order to refute me, quote from his bhashyas that show that the accepted multiple deities as Saguna Brahman, and don't quote Tat Tvam Asi or something like that since this refers to the parmarthika stage where everything is nirguna brahman and there is no such thing as a supreme God.

adiyen

 

[Aupmanyav]

'Saguna Brahman' is very much a part of Vyavaharika. I like to roam in Parmarthika (I must have mentioned this earlier also). I do not stick to Vyavaharika. Sankara was a 'mathadheesha', he worked under many restrains. I am a free bird. But his line "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya' means that he did not accept what people normally think. People are denizens of 'jagat'. He further qualified it by saying 'Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah'. If you go by that, then if Krishna is Brahman, you too are the same.

"Shlokardhena pravakshyami yaduktam granthakotibhih, brahma satyam jagan-mithya jivo-brahmaiva naparah"
(I shall tell you within the compass of half a verse the quintessence, the heart, the very essence of the teachings expounded in tens of million scriptures and that is: Brahman alone is real. This phenomenal appearance before us is only a relative reality, ever-changing, unstable, unreliable, never dependable, limited, subject to time and space, subject to decay and dissolution, having a beginning and an end. Characterised by these defects and shortcomings, everything here seen, perceived by the human individual consciousness, is but a mere temporary relative reality. And the individual soul that thinks of itself as the knower of this, or the seer of this, or the experiencer of this ever-changing phenomenal flux, which is called samsara or the universe, is a non-entity, for Brahman alone is real and the jivatman,the individual, is Brahman plus upadhis (limiting adjuncts or additions).)
Swami Chidananda - http://www.divyajivan.org/ponder_these_truths/Brahma Stayam Jagan- Mithya.htm

 

[Chakra]

'Saguna Brahman' is very much a part of Vyavaharika. I like to roam in Parmarthika (I must have mentioned this earlier also). I do not stick to Vyavaharika.

That does not make sense, Aup.

1) Parmarthika as per Shankara is something that is reached once, and after reaching it, one does not go back to vyvaharika etc. So there is no such thing as "wandering" from one to the next. If you are in parmarthika, then you must have attained moksha and thus cannot go back to the vyvaharika which is temporary.

2) You could have meant parmarthika as a state of mind and not as the absolute stage of reality, which means that you simply try to ignore the duality and focus only on the "one-ness" and all. That I suppose could work, but that is not what parmarthika really is. Parmarthika is where there is no sukha, dukha, bheda, etc.

Of course, since you disagree a lot with Shankara, it is possible that you have different interpretation of vyavaharika/paramarthika. It would help if you stated what your definition of vyavaharika and paramarthika is.

Sankara was a 'mathadheesha', he worked under many restrains. I am a free bird. But his line "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya' means that he did not accept what people normally think. People are denizens of 'jagat'. He further qualified it by saying 'Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah'. If you go by that, then if Krishna is Brahman, you too are the same.

Quoting one-ness is not going to prove that all Gods are Saguna Brahman. I mean, for example, most of the "one-ness" that Advaita quotes refer to parmarthika and not vyvaharika, so there is no point of talking about Gods etc. Even then, if you want to use "one-ness" as an argument to show that all Gods are Saguna Brahman, then I can take it a step further. Advaitins could use "one-ness" to justify adultery (if every man is Brahman, then a woman can live with any man besides her husband), could they not? Just like Advaitins would agree that vegetarianism is preferred over meat-eating (even though a vegetable and a piece of chicken are both "Brahman", as you like to point out), or that adultery is wrong, they would also agree that specific forms of God are preferred over others. Of course I am sure that you would agree that adultery and meat-eating is wrong for a person interested in moksha.

To summarize what I have just stated:

1) Vyavaharika and Paramarthika are distinct and you cannot "wander" from one to the other.
2) The one-ness quotes like Tat-tvam-Asi or Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah only apply to paramarthika and not vyvaharika.
3) One-ness cannot be used to equate vyvaharika entities like Gods because then one must also use one-ness to support acts like adultery. To not to do is just contradictory.

adiyen

 

[Aupmanyav]

1) Parmarthika as per Shankara is something that is reached once, and after reaching it, one does not go back to vyvaharika etc.:
It may be Sankara's view but I freely switch between Paramarthika and Vyavaharika at my will.

2) You could have meant parmarthika as a state of mind and not as the absolute stage of reality, which means that you simply try to ignore the duality and focus only on the "one-ness" and all. That I suppose could work, but that is not what parmarthika really is. Parmarthika is where there is no sukha, dukha, bheda, etc.:
Parmarthika is a view, an understanding, and once understood it does not go away. Yes, in Parmarthika, there is no pleasure or sorrow or difference.

Of course, since you disagree a lot with Shankara, it is possible that you have different interpretation of vyavaharika/paramarthika. It would help if you stated what your definition of vyavaharika and paramarthika is.:
See above.

Quoting one-ness is not going to prove that all Gods are Saguna Brahman. I mean, for example, most of the "one-ness" that Advaita quotes refer to parmarthika and not vyvaharika, so there is no point of talking about Gods etc. Even then, if you want to use "one-ness" as an argument to show that all Gods are Saguna Brahman, then I can take it a step further. Advaitins could use "one-ness" to justify adultery (if every man is Brahman, then a woman can live with any man besides her husband), could they not? Just like Advaitins would agree that vegetarianism is preferred over meat-eating (even though a vegetable and a piece of chicken are both "Brahman", as you like to point out), or that adultery is wrong, they would also agree that specific forms of God are preferred over others. Of course I am sure that you would agree that adultery and meat-eating is wrong for a person interested in moksha.:
Oh yes, you can have differences in Vyavaharika, make one God Supreme and the other a demi-God, but in Paramarthika the Gos do not exist at all, so no question of Sagunas. Ah, you consider what you see as adultery or regular marriage, sex does not exist in Parmarthika. That is true, I prefer vegetarianism in Vyavaharika, in Paramarthika, hunger also does not exist. Moksha for an advaitist is understanding in my humble view.

1) Vyavaharika and Paramarthika are distinct and you cannot "wander" from one to the other.: I am of the view that one can.
2) The one-ness quotes like Tat-tvam-Asi or Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah only apply to paramarthika and not vyvaharika.: That IMHO is right.
3) Oneness cannot be used to equate vyvaharika entities like Gods because then one must also use oneness to support acts like adultery. To not to do is just contradictory.: You are taking a very Vyavaharika view of things, which is OK at that level. Just try to think in terms of atoms and waves. Where is the man who commits adultery, where is the woman who participates? They are but illusions.

 

[Kirran]

Within Advaita, Saguna Brahman proceeds from Nirguna Brahman, and is maya, resulting from our own ignorance or to be used as a way of moving closer towards knowing Nirguna Brahman. So how can one say that one is following the wrong illusion?

As for parmathika and vyavaharika: one who is established in parmathika is still aware of vyavaharika, but is unidentified with it, being fully immersed in the Knowledge of the Atman at all times.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I accept that Advaita doesn't accept any form in the parmarthika sath, where nirguna brahman is the only entity that exists. But that is different from the vyavaharika sath, where differences and different deities, most importantly Saguna Brahman, do exist. So when I say Shankara was a Vaishnava, what I mean is that he accepted Vishnu as the Saguna Brahman. The support for this can be seen in my post in "New Deities". Just note that Vaishnava doesn't mean a follower of Ramanuja/Madhva. It simply means worship of Vishnu as supreme. That is the case of Shankara in the vyvaharika sath.

Shankara also worshipped other forms as Saguna Brahman. A lot of Advaitins worship Krishna as Saguna Brahman, but also hold other forms as Brahman too - with no hierarchy. Practically, every Advaitin is a Vaishnava then, which calls into question your definition of the term. AFAIK, Vaishnava is one who worships Vishnu and *also* believes in the supremacy of Vishnu over Gods. And this definition does not apply to Advaitins. I hope I am being clear. To repeat once more, Shankara hailing Vishnu as Brahman is not to be taken to mean that he is putting Vishnu over other forms. That is an incorrect assumption, with no support from the Advaita literature and tradition.

Can you quote any place where Shankara said that Brahma, Rudra, Indra, Vayu, etc are Brahman? I think when Shankara says in Gita that other devas cannot understand Krishna, that makes it clear that there is a hierarchy.

Many things to say here -

1. Shankara says in numerous places that forms have their place in Sadhana purely for meditative purposes. He is clear that they are not real and the the Nirguna Brahman is real. How then, can he place one form over another? There is never a place where he discusses the role of Saguna Brahman and states that some forms are more effective than others. That is a purely a Vaishnava concept and has no place in Advaita.

2. Shankara only discusses Vishnu when commenting on Vaishnava texts. He does not once talk about Vishnu in his Sutra Bhashya and his Upanishad commentaries. If he really was a Vaishnava as you claim, one would expect his commentaries to look more like Ramanuja's or Madhva's. But that is not the case.

3. Even if one is willing to allow the possibility that Shankara considered the form of Vishnu to be superior to other forms, there is no denying the fact that he considered the form of Vishnu to be unreal. How does this meet the definition of Vaishnava?

3. May I ask who proposed this theory of Shankara = Vaishnava? Did it originate from traditional scholars or from Western academic sources? This reminds me of the Hare Krishna theories of Shankara having a change of heart in his death-bed (and giving up Advaita) or of Vishnu directing Shiva to take birth (Shankara) and fool the general public with false philosophies (Mayavada). A closer to home example would be the story of Ramanuja being a Sri Vaishnava in public and a Gaudiya Vaishnava in private. These stories come with no credibility mainly because they come from questionable sources.

I have absolutely nothing to gain by claiming that Shankara is a Vaishnava, because I reject Advaita anyway. Also, I am interested in your comments regarding my post in "New Deities". Regardless, @तत्त्वप्रह्व can probably clarify.

Someone clearly had something to gain or they would not have invested all the time to compile this long list of quotes in support of this theory . On your sources, I see that most of them are simply about Shankara seeing Vishnu as Brahman. This does not support the Shankara = Vaishnava theory as explained above. The Gita quote where he used the term Vaishnava is interesting, but one isolated comment on a Vaishnava text does not make a case. Also, when Shankara talks of deva worship, he means Mimamsakas who worship the Gods for specific results - which he (as a Vedantin) considers inferior to the worship of Brahman for Moksha. Also, when Shankara is talking about Krishna or Vishnu in the Gita, it is always as the formless Brahman. There are few instances where he is discussing Saguna Brahman. This is how Advaita views several of Shankara's statements in his Gita-Bhashya.

Regards,

 

[Chakra]

Within Advaita, Saguna Brahman proceeds from Nirguna Brahman, and is maya, resulting from our own ignorance or to be used as a way of moving closer towards knowing Nirguna Brahman. So how can one say that one is following the wrong illusion?

As I understand, Saguna Brahman is as real as you and I are, at least in the vyavaharika. That means, just like you and I are real in this stage, so is Saguna Brahman. So if you want to call Saguna Brahman as an illusion, then we are also illusions. The existence of Saguna Brahman is almost permanent, until you get nirguna mukti.

The second sentence isn't much of an argument. From that logic, doing good deeds and bad deeds are also illusions. I guess terrible things like rape, murder, etc are "just illusions".

adiyen

 

[Aupmanyav]

Right. IMHO, all that happens in Vyavaharika is an illusion. As per Sankara, Jagat is mithya. Jagati, what you perceive while (supposedly) awake (jagrita avastha), till the real 'jagriti' takes place. Enlightenment is understanding this 'simple fact'.

 

[Chakra]

Shankara also worshipped other forms as Saguna Brahman.

Right. Proof from his commentaries?

A lot of Advaitins worship Krishna as Saguna Brahman, but also hold other forms as Brahman too - with no hierarchy. Practically, every Advaitin is a Vaishnava then, which calls into question your definition of the term. AFAIK, Vaishnava is one who worships Vishnu and *also* believes in the supremacy of Vishnu over Gods. And this definition does not apply to Advaitins. I hope I am being clear. To repeat once more, Shankara hailing Vishnu as Brahman is not to be taken to mean that he is putting Vishnu over other forms. That is an incorrect assumption, with no support from the Advaita literature and tradition.

Let us see.

Let me first just say that there exist an Ishvara in Advaita. See commentary of BG 16.8 where Shankara criticizes the materialists (lokayatas) for their non-acceptance of Ishvara and karma, and their idea that sex desire is the cause of everything. Not posting it here because it is too long but definitely check that verse out.

Secondly, there is only one Isvara as per Shankara. This is seen in his commentary for BG 11.43.

43· Thou art the Father of this world, moving and unmoving. Thou art to be adored by this (world), Thou the Greatest Guru; (for) Thy equal exists not; whence another, superior to Thee, in the three worlds, 0 Being of unequalled greatness?43· Thou art the Father of this world, moving and unmoving. Thou art to be adored by this (world), Thou the Greatest Guru; (for) Thy equal exists not; whence another, superior to Thee, in the three worlds, 0 Being of unequalled greatness?

"...for there cannot be two Ishvaras or lords; if there were more than one Ishvara, the world could not go on as it does now. When even Thy equal exists not, how can there exist a being superior than Thee..."

Arjun is talking to Krishna in this context, so there is no way you can say that the Ishvara here is nirguna Brahman.

So it is established that there is only one Saguna Brahman, which I have been repeatedly trying to point out. Now, the only thing remains is to identify who that Saguna Brahman is.

First of all, let us consider the "Shanmata". There are 6 deities that "advaitins" claim that Shankara accepted as Saguna Brahman. They are Shiva, Narayana, Shakti, Murugan, Surya, and Ganesha. I am going to quote from Shankara's bhashyas why he cannot have accepted all of them as Saguna Brahman, besides Narayana.

1) Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10, where it states that Brahman created Rudra, Varuna, Indra, Yama etc in the kshatriya varga. I think I have already mentioned this.

2) Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1.2.17, where it says Surya is not the supreme God.

"In the third place, although the Self of a deity (viz. the sun) has its station in the eye--according to the scriptural passage, 'He rests with his rays in him'--still Selfhood cannot be ascribed to the sun, on account of his externality (parâgrûpatva). Immortality, &c. also cannot be predicated of him, as Scripture speaks of his origin and his dissolution. For the (so-called) deathlessness of the gods only means their (comparatively) long existence. And their lordly power also is based on the highest Lord and does not naturally belong to them; as the mantra declares, 'From terror of it (Brahman) the wind blows, from terror the sun rises; from terror of it Agni and Indra, yea, Death runs as the fifth.'--Hence the person in the eye must be viewed as the highest Lord only."
http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34054.php

3) Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.2.42, where Shankara accepts Vasudeva as the Supreme Soul.

"The Pancharatra Sect or the Bhagavata School is now taken up for examination. It recognizes the material and efficient causality of the Lord, but propounds certain other views which are objectionable. According to it, Vasudeva is the Supreme Lord, the material and efficient cause of the world. By worshiping him, meditating on him, and knowing him one attains liberation. From Vasudeva is born Sankarshana, the Jiva; from the Jiva Pradyumna, the mind; from the mind Aniruddha, the Ego. These are the fourfold forms of the Lord Vasudeva. Of these, the view that Vasudeva is the Supreme Lord, to be worshiped and so on, the Vedantin accepts, as it is not against the Shruti..."

Now, you have to find me a verse from Shankara when he accepts Shiva/Shakti/etc as the Supreme Lord. And no, quoting non-duality at the parmarthika sath is not going to help. Actually I will tell you that Shankara himself has rejected all Shaivas as unvedantic.

Many things to say here -

1. Shankara says in numerous places that forms have their place in Sadhana purely for meditative purposes. He is clear that they are not real and the the Nirguna Brahman is real. How then, can he place one form over another?

Saguna Brahman is eternal up to the point of nirguna mukti, after which there is no time concept.

There is never a place where he discusses the role of Saguna Brahman and states that some forms are more effective than others. That is a purely a Vaishnava concept and has no place in Advaita.

Uh, BG 7.23-25 and 9.23-25.

2. Shankara only discusses Vishnu when commenting on Vaishnava texts. He does not once talk about Vishnu in his Sutra Bhashya and his Upanishad commentaries. If he really was a Vaishnava as you claim, one would expect his commentaries to look more like Ramanuja's or Madhva's. But that is not the case.

I have already posted the Pancharatra section and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad part. To say that Narayana is never talked about by Shankara is just peculiar. Even so, it doesn't matter since nirguna mukti is the ultimate goal in Advaita.

3. Even if one is willing to allow the possibility that Shankara considered the form of Vishnu to be superior to other forms, there is no denying the fact that he considered the form of Vishnu to be unreal. How does this meet the definition of Vaishnava?

There is no set definition for Vaishnava. Vishistadvaitins and Dvaitins disagree severely on many parts. For example, Vishistadivatins (afaik) say that Brahman is different from his Body, and that his svarupa is formless. Tattva-vadins do not agree with us. They believe that there is no difference between Hari's name, abode, form, svarupa, etc (afaik) because of visesa. Now tell me, both of these sects have different viewpoints. Does this make Vishistadvaitins Vaishnavas and the Tattva-vadins as non-Vaishnavas or vice versa? Just because Shankara did not accept Vishnu in parmarthika sath doesn't mean that he wasn't a Vaishnava in his own sense (considering that he uses the word Vaishnava). Even other Vaishnavas like Ramanuja, Madhva, Chaitanya, Nimbarka etc have differences and that does not make them any less Vaishnava.

3. May I ask who proposed this theory of Shankara = Vaishnava? Did it originate from traditional scholars or from Western academic sources? This reminds me of the Hare Krishna theories of Shankara having a change of heart in his death-bed (and giving up Advaita) or of Vishnu directing Shiva to take birth (Shankara) and fool the general public with false philosophies (Mayavada). A closer to home example would be the story of Ramanuja being a Sri Vaishnava in public and a Gaudiya Vaishnava in private. These stories come with no credibility mainly because they come from questionable sources.

So this is your grand conclusion, that Vaishnavas are conspiring to make Shankara a Vaishnava? Good lord.

Narayana Bhatta in his Narayeenam 90.5 (courtesy of Narayanastra)

"Sri Sankara Bhagavadpada, who is reputedly free from bias, worshipped Thee particularly among all Sakala forms (those having attributes) of Thine. He wrote Commentatries only on Vishnu Sahasranama, Bhagavadgita and other works depicting Thee. In the end, he also attained salvation singing Thy praises."

Sridhara Swami (as well as Citsukha) in his commentary to Bhagavatam 2.5.39

"Brahmaloka” is the abode that is called “Vaikuntha”, which is always existing, and not inside the created universe"

Madhusudhana Sarasvati in Gudhartha Dipika 8.15 says that devotees of Krishna attain krama mukti, after which they attain nirguna mukti.

Sureshvara and Anandgiri have said repeatedly that Narayana is beyond the material universe, supreme among all deities, etc.

Vedanta Desika himself has classified Shankara as a Vaishnava in his Gita bhashya.

Someone clearly had something to gain or they would not have invested all the time to compile this long list of quotes in support of this theory . On your sources, I see that most of them are simply about Shankara seeing Vishnu as Brahman. This does not support the Shankara = Vaishnava theory as explained above. The Gita quote where he used the term Vaishnava is interesting, but one isolated comment on a Vaishnava text does not make a case. Also, when Shankara talks of deva worship, he means Mimamsakas who worship the Gods for specific results - which he (as a Vedantin) considers inferior to the worship of Brahman for Moksha. Also, when Shankara is talking about Krishna or Vishnu in the Gita, it is always as the formless Brahman. There are few instances where he is discussing Saguna Brahman. This is how Advaita views several of Shankara's statements in his Gita-Bhashya.

The first sentence is pretty funny, I'll give you that.

Let us consider Gita 6.47

"47, Of all Y ogins, whoso, full of faith, worships Me with his inner self abiding in Me, he is deemed by Me as most devout."

Yogins : those who meditate upon Rudra, Aditya.. etc. The inner self abiding in . Me : The antah-karana kept steadfast in Me, Vasudeva."

This is Saguna Brahman talking and is clearly saying that among all Yogins (even those who worship Rudra, Aditya, and other Gods), only Vasudeva bhaktas are the greatest. So if this is said by Shankara, the other Gita verses must also be taken in that context, which means that Narayana bhaktas (Vaishnavas) attain liberation while the worshiper of other devatas do not. Sure, Shankara may refer to Nirguna Brahman in the Gita, but not in the verses I provided. He is clearly trying to explain what Shri Krishna is saying, especially when you consider that nirguna brahman cannot talk.

Please provide more explanation on the verses I posted in that thread as this explanation is insufficient. I have even provided references.

adiyen

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are quoting from BG or Sankara's translation of BG. That will sure come out to have Vaishnava views. That is for what Arjuna said or Shiva and other deities are made to say in Vaishnava literature. Nothing surprising about it. Does Shiva says so in Shiva Purana or the Mother in Devi Purana? Any way, the discussion is getting too academic for me.

".. for there cannot be two Ishvaras or lords; if there were more than one Ishvara, the world could not go on as it does now. When even Thy equal exists not, how can there exist a being superior than Thee .."

That is Arjuna's view. Mine is different. Not very different, I agree Sri Krishna is Brahman, but so is Shiva also. It is a matter of belief in a particular form. Sage Tulsidas did not bow to Krishna because he had a flute in his hand. To oblige him, the Lord took a bow in his hand. That, if you can feel it, is the essence of Hinduism.

 

[kalyan]

I cannot stop from commenting on this pure anti vedic thought...since when did Bhagwatham or Bhagawadgita became Vaishnavite scriptures haha...


They are ACCEPTED as PRAMANAS by all the dwaita advaita and Visista-advaita acharyas.

Shankara and Ramanuja only differ on matham not where it comes to decide who is Supreme which undoubtedly they said as Maha Vishnu and everyone accepted their words because what they said is what VEDAS DECIDED.

Open the commentaries on Brahma Sutras by Adi Shankara (509 BC) , read it in english translation atleast and let us know what it says and dont clsim brahma sutras are vaishnavite ha..that would be ABSURD

 

[kalyan]

You are quoting from BG or Sankara's translation of BG. That will sure come out to have Vaishnava views. That is for what Arjuna said or Shiva and other deities are made to say in Vaishnava literature. Nothing surprising about it. Does Shiva says so in Shiva Purana or the Mother in Devi Purana? Any way, the discussion is getting too academic for me.

Do you know what are accepted PRAMANAS by all vedic acharyas? Shiva/Devi puranas are never accepted as vaidika pramanas by any vedic acharya..thereu go

 

[Aupmanyav]

I cannot stop from commenting on this pure anti vedic thought .. since when did Bhagwatham or Bhagawadgita became Vaishnavite scriptures haha ..

Now who said Hinduism is purely Vedic. Had it been so, there would neither have been Krishna nor Shiva in Hinduism. We would instead be worshiping Indra.

.. read it in english translation atleast and let us know what it says and dont clsim brahma sutras are vaishnavite ha .. that would be ABSURD

Well, they were written by Sage VedaVyasa, Krishna Dwaipayana, Badarayana.

 

[Chakra]

You are quoting from BG or Sankara's translation of BG. That will sure come out to have Vaishnava views. That is for what Arjuna said or Shiva and other deities are made to say in Vaishnava literature. Nothing surprising about it. Does Shiva says so in Shiva Purana or the Mother in Devi Purana? Any way, the discussion is getting too academic for me.

LOL. Now, let me know when you find a verse where Shankara quotes the pro-Shiva sections of Shiva Purana or Devi Purana. It should be interesting that he always quotes the Sattvika Puranas like Vishnu Purana and hardly the Rajasic Puranas like Shiva or Devi Bhagavatam. Also interesting that he chose to comment on Vishnu Sahasranamam and not the bogus Shiva or Lalita Sahasranamam. Not one of Shankara's works contains any trace of Smartism, unless you can prove it by quoting his bhashyas which you have not done. Either way, suit yourself.

Advaitins should really read Shankara's texts to see what he actually says instead of insisting on what they think he said. I know some advaitins on this forum who have not even touched one bhashya done by Shankara yet still claim that Shankara was a Smartha.

That is Arjuna's view. Mine is different. Not very different, I agree Sri Krishna is Brahman, but so is Shiva also. It is a matter of belief in a particular form. Sage Tulsidas did not bow to Krishna because he had a flute in his hand. To oblige him, the Lord took a bow in his hand. That, if you can feel it, is the essence of Hinduism.

Okay, if you want to insist that the essence of Hinduism is Smartism, fine by me. Now, this is a thread on what Shankara believes, not what you believe or what you think he believes.