Sunteți pe pagina 1din 99

Vcaspati Misras

Crime
[A Refutation of views derogatory to Advaita]

V.Subrahmanian
July, 5, 2015

His Holiness Jagadguru r Bhrat Trtha Mahswmina at the shrine of Bhaagavatpda ankara



Vcaspati Misras Crime
The bloggers (URL given below) have been attempting to propagate to their gullible readers the
unfounded idea that The early advaitins were vaiavas and from the 15 CE onwards there has been the
rise of aiva advaitins who have completely given up the true Advaita taught by ankara. The criteria
that decide who or what constitutes true or original advaita are, according to the bloggers are:
1. Advaitins hold the deity Viu alone to be the Supreme
2. For them the sagua Brahman is Viu alone
3. They have not favoured iva or any other deity like Ganapati, Subrahmanya
4. True advaitins never donned the bhasma on their forehead

3
With these ill-conceived criteria they have tried to divide advaitins into the above mentioned two
categories. To their dismay, however, they discovered that one of the earliest and most eminent
advaitins, Vcaspati Misra, the author of the Bhmat, happened to be a devotee of Lord iva. Since this
fact contradicts their theory stated above and puts and end to their evil designs, they hatched upon the
cruel trick of somehow tarnishing the image of Vcaspati Misra. That way they thought they will eliminate
Vcaspati Misra from the face of Advaita just like Hitler thought of doing away with a certain race. To
make it appear that they are innocent, they decided to take the help of two commentaries on the Bhmat
and thought they would cleverly prove to their uninformed readers that these two commentaries ended up
humiliating Vcaspati Misra. The inspiration to adopt this strategy is from Ramanuja who finding himself
no match to Shankara in stature and philosophy, and therefore jealous of Shankara, indulged in
mudslinging and personal attack on Shankara by calling him a sinner and ignorant of all disciplines like
epistemology, language, etc. A similar strategy was that of Mdhva.
Unfortunately for the bloggers their evil design has been completely crushed not by anyone else but by
the very weapon they thought would help them carry out their scheme. And that weapon is the
Kalpataru the most popular and authoritative commentary on the Bhmat, authored by Swami
Amalnanda, which attracted the equally popular commentary, the Parimaa from a great Advaitin, Sri
Appayya Dikitar. In the sequel this very work (Kalpataru) is taken up to show that Swami Amalnanda
severely refutes and even rebukes all the claims and lies of the bloggers proving thereby the Kalpataru
has built an impregnable fortress around the Bhmat and the attempts of the bloggers have met with
utter failure. The eminent commentator has seen to it that Vcaspati Misras honor is ever supreme. Such
is the respect and admiration he has for the author as well as the work Bhmati. The other commentary
on the Bhmati, the juprakik, of Akhananda, relied upon by the bloggers trying to paint him also
as a vaiava-bigot, and as not favorable to the Vcaspati Misra, is also shown in the sequel to be
completely insupportive of the bloggers.
Some other points either directly or indirectly connected with the above are also discussed here.
The method of the bloggers is to hide from their readers what the scriptures including the Mahabharatha
and other puranas, Shankaracharya and all the Acharyas who followed him in that tradition say about
Shiva/Hari-Hara abheda. After hiding these they try to portray the scriptures and these Acharyas as
subscribers to their bigoted idea of Viu-alone supremacy. These attempts have been countered by
revealing to the public many of those iva-supreme and Hari-Hara abheda ideas contained in the
scriptures and the texts of these very Acharyas so that the public will get the correct picture about the
scripture and these Acharyas.

4
In the following blog a number of lies have been lined up to misinform and confuse the unwary reader.
Since they pertain to Advaita there is a need to portray the correct position. This is shown in between
those lies.
The blogger has claimed: //We only reproduce whatever is already written or interpreted by adi shankara
and madhva and do not comment on its correctness or otherwise. We have not provided our own
thoughts or spin on their works.//
However what they invariably do is not to stop after simply reproducing, but to go on to provide their own
opinions/comments on what those statements of Adi ankara or any other Advaitin, mean (to them). That
way they misrepresent Advaita and the Acharyas. That exactly is the point that gives room for criticism
from Advaitins.
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_3.html#advaitavishnu
Lie No.1
212.

The author of bhAmati (vAcaspati mishra) praises Siva as the eternal one. This does not seem to

agree with your claim that Shankaras system accepts only Vishnu as the supreme. Can you explain?
Ans: vAcaspati mishra did not declare himself as an advaitin or a vedAntin. He was simply a scholar
interested in writing commentaries of the six traditional Astika darshanas. He in fact has written
commentaries on the naiyAyika and vaisheShika schools, which Shankara refuted in his prasthAna trayI
bhAShyas.
The Truth:
The above is simply unfounded. In the Kalpataru for the very last Brahmasutra, Amalnanda writes a
short explanation to the (concluding) mangaa verses of the Bhmat. Amalnanda says:

Vcaspati Misra, having secured the direct realization of Brahman (svasya sktktabrahmatay), is
displaying his dispassion even with the fruit of writing commentaries to various disciplines and is offering
the fruits to Iwara (pryatm Paramewara is the word the Bhmati uses, in correspondence with the
word Bhava stated in the opening invocatory verse Let Paramewara be pleased). This shows that
Vcaspati Misra was an aparoka Jnni and therefore an accomplished Vedntin, a mukta.
Here is just one instance of the word sktkta used by Shankara to denote the securing of the
liberating knowledge:

Bhadrayaka Upaniad Bhyam 4.4.13


, , , ? ,
[Gist of the above: The innermost Self, Atman, has been directly realized as I am the Supreme Brahman
as his innermost self, pratyagtman.]

This word pratyagtman is used by the Kahopaniat in the

mantra:
Mantra 2.1.1:
-.


Yama said: The self-born Lord forced the senses outward; hence one sees outward and not the inner
self. But a self-controlled person, desiring Immortality, beholds the inner Self with all sense organs
controlled.
The Kahopaniat 1.2.7 sings the glory of the aparokajni:


7

Many there are who do not even hear of Atman; though hearing of Him, many do not comprehend.

Wonderful is the expounder and rare the hearer; rare indeed is the experiencer of Atman taught by an
able preceptor.
This alone has been stated by the Lord in the BG:2.29


2.29 Someone visualizes It as a wonder; and similarly indeed, someone else talks of It as a wonder; and
someone else hears of It as a wonder. And some one else, indeed, does not realize It even after hearing
about It.
Shankara adds at the end of the commentary: He who speaks of It and the who hears of It is indeed rare
among many thousands. Therefore, the idea is that the Self is difficult to understand.
Again in the 7th ch. we have:

6

7.3
7.3 Among thousands of men a rare one endeavours for perfection. Even of the perfected ones [For
perfection: for the rise of Knowledge through the purification of the mind.] who are diligent, one perchance
knows Me in truth.
Such is the exalted state Vcaspati Misra has attained. Brahmavit Brahmaiva [The knower of Brahman is
verily Brahman] says the Upaniad.
Thus, by no means can one say that Vcaspati Misra was not a Vedntin, even in the sense of a paroka
jnni.
At the very outset the Bhmati pays its obeisance to the Veda. All the other things said in those several
verses invocatory to the Bhmati are completely vaidika. In fact Amalnanda in his 11th invocatory verse
pays rich tributes to Vcaspati Misra: He says:

[vaidikamrgam vcaspatirapi samyak surakitam cakre. Glory to that crya (Amalananda uses a
synonym for the name vcaspati as vibudhevarcrya (Bhaspati, the Guru of Indra/Devas) who
defeated the asuras who are the vdins, opponent schools of the Vednta] The above verse has a
slightly different reading in some editions: ..
Brihaspati is said to be the author of the chrvka (materialist) sutras. Vcaspati is another name of
Bhaspati. The above reading means: Even being the one who authored the crvka stras who denied
god, veda, etc. he (this author of the Bhmat) who very well protected the vaidika mrga. Glory to him
the Bhaspati Achrya. (Glory to him who is the foremost of the learned (vibudh means learned ones.
Ivara means the leader/foremost one.) Amalnanda is applying to Vcaspati Misra, a great epithet
accorded to Shankara that he protected well the Vedic path from the onslaught of the opponent schools
to Vednta darana. In this verse this part is proof of the fact of his having refuted those very schools for
which he penned commentaries. Hence to say that the author was not a vedntin or advaitin is simply
pulling wool over the eyes of the readers. Here are these verses:



[The gist of these verses is given below in the sequel]
In the Kalpataru one sees Amalnanda defending Vcaspati Misras knowledge of the Veda. In the BSB
1.2.32 there is a discussion about an upsana. The Kalpataru, in that context says that some question
Vcaspatis knowledge of the veda and gives a defence:

Thus, never would Amalananda even entertain doubt about Vcaspatis propriety about his having iva
as the iadevat and his holding Him as vata. For Amalnanda this is not even to be doubted.
Writing a commentary to non-vedantic daranas does not amount to accepting them. All Vedantins have
admitted all those schools like nyya, prvammms and used the logic and nyyas found in them in
their own works. Shankara pays his greatest respect to Gautama the exponent of the nyya darana
which he has refuted severely in several places across the prasthnatray:
(. . -) [BSB 1.1.8]
[The same is the purport of the Stra, supported by arguments, of the (Gautama) crya, 'Final release
results from the successive removal of wrong knowledge, faults, activity, birth, pain, the removal of each
later member of the series depending on the removal of the preceding member' (Nyya. S. I, 1, 2); and
wrong knowledge itself is removed by the knowledge of one's Self being one with the Self of Brahman.]
One can note here the way Shankara addresses the exponent of the school that he has refuted. It is in
sharp contrast to how Ramanuja spewed venom on Shankara by calling him a sinner and so on. In fact
Ramanuja in that accusation adds that Shankara is ignorant of the methods of nyya, vykaraa,
mmms: -..., the schools for which Vcaspati wrote
expositions.
When it comes to addressing Jaimini, the exponent of the prva mmms school, which too, has been
refuted by Shankara, we see these words:

BSB

1.3.31


[A new objection is raised against the averment that the gods, &c. also are entitled to the knowledge of
Brahman. The teacher, chrya Jaimini, considers the gods and similar beings not to have any claim.]

Such an addressing of Jaimini is found in at least seven places across the BSB. The noteworthy
aspect is that even when Bdaryaa in the sutra does not use that respectful address, Shankara makes
it a point to invoke it.
Here is a case of Shankara appreciating/accepting the Snkhya, a key opponent of Vedanta:
BGB 13.5: These 24 tattvas (which amounts to the
enumeration given in the verse) the Snkhyas (too) admit.
BGB 18.19: ,

[Even that philosophy teaching about the guas is certainly valid so far as it concerns the experiencer
of the guas, though it is contradictory so far as the non-duality of the supreme Reality, Brahman, is
concerned. Those followers of Kapila are acknoweldged authorities in the ascertainment of the functions
of the guas and their derivatives.]
Shankara acknowledges certain aspects of even the Bauddha doctrine, which is a nstika darana:
BSB 2.2.19
, ;
..
[The series beginning with Nescience comprises the following members: Nescience, impression,
knowledge, name and form, the abode of the six, touch, feeling, desire, activity, birth, species, decay,
death, grief, lamentation, pain, mental affliction, and the like. All these terms constitute a chain of causes
and are as such spoken of in the Bauddha system, sometimes cursorily, sometimes at length. They are,
moreover, all acknowledged as existing, not by the Bauddhas only, but by the followers of all systems.]
Shankara accepts a great deal of the Patanjali system too since it is indispensable for sdhana.
BSB 2.1.3: ;

9
, ; (. . -) ;
(. . )
[We willingly allow room for those portions of the two systems (snkhya and yoga) which do not
contradict the Veda. In their description of the soul, for instance, as free from all qualities the Snkhyas
are in harmony with the Veda which teaches that the person (purusha) is essentially pure; cp. B ri. Up. IV,
3, 16. 'For that person is not attached to anything.' The Yoga again in giving rules for the condition of the
wandering religious mendicant admits that state of retirement from the concerns of life which is known
from scriptural passages such as the following one, 'Then the parivrjaka with discoloured (yellow) dress,
shaven, without any possessions,' &c. (Jbla Upa. IV).
The above remarks will serve as a reply to the claims of all argumentative Smtis. If it be said that those
Smtis also assist, by argumentation and proof, the cognition of truth, we do not object to so much, but we
maintain all the same that the truth can be known from the Vednta-texts only..]
One can easily see this rule applied in the pcartrdhikaraa as well explicitly and the
Pupatdhikaraa implicitly [The yoga, japa, namaskra, stra ravaa, manana, vijnam are
admitted by all stikas]
Shankara has cited several Pini stras across his bhyas. That does not mean that he has accepted
everything of that system.
In fact there are instances of scholars belonging to one school writing texts (not refutations) bringing out
the salient features of even opponent schools. One such example is the book showing the approaches of
the three schools of Vedanta as per the Brahmasutra by an author named Kvadhta of the Mdhva
school. Just because he has written such a work he does not become censurable by the dvaitins. In fact
they find that work quite useful. In fact the works of Vcaspati Misra are authorities in those systems. The
sumadhvavijaya also reports that Madhva used to teach the Advaita darana to those who showed
interest in learning it. There are many more such instances of persons belonging to Advaita or Dvaita
writing books on nyaya, vykarana or purvamimamsa. Many scholars who are adepts in these disciplines
also teach these to persons belonging to their rival schools. Such things are quite common and are not at
all a mark of disrespect or disloyalty to their own school/faith. Appayya Dikitar has authored a number of
works on prva mmms, vykaraa, alankra, etc. that are not in any way inimical to his central
philosophical persuasion. Appayya Dikitars work on the four schools (Dvaita, etc.) is also a prominent
example. There is the popular instance of Syana-mdhavas Sarva darana sangraha a work
explaining several daranas that are opposed to the Vedanta/Advaita. By this much the author does not
become disloyal to the school of his personal persuasion. Shankaracharya, in his invocatory verse to the

10
Taittiriya upaniad bhya pays obeisance to all those cryas of the past who have expounded the
Vedntas on the strong grounds of nyya (prama stra), purvammms (vkya) and vykaraa
(pada stra):
--

I bow down ever before those adorable Teachers by whom was explained all these Upaniads in the
past, by taking into consideration the words (vykaraa), the sentences (prva mmms), and the means
of valid knowledge (nyya).
Amalananda in the Kalpataru 3.3.26, (p.806 of the print edition) severely rebukes the ilk of these
bloggers:

It would be a misadventure for anyone who would question the authority of Vcaspati Misra who knows
the other end of the ocean of pada-vkya-prama. Such is the tribute Amalananda pays to the
Bhmati.
Thus by the mere fact of Vcaspati Misra commenting on the several systems other than the Vedanta
which have been refuted by Shankara does not render him a non-vedantin or non-advaitin. By applying
the rule the blogger is suggesting, Shankara will have to be no Vedantin since he has accepted/approved
tenets/ideas/concepts and even shown great respect to the exponents of schools that he has refuted. It
is to be specifically noted and appreciated that the very same Vcaspati Misra effectively refutes those
very schools (for which he has written elucidating works) in the Bhmat. Those who are familiar with this
work can immediately identify such instances across the Bhmat.
Lie No. 2.
213.

What are the verses of vAchaspati eulogising Siva?

Ans. The mangala sloka of bhAmati is:


ShaDbhira~NgairupetAya vividhairavyayairapi/
shAshvatAya namaskurmo vedAya ca bhavAya ca//
Translation: Let us worship the eternal Veda and Bhava (Siva) who possesses six limbs, and various
indeclinables/undiminishing characteristics.

11
The author was more a liberal Shiva-bhakta rather than a staunch vedAntin. The concept of Ishta-Devata
is a new practice evolved recently and was not present in those times. That Ishta-Devata concept is not
present during these times is made clear by the commentary of advaitins to this verse.
The truth:
There is no correlation between a person being a staunch Vedantin and his being a liberal Shiva-bhakta.
There is no rule anywhere in the Vedanta that only a Vishnu-bhakta can be a Vedantin. Amalnanda
himself has dispelled this myth of the blogger. The blogger is taking things for granted. The other verses
of the Bhmat invocation prove that the concept of Ia-devat was very much prevalent in those times:



The summary of the above verses is: Obeisance to the Eternal Veda and Bhava (iva). That the author
of the Bhmat was a great vaidika is brought out from his preference to offer his first namaskara to the
Veda. Then in the same breath he pays respects to iva, his ia devat. He seeks the grace of Srya,
Subrahmaya and Gaapati and says that these deities are propitiated by the whole world, viva
vandyn.

Then his respects are offered to Veda Vysa whom he says is a certain incarnation of

Bhagavan Hari. That shows that Vcaspati Misra, a true vaidika, advaitin, vedntin, he is, is not
disrespecting Hari just because his ia-devat is iva. This is a lesson to the bloggers. From this triad of
invocatory verses we come to know that the period during which Shankara and Vcaspati Misra
flourished the Hari-Hara bhakti along with bhakti/worship of Surya, Skanda and Ganapati was extensively
prevalent.
The blogger is fundamentally wrong in thinking that the iadevat concept was not prevalent in those
times. Innumerable proofs are there to show the blogger wrong:
Praktman commenting on the very first invocatory verse of the Panchapdik of Padmapda says at
the outset: ...[he is using a synonym, abhilaita for the word ia as a
prefix for the word devat.] He says it is mandatory icra - to offer worship/obeisance to the
iadevat. This author is admitted to be of the 10 11 CE.
Uttamaja, the author of Vaktayvakik, a commentary on the Pacapdik, belonging to the same
period as above, too says the author of the Pacapdik is invoking the idevat. [In many cases it is
seen that the iadevat to which many of these Vedantins have offered their first obeisance is the
Nirgua Brahman and not any named deity.] [His work with the above title has been published, for the
first time, by the Shankara Advaita Research Centre, Sringeri, from the manuscript preserved at the
centre at the Sringeri Peeham.]

12
Anandagiri, commenting on the invocatory verse of the Bh.Gita bhya of Shankara nryaa paro..
says that Shankara is paying obeisance to his iadevat: ....
Jnnottama while commenting on Sureshwaras opening verse of the Naikarmyasiddhi says:
[he says, Sureshwaras invoking Hari is indicative of his paying obeisance to his
iadevat]
Agnicit Puruottama, commenting on the invocatory verse of the Sankeparraka of Sarvajntman says
the latter is invoking the blessing of iadevat tattvam just like Anandagiri and several others have done.
The difference between mere iadevat invoking and the iadevat tattvam invoking is that the latter is
nirgua Brahman. Puruottama gives the meaning of the word Murre paramapadam in both his
interpretations as nirguna Brahman only. In the second interpretation he says: the murris parama
padam is nondifferent from murri (murri-svarpameva), like the rhu and his head. Rhu is merely
head alone; there is no body to Rhu. In the expression Rho ira there is no sambandha like in
Rmas house. There are two entities Rma and his house. Murri, the Nirgua tattvam, itself is the
param padam. This is the way Shankara has used the word Vio paramam padam in the
Kahopaniad. A commentary on this bhyam has also stated the rho ira example, which is wellknown to Vedantins. Only those who have understood the rhu example can appreciate it.
The other commentary, the Anvayrtha prakik to the above work too says that the iadevat is being
invoked. He too says that the murris paramam padam is the nirgua svarpam of the viuabdavcya
entity. He too in his own invocatory verses pays obeisance to his iadevat Rma, then to Saraswati,
iva, Ganapati, etc.
For the third verse-word Achyuta, Agnicit comments as pure consciousness, the way Shankara has
done in the BGB 18.66:
, In the 4th verse Sarvajntman pays obeisance to Vgdevi
according to Agnicit. In the 5th verse Vighnewara is addressed. Thus, in the 10th CE and even before as
per the Bhmati itself there has been Vighnewara worship. The blogger is wrongly citing Shankaras
BGB to show that Vinyaka is not a favoured deity, without understanding that the Vinyaka Shankara
means there is a certain spirit in the plural referred by the Bhgavatam in the Ptana episode. It is not
post-15 CE invention. In the 7th verse Sarvajntman offers obeisance to iva or ankara the bhyakra.
In the 10th verse is the word nryaasmaraa for which Agnicit says: brahmtmaikya bhvan. [It is
common among sannysins of the Advaita order to invoke this word nryaa smaraam when they
sign a document such as a benedictory letter. When someone prostrates before them, then too they are
supposed to invoke this smaraam which signifies their commitment to the thought of supreme identity
always.] In the 11th verse he pays obeisance to all great scholars of the three disciplines nyya,
vykaraa and mmms. Thus, Vcaspati Misras writing texts on those disciplines is in no way a

13
disqualification to his being a vedantin too. The blogger will have to now declare Sarvajtman a mere
scholar and a non-vedantin because of his paying tributes to those disciplines/authors. All these prove
that there has been in vogue the devatntara worship among Vedantins as early as Shankaras time
which we find from Bhmatis invocation. All these Advaitins of the early times have paid obeisance to all
gods including iva.

So, there is no substance in the charge that Hari-Hara abheda is a later-day

insertion.
Commenting on the invocatory verse of the Advaitasiddhi where occurs the name Viu, the
siddhivykhy uses the word iadevat..
Thus we have several instances to show that the concept of iadevat is not unknown during the period
of Shankara, Sureshwara, Padmapda, Vcaspati Misra, Praktman etc. Surely, this period is not very
far from Ramanujas.
Lie No. 3
214.

What are the commentaries available on bhAmati and were the commentators vaishnavas?

Ans. There are two commentaries on bhAmati. One by amalAnanda (vedAnta kalpataru) and another one
called RRijuprakAshika by one akhaNDAnanda. Both these were vaishnavas and begin their
commentary with salutations to Narasimha and Hari respectively, using such adjectives as
sukhAdvayavapuH, AnandarUpa, advaya, vedAntavedya.
The truth:
The conclusion arrived at by viewing just the salutations, that too partially, is not foolproof. The mere
salutation to Hari does not prove that the author is a vaiava. He is after all invoking his ia devat like
many advaitins which is only Nirgua Brahman.

What calls the lie with regard to Amalnandas

vaiavatva (of the Ramanuja brand) is his paying obeisance to Saraswati and Ganapathy too in the
subsequent verses for language-ability and to ward off vighnas, etc. Also, in the ending salutations
Amalnanda offers at the close of the Kalpataru, the first verse is:

He is offering obeisance to the Nirgua Brahman that is non-dual, verily the self (of all jvas), that has
projected out of my the world-appearance which is the Sun that dispels the darkness of samsra of
those who worship It and which bears the forms of Hari and Hara.
No Vaiava (of the non-advaitin class) would say that Brahman is the one taking the two forms of Hari
and Hara. For them the rudro nryaacaiva ekatattvam dvidh ktam of the MB is an interpolation.

14
This verse, like the one Amalananda writes, is not about Viu taking the form of Rudra as arra-arri
bhva or any such bhva. It is clearly One Tattvam taking two forms. Hariharan is not a household
name for this class. Equating the two (that is, saying Brahman is the one base for both Hari and Hara,
obviously because the statement equates Hari and Hara on the one base that is neither Hari nor Hara as
deities/persons/godheads) is blasphemy to the bigoted vaiava but not for the Advaitin. So, Amalnanda
has proved himself to be a non-vaiava by explicitly proclaiming his subscribing to Hari-Hara abheda.
Such verses quoted by Shankara in the Viu Sahasra Nma (VSN) bhya from the Viupuram or
Bhaviyottara or any other source is not to be confused with the sarvam khalvidam brahma where all
objects, jivas, jaa, are taught to have Nirgua Brahman as the substratum and thus everything is one.
These verses belong to a special class where the division/difference between iva and Viu is negated.
vayorantaram nsti [there is no difference between us] stated by Nryaa to Rudra in the MB (after
the Nara-Nryaa tapas-Rudra battle] and the one cited by Shankara in the VSN is not of the above
type or even jvtma paramtma aikyam type. It is to be understood thus: Rma, Ka, Narasimha, etc.
are avatras of the One Viu and hence differentiating them in a tttvika way is wrong. One might
observe differences like offering butter, aval, etc. to Ka and not offer these to Rma. One would not
address Rma as Rukmina and Ka as Seetpati. That difference is observed. Yet, when Rma and
Kra and Narasimha are worshiped the worship is ultimately Viupja only. One need not go to the
Advaitic pramrtha plane to understand this non-difference between Rama, Krishna and Narasimha. In
the same way, according to Veda Vysa, as cited by Shankara in a number of verses in the VSN and by
Krishna, Narayana, etc. acroding to the Bhgavata and Mahabharata, it is the same Brahman that takes
the forms of Brahm, Viu and Rudra. And therefore no difference ought to be seen in them at this level.
Worshiping iva and Viu will be worship of Brahman alone. One need not go to the Advaitic
Paramarthika level to understand and observe this oneness. It is this oneness that Vysa taught in so
many places, in so many ways and Shankara annotated them. This should be contrasted from the typical
case of Pramrthika Advaita Aikya that is taught in verses such as the BG 5.18:


5.18 The learned ones look with eqanimity on a Brahmana endowed with learning and humality, a cow,
an elephant and even a dog as well as an eater of dog's meat.
Shankaras commentary:
//5.18 Pandit, the learned ones; sama-darina, look with eanimity; brhmae, on a Brhmaa; vidyvinayasampanne, endowed with learning and humility - vidy means knowledge of the Self, and vinaya
means pridelessness -, on a Brhmaa who has Self-knowledge and modesty; gavi, on a cow; hastini, on
an elephant; ca eva, and even; uni, on a dog; ca, as well as; vapke, on an eater of dog's meat. Those

15
learned ones who are habituated to see (equally) the unchanging, same and one Brahman, absolutely
untouched by the qualities of sattva etc. and the tendencies created by it, as also by the tendencies born
of rajas and tamas, in a Brhmaa, who is endowed with Knowledge and tranquillity, who is possessed of
good tendencies and the quality of sattva; in a cow, which is possessed of the middling quality of rajas
and is not spiritually refined; and in an elephant etc., which are wholly and absolutely imbued with the
quality of tamas - they are seers of equality.//
That is why in the specific verse cited by Shankara in the VSN bhyam from the Harivama 3.88. 61, 61,
62 which are addressed by Mahewara during the Kailsa ytra episode:


[I am thou and thou alone am I, O Janrdana. There is no difference between us, by word or by sense in
all the three worlds.]
That is being elucidated in the sequel:


[O Govinda, your esteemed names alone are mine as well; no doubt need to be had in this regard] There
Veda Vyasa, through iva, conveys that all the names of Viu, including the name Nryaa are that of
iva. Thus the thousand names of Viu are also those of iva since there is no difference in name and
sense between the pair Hari and Hara.


[The worship/meditation of You, O Gopati, let that be meditation of mine too. He who hates you O Deva,
hates me too, undoubtedly.]
In the above the worship of Viu is equated with the worship of iva. There is no such worship with
regard to the brhmaa, elephant, cow, dog and chanla which can be said to be going to
something/someone common to all these entities.
One can notice, as a pattern, whenever the Acharyas have invoked the nirguna or unspecified Brahman
sometimes specifying it as taking the three murtis, as for instance Praktman has done, they have also,
over and above that verse, invoked the blessings of a separate ia devat like Hari or Hara. They have
also invoked the other deities such as Saraswati, Srya, Skanda and Gaapati. The pramrthika

16
aikyam of everything/everyone is a given in Advaita and that need not be stated in an invocatory context.
Even though the pramrthika advaita aikya is there across Hari, Hara, Indra, Brahm, Agni, Vyu,
Varua, etc. yet it is only the first two (Hari-Hara) that have been paired to offer obeisance. That is what
is meant by Hari-Hara advaita or abheda. There is no such Hari-Agni/Varua abheda or even HariBrahm or Hara-Brahm abheda. The reason is not far to seek. As Sri Appayya Dikita has said in his
irrefutable words, cited elsewhere in this document, Hari and Hara are the Superpowers though only one
in truth. Advaita Acharyas, right from Shankara have recognized this and hence take delight in paying a
special obeisance to them both either separately as has been done by many or even by pairing them in
one verse by applying all the epithets common to both of them. Advaitins have composed Hari-Hara
stuties also in a single song. Thus, the Hari-Hara abheda namaskra by invoking them both as
Paramevara as done, for example, by Amalananda and Sridhara swamin, is not anything such as the
pramrthika abheda; it is an abheda in the vyavahrika itself, by considering their true identity as
brought out in innumerable places and ways by Veda Vyasa all over his works: Rudro Nryaacaiva
ekatattvam dvidh ktam. vayorantaram nsti, etc. In the stradarpaam, Amalnanda places just
two verses as invocation at the commencement: One for his Guru and the other where he combines HariHara namaskara and their avatra-namaskara [Vyasa and Shankara] by addressing both as
Paramevara. ]
This is the aikyam/abheda that can be appreciated by not going up to the Advaitic Pramrthika
level. That is why a Rma-bhakta and Kra bhakta are both equally Viubhaktas.
This is just a sample of such countless pronouncements of Veda Vyasa, based on the Vedas, across the
Mahabharata and the puranas.

Lie No.4
These adjectives imply a dual eulogy of Hari/Nrsimha who is saguNa, but nirguNa in essence, which also
shows they regarded vishNu as parabrahman (reference to narasimha as satsukhAdvayavapuH, etc
negates any stupid argument that only nirguNa essence is eulogised by such terms).
The truth:
The adjective satsukhdvayavapu can very well apply to Dakimrti or any other devat like
Ganapathy or Subrahmanya. The famous Subrahmanya bhujangam of Shankaracharya has the term
mahvkyagham which is none other than sacchidnanda svarpam.

In the mud kartta

17
modakam verse of Shankara on Ganapati there is the epithet partparam nirantaram which is the
nirgua svarpam. So to desperately trying to ward off these other instances by calling them stupid
argument is what is stupidity. In fact the Anandagiri commentary shown above for Shankaras
introduction to the Git bhyam says Shankara is invoking the smaraam of the iadevat tattvam.
[Thus, according to Anandagiri the term Nryaa in the Bhya is nirgua Brahman, thereby
bombarding the Puttur Swami & Co.s unfounded ideas about Shankaras using the names of Viu,
Vsudeva, Achyuta, etc. across the bhyas.] The Praktman comment to the Panchapdik opening
verse (where no deity is invoked by him) is also iadevat tattvam which is nirgua Brahman. [In this
verse he spells out the three modes, pure sattva, rajas and tamas, in which that Sat is for protection,
creation and dissolution of the world. He does not name the three deities which are well known. He does
not either name that Sat by any deity. Anandagiri, in the Pranopaniad bhya gloss says: for the
plana karma, vivdirpea. Shankara too means this alone while commenting on the VSN bhtakt
etc. By not mentioning rpea Shankara is not giving any special status to viu; which is explitcitly
stated by nandagiri in the above cited reference.
More than anyone else, Sridhara Swamin says in the Srimadbhgavatam 2.10.42..

The plakatvam is in the form of Viu: viurpea .The bloggers took delight in the absence of this
word in the Shankara VSN bhya for bhtakt etc. while the Bhgavatam is actually teaching the
Trimrti aikya tattvam. One need not go to the Advaitic Pramrthika level to understand this. Even
within creation, it is One Brahman that does these functions as the three mrtis. That is called
ithambhva which the Bhgavatam itself uses here. And to show that such functioning of Brahman is not
in the Absolute level, it is immediately teaching that the aspirant should not know Brahman as endowed
with these functions, exactly as Shankara has taught in the BSB 2.1.14 negating the sarvajnatva,
sarvaaktitva,etc. and showing Brahman as nirguna svarpam. The blogger had derided one of the
comments involving the word uddha tamas and here we have Vamdhara saying in the above context:

It is this kind of three guas that go into the creation, etc. of the universe.

18

It is common sense to supply that. Also, the prefix uddha for sattva (meant for the common word
Ivara) the purport is: According to the BG 18th chapter even sattva gua binds through providing sukha
and jna: badhnti says Kria and has to be overcome for moka. The sattva that is adopted for
world-protection is not of this binding type. In order to denote this the prefix uddha is used. In the same
way the rajas and tamas which are definitely binding, when adoped for world-creation and dissolution, are
not. The uddha prefix is to be supplied to rajas and tamas when it comes to the cosmic function.
Madhusudana Saraswati has commented for the Mahimna stotra verse which has the words such as
bahaa rajase to denote the pure, non-binding but essential, quality of sattva, rajas and tamas
predominating.
In fact Shankara in several of the invocatory verses to select upaniad bhyams pays obeisance to the
Tattvam alone. So, Narasimha is that tattvam that dispels/destroys the asura (hirayakaipu) called
ignorance. That is how Vedtins look at the deities. All such stories across the scripture is to be seen as
allegorical expressions and to attach a specific deity and fight over its superiority is what is ignorance
which Veda Vyasa explicitly stated in the Sta samhit and Sridhara Swamin in the Bhgavatam
commentary as ajnna/moha.
Lie No.5
Amalananda openly accepted the pAncharAtra Agama wholly as well, which shows his stance since the
pAncharAtra is completely Vaishnava in character. Note that acceptance of Rudra as jIva is paramount in
the pA~ncarAtra system. The viShvaksena saMhitA says that Rudra etc. are jIvas who are not fit for
meditation by mumukShus.
The truth:
There is absolutely no truth in the above claim(s) with reference to Amalnanda. Let those samhitas say
what they want. They are not authority for an Advaitin. Amalnanda never accepted the pncartra even
half-heartedly either in the Kalpataru or in the stradarpaam. In the latter work he only built up a
strong prvapaka for the pncartra by saying that it is given out by Vsudeva Himself (and not any jiva
like Patanjali..) and therefore ought to be regarded as blemishless. He answers this in the subsequent
verse by upholding Shankaras objection about the jvotpatti which is not a vedic one thereby holding the
pycartra to be defective. Regarding the vedanind objection of Shankara in the BSB (last sutra of that
adhikaraa), the Bhmati simply said: the vedavipratiedha is explained which Amalananda in the
Kalpataru only confirmed by adding by the bhyam itself. He never defended the pncartra from that
serious rebuke by Shankara. Had he accepted the Pcartra this would be the best place to defend it
and thereby refute Shankara. That he does not do that is enough proof that he was not vaiava of the

19
Ramanuja brand but a complete, confirmed, vaiava as taught by the Padmapura which says: he
alone is a true vaiava who sees no difference between Durga, Viu and iva and holds them as
Brahman. Nor in the stradarpaam did Amalnanda even consider that rebuke. So, there is absolutely
no truth in the claim that he accepted the pncartra or even the audacious claim that he rejected
Shankara!! To what extent a bigot goes in getting his theory of viuparatva by even resorting to lies!!
No Vedantin will take the bloggers words on Rudra being a jiva and therefore should not be meditated by
mumukus etc. which have been severely demolished by the Veda and Veda Vyasa and
Krishna/Nryaa in the Mahabharata. The very second verse of Amalananda paying obeisance to
Shankara as verily Lord Dakimrti who dispels ignorance and samsra says that such Dakimurti,
verily iva is nirmala-yogi-cintyam (fit for meditation by pure-hearted yogins) which is a direct reference
to Shiva being upsya for mumukus. Naturally the nirmala yogis will be intent only on moka and nothing
else. So, that much for Amalnanda accepting pncartra and endorsing the iva is jiva theory and
therefore his vaiavatvam.
Lie No. 6
215.

In general, what is Sivas position as per the advaitins who followed Shankara immediately?

Ans. sureshvara and jnAnOttama compare Siva to Adi Shankara, where the former bears the river Ganga
that flows from the feet of Lord Vishnu, while the latter bears the river of brahma-vidyA that flows from the
Lord Vishnus feet/His essence as nirguNa brahman:
viShNoH padAnugAM yAM nikhila bhava nudaM sha~Nkaro.avApa yogAt
sarvaj~naM brahma saMsthaM munigaNaiH sahitaM samyag abhyarchya bhaktyA |
vidyAM ga~NgAm ivAhaM pravara guNa nidheH prApya vedAnta dIptAM
kAruNyAt tAm avochaM jani mRRiti nivaha dhvastaye duHkhitebhyaH ||
(Naishkarmyasiddhi, 4.76)
Translation: The River Ganga, which flows from the (toe nail on the left) foot of Vishnu was obtained by
Shankara (Lord Rudra) through yogic effort. Later Bhagiratha worshiped the all-knowing Rudra, who is
surrounded by groups of sages, whose mind is ever fixed on Brahman, with devotion to obtain the river
for the salvation of the people of the earth. Similarly, I worshiped the one endowed with great qualities
who is called Shankara, who is also all-knowing, surrounded by sannyasis, who is ever meditating on
Brahman, who obtained the brahmavidyA that flows from Vishnus feet, so that I can compassionately
disseminate that brahma-vidyA to those who are in sorrow due to cycles of births and deaths, so they
may rid themselves of the same.
Here, sureshvara shows the superiority of Vishnu, by saying that Shiva bears on his head the waters that
washed His feet.

20
The Truth:
There is no truth in the claim that Sureshwara shows superiority to Viu by reading that explanation of
Surewara. Surewara, in his ending-mangal shloka to the Br.up.vrtikam says Shankara, his guru bears
the name of vedhas which according to Anandagiri means: Creator. This creator is not to be mistaken to
be Brahm since Surevara has himself said at the end of the Taittiriya up. vrtikam that Shankara bears
the name of Bhava. Thus, according to Surevara iva is the creator of the universe and therefore can
never be in any way inferior to Viu or anyone else. In fact in the Srimadbhgavatam 9.9.7 Bhagratha
reassures Gang when she is reluctant to come down to the earth as she is apprehensive that none
would be able to bear her force:
dhrayiyati te vegam
rudras tv tm arrim
yasminn otam idam protam
vivam va tantuu
[Like a cloth woven of threads extending for its length and breadth, this entire universe, in all its latitude
and longitude, is situated in Lord iva who is the self of all beings. He can sustain your forceful waves on
his head.]
Sridharaswamin says:

[What is the nature of Rudra as the Self of all? In whom this universe is resting as though a cloth is woven
with the warf and woof of threads. He is the support of all and therefore will bear your force. That is the
purport of the verse.]
Vamidhara, another eminent commentator who has not displayed any bigotry like other vaiavas, too
says in the same vein as Sridhara Swamin:

[Etymology for the name Rudra: He who destroys the misery of one and all. Since he is compassionate
he will dispel my (Bhagirathas) sorrow. For him who bears the entire universe, to bear you who are but a
small part of the universe is no wonder.]

21
Since as per the Mahabharatha Rudro nryaacaiva ekatattvam dvidh ktam and several such
verses in the MB and across other puras proclaiming the oneness of Shiva and Viu by these
personalities themselves, there is absolutely no place for superior-inferior bhva. That Brahman as Viu
caused the Gang to flow from his feet only bore it on Its head as iva. The one truth, tattva, alone takes
different roles as taught by the triad of words of the Vishnusahasranma: bhtakt, etc. as explained by
Shankara/Anandagiri in the Pranopaniad. In fact in that upaniad it is Prajpati who takes the form of
Rudra and Viu.
Lie No. 7:
Sridhara too celebrates him as a realised guru. Amalananda too says that Siva dispels the sorrow of
samsara by imparting knowledge as DakshInAmUrthy, saluting Siva as a guru. Then he goes on to praise
Narasimha as saguna brahman using specific terms who dispels the ignorance of maya. So, he regards
Siva as the granter of knowledge of saguNa brahman and Vishnu as the saguNa brahman who dispels
the avidya of duality.. So, to advaitins, Siva is a guru who leads one to saguNOpAsaNa, which is
meditation on vishNu. The comparison with Adi Shankara is to be noted.
The truth:
The above understanding is incorrect. Sridhara Swamin holds iva to be verily Iwara just as he holds
Viu. (See his invocatory verse on this to the Bhgavatam, Viupuram and Bh.gt commentary,
presented in the sequel). What is the use if Sridhara Swamin celebrates Shiva as a realized Guru when
these bloggers have caricatured Shiva as a tmasa devata subject to ppa karma and is required to
cleanse himself of karma even while drinking the hlhala poison? The Bhgavatam itself teaches the
non-difference of the trimurtis and the difference being only apparent on the basis of the three guas that
each of the trimurtis assume for the purpose of creation, etc. If Amalananda were to be really making that
distinction between Shiva and Narasimha, he will have to be deemed to be ignorant of Advaita. Nowhere
in advaita is it admitted that jnnam and moka are different events or given by different entities. The
Pranopaniat ends with the six disciples who have now become aparoka Jnnins paying obeisance
with gratitude to the Acrya Sage Pippalda. Shankara says there (6.8):


22

, ;


Translation: And they, worshipping him, said: Thou, indeed, art our fatherthou who hast taken us
across our ignorance to the other shore. Adoration to the supreme rishis! Adoration to the supreme
rishis!
Bhyam: It is being stated what they said while worshiping his feet by offering handfuls of flowers and
saluting him with their heads: You indeed are our father, since you have generated through knowledge a
(fresh) birth in Brahman that is eternal, ageless, deathless and fearless. Since it is you who, with the help
of the raft of knowledge, have ferried us across ignorance or false knowledge as though across an
ocean itself, infested with birth, old age, death, disease, sorrow, etc., which are like sea animals to the
other shore of the boundless ocean of nescience, called emancipation (moka), consisting in absolute
cessation of rebirth; therefore your fatherhood towards us is more justifiable than that of the others
(i.e.our real fathers). The other father, who begets the body alone, is yet the most worshipful in the world,
what to speak of one who guarantees absolute fearlessness? This is the purport.//
One can easily see that the Upaniat itself is teaching that the Acrya bestows the jnnam which itself
results in moka thereby refuting the claim that Viu alone grants moka.
In several places across the Bhyas Shankara has reiterated that there is nothing to be done/happen
between aparoka jnna and moka. Jnnam is moka as per advaita. Here is just one more such
specific example from the BSB 1.4.4 (samanvydhikaraam):
(. . )
(. . --)

(. . -) ; ,

23

(. . --) (. . -)

(.

--)


The gist of the highlighted phrases: The cited shruti passages obviate the need for any other thing to be
done as moka is coterminous with brahmavidyprpti. The shrutis teach that the fruit of Atmajnna, is
none other than the removal of the obstacle (ajnna) to moka. Removal of ajnana through gaining jnana
alone is what is required for moka. This is because the jivas svarpa itself is muktasvarpa, Brahman.
He has to only discover it by knowledge. Hence there is no need for anyone to give/grant moka
subsequent to the gaining of the jnna. In fact in the Br.up. 1.4.10 Shankara has settled the issue that
gods cannot cause any obstruction to a person to get moka who has secured the Self-knowledge. This
is enough proof for the fact that there is no intermediary agent between Atma jnnam and moka in
Advaita. http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_giitaa/IshvaragItAkUrmaP.html?lang=hi

.
This verse from the Krmapura identifies Jnana as the one that results in mukti: The adjective to jnana
itself is vimuktidam divyam. [liberating knowledge]
Above all the Mundakopanisat 3.2.1 teaches that a mumuku worshiping a Jnni becomes himself a
mukta:



1. He, the Knower of the Self, knows that Supreme Abode of Brahman, which shines brightly and in
which the universe rests. Those wise men who, free from desires, worship such a person
transcend the seed of birth.
,
, ,

24

, ,
(?)
Shankara says in the above commentary that whoever, desiring nothing in the world aspires for
liberation alone, and worships a Self-realized person as one would the Supreme God, will be free from
the cycle of birth and death.
The above Upaniad / Shankara also teach that there is no specific deity that can be the Para deva. If
one specific deity like Viu alone were to be meant, then the teaching of worshiping any Jnani would be
contradicted. If Shankara had Viu alone as the Para Deva, then his commentary (param devam iva)
as one would the para deva would be of no use. The Upaniad never imposes or compels that one
should worship viu alone for liberation. Nor Shankara does that anywhere. It is thus the purport of the
Upaniad and Shankara that any Jnani is fit to be placed under the Para Deva template and worshiped
for Moka. For example in the Kenopaniad 3.12, Um Haimavath is admitted to be a Jnani since she
knows that Yaka and whom Indra meditated upon and she alone revealed to him the identity of that
Yaka. Shankara says she, Rudrapatn, is verily vidy, Jnnam:

One who meditates

on her as one would the Supreme God attains liberation and the upaniad says Indra attained. She is
verily Brahman as per the Padmapuraas instruction to the true vaiava. Also, Um is the form in which
Iwara has manifested to bless Indra in that Upaniad and hence as per ankara is verily Iwara.
ankara has said in the BSB that Iwara, out of my, takes a form to bless the upsak. And all forms
that so bless the upsaka are verily Iwara. Similarly are Yama of the Kahopaniad, Uddlka and
vetaketu of the Chandogya 6th ch. Sanatkumara (the upaniad itself gives the epithet Bhagavan to
Sanatkumara) and Narada of the Ch.7th ch., Prajapati and Indra of the Ch.8th ch., Bhgu and Varua of
the Taittiriya, etc. including Yajnavalkya, Janaka, Ajtaatru etc. of the Bhadrayaka, etc. are all Jnanis
when meditated/worshiped upon as the Supreme God will bestow the liberating knowledge. When such is
the view of the Upanishad and Shankara, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that iva, the Jnani,
the Supreme God himself will pass on the aspirant to Viu for liberation.

25

So there is no substance in the bloggers claim that Shiva, a Jnani and Guru, when
meditated/worshiped, will lead to sagua Brahman Viu, for further processing of the mumuku. Such
ideas are simply rejected by the Upaniad and Shankara. The vision of the Upaniad is broad and never
bigoted. Now let us see what the blogger really wants to say when he makes this statement:
// Amalananda too says that Siva dispels the sorrow of samsara by imparting knowledge as
DakshInAmUrthy, saluting Siva as a guru. Then he goes on to praise Narasimha as saguna brahman
using specific terms who dispels the ignorance of maya. So, he regards Siva as the granter of
knowledge of saguNa brahman and Vishnu as the saguNa brahman who dispels the avidya of duality.//
According to the above statement:
1. //iva dispels sorrow of samsara by imparting knowledge.// Now, what is this knowledge
about? According to Advaita the cause of samsara-sorrow is ignorance of ones true nature. The
remedy for it is the knowledge of ones true nature. If iva has imparted this knowledge, samsrasorrow is dispelled and nothing else is required as per the various quotes provided from the
bhya above.
2. //Saguna Brahman Narasimha dispels the ignorance of maya. // Since ignorance has already
been dispelled by Dakimrti, what is left for Narasimha to do? Is Narasimha ending up beating
a dead horse?
3. Now after these two above statements the blogger makes another statement: // So, he regards
Siva as the granter of knowledge of saguNa brahman and Vishnu as the saguNa brahman who
dispels the avidya of duality// One can see that 1 above is contradicted by the first half of this 3rd
statement. In 1 above he said iva dispels sorrow by granting knowledge. Now he says what
iva has done is: give the knowledge of sagua Brahman. That is the contradiction. Narasimha
dispels ignorance of my in the 2nd statement. In the 3rd statement latter half he says Narasimha
dispels avidya of duality. Avidya of duality itself is my and is the cause of samsra-sorrow. If
this sorrow is dispelled by knowledge by iva, there is no need for anything else to be done. Not

26

realizing how confused he is, the blogger goes on to somehow push in his confused ideas into
the two verses of Amalananda and by hook or crook make him a bigoted vaiava.
Moreover Amalnanda quotes the Yajavalkya Smti while commenting on the 4th invocatory verse of
the Bhmati where he prays to Surya, Skanda and Ganapati and says they are vivavandy and
sarvasiddhividhyins.

The

smti

cited

is:

. . [By always worshiping ditya, Skanda and Gaapati one


attains siddhi.] The Mitkara commentary on the verse says: One attains moka through tmajna by
worshiping daily ditya, Skanda and Mahgaapati in the prescribed manner. It never says here that it is
only by worshiping Viu that one gets moka. Thus by citing this smti in support of the Bhmati,
Amalnanda proves he is not a vaiava of the bloggers brand. Also, by this smti the bloggers claim
that all smtis admit Viu paratvam alone too stands refuted.
The Yajavalkya smti, in the Yatidharmaprakaraam 4 says:

144 ||
[Just as one space (ether) becomes different in different pots, etc. so too the tman though One only,
becomes many akin to the one moon appearing as reflected in many water bodies. ]
These are typical Advaitic examples found in the Bhya and Gaudapada krik. Shankara also cites
the above example from the Amrtabindupaniad in the BSB 3.2.18. For several of the verses in that
section of that Smti, like the kind of contemplation a Yati is to engage in, the commentary gives
completely advaitic interpretation of brahmtmaikya.
Amalnanda makes no such difference either. He is only stating Narasimha as the sacchidnanda
svarpa, which indeed is the fruit of Atmajnnam, which epithet applies to the name Shankara he has
used in the earlier verse: am = (Atma)sukham karoti iti shankara mukti sukha prada. Thus, both
Dakimrti (Shankara/Shiva) and Narasimha are of the same nature: satsukhdvayavapu. In fact the

27

word Dakimrti itself means embodiment of Jnana-Ananda. Amalnanda by using that name is also
implying the prama for that word Dakimrti: In the authoritative commentary Parimaa. Sri
Appayya Dikita cites the Shvetavataropaniad:
Ajta ityevam kacid bhru prapadyate rudra yat te dakiam mukham tena mm phi nityam [4.21]
[It is because Thou, O Lord, art birthless, that some rare soul, frightened by birth and death, takes
refuge in Thee. O Rudra, may Thy benign (dakiam) face protect me forever!]
[This upaniadic statement is another glaring proof for Bhavas vatatvam and his not being a
created deity.]
For non-advaitins the concept of Dakmrti is not well-founded in the upaniads. They do not admit
the vetvataropaniad as depicting iva/Dakimrti. They consider the Dakimrtypaniad to be
bogus. Thus, Amalanandas invoking that name and identifying Shankara with that mrti is the
fundamental disqualification for being called a vaiava. Most importantly, for Amalananda Hari is nondifferent from Hara, as he explicitly says this in his invocatory verse to the stradarpaam. There are
such verses in the Advaita sampradya as viuddha jnna dehya.. [even though this verse is in the
prvammms work):
http://www.shaivam.org/marati/smi_sk_daxinm.htm




[The above verse describes the form of Dakimrti as Anandarpa and the scene where he is seated
surrounded by sages seeking Self-knowledge.] The entire set of verses is chanted by traditional Advaitins
along with the Dakimrti aakam every day after the prasthnatraya classes, with namaskarams after
every verse.

28

By just mentioning that name Dakimrti and equating it with Shankara, Amalnanda is conveying
that he holds Shiva to be verily the Supreme Brahman. He has already done that in his invocatory verse:
Hari-hara-vigraham dadhnam. The equating Shankara and Dakimrti by Amalnanda has its basis
in the famous verse of the Mdhavya Shankara Vijaya which is an abridgement of an earlier, now not
extant, Bhat Shankara Vijaya:


[In order to redeem the suffering humanity from samsra, Lord Paramewara who is seated under the
Banyan tree teaching the Atmatattva through silence, maunam, gave up the maunam and left his seat
under the tree and came down to the world in the form of Shankaracharya.]
The reference to a scene such as the above where iva seated under the banyan tree and with his legs
also positioned in popular pictures of Dakimrti imparting the Atmatattvam to munis is found in the
Srimadbhgavatam too in the Dakayajam episode.
It is well known that Dakimrti teaches by silence. Amalananda is having all this in mind when he
identifies Dakimrti with Shankara. In Advaita when any Guru or God is admitted as dispelling
ignorance by imparting the knowledge, it goes without saying that he is also imparting liberation. Advaita
holds that it is Brahman that is never-bound, ever-liberated, nityamukta svabhvam, that appears as a
samsrin out of ignorance. Knolwedge alone is sufficient and needed to dispel that ignorance to enable
the aspirant realize his nityamukta svabhva. Thus for advaitins there is no other entity who gives
moka.
The Dakimrtyupaniad is available for reading, with translation by Alladi Mahadeva Sastry:
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/dast/dast16.htm
http://www.shaivam.org/sanskrit/ssudakshinamurti.pdf

29
What the blogger says: //So, he regards Siva as the granter of knowledge of saguNa brahman and
Vishnu as the saguNa brahman who dispels the avidya of duality.. So, to advaitins, Siva is a guru who
leads one to saguNOpAsaNa, which is meditation on vishNu. The comparison with Adi Shankara is to be
noted.//
is only laughable. He claims to have a thorough knowledge of advaita and this is what he produces in
evidence

for

such

claims!!

For

advaitins

such

as

Sridhara Swamin, Shiva is apavargaprada (mokaprada) which is jnna phalam. No advaitin admits that
worship of Shiva leads to sagunopasana on Vishnu. Adishankara in his famous Dakshinamurti stotram
speaks of the Lord as dispelling avidya through jnana and thereby releasing one from samsra (see third
verse). In the second verse there Shankara says that this mrti is the one that creates the world. In
advaita there is no real difference between Guru and Bhagavn. The famous verse that advaitins chant
is:
[The Guru is Brahm, Viu and
Mahevara. He is verily the Parabrahman. Obeisance to the auspicious Guru.] Since Advaitins hold
Shankara to be verily Shiva, for them he is the deliverer from samsra through jnana. That is what is to
be noted through Amalanandas identifiying Dakimrti with Shankara. Also, AmaInanda is aware of
the Toakakam line: bhava eva bhavn(I am perfectly convinced that You (Shankaracharya) are
verily Bhava (iva)). Since Amalnanda has come in the proper Shnkara sampradya he knows what
status Shankara is accorded therein.
In the BGB 13.18 Shankara says the Lord Vsudeva is the paramaguru:

,

,

Here too Shankara brings out the fact of surrendering to the Guru itself results in moka.
In the bhya for the first verse of the 4th chapter of the Mandkya krik where the word Nryaa
occurs in the Bhya, Shankara says it is Achrya pj:
[Gaudapda pays obeisance to the chrya in order to accomplish the desired goal of writing this work].

..

[ By paying respects to the


Teacher, the essential Advaita Tattva is intended to be brought out in this chapter.] Here Shankara
himself uses the word Ivara, Nryaa, but takes him to be the Achrya, just as he said Vsudeva is the

30

Paramaguru in the BGB shown above. So there is no truth in the claim that in Advaita iva is the guru
who gives jnnam and Viu is the one who gives moka.
In fact if any, Amalanandas two verses convey that for him Shankara and his iadevat Narasimha are
non-different. ankaram ankarcryam keavam bdaryaam. Stra-bhyaktau vande bhagavantau
puna puna. [Shankaracharya is verily iva and Bdaryaa Veda Vyasa is verily Keava. I bow to
both these Gods who have authored the bhya and the brahma sutras respectively.] is the verse all
advaitins chant every day. [In the sequel is pointed out Amalananda using this theme in his invocation in
the stradarpaam.] That is the message he gives through the two verses. Also, by holding Vcaspati
Misra an aparokajnni, Amalnanda fails to emerge as a vaiava of the bloggers brand. Why? It is
simply because Amalananda holds a liberal iva bhakta, who has offered his obeisance to Bhava in the
beginning and to Paramevara at the end, and a mere scholar an aparokajnni thereby transgressing
the rule laid down by the bloggers that only a Viu bhakta can become a jnani and certainly a iva
bhakta can never, unless through the channel of Viu. So, apart from the Shruti failing the bloggers,
Amalananda whom they hoped will rescue them, too, has ditched them. Such is the lot of bigots.

Lie No. 7
Let us take them one by one. What does Amalananda say to the Saiva verses in bhAmati?
The Truth: The verse is by no means a aiva verse. Viu Himself has done the stuti of iva and thus
any Siva stuti is happily vaiava as well. If Vcaspati Misra were to be a aiva, he would not be paying
obeisance to Surya and to Veda Vyasa by specifically identifying him as a special avatra of Bhagavn
Hari. In fact he does not add this epithet even to Bhava. That way one can argue that he was a liberal
vaiava because he is liberal in using that bhagavn epithet to Hari rather than Bhava.
Lie No. 8
Ans. Amalananda comments thus:
ShaDbhiriti Ishvarasya ShaDangAni purANoktAni sarvaj~natA tRRiptiranAdibodhaH svatantratA nityamaluptashaktiH |
acintyashaktishca vibhorvidhij~nAH ShaDAhura~NgAni maheshvarasya ||
iti | avyayAni vAyupurANe paThyante j~nAnaM vairAgyataishvaryaM tapaH satyaM kShamA dhRRitiH |
sraShTRRitvamAtmasaMbodho hyadhiShThAtRRitvameva ca |

31
avyayAni dashaitAni nityaM tiShThanti sha~Nkare || iti
vedasya ShaDa~NgAni niruktAdIni | avyayAni ca cAdayaH |
Translation: The six limbs (characteristics) of Ishvara (Siva) are given in the purANa as omniscience,
satisfaction, beginningless intelligence, independence, undwindling prowess, unfathomable power, are
declared by those who know the rules as the six limbs of Maheshvara. The undiminishing qualities are
declared in the vAyu purANa as knowledge, state of being detached, lordship, austerity, truth, patience,
firmness, creatorship, knowledge of the Atman, rulership, these are the ten indestructible ones that exist
in Shankara. The six limbs of Vedas are the nirukta etc. The indeclinables in the Veda are the ca-kAra,
etc.
So, the logic is very clear. Amalanandas approach appears to be to reconcile the author of bhAmatis
opinion that Siva is eternal (shAsvataH). However, he has quoted several vAyu purAna verses which
state that Siva is a sarvaj~na, who is self-satisfied (blissful in meditating on the self), etc.
The Truth:
Amalananda never does any reconciliation for he sees no conflict whatsoever. It is only an expression of
the bloggers bigotry that he imagines, nay, deliberately superimposes, a non-existing conflict and comes
up with a reconciliation which is also non-existent. For an advaitin that he is, by identifying Dakshinamurti
with Shankaracharya there is no conflict with his iadevat bhakti to Narasimha. Narasimhas slaying of
Hiranyakaipu is accomplished not without the destruction-power of iva. That is the teaching Veda
Vyasa gives in the MB soon after the war in the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna. The essence of
both Shiva and Narasimha is one and the same: sacchidnanda vapu. And the quoting the Vyupura
verses is not by grace but by his wholehearted commitment to elucidate the Bhmati verse to bring out
the glory of Bhava to his readers. If he had any conflict really, he would not have chosen to write a
commentary on the Bhamati.

After all there is no compulsion on anyone to write a commentary.

Amalnanda, who has known the Shnkara bhyam, has only cited those Vyupura verses keeping
well in tune with what Shankara says in the BGB 3.37 for the word Bhagavn in the beginning of the
verse:
-
(. . --)

,
(. . --)

32

'Bhaga means the six attributes perfect dominion, might, glory, splendor, dispassion and salvation.
(V.P.6.5.74). That Vasudeva, in whom reside forever, unimpeded and in their fullness, the six qualities of
dominion, etc. and who has the knowledge of such subjects as creation etc., is called Bhaga-vn. 'He is
spoken of as Bhaga-van who is aware of creation and dissolution, coming and going of beings, ignorance
and Illumination of all beings' (ibid. 78).
What Shankara has said in the BGB with relation to the six attributes of Vsudeva, Brahman, is
perfectly matching with the six-fold attributes of Shiva, Brahman. The ten-fold indeclinables too apply to
iva, Brahman.

Lie No. 9:
The six angas/undiminishing qualities of Siva are described by the quoted vAyu purAna slOkas to be
jnAna, vairAgya, aishwarya (here taken as wealth of Brahman), tapaH, satyaM, kShama, dhRRitih among
others like beginningless intelligence, lordship etc. According to Amalananda, these 6 angas of Siva are
eulogised by the author of bhAmati.
The Truth:
The Kalpataru does not say that these are eulogy of iva. Amalananda simply cites the pramas for the
words of the Bhamati. By doing that he is only adding weight of authority to the words of the Bhmati.
Lie No.10
These 6 angas/undiminishing qualities need not imply supremacy in any way as these are qualities
possessed by all jnAnIs. Even the Gita slokas contain descriptions of a sAdhu to possess such qualities.
Neither do adjectives used like "beginningless intelligence, independence" etc signify paratva in advaita
as a jnAni is considered in the tradition to possess these qualities. Descriptions of "unfathomable power,
lordship, ruler, creatorship (of the prajas) etc" are also general adjectives used to praise Siva's status in a
relative sense and not in the absolute sense for the commentators.
The Truth:
The above is not anything but a vulgar expression of bigotry. First, it is to be borne in mind that those
verses occur in the Vyupura not in the way the sthitaprajna/gutta/bhagavadbhakta are described in
the BG chapters 2, 12 and 14. In these chapters and also in places in the MB where a Jnni/brhmaa

33
are described, no reference to Shiva or any other deity is made. A hypothetical Jnni is what is described
in those contexts. What stands explicitly highlighted is the Jnanis supreme dispassion and establishment
in Self-knowledge and samatvam in the face of ups and downs of life. These descriptions are purely
meant for mumukus to inculcate such qualities in them so that they will come to possess them naturally.
That is what Shankara says in the BGB 2nd ch. in this context. The BG does not talk of powers, etc. of a
Jnani. On the other hand in the Vyupura the verse occurs as a description of the attributes of
Bhagavan who is to be known. The similarity between the Viu pura verses cited by Shankara in the
BGB 3.37 and the one cited by Amalananda from the Vyupara can be appreciated by one who is free
of bigotry. Also, the jnni, if he is an upsaka and has attained to any of the special worlds, will have a
certain aishvarya, some powers to create bhogya vastus, but such powers are not nityam and definitely
not achintya. This shakti is admitted in Advaita for Ishwara, for example:
[Panchadashi 13.65] This shakti is what is called
avykta in the state prior to creation/manifestation/vykta. The Brahmasutra does not admit of worldcreation power to the Jnani. Sarvajnat and sarvaaktit are not admitted in Advaita for the jnni. He is
admitted to be a sarvavit according to the BG 15.19 which means he
knows everything in the sense that he realizes himself to be the self of everything, just as one knows all
by knowing the material cause as taught in the Chandogya up. 6 th ch. with three analogies of clay, gold
and iron. This is not the same as Ishwaras omniscience which involves knowing the specific karma of
each jiva, etc. which is the sole prerogative of Ishwara who is andi and (parimi) nitya in Advaita. The
Jnani is not such an andi and nitya entity like Ishwara who has to remain with the myopdhi forever as
he has to bring out the creation after every dissolution. The upsaka-Jnanis aishvaryam, etc. will end
once for all in pralaya of that kalpa and hence is not nitya as stated in the Vyupura verses.

Lie No.11
Hence, Amalananda, by quoting these, is attempting a reconciliation of bhAmati to his personal
Vaishnava convictions. Note that as a commentator, he had to quote the slokas eulogising the 6 limbs of
Siva since the mUla Grantha referenced it. Amalananda does not however, describe Siva as saguna
brahman or add further comments of his own. But obviously, there seems to be no sattvika source
describing the 6 limbs of shiva, so he had to quote it from the vAyu purANa. It's telling that he doesn't
provide an explanation for those verses in his commentary though. Also, there were no shruti, itihAsa or
dharmashAstra that amalAnanda could provide.
The Truth:
Amalananda did not quote the Viupura verse (cited in the foregoing) for the six limbs of the term
Bhagavn since the Bhmati was specific with reference to iva. Hence Amalananda quotes the right

34
verses from the apt (non-sattva) source, just as Shankara did from the ivapura (non-sattva source) in
the VSN for the name Rudra (114). The bloggers bigotry is at the fore again. For him, if a verse from a
non-sattva purana is to be quoted, it has to be extolling viu alone and none else. Then it is justifiable to
quote it since that verse is saattvik even though it is from the tamasa purana. If it is quoted to bring out
facts about iva then that verse is tmasik [from tmasik portions of sattvapura], though from a sattva
purana!!

A fine case in point is Shankaras quoting from the Shivapurana to show Shiva is the

paramakraam for the word Rudra in the VSN bringing out the abheda. Finding that verse the most
fitting Shankara cited from that purana, giving out the etymology of that name Rudra at the same time
showing him to be Brahman. No amount of protest from the bloggers will work since that verse is explicitly
stated as one of the eight names of Shiva-pratipdakam in that very purana. Not able to bear Veda Vyasa
putting such verses in his works such as the Mahabharata and other puranas, the blogger is somehow
searching for an alibi to portray Amalananda as a vaiava. He has already been proved wrong by
Amalananda himself.
This sarcastic remark of the blogger:
// But obviously, there seems to be no sattvika source describing the 6 limbs of shiva, so he had to quote
it from the vAyu purANa.//
reveals his hatred for iva. It can very well be stated that ankara cites from the ivapura, not finding
an equvivalent etymological verse elsewhere to explain the name Rudra in the VSN and does not quote
any ruti or dharmaastra in support. If citing from the Vyupura, is supposed to be a disgrace and
therefore revealing the stature of Lord iva, then equally so is citing from the ivapura to explain a
name of Viu a disgrace and therefore revealing the stature of Viu.
Amalananda has, in his concluding mangala slokas to the Kalpataru, paid obeisance to that Supreme
Brahman that bears the forms of Hari-Hara, thereby declaring the Advaitic idea of saguna Brahman which
can be either Hari or Hara, and again ditching the blogger by bringing out a non-sattvika idea of the
Mahabharata and many other puranas throwing out the vaiava-status foisted on him by the bloggers.
And there is no need for him to write on that commenting on the word Bhava since it is well known to
Vedantins. When Amalananda has explicitly written that Vcaspati Misra has well protected the Vaidika
mrga in his one benedictory verse, it speaks volumes of Amalanandas appreciation of and confidence
in Vcaspatis beliefs and commitment to the Veda. Amalananda reiterates it in his concluding
benedictory verse informing us that Vcaspati Misra was a Brahmavit (mukta) having secured the
aparoka jnnam (moka). When the Upaniad holds a Brahmavit as verily Brahman, these bloggers
want Amalananda to paint him in poor light. Amalananda will never commit that sin of offending a
Brahmavit. In the two Mundaka verses (3.1.10 & 3.2.1) the Upanishad gives the status of the one who
caters to the needs of the four types of the bhaktas in the 7 th ch. of the BG to the Brahmavit. To the great

35
chagrin of the bloggers, Amalananda has announced the brahmavittvam of Vcaspati Misra who is a
ivabhakta which is an impossible prospect according to those who are bigots. Amalananda need not
expatiate on the word Bhava as he knows that is enough for true vaidikas. He does not foresee any
bigot reading his work and hence did not provide any more explanation. The charge that he did not
provide quotes from any shruti, itihAsa or dharmashAstra to substantiate the six-limb characteristic
applies to Shankara too when he quoted just the Viupurana verses and left at that. Only because
Amalananda could readily find those verses which perfectly match the Bhamati specification he cited
them and left at that. Saying more would be a waste of time and effort since there is no rule that the sixfold characteristics of Bhava or Bhagavn should be stated in different sources. In fact the Vyupura
verses are iva-specific whereas the Bhagavn verses are general.
Lie No.12:
He does not comment directly on the statement Veda and Bhava are eternal because some vedAntins
have the practice of ignoring certain statements without criticizing them if they are commenting on the
same work. Rather, Amalananda chooses reconciliation.
The Truth:
By simply citing the two verses from the Vyupurna, Amalananda has conveyed through the puric
verses that are self-explanatory that Bhava is vata. The verses say: all those glories eternally inhere
in Shankara/Maheshvara. If the dharmin himself is not eternal how can the dharmas stated for that
dharmin be eternal? nityam tihanti shankare. Since these attributes are of Bhagavan, the nitya Ivara
who has to be eternally present as long as samsara is there and samsrins are there, there is absolutely
no question of the dharm of these dharmas being ephemeral.

Thus there is neither ignoring nor

reconciling adopted by Amalananda. In fact for the shruti passage eko nryaa. Brahmnanda in
the Advaitasiddhi commentary says: what stays in the state prior to creation is the myopahita chinmtra.
In that updhi all those limbs/indeclinables remain in a nascent state. The commentator does not admit
Nryaa as the entity understood by the bloggers. The viurpam, like rudra and brahma()-rpam, will
manifest once creation manifests. If the dharm (Bhava) is held to be avata, then there is no way the
dharm (Bhagavan) of the Viupura definition (quoted by Shankara in BGB 3.37) too cannot be
avata. The ruti and Veda Vysa have given no room for bigotry thereby upholding and endorsing
forever Appayya Dikitars unfalsifiable, unmatched, words of supreme wisdom:
//Sri Appayya Dikitar has very clearly stated why he undertook the task of bringing to light Shivasupremacy:
// viurv ankaro v ruti-ikhara-girmastu ttparya-bhmi
na-asmkam tatra vda prasarati kimapi spaam-advaita-bhjm |

36
kintu-a-dvea-ghnala-kalita-hdm durmatnm durukt
bhanktum yatno mama-ayam nahi bhavatu tato viu-vidvea-ank ||

The meaning of the above beautiful verse is:

'I have not the slightest objection, to anyone coming to any conclusion, that the spirit of the Vedas and the
Vedantas, declare either Vinu or iva as the First God. I am a follower of the Advaita doctrine. I have
no difference between iva and Viu. But if in order to establish Viu as the main God, if somebody
starts abusing iva or hates him, I cannot bear it. There are as many proofs or pramas in the Vedas,
Vedntas, Puranas and gamas to establish that iva is a mighty God, as there are to prove that Viu is
a powerful one. However, I am propagating my religion and indulging in debate and disputation, only to
persuade everyone not to hate iva. Let no one have the slightest doubt that I either hate or wish to
denigrate Lord Viu simply because I praise the grace and greatness of Lord iva.'

The sublime devotion of Dkita to Lord Viu is fully seen from his great work 'Varadarja stava' where
he has sung in ecstatic poetry about Lord Varadarja of Knchipuram. Vaiavas declare that Vinu is
the supreme being and that iva has a lower status, being a mere jiva. r Dkita however proves in his
'Ratna-traya-park' that iva, Viu, Ambik, all the three are the same, viz., the supreme reality, and
proves it with the pramas taken from the puras, vedas and gamas. //
The above is quoted from the book: 'Sri Appayya Dikshita' (p.66,67) by Dr.N.Ramesan, IAS.
Lie No.13:
We must note that the author of bhAmati has eulogised Siva in conjunction with the Veda. However,
Amalananda chooses not to talk about this connection of Siva with Veda. He merely describes Siva in the
best way possible (as a jnAni) and ignores the comparison with the Veda because it does not suit his
beliefs (which are Vaishnava).
The Truth
The above thinking is wrong. Amalnanda has displayed his own Hari-Hara abheda belief in several ways
in his own verses. In the beginning set of verses he devotes two verses, 2 and 3, to show Dakimrti
(ankara) and his iadevat Narasimha are non-different: they perform the same task of dispelling
samsara. In the concluding set of verses (at end of the Kalpataru) he pays obeisance to the Supreme
Brahman as the one that takes the two forms of Hari and Hara. These are two explicit evidences of his

37
ideal Advaitic belief which is never bigotry and far removed from vaiavism. As pointed out earlier, there
is no need to talk about the eternality of the Veda and iva since it is prasiddha to Vedntins and not to
bigots. His another expression of the eternality of Hara is found in his above stated concluding invocatory
verse on Brahman bearing the Hari-Hara vigraha. If he thinks, as the blogger grudgingly suggests, that
Hara is not eternal, then it cannot spare Hari from the same fate for he has said that in a single compound
word: hariharavigraham and not by using a dual form: hariharavigrahau in the dviteey. For Amalananda
Hari and Hara are inseparable.
If Amalananda was a vaiava and a believer in the pcartra, would he ever hold / pay obeisance to
that Brahman which (is really beyond forms) merey assumes the form of Hari? This means that
Brahman is not Hari really. If the follower of the Pcartra accepts this, then the immediate
consequence is: it is apasiddhnta, that is, it is against the siddhnta which he is following. The other
inevitable and disastrous consequence for him is: Just like Hara, whom the pcartra holds to be a jva
just to save their siddhnta, Hari too will have to be a jva. This is because Hari who is not really
Brahman but only a form of Brahman will have to be a formed, created, entity. In fact the vaiava
siddhnta survives on the belief that the Vedntic Brahman is none other than Viu/Hari.
Dr.B.N.K.Sharma in his book History of Dvaita school of Vedanta and its literature says about the
interpretation of Mdhva of a certain Aitareya rayaka word pra as Viu, is extremely a strained
one and not convincing. On the other hand, here we have Amalananda holding Brahman to be neither
Hari nor Hara really. Yet the blogger just to save his sinking ship of early Advatins were vaiavas wants
to somehow make Amalananda a vaiava who accepts the Pcartra!! Just to console the blogger let
us grant that Amalananda happily accepts that version of Pcartra where Hari, just like Hara, is not
Brahman.
The name Hariharan is a common household name among smrtas of all regions in the South. The
Sabarimalai Ayyappan is famous as Hariharaputran. Amalananda being the abhedavdin in the tradition
of Veda, Vedavyasa, Shankara and Vcaspati Misra, he openly gives expression to his faith. If Vcaspati
Misra had been a aiva of the bloggers conception, he would not have said in the subsequent verse that
he pays obeisance to Veda Vysa who is the jnnaaktyavatra of Bhagavn Hari. He could have very
well composed the verse without even bringing in Hari. That is sufficient to prove his ideal Advaitin HariHara abheda vdin status.
Here is what Amalananda says in his invocatory verse to his stradarpaam:

38
[Having bowed to Vysa and ankara who are Paramewara-s, the Supreme Iwara-s, verily the sportive
forms of Hari (vysa) and Hara (ankara), I commence exposition of the blemishless mirror of the vednta
stra that has captured the image of Vcaspatis vision/intellect/bhmat.]
Yet again, not satisfied of equating Hari and Hara in two places explicitly in the Kalpataru, Amalnanda
jubilantly goes on to give that Vedic theme of Hari-Hara abheda in an even more appealing manner in the
stadarpaam. He applies the epithet ll vapu, the form taken effortlessly, to play out a game of
Vedanta stra niraya] equally to Hari and Hara. And most significantly he applies the Paramea
(Parameau in dual number) epithet too in equal measure to both Vysa and ankaracharya and
culminates that equation in combining the duos llvatras names/entities Vysa-ankara in a
compound word. His obeisance is also applied equally to both of them. By saying both are avatras of
Hari and Hara, Amalananda is expressing the Hari-Hara abheda by using the Paramea epithet to both
equally. No vaiava of the Ramanjua brand would have the Vedantic vision, like Veda Vyasa, to
address both Hari and Hara as Paramewara as taught by the Padmapura.
By this, Amalananda is refuting the bloggers claim that only Hari can take forms/bodies at will and Hara
cannot. Actually taking a form/body at will is a yoga siddhi too and even asuras had that. rpanakh,
Mrcha, Rvaa had all this power. Ptan, and other asuras that Kamsa sent to kill young Ka too
had these powers. In any case Amalananda is not talking about the power but the fact of Vyasa and
Shankaracharya being incarnations of Hari and Hara who are Parameshwara, that is, sagua Brahman,
to him. Amalanandas another blow to the bloggers bigotry is: He holds Shankaracharya, an incarnation
of iva, to be Paramewara. By this he is: (a) showing Guru is non-different from Iwara and (b) iva
(incarnation thereof) is Paramewara. Both these are not to the liking of the blogger and most
unbecoming of a vaiava. No vaiava would commit such a blasphemy as the above. While the
blogger is deluded in thinking Amalananda is not allowing eternality to Bhava, here we have this author of
the Kalpataru holding Bhava to be verily Paramevara. One can see what a severe blow the vaiava
Amalananda has dealt to the bloggers.

His devotion to the great Vedntin Vcaspati Misra, the aparoka Jnni, is expressed yet again by
acknowledging his primary contribution to the new work he takes up thereby saying that he is not
deviating from the Bhmati. By that verse Amalananda is confirming the authenticity of the traditional
verse chanted everyday by Advaitins on the oneness of Vyasa-Shankara, the authors of the stra and
bhsya. It is not the handiwork of a later day Advaitin like Vidyaranya or Appayya Dikita, the two most
hated persons for the bloggers. Amalnanda has, by that verse, also pulverized the reconciliation theory
of the bloggers. When the author himself is a confirmed Hari-Hara abheda vdin being a genuine
Vedantin, by addressing them as Paramewara, why would he perform gimmicks in commenting on

39
Vcaspatis verse on the eternality of Veda and Bhava, which reflects this famous saying:
[The Veda is indeed Shiva, Shiva indeed is Veda, the one who studies / recites the
Veda is verily Sadiva.][ http://astroclasses.com/video.php ] In fact Vcaspati Misra is also an eminent
Hari-Hara abheda vdin, being an Aparoka Jnni, verily Brahman. His addressing Hari as Bhagavn in
the invocatory verse is incontrovertible proof of this. For him Bhava is vata even as Bhagavn Hari is.
Lie No.14:
Contrast this with shaivas like Appayya Dikshita who take this bhAmati verse as central to his argument in
Sivadvaita Nirnaya, saying vAcaspati knew that Shankara intended shiva-paratva. Hence, he salutes
Bhava (Rudra) as eternal in the opening invocatory verses.
The Truth:
See on an earlier page to find out what compulsions were there for Appayya Dikitar cited from a book by
Sri Ramesan IAS. Also, there is absolute substance for Appayya Dikitar to say that since Shankara has
said in the VSN for the word Rudra: iva parama kraam [iva is the Supreme Cause.], Shankara has
cited the Jbla Upaniad in the BSB where Rudra is Brahman and the atarudryam is taught as the
moka kraam, Shankaras citing of several Hari-Hara abheda verses in the VSN, etc.
Lie No.15:
217.

How does akhaNDAnanda explain this mangala slOka in his commentary?

Ans: AkhaNDAnanda essentially repeats Amalanandas commentary. But in addition, he chooses to


address the comparison between the Vedas 6 limbs and Sivas 6 limbs directly by stating the following:
"vedAntashAstrasya vyAkhyAtRRitvAt svasya vedArtha sphUrtyarthaM sva-upAsya-Ishvara-prasAdasiddhyarthaM ca yathAkramaM vedam IshvaraM ca samAnavisheShaNaM kRRitvA namaskaroti -ShAdbhiriti | evaM vedasya shAshvatatvam | tacca vedasya-apauruSheyatva-vAdimatam-AdAyabodhyam |"
Translation: To secure the manifestation (in the author's intellect) of the meanings of the Veda and to
obtain the grace of one's upAsya-devatA, the author worships the Veda and Rudra who is called Ishvara
Note the words here. First, AkaNDAnanda separates the prayers into two which is demarcated by
yathAkramam he says that the author of bhAmati first prays to the Veda for its manifestation in the
authors intellect. Next, he says another prayer is made to sva-upAsya-Ishvara-prasAda-siddhyartham
Here, he says sva-upAsya Ishvara prasAda. AkanDAnanda is pointing out that the author of bhAmati is
invoking the grace (prasAda) of Siva (Ishvara) who is the authors own upAsya mUrthy (sva-upAsya).
Here, Ishvara refers to the popular name of Siva who has that appellation by virtue of knowledge. It

40
does not mean saguNa Ishvara, but rather, the name of Siva as Ishvara. It can also mean the Lord
(Ishvara) worshipped by the author (sva upAsya), but context suggests that Ishvara refers to the name
of Siva.
The Truth:
There is no strength in the above opinion of the blogger. The prefix sva is to indicate that each person
has his own upsya mrti. Even a vaiava can have Rama or Krishna or Narasimha for his personal
upsana. When that is referred, definitely the sva prefix has to be used. That is what the commentator is
doing. Madhusudana gives such a choice in BG 12.6-7 by using the word v which means alternatively:


,

It could be the one with two or four hands and the infinite combinations and alternatives
are possible. In any case, as he points out that form is to be meditated upon intensely. There is the
requirement that the same form for a long period has to be meditated with ardor. Thus even for Viu
bhaktas there is this great variety available and the sva prefix is mandatorily to be used to refer to each
upsaka.
For Vcaspati Misra, Bhava is Iwara, Brahman. In the concluding invocatory verse to the Bhmati he,
by virtue of his being an aparokajnni, offers the puyam of composing the various works including this
one to Paramewara:

In his first invocatory verse he pays obeisance to the Param Brahman, the vivartopdna kraam. In the
bhava, paramewara verses he pays homage to the upsya Brahman, also called sagua Brahman in
Advaita: , (kenopanishat bhya 2.2).

Also

BSB 1.2.28. The term paramewara refers to sagua Brahman here. So


Akhandanandas reference is to the sagua Brahman. Thereby he agrees that Bhava is upsya
Brahman. [Advaita uses the terms upsya brahman and jeya Brahman to indicate the latter is the
nirgua and the former is sagua. Shankara has used the term Paramevara to indicate both the types
in

various

places

across

his

Bhyas.

[See

this

article

for

http://www.mediafire.com/view/z3kwt9h1kr87fem/Shankara_pref_deity.pdf ]
That Paramevara is sagua Brahman is also clear from this statement of Shankara:

exact

references:

41
In the BSB 1.2.32, the last stra in that 2 nd pda of the first adhyya is the vaivnara upsana
discussed. Shankara, in this stra cites the Jblopaniad and says therefore for the reason that a
place / location is specified in the ruti, it is quite reasonable that Paramevara can be taught as
located: The Jblaruti cited is available in this page:
http://tinyurl.com/ng4hkxh

That ruti has an allegorical reference to the famous Vrnas where Rudra is said to impart the traka
brahma knowledge to those dying and by which they get liberated:

The upaniad further says, as reply to another question:





By reciting the atarudrya one gets liberated since this mantra contains the names of that Immortal
being.
Amalananda, in his stradarpaam for this adhikarana says this is a teaching of the sagua Ivara, the
sarvakraa Brahman.
Thus, from all the above it is decidedly clear that:
1 Akhandanandas comment is apt and it refers to the upsya Ivara (Brahman)
2 That is the saguna Brahman
3 That is Paramevara
4 Shankara cites the Jblaruti which has Rudra, the ia/upsya devat of Vcaspati Misra as the
Devat that imparts the traka Brahman knowledge by which one becomes mukta and the atarudriyam
as the means for moksa
5 This is happily sagua Brahman that can result in krama mukti
6 This is quite in tune with Shankara citing the ivapuram for Rudra saying iva paramakraam
tallying with Amalanandas sagua Ivara sarvakraam.
7 This BSB is yet another proof for ankara admitting iva as sagua brahman apart from the
innumerable proofs he has cited in the VSN Bhyam.

42
8 The Jbla shruti contradicts the bloggers mistaken idea that in Advaita iva is only a guru whose
upsana leads one to Viu, the sagua brahman and in Advaita iva gives knowledge and Viu alone
gives moka. The upaniad itself says that those getting the Taraka Brahma instruction become muktas.
It nowhere brings in the agency of Viu in this. There is no basis in the Advaita bhyas for the bloggers
ideas. Nor are these ideas scriptural. Sridhara Swamins comment from the Bhgavatam too has been
cited here for iva being the destroyer of sins and grantor of mukti.
Akhandanandas invocatory verse too, like most others, pays obeisance to Anandarpa, advaya, Hari,
which is Nirguna Brahman. That is what is vedntavedyam for advaitins.
Adhysa bhya (Preamble to the BSB of ankara):
,
The sentence teaches that the knowledge of the tmatattvam that is asamsri, devoid of the distinctions
such as Brhmaa, katriya, beyond hunger, thirst, old age, death, etc. known through the Vednta, is
not required in the performing of enjoined duties since it (this knowledge of ones true nature) is useless
for such work and also such a Jnani will be ineligible to perform such actions since he has no desire to
accomplish, he himself being aptakma, tmakma.
Thus, the Vedntavedyam vastu in Advaita is not any sagua Brahman.
The icra of invoking the ia (sva-upsya) devat for prasda siddhi is a common practice and
nothing new in the above case. Akhandananda is merely pointing to this as every other commentator has
done, as in the several cases cited here.
Here is one more reason why the Hari of Akhandananda is Nirgunam Brahman only:
In the concluding commentary of his Rjuprakik to the Bhmats second stra commentary,
Akhandananda says:

[Thus it is quite appropriate that this stra (janmdyasya yata 1.1.2.2) even if the cause of creation,
sustenance and dissolution is the Brahman that is Pure Bliss by resorting to the svarpalakaa as well.]
svarpalakaa in Advaita is the Nirgua Brahman. His explanation of the stra just before concluding is
also to establish the Nirgua Chaitanyam by resorting to the akharthat by invoking the example of
the moon is pure luminosity [Atman/Brahman is Pure Consciousness/Bliss]. Akhandnandas invocation
is to the nandarpa advaya Hari Brahman. In the first line of this verse also he talks about the
Brahman (Hari) being the substratum of the world-appearance. In fact his first verse is such a nice
summarization of the first verse of the Dakimrti stotram (vivam darpaa.) where too the one

43
consciousness is stated to be the source of the world-appearance and it is that same consciousness
(Dakinamurti) that realizes the truth. There too the advayam word is present. The Advaitic idea of
Brahman alone, owing to its own ignorance appears to be a samsrin, and owing to its own realization
appears to be realeased is depicted in this verse where he says it is Hari. No vaiava of the R-brand
would do this: depict Brahman as the samsri owing to ignorance..Shankara cites a similar verse in the
VSN (for explaining the verse ......) for which no source has been specified:


[By his own My, deluding himself with the illusion of dvaita, Hari Himself comes to see himself endowed
with guas.] By citing this ankara has proved to be the foremost non-vaiava, viudve.
Madhusudanas invocatory verse in the Advaitasiddhi too is of this natue; he uses the word Viu.[Viu
rests having freed himself from samsra/avidy]
With such a typical advaitic import in his invocatory verse, by no means Akhandananda can be a
vaiava. The above idea is abhorred by any vaiava. Moreover, he, like most Advaitins of all times,
prays to Saraswati and Ganapati. This is also a mark of a non-vaiava.
Lie No: 16
The usage of sva upAsya shows the neutrality of akhanDAnanda in commenting that Ishvara is the
upAsya mUrthy for the author but not necessarily for the commentators.
The Truth:
There is nothing wrong in that. Each person can have his own upsya mrti. That does not hamper
Advaita jnnam.
Lie No.16.a
Moreover, akhaNDAnanda says in his own mangaLa shloka that Hari is veda/vedAnta vedyaH. If he was
a believer in Hari-Hara aikyatva, this shloka of vAcaspati would have been a perfect place to insert that
Shiva is also vedAnta-vedyaH. He refrains from doing so, and instead only says Siva was the upAsya for
vAcaspati-mishra.
The Truth:
If Hari is Vedntavedya for one, it can be iva for another, for the vedya, jneya, Brahman in Advaita is
always Nirguna Brahman, free of all updhis. [See Shankaras BGB 13.12 onwards..jeyam yat tat
pravakmi] The Veda-anta message for Advaitins is the Nirgua Brahman. When one says Hari /
iva is Vedanta vedya, what he means by those names is the Nirguna svarupam. Hence, there is no

44
need for the commentator to do any insertions which are uncalled for. The Jbla ruti cited by ankara
has Rudra to be the Vednta vedya. For an advaitin who reads his texts these things are quite natural; it
is only for these bloggers who have no background and training but only hostility these things arouse
curiosity resulting in conjectures. This page of the ivapuram contains the verse ankara quotes in the
VSN bhyam for the name Rudra (114). The verses 10 and 11 on that page teach that iva is the tattva
that is established in the vednta and hence vedaika vedya, and is the upabhmaam for the famous
mahnryopaniat mantra na karma na prajay.. where too occurs the name Rudra prior to this
k. (See the screen shot of the page below):

For ankara this tmasa puram is perfectly authoritative. Hence there is no use in bringing up that
issue while discussing advaitic works. Vedantins do not subscribe to the unvedic concept of tmasatva
of either whole or even parts of puras and Mahabharatha.

Lie No.17
218.

An objection can be raised as to whether we can take sva upAsya as Ishta devata aradhana, ie,

that akhanDAnandas chosen deity was Vishnu, but he had no objection to the worship of Siva as the
Saguna Brahman by the bhAmati author?

45
Ans. That does not stand for several reasons. Firstly, Ishta devata is an emotional concept devoid of
philosophy and hence does not arise in prasthAna trayI discussions.
Secondly, Amalananda chose to remain silent on the verse connecting Veda and Siva, his silence
implying a neutrality and indifference. And akhanDAnanda by following his commentary is not doing
anything different.
Thirdly, if indeed Siva had been accepted as saguNa Ishvara by the commentator, we would have seen
the

acknowledgement.

In

various

works

of

sarvajnAtman

and

sureshvara,

wherever

krishNa/vishNu/narasimha is mentioned, the commentators take pains to quote purAnic verses that
declare his supremacy in glorious terms and point out that this is saguNa brahman under sattva upAdhIs
directly. There is no mention of sva upAsya Ishvara or the like wherever vishNu is eulogised, rather, a
complete description of saguNa Brahman is given in the commentaries.
The Truth:
All that was said in this connection in the foregoing regarding Amalananda applies here too. Both the
commentators have neither remained neutral nor indifferent. Nor has anyone attempted any
reconciliation. This is only a desperate excuse by the bloggers to somehow deny ivaparatvam that is
undeniable by anyone whosoever. Also, by merely citing the verses from the puras to substantiate the
Bhmati the commentators have justified the Bhava-paratvam in glorious terms. The sva-upsya vara
adjective is not mandatory since the other term iadevat namaskra is widely used in commentaries at
the beginning of the work, as I have cited in the foregoing. Nor are the six limbs and ten indeclinables
stated by the Vyupura (just as the ivapura cited by ankara in the VSN) can ever become nonsattva updhis just because they are applied to iva. Only a bigot will try such gimmicks as the bloggers
are doing thinking that no one will find them out. Rudra when commented upon by ankara as the tamo
updhi of Brahman, the bloggers were jubilant under the delusion that ankara is branding Rudra as a
tmasika, unless exposed and the correct position of ankara along with Anandagiris vivdirpea
from the Pranopaniad was revealed. They fail to understand from that very commentary that their
understanding is wrong. But when Rudra in 114 is given the etymology through the ivapuram
explicitly saying iva paramakraam suddenly Rudra becomes free of all tamas even though the very
verse is from a tmasa pura!! One can see dozens of such specimens for bigotry all over their blogs.
Lie No.18:
In addition, when Sarvajnatman refers to "murAreH" as paramaM padam, commentators like Rama tirtha
first explain murAreH is krishna who destroyed the demon mura and then take time to state that he is the
saguNa brahman. However, note that for the bhamati's reference to "bhava", the commentators do not
even care to elaborate why Siva is known by that name.

46
Amalananda and AkhaNDAnanda in contrast, merely quote vAyu purAna slokas that talk of general
things like jnAna, vairAgya being Sivas limbs and make no mention of saguNOpAsaNa. This itself is
proof.
The Truth:
The above are only silly observations. In fact by merely citing the purnic verses, they are supplying two
other names of iva: ankara and Mahevara which are self-explanatory. One can object to the absence
of a commentary of the two verses by these commentators. Where is the limit to this?

If the meaning of

the term Bhava is not explained by the commentators, we have Jnanottama not explaining the meaning
of the term Hari in Surewaras first verse of the Naikarmyasiddhi. One can list many more such
examples. One can object to the silence on the part of the two commentators on the word Veda used by
Bhmati. Why did they not labor to give the etymology or other meaning for that word? This syndrome
the bloggers suffer from is called aokavanik nyya:
Rvaa imprisoned St in a particular garden which is named Aokavanam. Someone asked: when
there were so many gardens at his disposal, why did he place here in that garden?
http://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=a%C5%9Bo&lang=sans&iencoding=deva&action=

m. the rule of the grove of aoka trees (applied to cases in which a preference of any
particular thing among many cannot be accounted for, just as rvaa kept st in an aoka grove,
but might equally well have kept her in a grove of other trees)

By giving the specification of six limbs, etc. the Bhmati itself has given the various guas with which one
has to meditate on Bhava. That is what the very vyupurna is doing. In the puric context, the six-limb
verse is given out to show the devas that iva of this description is to be known. Thus, the very citing of
the two verses is the best commentary possible for that specification of the bhmati. Those guns, six
and ten, are mentioned for upsana and since it is a known fact there is no need for the commentators to
elaborate.

Lie No.19:
219.

Is there further proof in akhaNDAnandas commentary?

Ans. Yes. After introducing the purpose of the shlokas, akhaNDAnanda continues his commentary by
giving an explanation on the six angas and avyayas (indeclinables) in the Veda, after which he says:
evaM vedasya shAshvatatvam | tacca vedasya-apauruSheyatva-vAdimatam-AdAya-bodhyam |"

47
After following to the letter Amalanandas explanation see previously,
evaM bhavasya shAshvatatvaM prasiddhameva
First, he explains the eternality of the Veda by saying Thus is the Vedas eternality. That (the eternality)
has to be understood by accepting the apauruSheyatva of the Veda.
Then, he addresses the eternality of Siva by saying, In this manner, the eternality of Bhava is wellknown and ends it at that without explanation. By the words in this manner, what he means is that the
eternality of Siva is well-known or understood from the vAyu purAna verses which were quoted previously
by himself and Amalananda. And those verses only talk of Siva always situated in jnAna, vairAgya, etc.
which is true for all jnAnIs.
The Truth:
What has been said under Amalananda applies here too. The Jnani is not endowed with alupta shakti
and achintya shakti; creatorship, svatantrat, sarvajnatvam regarding the karmas of all jivas, which are
the prerogatives of the Supreme Iwara. Amalananda in his stradarpaam, for the very last adhikaraa
says this in conclusion. The aiwaryam of the upsaka jnnis is not unlimited like that of the Supreme
Lord. The puric verses say: nityam tihanti shankare/mahevare. For jnnis, that too for only those
who go to special lokas, these are present in a limited version, but not nityam; they end when their
prrabdha ends. For Iwara these are nityam and he has to remain through all creations till there is
samsra and samsrins. In the BG 4th ch. the Lord says: many are the births that have passed away, both
for Me and you. Why does the Lord say so? It is because as long as samsra lasts, he has to keep
taking bodies. That is the idea of vatatvam for sagua Brahman, which in advaita is not any particular,
definite, form. The commentator cites the verse to give the characteristics of Bhava from which the
vatatvam is inalienable. If one objects saying that the Vyupura verses are not sufficient to
establish eternality, then the Viupura verses Shankara cites in BGB 3.37 for the definition of
Bhagavn too will not be sufficient to establish eternality of Bhagavn. Also, those characteristics:
(. . --) can also be argued to
apply to a Jnani, relatively. If it is said the word samagrasya in this verse decidedly shows absoluteness,
then the word nityam in the Vyupura verses too decidedly shows these characteristics are absolutely
(not relatively) present in iva. In fact both Hari and Hara are themselves Hari-Hara abheda vdins since
both have said that they are non-different from each other. Veda Vyasa has made both of them say this
in different places and contexts. And Sridhara Swamin says this in a sweet verse, cited in the sequel.
Lie No.20:

48
So, while akhanDAnanda gives an explanation of his own for eternality of Veda, he abruptly leaves the
eternality of Siva by referencing the previously quoted vAyu purAna verses. We have already seen
Amalananda does not offer a commentary for the final verse.
This is enough to show that AkanDAnanda too did not regard Siva as Brahman, but as a guru. If it had
been a Saiva or Saiva advaitin commenting, one would expect the commentator to connect the eternality
of Veda with eternality of bhava. However, while Amalananda chooses to remain silent on this final line,
AkhanDAnanda takes eternality literally for the Veda, but links the eternality of Siva to vAyu purAna
slOkas that talk about his nature of always being situated in Atma-guNas. He separates the prayers to
Veda and Siva as well rather than forging a connection when the author of bhAmati specifically tries to
show a connection by talking about 6 limbs of both Veda and Siva.
Note also the explanation given for Vedas eternality. It is in the sense of apauruSheyatva. On the other
hand, akhaNDAnanda does not say that Shivas eternality is understood based on his position as Saguna
Brahman, vedAnta vedyaH etc.
The Truth:
There is absolutely no substance in the above observations excepting desperation and bigotry. Readers
can refer to what has already been said in the foregoing on many of these comments of the bloggers. Not
commenting on the part referring to Bhavas eternality is no defect since one can see that Amalnanda
has also not commented at all on the entire two last verses of Vcaspati Misra.

Amalananda abruptly stops commenting at the 5th verse and leaves out the above two verses. Does it
mean that Amalananda is indifferent to or avoiding these verses because of his alleged vaiava
following? There cant be a more silly observation than this which is what the blogger is pathetically
suggesting for Amalananda not commenting on the eternality of Bhava. For that matter there are verses
not commented on by Shankara in the Gaudapdakrik first chapter. There are chunks of mantras not
commented by Shankara in the Br.up. too. Sometimes one can see that they have been left out with the
comment that the meaning is clear. Sometimes even if that comment is not there, it is implied. Such is
what Amalananda has done.
Now, one can also point out, just for arguments sake, that Amalananda in his 3rd invocatory verse is not
even saying that his iadevat Narasimha is vata.
Those very verses cited from the Vyupura say that those 16 attributes are eternal in iva. Moreover
there is no need to labor to establish the nityatva, vatatva, of Bhava (unlike the Veda) since it is

49
extremely well known. The Kaivalya, vetavatra Upaniads, the Atharvaikh/ira and the vedic Rudra
adhyya are just a few of the innumerable popular vedic sources that declare iva as the Parabrahman.
There are innumerable references in the Mahabharta, etc. sources too. A sample is given here:
http://bombay.indology.info/mahabharata/text/UD/MBh13.txt

//13014182a
13014182c
13014183a
13014183c
13014183e
13014184a
13014184c
13014185a
13014185c
13014186a
13014186c

[These verses show that iva is eternal, existing, tihati, in the pralaya state too. nityam tihhanti
ankare of the cited Vyupram is what is reiterated in the MB above.] [This verse in the MB is
contradictory, if one wants to argue that way, to the Eko Nryaa. which says Nrayaa alone
was there before creation, no Brahm nor Ina were present.] But then it is a fine upabhmaam of the
Atharva ikh upaniad: Brahmaviurudrste samprasyante.sarvaivaryasampanna ambhu
[Brahm, Viu and Rudra are all bornambhu is endowed with all Lordliness.] Advaitins alone,
gracefully, will apply to the ambhu of the above mantra Brahmanandas comment in the Advaitasiddhi
for the eko nryaa.: what stays in the state prior to creation is the myopahita chinmtra. In that
updhi all those limbs/indeclinables remain in a nascent state. That is the mark of a true Vedantin and
that is why Advaita is in its exalted status as the Vedanta. Vedantins do not admit the above MB verses
to be interpolations just to satisfy some bigots pathetic concerns.
Here is the Upaniad Brahmayogins commentary to the above cited Atharvaikh mantra:

50

51
The above commentary says: All that is experienced in the world as this along with the agents of
creation, sustenance and dissolution, that are Brahm, Viu and Rudra respectively, along with the five
elements and all the organs are born. The Supreme cause of all this creation and the trimrtis and the
five elements is Brahman named ambhu since He causes bliss. He alone is the sarvaja, sarvaakti,
sarvntarymi. Whoever meditates on Him in his heart will attain Him, His updhi-free nature.
The Brahman of the above description is indeed the subject matter of the 2 nd Brahma stra: janmdyasya
yata. It should not be concluded that the Supreme Cause, ambhu is someone/something different
from everything that is created. He is what all this is, including the trimurtis. Hence there is no meaning in
debating as to who among the trimrtis is highest. It is wisdom to know that the trimurtis are none other
than the Turiya Brahman. He is what is described as the Chaturtham, Turiya, bereft of the above
attributes, in the Mkya upaniat.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13a014.htm

//Thou art he that hadst created from thy right side the Grandsire Brahma, the Creator of all things. Thou
art he that hadst created from thy left side Vishnu for protecting the Creation. Thou art that puissant Lord
who didst create Rudra when the end of the Yuga came and when the Creation was once more to be
dissolved. That Rudra, who sprang from thee destroyed the Creation with all its mobile and immobile
beings, assuming the form of Kla of great energy, of the cloud Samvartaka (charged with water which
myriads of oceans are not capacious enough to bear), and of the all consuming fire. Verily, when the
period comes for the dissolution of the universe, that Rudra stands, ready to swallow up the
universe. Thou art that Mahadeva, who is the original Creator of the universe with all its mobile and
immobile entities. Thou art he, who, at the end of the Kalpa, stands, withdrawing all things into thyself.
Thou art he that pervadest all things, that art the Soul of all things, thou art the Creator of the Creator of
all entities.Incapable of being seen by even any of the deities, thou art he that exists, pervading all
entities. //
This description, especially the statement that Brahm, Viu and Rudra are created from Mahdeva,
corresponds to the Atharvashikh ruti that has been cited by Ramanuja too and with great struggle he
tried to identify the ambhu of the upaniad with Viu/Nryaa.

52
Continues the Mahabharata:
//He [Mahdeva] is indestructible and Supreme Brahman. He is both existent and non-existent. Agitating
both Prakriti and Purusha by means of His energy, He created therefrom the universal lord of
creatures, viz., Brahma. Who is there that is competent to tell the virtues of that god of gods, that is
endued with supreme Intelligence? Man is subject to conception (in the mother's womb), birth,
decrepitude, and death. Being such, what man like me is competent to understand Bhava? Only
Narayana, O son, that bearer of the discus and the mace, can comprehend Mahadeva. He is without
deterioration. He is the foremost of all beings in attributes. He is Vishnu, because of his pervading the
universe. [This particular line is found in the ivapurnam screen-shot provided in the foregoing. There
the name Viu is one of the eight names of iva and the reason given is also as this MB verse gives]
He is irresistible. Endued with spiritual vision, He is possessed of supreme Energy. He sees all things with
the eye of Yoga. It is in consequence of the devotion of the high-souled Krishna to the illustrious Rudra
whom he gratified. O Bharata, in the retreat of Badari, by penances, that he has succeeded in pervading
the entire universe. O king of kings, it is through Maheswara of celestial vision that Vsudeva has
obtained the attribute of universal agreeableness,--an agreeableness that is much greater than what is
possessed by all articles included under the name of wealth. 1 For a full thousand years this Madhava
underwent the austerest penances and at last succeeded in gratifying the illustrious and boon-giving Siva,
that Master of all the mobile and the immobile universe. In every new Yuga has Krishna (by such
penances) gratified Mahadeva. In every Yuga has Mahadeva been gratified with the great devotion of the
high-souled Krishna. How great is the puissance of the high-souled Mahadeva,--that original cause of the
universe,--has been seen with his own eyes by Hari who himself transcends all deterioration, on the
occasion of his penances in the retreat of Badari undergone for obtaining a son. 2 I do not, O Bharata,
behold anyone that is superior to Mahadeva. To expound the names of that god of gods fully and without
creating the desire of hearing more only Krishna is competent. This mighty-armed one of Yadu's race is
alone competent to tell the attributes of the illustrious Siva. Verily, O king, only he is able to discourse on
the puissance, in its entirety of the Supreme deity'//
There is no point in getting agitated over the above as Vedantins do not admit that these portions are
interpolations or tmasika. The Veda also has references to Bhavas nityatvam. ankara, by citing the
ivapuram in the VSN has also admitted the nityatva of iva. There is no use, also, in bringing up the
Bhadrayaka reference on creation of Rudra. It is about the creation of the katriya vara among gods.

53
This has further reference in the Pura/Mahabharata (Kara parva) on Rudra accepting the
Paupatitvam.
In the famous ivasahasranma of the Mahabharata too Veda Vysa who is the foremost Hari-Hara
abheda vdin, has placed these two very names Bhava and vata appear in close proximity:
http://www.shaivam.org/marati/smi_sk_shiv1000n.htm
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.. ..
..
..
..
..
..

In the ivagt of the Padmapura we have these verses:



[reading in the book cited above where the bhyam explains the word
vmam as manoramam. It also gives explanation for the word vatamas the one who created and
instructs Brahm the Vedas at the time of creation ... thereby throwing out the
bloggers bigoted idea that Rudra is subordinate to Brahm.


Here iva is said to be the originator of Brahm and Viu. The Bhya cited above, typical of a Vedantin
and never like a bigot, says, correctly, just as Shankara has in the VSN for bhtakt: The janakatvam

54
[creatorship/parenthood means: bimbatvam [reflection-hood]. Thus, the reflection of Pure Consciousness,
iva, in the my that is rajoguapradhna [predominance of rajas] is called Brahm. In the same way
the reflection in the sattvagua pradhna my is called Viu and the reflection in the tamogua
pradhna of my is called Rudra. He cites the Vivaracrya Praktmans first invocatory verse in the
Pacapdik vivaraa : , , ,
[Obeisance to that Satwhich is (viu)sattva in sustenance, (brahm) rajas in creation activity and
iva (tamas) in dissolution.] Praktman is depicting the Vedic position. In this vedic scheme there is no
special advantage or superiority to Viu and any inferiority to Brahma and iva whatsoever. Also to be
noted is the Acharya writing the Bhyam is of the period 16 17 CE. The bloggers, not understanding
this, taking advantage of the sattva and tamas of Brahman try to confuse their readers that Viu is
sattvika and Rudra is tmasika thereby exhibiting their own tmasik nature. The Advaitin Praktman of
the earliest period therefore looks upon the trimurtis as only manifestations of One Brahman, which he
calls by the name Sat. Thus the aikyam of the trimurtis, for their common ground is Brahman, is what is
taught by Advaitins all along. The bloggers have no basis whatsoever to their weird claims of a nonexisting division between early and later advaitins.

This Acharya in his opening mangala verses for the ivagt bhya (written in the period 1599 1622)
invokes the blessings of Ganesha, rad (the presiding deity of Sringeri), to Brahman which, with the
help of Avidy, creates, sustains and absorbs the creation:
.....typical of all the advaitins of all the periods.
[Shankaracharya teaches in the BSB 1.4.3 while refuting the snkhya's swatantra pradhna as the cause
of the creation:
//...But this primordial state is held by us to be subject to the Supreme Lord, but not as an independent
thing. That state (of pradhAna/avyakta) has to be admitted, because it serves a purpose. Without that
latent state, the creatorship of God cannot have any meaning, inasmuch as God cannot act without His
power (of MAyA), and without that latent state, the absence of birth for the freed souls cannot be
explained. [The power of mAyA has to be admitted whose presence makes birth, death, etc. possible,
and whose cessation brings about liberation.]// [This is the situation of Ishwara/Brahman in Advaita as per
Shankara which the bloggers want to call vaiavism, a Brahman that is incapable of creation and has
to depend on avidy/my. Not realizing that this is the reason why Ramanuja and Madhva rejected
Shankara, these bloggers want to piggyback on Shankara for pecuniary gains.]

55
Then his obeisance is to Shankaracharya, Gurus Vidyshankara, (paramaguru) Narasimha Bhrati, the
then King of the Keadi dynasty, Venkatea. Finally in the obeisance-verses he says: with a view to bring
out the Pure iva jnna, which is the essence of the Upaniads he is writing this bhya of the ivagt,
which is an easy way to dispel the ignorance-caused duality. [Sridhara Swamin says the same about
Viupura which only confirms that the iva and Viu are only Nirgua Brahman for Advaitins]
Thus, nowhere this Advaita Acharya is saying that the Advaita that is brought out is any aiva in nature;
he explicitly shows iva as Pure Consciousness and places the trimrtis as only reflections of this Pure
Consciousness. At the end too he has written some verses. Thus, in no way one can differentiate
between the Advaita Acharyas of all times. Theirs is a pattern that can be discerned by a careful reader
but never by biased and bigoted ones.
One can have a look at this handbook written by a Srivaiava to get a feel of a moderate, not bigoted,
view of other sampradyas:
http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/srivaishnava_handbook.pdf
especially pages 4, 59, 60 and 61.
Lie No.21 a:
So what would be the conclusion of the bhAmati analysis?
Ans. The author of the bhAmati was not purely an advaitin, but a scholar interested in commenting on
vaidika darSanas like vedAnta, who happened to be a Shiva-bhakta. The commentators of the bhAmati
were, like all Vaidikas, vaishnavas in disposition. They found the bhAmati exposition to be very useful and
erudite, in spite of the personal tastes of its author.
The Truth:
The above lie has been exposed by the very vaiava Amalananda for whom Vcaspati Misra is an
Aparoka jnni, the highest goal of Vedanta sdhana. No other credential is required than this for the
Vedantin status of Vcaspati. Moreover, for this same commentator the author of the Bhmati is one who
protected the Vaidika mrga from the opponent schools.
Lie No. 21 b
That they did not consider vAcaspati as a pure advaitin and did not give a lot of importance to his
salutation of Siva is also borne out by the manner in which akhaNDAnanda introduces vAcaspati in the
RRijuprakAshikA: "kashcidvipashcidagragaNyo vAcaspatiH shrImaccha~NkarabhagavatpAdakRRitaM

56
shArIrakabhAShyaM vyAcikIrShuH", which translates as "someone - a person considered the best among
learned, called vAcaspati, endeavored to write a commentary on shrI sha~Nkara bhagavatpAda's
shArIraka bhAShya".
The Truth:
The use of kacit (someone) is no way derogatory or giving less importance. Such is a style found in
several places in Sanskrit. Here are some examples:
The Kahopaniat
Mantra 2.1.1:
-.


Yama said: The self-born Lord forced the senses outward; hence one sees outward and not the inner
self. But (some) a self-controlled person, desiring Immortality, beholds the inner Self with all sense
organs controlled.
Shvetavataropaniad:
Ajta ityevam kacid bhru prapadyate rudra yat te dakiam mukham tena mm phi nityam [4.21]
[It is because Thou, O Lord, art birthless, that some rare souls, frightened by birth and death, take
refuge in Thee. O Rudra, may Thy benign (dakiam) face protect me forever!]
The use of kacit is in the sense of exalted.

7.3
7.3 Among thousands of men a rare one endeavours for perfection. Even of the perfected ones [For
perfection: for the rise of Knowledge through the purification of the mind.] who are diligent, one perchance
knows Me in truth.
Here, both the uses of the word kacit are extremely exalting in nature.
Madhusudana Saraswatis famous verse, depicting his Ka Bhakti too contains this word, in the neuter
gender:
His verse, at the beginning of his GD 13th chapter is:

57




// By means of the mind brought under control by the practice of meditation, Yogis behold the Supreme
Light that is free from attributes and activity. Let them do so. But I am quite contented with the vision of
the luminous blue deity, Krishna, who wanders about the banks of the river Klind. //
Here the two usages, kincit and kimapi, are not of any derogatory sense. They both refer to the Great
Lord, his upsya devat.
In the Dakimrti stotram of ankaracharya commencing with the word upsaknm.. is a verse:
http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_shiva/dakshina2.html?lang=hi


[I behold some exalted Deika who is smeared with the bhasma of the burnt Madana (Cupid), clad in
tiger-skin, who is the Cosmic Fire that burns up/evaporates the ocean of ignorance.]
Moreover, Akhandananda in his invocatory last verse itself has referred to Vcaspati Misra by name:

He names the work Kalpataru (of Amalananda) and Vcaspati. Hence, his respect to him is eminently
brought out even by the fact of his being attracted to it to find it worthy of elucidating its packed meaning.
The expression // kashcidvipashcidagragaNyo vAcaspatiH// is also greatly honorific to Vcaspati. The
word vipacit is used in the Kahopaniat


The Conscious (vipacit) Self is not born; It does not die. It has not sprung from anything; nothing has
sprung from It. Birthless, eternal, everlasting and ancient, It is not killed when the body is killed.
Shankara, commenting on the word vipacit says: [vipacit is
Intelligent, since it is of the nature of undiminishing consciousness]. Amalananda has said that
Vcaspati Misra is an aparoka Jnni and also that Vcaspati is the foremost of learned persons. There

58
is nothing disrespectful in such address. None of these has any bearing on or connection with his upsya
devat being Bhava.
One instance is Janottamas obeisance to Dakimrti iva in his Iasiddhivivaraam (image provided
below). He says: he is paying obeisance to some Guru. Does that mean disrespect? No. It means that
one who is extremely popular. Tasmai tejastrietrya kasmaicid gurave nama.

He is using the

kasmaicit in the chaturth vibhakti, while Akhandananda is using that in the pratham. That is all the
difference.

Jnnottama too says that Vimukttman is praying to his iadevat which actually is Nirgua Brahman.
That shows that in Advaita even a non-deity can be iadevat as many other authors have also paid
obeisance to that Nirgua Brahman in their invocatory verses.
Lie No. 21.c:
This acceptance could also be due to the fact that the author of bhAmati also wrote in a highly dignified
manner by not introducing his own preference for Shiva into the explanations to the sUtras, unlike
Appayya Dikshita etc.
The Truth:
The reason for several commentaries on the Bhmat is because of the fact that that is the only first
complete commentary on ankaras stra bhya. Padmapdas was for only a very small part of the

59
BSB. If anything of the bhya is to be known with greater clarity, authoritatively, the Bhmati is
consulted. It is for this reason that it is held in the highest regard by advaitins. Also, as brought out by the
Kalpataru which is the foremost of the commentaries on the Bhmat, the work is by a Brahmajni, an
aparoka jnni, which makes the Bhmat all the more estimable. In fact even the Bhmati is not free of
censure (Just like Shankara was): he has been charged of being influenced by Mandana Misras ideas.
So the comparison with Appayya Dikita is uncalled for.

More inputs to show that the vaiava-advaitins the bloggers relied upon are deserting
them:
Jnnottama, commenting on the Naikarmyasiddhi opens his invocation thus:

1. The vaisava is seen to first invoke Ganapathi, Saraswati and Guru which is not the manner in which
a vaiava of the R-brand would do.
2. His preference to Viu is only second and that too not as a person but as Nirguna Brahman for him as
he says that Viu is his very Self: the advaita Atman, the depiction of the Mahvkyrtha. The adjectives
are all in neuter gender: paramam dhma, dyotamnam, anantmitam, advaitam, tmabhtam. The
viu with the r refers to the tattvam and the vtti (feminine gender) that is experienced. Advatins hold
the same with regard to iva as the Tattvam and Prvathy to be the vtti that manifests/carries that
tattvam.
3. He invokes the blazing Sun, the Tryambaka, iva, to grant him Moka, who drinks up, dries up, the
samsra-ocean completely. Jnanottama prays to iva for immense reyas, moka, something that is
forbidden for a bigoted vaiava. The bloggers hold this as the reason to decry the Bhmati Acharya and
take the support of Amalananda whom they are deluded in thinking is a vaiava of their brand. But
Amalananda has proved himself to be the true vaiava of the Padmapurana specification.
4. He says Surewara is paying obeisance to his iadevat showing that such a concept is well
enshrined in the ealiest times:

60

5. What about the words Haraye Buddhiskie of Surewaras invocation? Jnanottama, in the tradition
of the Advaitin says:

It is the Nirgua Brahman that is referred to by the terms Hari, buddhiski, which is what underlies the
pratyagtman (jiva) and the Paramtman (Brahman). It is in this sense alone Shankara uses the word
nryaa in the Br.up. 3.7.3 antarymi brhmaam:
; , ,
, , , , ,
,
Iwara is the ski for the body-mind complex of pthv, etc. devats. This ski is Pure Consciousness
(refer Adhysa bhya end). That ski consciousness is the Atm, self, antarymi, of all and is free of all
bondage. Thus, the Nryaa is not the Lakshmipati or Vaikunthapati, which names have nowhere been
stated by Shankara in the prasthnatraya bhyas. The Vrtika the bloggers have taken pains to support
their claims neither shows this Narayana as Laksmipati. They have misunderstood the Anandagiri
explanation that this Narayana is well-known in the puranas and agamas and the veda. That prasiddhi is
also not of the Laksmi/vaikuntha pati but the Supreme Consciousness that is the substratum of the
creation. In fact that is the message Sridhara Swamin sees in the Vishnupuranam. That is what the
Jnanottama commentary too shows above.
6. At the end of the work, Jnanottama says:

61

Just as from the above sentence it is clear without any need for further explanation that the word
yogasmarthyt avpa (obtained by the strength of yoga) applies to both the events of bringing Ganga
by Bhagiratha (by effort of tapas) and Shankara (by mere sankalpa, he being Paramewara Himself as
beautifully expressed by Amalananda, a vaiava in the stradarpaam opening) obtaining the
knowledge, so too, without needing any further explanation, the vieaa vata in the Bhmati
invocation applies to both the vieyas veda and Bhava without any explanation.
The above explanation proves that Surevara too was not a vaiava of the bloggers brand. Surevara
has also admitted iva to be the Creator as he refers to Shankaras name to be of the Creator. No
vaiava of the bloggers brand would have the Bhava/Creator name that Shankaracharya has, as it is
prohibited for them. Um and iva will always invoke the the thought of jagata patarau vande Prvat
Paramevarau (immortalized by Klidsa and mt cha prvat dev pit devo mahevara bandhavh
ivabhaktha.immortalized by Shankaracharya) and not any other deity. With great bigotry at their
very roots, the bloggers are trying to paint the Advaita Acharya Surevara a vaiava.
As per the bloggers standards, even Anandagiri will have to be written off the list of Vedantins. Why?
Apart from checking whether the person is donning the vibhuti or not, the next parameter is which god the
person invokes in his works at the beginning /end. If that deity is not Visu the author is summarily
dismissed as an avaidika. It is solely for this single reason and nothing else that the bloggers have
carried on a subtle tirade against the Bhmati Achrya. And the crime of this Aparoka Jnani? He paid
obeisance to Bhava, iva. What else could they do? Are they not inspired by Ramanuja who refused to
even enter a iva temple during a heavy downpour, preferring to get drenched, rather than get polluted
by entering the iva temple? But for this offence the author of the Bhmati would have gone unnoticed.
As if to let this blatant act of bigotry go unnoticed by anyone, the bloggers hatched on a cruel plot of
putting up two commentators to the Bhmati as vaiavas and spent immense labor hoping to
somehow, by hook or crook, showing that the two commentators completely ignored the Bhmati author
and stopped short of saying that the two commentators humiliated Vcaspati Misra, the aparoka jnnin,
verily Brahman. Such is their intolerance. However, that very Bhava, in his infinite compassion on these
bloggers, has given them a chance to see how the Advaita acharyas right from Veda Vyasa onwards
(including the Veda) and ankara have committed themselves to the proclamation of the Hari-Hara
abheda in all their works in one way or the other and thereby proved themselves the true vaiavas
(which term Shankara used in the Bhagavadgita bhashya) keeping in mind the Padmapurana stipulation.
Not realizing that Shankaras usage there is completely against the sense the bloggers think, they are

62
deluded in thinking that Shankara is in their favvour. Such is their delusion with regard to everything.
Even if the core work did not lend scope to bring in the Hari-Hara abheda, the Advaita Acharyas did that
in their invocatory verses, at the start or at the end. In the same vein, the bloggers evil designs have
been thwarted by none other than the very commentator Amalananda. He ditched them severely by
upholding, and paying the highest tributes possible to, the Bhmati in no uncertain terms. He never gave
room for any misgivings about his attitude towards the author of the Bhamati. He openly declared that
Vcaspati Misra is an aparoka Jnani, the highest goal attainable, parama pururtha, of any vedantin.
He brought to light that this Jnani eminently protected the vaidika mrga from the onslaughts of the
opponents. To add insult to the injury caused to the bloggers by his utterances, Amalananda equated
Shankara and Dakimurti, Shiva and Narasimha his ia devata, in nirguna form. He paid homage to
Brahman that appears as Hari and Hara, resonating the vedic theme of Veda Vysas words: Rudro
Nryaaca ekatattvam dvidh ktamin the Mahabharata which was dutifully annotated by the Telugu
smarta poets of the Andhra Bharatamu (11 to 14 CE) which work the bloggers consultant unwittingly
approved as being faithful to these bloggers bigoted version of vaiavism. What is more, in his
stradarpaa, Amalananda gave out a grand verse proclaiming Hari-Hara abheda and called both the
deities Parameau, in dual number, Supreme Godhead(s) showing that either of them can be sagua
Brahman, even as Shankara has done that by citing several verses/Kaivailyopaniad/iva (tmasa)
pura in the VSN Bhya and the Jbla ruti in the BSB.
Amalnanda gives expression to his great devotion to iva in a very special way in the Kalpataru for the
1.1.1.4 samanvaya sutra bhhya commentary of the Bhmati:

The context is: whether a sentence about an existent entity, siddha vastu, can generate knowledge
thereof? This is to counter the mimamsaka view that every sentence teaches an injunction alone.
Amalananda, commenting on a sentence of the Bhmati, presents two of his own compositions (verses)
on Lord iva which are shown above. The free translation of them is: There is an exalted mountain called
Brahmagiri. The river Godvar flowing there appears to have been created to serve the purpose of a
white turban to collect and tie the jaja (matted locks of hair) of Tryambaka, iva. The temple there is
surrounded by (mango) trees that are laden with flowers and fruits preventing the sunlight from entering
the sanctum and thereby have created a darkness inside. The moon on Haras head/crown dispels this
darkness and the days appear as though they are white-nights.
By composing these verses Amalananda has proven himself to be a liberal iva Bhakta. If it is objected:
No, he has expressed his devotion to Narasimha, it will be replied: in the same vein, Vcaspati Misra too
has expressed his devotion to Veda Vysa whom he has openly acknowledged as an incarnation of

63
Bhagavan Hari. Devotion to Haris any incarnation is devotion to Hari. Thus, Vcaspati Misra is not a
liberal iva bhakta but only a Hari-Hara abheda bhakta just as Amalananda, Sridhara swamin and all the
Advaita Acharyas from the earliest times to the present day. Thus there is no stuff at all in the charge of
the blogger that Vcaspati Misra was a liberal iva bhakta. Had the blogger realized this fact just by
perusing the verses of Vcaspati Misra, he could have saved a lot of labor for himself and the sin of
offending a Brahmavit, verily Brahman, called by the name Viu. He has thereby commited
Bhagavadapardham.
By these verses Amalananda is conveying that such sentences can indeed give rise to knowledge of an
existing object and yet not resulting in any injunction. Sri Appayya Dikita in his Parimala, the
commentary on the Kalpataru, says:

//It is well known that the Achrya (Amalananda) who resides in the ketra of Trayambakewar of Nsik
has composed this work (Kalpataru). Therefore he indulges in the poetic description of the mountain and
river situated there. . //
Amalananda could have very well composed a poem on any other deity like Narasimha, his ia devat, ,
or no deity at all, for this purpose. Yet he chooses to write these verses on iva, a devatntara, who has
to be shunned by not even taking his name, for vaiavas. And the bloggers are deluded in thinking that
Amalananda is a vaiava.
Amalananda did not foresee that centuries later someone will be adorning him with the vaiava
decoration. Had he known that he would have avoided so many donts that make him liable to be
defrocked of his prestigious vaiava tag.
Why Anandagiri too fails to be a true carrier of Shankaras Advaita?
1. At the beginning of his invocation to the gloss of the Gitbhya Anandagiri pays obeisance to
Ganesha, a kudra devat which Shankara is alleged to have discarded in the BGB. What does
Anandagiri say?

He prays for special benevolence from Heramba, Ganapathi, who wards off obstacles. It is only after this
he prays to Viu.

64
At the end of the Bhagavadgt bhya gloss, Anandagiri pays obeisance to the Gitcrya and the
bhyakra:

Here Vaikutha refers to Kina and rkaha refers to ankarachrya, the Bhyakra. He brings out
the Hari-Hara abheda in the above verse like Amalananda.

[Bellankonda Rmarya Kavi, a born-

viidvaitain of the early last century but converted to Advaitic thought and even smarta sampradya,
lived a very short life and wrote a very large number of works. In his commentary on the Bhagavadgita he
says: The commentary of Shankaracharya alone is to be studied by all for getting the true import of the
Git since it is authored by none other than iva who is non-different from Keava, the author of the Gt.
Only iva can know the heart of Keava.] Anandagiri has adopted the method of not directly mentioning
the name of Shankara just as Surewara has done in some places.
At the beginning of his commentary nyyaniraya to the Acharyas Brahmasutra bhashya
Anandagiri pays obeisance to iva and Ganapathy too apart from Viu:

In the above 3rd verse Anandagiri says: I take refuge in Giria who makes haughty people humble, who is
attained by all during laya, by whose grace those who walk the path of the vaidikamarga succeed, to
whom all sacrifices are addressed, by whom becoming deluded by chance the devas later take delight in
him [here the reference is to the Kenopaniad incident where the Devas, Indra, etc. sighted an Effulgence
and became curious about it and were humbled by it and ultimately became truly interested in realizing it
and succeeded. Anandagiri therefore holds that Effulgence to be iva, who was pointed out by Um,
whom Shankara says is Rudrapatn, vidy] and whom those who are extremely pure-minded
comtemplate upon.
Anandagiri, a vaiava, gives so many encomiums to iva in whom he surreders. He has, in the 2nd verse
paid rich tributes to Viu too, thereby proclaiming, just as every Advaitin right from Veda Vyasa,
Shankara, Surevara, Vcaspati Misra, etc. to the present day Acharyas, his Hari-Hara advaita bhakti.

65
At the beginning of his commentary to the Sambandhavrtika of Surewaracharya for the Bhadrayaka
upaniad bhya, Anandagiri pays obeisance to Viu, iva, Gaapati and Saraswati, thereby proving he
is a Hari-Hara abheda vdin and devatntara pjaka, no different from Vcaspati Misra:

He too, as stated before like many, says Surewara in his first invocatory verse (on Nirguna Brahman) is
paying obeisance to iadevat thereby refuting the bloggers ill-conceived idea that the concept of
iadevat is a recent one.
Surewara at the end of his above vrtika pays obeisance to Shankara, his Guru:

66

There he says: by acquiring the nectar of knowledge one attains moka, thereby dispelling the wrong idea
of the bloggers that for Advaitins knowledge is got from iva and moka from Viu. Surevara says his
Guru bears the name of the Vedh.. Anandagiri says for this:

[He who creates is vedha, his name ankara whose name my Guru bears.]
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?page=1
That name appears in the ivasahasranma of the ivapura:
http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_trial/fortransfer/shivasahasranAmastotrashivapurANa_sa.html

At the end of the Taittiriya Upaniad Bhya vrtika, Sri Surewarcrya pays obeisance to Shakara, His
Guru:
..
,
//This exposition, of the Bhya composed by the foremost among ascetics who takes upon Himself the
responsibility of the aspirants, who bears the name of Bhava, is accomplished by his disciple, out of
devotion, by name Surea, who is a knower of the entire meaning. //
nandagiri, commenting on these lines says:
..

67
[Bhagavn Bhyakra, who is the foremost among sannysins, who bears the name of Bhava,
Bhagavn Mahdeva, which is ankara, who is well-known everywhere by that name (ankara), (this
disciple) by name Surevara, became famous.

Shankaracharya, by the reason that he bears the name of Bhava/Vedh fails to qualify, in the first
round itself, to be a vaiava. For, a vaiava would never take the name of iva for oneself. That
Madhvas have that name is no excuse, for Shankara was not a Madhva. His parents are admitted by
Advaitins to have prayed to Lord iva and obtained him as their son. And vaiavas of the Ramanuja
brand cannot have regard/respect for an avatra of iva that Shankaracharya was. Their ivadvea will
percolate to and pervade everything that is connected with iva, whose temple too is not spared. If such
regard were present, Ramanuja would never have used such reprehensible language against Shankara
who was already known as an avatra of iva. So, the bloggers who have such a negative attitude
towards iva cannot by any means call ankara whose very birth was caused by his parents performing
penance in a iva temple (a temple which Ramanuja refused to even enter for just shelter) a vaiava
without incurring the wrath of their own Acharya Ramanuja.
At the end of the Vrtika, Surewara talks about the purport, purpose, of this work:

Anandagiri brings out the salient feature of the above verse:

68

Anandagiri says: The vrtika-garland that Surevara created attains its supreme purpose by its having
been placed at the feet of Bhagavn Viu and no other destination. This is comparable to, in the words
of Surevara, the Celestial river Holy Gang finding her highest culmination in reaching the head of
Bhagavn iva and none else.
The comparison, upam, involving Viu and iva by Surevara and Anandagiri using the Bhagavn
epithet to both Viu and iva confirms that they were Hari-Hara abheda vdins. That is what
Amalananda and the Bhmati have done, by not differentiating between Hari and Hara.
At the beginning of the Iasiddhivivaraam, the author Jnottama pays obeisance to Dakimrtirpa
iva and in the second verse compares the author of the Iasiddhi to Lord Narasimha:

69

ankhapi [which the blogger claimed to be a vaiava name], commencing his commentary to the
Brahmasiddhi invokes Gaapati alone:

He says: I pay obeisance to that entity named Gadhipati on whom is dependent the commencement
and ending of works of even Devas/Indra, etc. He does not invoke any other deity like Hari or iva. Even
Agnicit Puruottama commenting on the Gaapati-obeisance of the Sankeparraka of Sarvajntman,

70
says that Brahms adventure (of trying to delude the cowherds of Gokula) turned out to be a failure only
because he did not have the prasda of Gaapati. Another commentator too echoes this view. It is
possible that there is a puric reference to this specifically associating Gaapati with the episode.
Otherwise it is unlikely that commentators allude to this.
Here, at the commencement of the Taittiriyopaniad commentary, Syaa-mdhava (Vidyraya) places
a verse:

[Brahm, etc. devas, at the commencement of all their endeavors pay obeisance to Gajnana and
become successful. I bow to that God.]
The author of the bhyaratnaprabh Sri Rmnanda Saraswati (1570-1650) invokes the following
deities at the beginning of this work:

He pays obeisance to his iadevat Rma, Vinyaka who along with Gowri confers all desires and also
mukti and to Lord iva of K who is the embodiment of vairgyam. He adds a special epithet to iva:
anta-vidhuram which means: one who is devoid of end, that is, eternal, vata that the Bhmati
mentions. Saraswati is also invoked.
By saying iva is eternal, he is conveying to us that for Advaitins, even though they have Rma,
Narasimha, etc. as their ia devat, there is no doubt that they admit ivas eternality. This is to be noted
in particular reference to the bloggers complaint that Amalnanda and Akhandananda are silent about
that epithet vatya with regard to Bhava in the Bhmati invocation. He has no way to protest that the
above yati is of a later date who admits Hari-Hara abheda since Amalnanda of a much earlier date holds
Hari-Hara as verily Paramewara(s), even like Sridahara Swamin, who does a hattrick [will become clear
a little further down].
The above study has proved beyond doubt that there is absolutely no substance whatsoever in the
bloggers holding the baseless view that earlier advaitins were vaiavas and the present day, that is,
later than 15CE, are aiva advaiins. The reason for the divide is, as per them, the former category did not
hold Hari-Hara abheda while the latter ones do [apart from the absence and presence of vibhuti on their

71
foreheads]. The present study has addressed itself to exactly this point of Hari-Hara abheda and shown
that from the earliest available information Veda Vyasa, Shankara, Bhmati, Praktman, Amalananda,
Anandagiri, Madhusudana, etc. all have held the Hari-Hara abheda very dear to their hearts. Their
iadevats have varied from Viu, Narasimha, Rama, Ka to iva and also Nirguna Brahman. Yet
none of them had shown disrespect or hatred to any other deity. The bloggers heros such as ankara,
Surewara, Sarvajntman, Amalananda, Jnanottama and Agnichit Purushottama, Sridhara Swamin, etc.
have also been proved to be Hari-Hara abheda vadins. Their arch enemies Vidyaranya, Appayya Dikitar
and the stris too can be seen to be no different, in their Hari-Hara abheda acceptance, from all their
earlier Acharyas. Not a single factor that differentiates the early and the later Advaitins can be produced
by anyone whatsoever.
Here is a sample citation from a few noted Advaita Acharyas regarding their Hari-Hara abheda
acceptance:
Shankarananda [1275 1350] in his Gitttparyabodhini which is available in new print, pays obeisance
at the beginning to several deities, starting from Nirguna Brahman, Ganapati, Saraswati and Krishna,
Sanandana, etc. Vmadeva, uka, Shankaracharya and his own Guru, Anandtmasarasvati. At the end
of the entire work he says:



The defect that is the klaka is nothing when placed in the neck of iva. Even the virtue of the size of a
digit (kal of Chandra) becomes an ornament on the exalted ivas head. I bow to that Purua who
dispels the malaise of avidy.
Vidyraya: [1296 1386]

[I bow to that Gajanana whom Brahm onwards all devas bow to before commencing all their endeavors
and become successful.]
Paramaivendra Saraswati: [Guru of Sadivendra Saraswati of Nerur 1700-1800]
At the commencement of his vedntanmaratna sahasram [A collection of 1000 names of Brahman from
the ruti] invokes the following deities: Gaapati, Skanda, iva, Um [who is brahmavidy svarpii as
per the Kenopaniat and bhya], Dakimrti, Viu (and later Gurus):

72





The above Achrya is hated by the bloggers for the single reason that he wrote a book on bhasma.
Thus, for the bloggers whoever puts on the bhasma and writes on that are objects of hatred.
Sadivendra Saraswati of Nerur 1700-1800 [Sadivabrahmendra] has composed many treatises and
short and long metrical works on Vedanta and Yoga and a number of songs that are rendered in musical
concerts. At the beginning of his Brahmastravtti he invokes:
1. Nirgua Brahman, 2. Veda Vysa, 3. Shankaracharya, 4. His own Guru.
At the end of the work he pays obeisance, with gratitude for having gained the Brahmavidy (dispelled
avidy), to the vata guru, iva. In the next verse he pays obeisance to his own Guru
Paramaivayogndra.

His

musical

compositions

are

very

famous.

http://satyasense.blogspot.in/2010/02/sadasiva-brahmendra-compositions.html
Appayya Dikitar [1520-1593]
There are innumerable works, over 120, of Appayya Dikitar. Here is a sample invocation from his
famous work nyyarakmai:

73

At the beginning he invokes the blessings of Mukunda and next, of iva, addressing him as
nryasahachara, consort of Nryai, a name of Gowri. There is a widespread belief among South
Indians that Prvathi is the sister of Nryaa. Next, he prays to his grandfather and next, his father. In
the 5th verse is a prayer to Veda Vysa and next to the very Brahmastras which he compares to a wishyielding tree in a fine rpaka alankra, and then to Shankaracharya. His other famous woks include the
Brahma tarka stava, where he has established the iva-supremacy based on a number of evidences
spread over the shruti, smtis, Mahabharata, puranas etc. It has his own commentary too. The other
famous work is Varadarja stava.
Ayyaa Dikita [1700-1800]
In his Vysatparya niraya [a unique work which establishes that Vysas purport in the Brahmasutras
(Vedanta Darana) is Advaita alone as all the non-Vedanta daranas who have taken the Vedanta
darana as their prvapaka have delineated Advaita alone a the vedanta darana.] he writes a single
verse invoking the blessings of Nirgua Brahman appearing in the form of Hari and Hara:



Then he pays obeisance to his guru Sridhara Venkatea Ayyv

74
Polakam Rama Sastri lived till recent years and has written a work Chaturmata smarasyam. At the end
of the work he pays obeisance to the mrti trayam and the Turya, Nirgua Brahman. He then bows to
the Four Achryas of the Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Srikathas iva vishishtadvaita and Advaita. And cites
the famous verse -
and has

mentioned his view thus: the trimurtis are the upya devats for the first-mentioned three
schools and Parabrahman, the Turya, is the one that is to be contemplated upon by the
Advaitins. Vyu is jvottama for Madhvas and this Vyu will become brahm. Vinu is the god
of the Ramanuja school and iva, of the rikaha school.
There is no need to mention specially the unique Vedntin, Achrya Upaniad Brahmayogin
who has commented on all the 108 upaniads by composing obeisance-verses all over. These
upaniads have been divided under several categories such as the principal 10 to which
Bhagavan Shankaracharya has commented, Vaiava, aiva, kta, Smmya, etc.
ridhara Swamin who is regarded as the most authoritative commentator of the rimad
Bhgavatam, at the commencement pays obeisance to Sri Rma, Narasimha and Ka as the
Parabrahman. Most significantly, as a typical Advaitin, Sridhara Swamin has paid obeisance to
Hari (Mdhava) and Hara (Umdhava) and calls both of them Iau (in dual number just as
Amalananda has done for Hari and Hara in the astradarpaa invocation). And what is more,
rdhara Swamin says both Hari and Hara are the tman of each other. And both love to pay
obeisance to each other:

Thus for Sridhara Swamin both Hari and Hara are Iwara. And most importantly, both can
grant sarva-siddhi. In the Kalpataru, Amalananda explaining Vcaspati Misras
invocation of Skanda, Ganapati and Surya cites a Yjavalkya smrti passage which also
says that these three deities can grant siddhi. The mitkara commentary thereon says:
by worshiping these deities one will gain Moka through Atmajnam. What Sridhara
swamin says too is that Hari and Hara will grant everything sarva siddhi which
naturally includes Moka. This goes directly against the contention of the bloggers that
iva cannot grant moka. ankara has said in the BSB 2.3.41
[By the Knowledge arising due to His (Ivaras) grace alone can the
attainment of moka become possible.] Thus Moka is the ultimate siddhi that both Hari
and Hara will confer as per Sridhara Swamin. Hence Sridhara Swamin ceases to be a
vaiava advaitin by his offence of invoking both Hari and Hara in the same breath and
also calling them Ivara and most significantly that they both can grant everything. This
verse of Sridhara Swamin (and Amalananda in the stradarpaam) result in falsifying
the following claims/doctrines of the bloggers:
a. ari and Hara are entirely different entities
b. iva is a jva, created one [The verses say: for both Hari and Hara au/Parameau]

75
c. iva cannot grant moka
d. iva cannot/should not/need not be worshiped (stuti) by Hari
e. All iva stutis (either by Viu or anyone else holding iva as Supreme) in the
Mahabharata are interpolations or tmasa portions there.
f. When iva is held as Supreme, it is actually Hari that is meant
Hari and Hara love to prostrate to each other: paraspara nati priyau says Sridhara
Swamin in the above verse.
There is no greater proof than this to conclude that rdhara Swamin who is much praised and
relied upon and wrongly called in to support their bigoted views showing only Hari as superior
and Hara as always inferior and a tmasika devat, has deserted them completely. What
ridhara Swamin, a Vedantin, has clearly rephrased is the famous Skandopaniad mantra:
ivya viurpya ivarpaya viave. ivasya hdayam viu viocha hdayam iva.
Yath ivamayam viu evam visumaya iva. yathntaram na paymi tath mey
svastiryui. [Obeisance to iva who is verily Viu and obeisance to Viu who is verily iva.
The essence of iva is Viu and the essence of Viu is iva. Just as Viu is completely iva
alone so too iva is completely Viu. I do not see any difference between the Two and hence let
there be auspiciousness and long life to me.] This set of verses appearing in the Skandopaniad
and the purport of these in the Mahabharata and Harivama as upabhmaa, and other puras,
is recited traditionally from time immemorial by both the Kannada and Telugu smrthas as part of
the sandhy worship. Download this document to see five Telugu works on Sandhyavandanam
of more than a hundred years old mentioning this verse:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/9ah2ikwv6w2rkzz/Telugu_sandhya_Five_images.docx

The Tamil smarthas do not recite these verses as part of their sandhy worship. In fact
Shankara cites a verse from the Harivama where iva says to Viu: there is no difference
between us: vayorantaram nsti. This is exactly stated by Sridhara Swamin in the above verse.
Shankara also cites another verse there itself where iva says: Govinda, your names are my
names alone undoubtedly. Worship to you is worship to me.

While the ivya viurpya verse may not have been (we do not know for certain, for we can
never claim to have exhausted searching all the works of all the Acharyas ) cited by any Achrya
in their wroks, it is not necessary that a sentence as it is alone is to have been cited by someone
of authority to prove the authenticity of a particular passage/verse. It is enough if its purport is

76
upheld in no uncertain terms by an Acharya. It is common to see this concept in Shankaras
bhyas. He cites several passages verbatim and says evamjtyakni [there are many
passages of this class/category] which means that even those passages which bring out the
purport of these cited passages can be taken to be authentic:
[BSB
1.1.2] ...[BSB 3.3.44] In some places Shankara has also merely paraphrased
a shruti passage and called it prama.
Thus Sridharas words mirroring the stated Skandopaniad sentence and the MB, etc. verses is
enough evidence for these verses being cited by a Vedantin and therefore authentic. Even
without anyone citing, the passages are authentic in their own right. They do not beg someones
quoting to become authentic; they are authentic.

While such is the pure Hari-Hara abheda upheld by Sridhara Swamin at the very commencement
of his commentary to the Holy Bhgavata Puram, the bloggers have misrepresented and
purposely hidden his heart and projected a cunning message that Sridhara swamin is a
vaiava-advaitin who holds Hari alone to be the Supreme. They have taken pains to annotate
several of Sridharas commentaries to make them appear to be supporting their own bigoted
views. Only for someone who does a first-hand study of Sridhara Swamin the truth, that is, the
Hari-Hara abheda theme, of the Bhgavatam, nay, the MB, all the puras and the Vedas too
becomes revealed. By paying such an obeisance at the beginning Sridhara puts his stamp of
Hari-Hara abheda throughout the Bhgavatam commentary, either explicitly or implicitly.
Hear a fine Tamil song composed by Ppansam Sivan on the theme: m-dhava and um-dhava
that Sridhara Swamin has so beautifully expressed in the word mdhavomdhavvau..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeDN8RcFGcI
Or with a beautiful Vivarpa iva in the background here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHI3kdbo44I

Here is a Kannada song where both Hari and Hara are praised in a single song, one line for each,
alternating, composed by a woman-Hari dsa of the Madhva sampradya:
Open this page: http://www.kannadaaudio.com/Songs/Devotional/home/Haridaasara-SangaNeenayya-Sri-Vidyabhushana.php and in the album select the fifth number: eetanu ranganda
hariyu.p.599 in the printed book downloadable from archives.

77

Here is another of Sridhara Swamins gems, studded at the beginning of his commentary to the
Viupuram:

r-bindu-mdhava vande paramnanda-vigraham |


vca vivevara gag parara-mukhn munn ||1||

He pays his obeisance to: Hari, Saraswati (vk), iva (vivevara), Gang, [Bindumdhava,
Vivevara and Gang - all Vras-specific]; Parara, etc. munis. That the Viupuram is a
work that leads to the Advaitic realization of identity is stated by this commentator at the
beginning of the commentary:
// jagaj-jvtma-paramtma-nmaiktmya-.padrthanbhysa-vad atraiva pure mumuk
pravttir ucitatamety//

[Since this pura has enough material to enable the aspirants, mumukus, to realize tha Advaitic
identity of the jagat-jivtma-paramtm, let the effort of the aspirants be invested in this
pura..]

Also, Sridhara Swamin notes another sweet incident bringing out the Hari-Hara abheda, mutual
love, which he stated in his Bhgavatam commentary invocation: paraspara-nati-priyau [the two
love to prostrate/worship each other]. He says im this VP commentary at the outset, describing
the lotus-like eyes of Lord Hari:
// .. ivrdhanrtha puarkktam aki yeneti vpuarkam para dhma akam
avyayam ucyate ity-di lokokta-vyutpatty puarkketi sambodhanam iti v | //
The gist is: The Lords eye is lotus-like because he made his eye a lotus in order to worship
iva. [There is a story which says that when Hari resolved to worship Hara with a thousand
lotuses, at the end, (owing to a loving trick played by Hara), one lotus fell short of the number.
Hari, undaunted by the shortage, offered his own eye as a lotus and completed his worship.]
(One invariably recalls the great iva bhakta Kaappa Nyanrs story, which has also been
related in the ivananda lahari by ankaracharya. Incidentally, the bloggers have a derisive view
of the two laharis purely because these works appear to deny Viuparatvam. Now they have
more works and Acharyas/authors to include in their black list: Bhagavn Hari, Veda
Vyasa,Sridhara Swamin, Shankaracharya, Sarvajntman, Surevara, Anandagiri, Prakatman,

78
Madhusudana Saraswati, Anandagiri, Amalananda, etc. These are the latest additions to their
blacklist.) Sridhara Swamin is alluding to this story and thereby confirming his vaiava nature
as stipulated by the bloggers. No Advaitin will support their unfounded, bigoted claims that iva is
a jva with ppa karma vsanas, the ivasahasranma and other iva-centered stutis are
interpolations in the MB.

In the Bhgavatam 4.4. we have:













SB 4.4.14: Sati continued: My dear father, you are committing the greatest offense by envying Lord iva,
whose very name, consisting of two syllables, i and va, purifies one of all sinful activities. His order is
never neglected. Lord iva is always pure, and no one but you envies him.
Sridhara

Swamin

says:

79
Sat says about iva keeping in mind that he is the dispeller of sin and granter of mukti. [What can be a
greater sin than calling that iva a sinner? Both the Kailsapati iva and his incarnation ankara have
been called sinner by these bloggers.]
SB 4.4.15: You are envious of Lord Siva, who is the friend of all living entities within the three worlds. For
the common man he fulfills all desires, and because of their engagement in thinking of his lotus feet, he
also blesses higher personalities who are seeking after brahmananda [transcendental bliss]. [This is yet
another proof from the Bhgavatam that iva grants moka, which is also known as Brahmananda.
SB 4.4.16: Do you think that greater, more respectable personalities than you, such as Lord Brahma, do
not know this inauspicious person who goes under the name LordSiva? He associates with the demons in
the crematorium, his locks of hair are scattered all over his body, he is garlanded with human skulls and
smeared with ashes from the crematorium, but in spite of all these inauspicious qualities, great
personalities like Brahma honor him by accepting the flowers offered to his lotus feet and placing them
with great respect on their heads.
SB 4.4.17: Sati continued: If one hears an irresponsible person blaspheme the master and controller of
religion, one should block his ears and go away if unable to punish him. But if one is able to kill, then one
should by force cut out the blasphemer's tongue and kill the offender, and after that one should give up
his own life.
SB 4.4.18: Therefore I shall no longer bear this unworthy body, which has been received from you, who
have blasphemed Lord Siva. If someone has taken food which is poisonous, the best treatment is to
vomit.
A fine instance of Hari-Hara abheda in the Bhgavatam:
In the above stated Dakayajam episode, after the destruction of the yaja, the Devas were anxious to
see that the yaja was completed. Hence they consulted Brahm and along with them the entire team
went to Kailsa where iva was seated as Dakimrti. Soon upon seeing Brahm, iva got up and
prostrated before him. The Bhgavatam says:
sa tupalabhyagatam atma-yonim
surasuresair abhivanditanghrih
utthya cakre irasbhivandanam
arhattamah kasya yathaiva vishnuh

80

4.6.40

Lord Siva's lotus feet were worshiped by both the demigods and demons, but still, in spite of
his exalted position, as soon as he saw that Lord Brahma was there among all the other
demigods, he immediately stood up and offered him respect by bowing down and touching
his lotus feet, just as Vamanadeva offered His respectful obeisances to Kasyapa Muni.

Veda Vyasa gives the analogy of Vmana offering his namaskaram to Kayapa to show how iva
prostrating before Brahm was of the same genre. What is the message? Lord Viu is not in any
way lower than Kayapa prajpati. Yet, when he had taken the avatra, of his own will, to fulfil a
particular purpose, born as Kayapa-Aditis son, he displayed the apt behavior. By this much the
Lords Supreme status does not get diminished. In the same way iva, though never born, owing to
the fulfilling of the particular pupose of laya kart, klgni,and several other portfolios like
paupatitvam, jagdgurutvam, etc. had taken this form, out of his own will, having Brahm as his
progenitor. This sequence of Brahm appearing prior to Rudra is also explained in one MB verse
where Brahms manifestation is during creation (morning) and Rudras during laya (evening). This
is only symbolic. It should not be thought that Rudra came into existence only then. If this is not
admitted, the roles Rudra played during the sthiti period cannot be accounted for. Hence the Br.up.
1..4.11 reference to Rudra being created as the coronated Lord of paus is not any real coming
into being like a finite jiva taking a body, just like Vius taking the Vmanas birth (even though
through Aditis womb, while ivas was not through any womb) is not any real taking a janma like a
jiva owing to karma. It is to convey this message that Veda Vyasa gives that comparison. ivas
prostrating before Brahm, acknowledging his father-status is in no way diminishing the formers
Supreme status. Rudras paupatitvam is eternal, manifesting in every creation, when jvas, paus,
manifest and remain in samsra. Thus, Veda Vysa displays Hari-Hara abhedatva through this
comparison. Even without bringing that comparison the episode will not suffer in any manner.
Brahms beseeching iva to condescend to complete the yaja would have been accomplished
even without that extra information of the comparison Vyasa offers there.
The Kara parvan of the MB, 25th chapter gives details as to how and why iva condescended to
become Paupati and why he is called Bhava, the name Vcaspati Misra uses. The credit for this
is that of Sri Appayya Dikitar who has given these references in his Brahma Tarka Stava verses
30 onwards.
In this verse the MB says:
The context is: Devas plead with Rudra to save them from the Tripurasuras.

81
8-24-51a
8-24-51b
iva is Brahman, vata. In this verse the MB says: He is Bhava:
8.24.59b [This is just one among the innumerable proofs of
Bhava, Rudra, being vata] It is indeed laughable that the blogger asks for proof of such an
obvious fact. The following MB citation also says Rudra is Unborn. Thus, birth of Rudra, or
anyone for that matter, is an antithesis of Vednta. All birth or creation is therefore to be
understood as only manifestation of something that already exists. All those entities mentioned in
that mantra such as Indra, Varua, Somaare all eternally required as long as samsra and
samsrins last, to Lord over some or the other groups.
This is the Devas stuti of Rudra, translated by C.V.Ganguly:
//Beholding that Unborn one, that Lord of the universe, to be the embodiment of all creatures, the
gods and the regenerate Rishis, all touched the Earth with their heads. Saluting them with the word
'Welcome' and raising them from their bent attitudes, the illustrious ankara addressed them
smilingly, saying, 'Tell us the object of your visit.' Commanded by the Three-eyed god, their hearts
became easy. They then said these words unto him, 'Our repeated salutations to thee, O Lord.
Salutations to thee that art the source of all the gods, to thee that art armed with the bow, to thee
that art full of wrath. Salutations to thee that hadst destroyed the sacrifice of that lord of creatures
(viz., Daksha) to thee that art adored by all the lords of creatures. Salutations to thee that art
always praised, to thee that deservest to be praised, to thee that art Death's self. Salutations to
thee that art red, to thee that art fierce, to thee that art blue-throated, to thee that art armed with the
trident, to thee that art incapable of being baffled, to thee that hast eyes as beautiful as those of the
gazelle, to thee that fightest with the foremost of weapons, to thee that deservest all praise, to thee
that art pure, to thee that art destruction's self, to thee that art the destroyer; to thee that art
irresistible, to thee that art Brahman, to thee that leadest the life of a brahmacri; to thee that art
na; to thee that art immeasurable, to thee that art the great controller, to thee that art robed in
tatters; to thee that art ever engaged in penances, to thee that art tawny, to thee that art observant
of vows, to thee that art robed in animal skins; to thee that art the sire of Kumra, to thee that art
three-eyed, to thee that art armed with the foremost of weapons, to thee that destroyest the
afflictions of all that seek thy shelter, to thee that destroyest all haters of brahmanas, to thee that art
the lord of all trees, the lord of all men, the lord of all kine, and ever the lord of sacrifices.
Salutations to thee that art always at the head of troops, to thee that art three-eyed, to thee that art
endued with fierce energy. We devote ourselves to thee in thought, word and deed. Be gracious

82
unto us.' Gratified with these adorations, the holy one, saluting them with the word 'Welcome' said
unto them, 'Let your fears be dispelled. Say, what we are to do for you?'"'"//
In the next chapter, 8.25MB we have the exact event when Rudra became Paupati and why he
is called Bhava. In C.V.Gangulys translation, this occurs in Ch.34, but he has not given the
complete translation of this portion:

8-25-29a

8-25-29b

8-25-30a

8-25-31a

8-25-30b

8-25-31b

The above verse 8.25 says: From then on Bhava became Devadeva and also the Pati of all
beings and animals. Therefore he became Paupati and because of his Being he is Bhava. [The
word bhava has another meaning: Excellent.]
The above event of the MB shows that in order to become Paupati, Bhava, Rudra, has to be
existent even before such becoming. That is why and how the conversation between the devas
and Rudra is indeed possible. So, the B.up.1.4.11 is not of the creation of Rudra, the entity, anew,
but only the coming into being, manifestation, of the Paupatitva.
The MB has this verse:

8-25-32b

Thereafter the devas coronated [abhieka] Rudra as the Purrin. That is when he became
Paupati, for that purpose.
The B.up.1.4.11 bhya has this remark:

[The categories of

Deva-katriyas who are coronated are being referred to (as Indra, the Lord of devas,....Rudra as
the Lord of paus...)]
In fact the above mantra occurs in the context of Brahman, out of avidy, having assumed the
human, Brhmaa, identification, abhimna, is wanting to perform karma to be a bhokta. That is
the indication of avidy. Since brahmaas karma cannot happen without a Lord above himself, he,
Brahman, wanted a Katriya to overlord him. For a human-brhmaa, there has to be a human-

83
katriya. The Upaniad first mentions the creation of the deva-katriya and on that model, the
human katriyas. It is in the context of the creation of deva-katriya does the creation of Rudra as
the Lord of Paus occurs. The devas are the ones that receive the yaja dravya offered by the
human brhmaa. Hence they have to be in place before karma takes place. That is what is the
B.up. mantra is all about.
In this chapter of the MB 8th canto is the Pupata vrata instructed, though not in great detail, for
attainment of moka. It is instructed in great detail in the ivagt of the Padmapura by Agasthya
to Rma and the latter observes the vrata complying with all the requirements thereof including
bhasmadhraa. Rma observed this vrata to gain the power to slay Rvaa. According to this the
vrata was observed on the banks of the Godvar, before the party left for Lanka.
The presence of the name/word Rudra in the Br.Up. 1.4.11 along with other deities like Indra is
verisimilar to the presence of the name/word Viu among the deities like Mitra, Varua in the
Taittirya

Upaniad

nti

mantra

where

Viu

is

commented

as

Trivikrama

(anno

viururukrama), the presiding deity of the organ/limb leg. Just as this is not in any way
demeaning to Vius Paramtman status, so is the presence of Rudra in that mantra. Not allowing
the latter will automatically disallow the former. Similar is the case of the Bhgavatam comparison
by Veda Vyasa shown in the foregoing (Rudra prostrating before Brahm being compared to
Vmanamrti prostrating before Kayapa). What is to be appreciated is just as only an aspect of
Viu was born as Vmana, so too only an aspect of Rudra got manifested as the Lord (katriya)
of pau-s. In fact the context of the Br.up. 1.4.11 itself is the creation of the four varas. If it is held
that Rudra, the entity, was indeed created, then the mantra restricting Rudra to a deva-katriya,
lord of paus, will be insufficient to include into it his sarva loka samhraka (Pranopaniat),
jagadguru and Para Brahmatva (as explicitly admitted by Anandagiri, Appayya Dikitar, etc. in the
Kena upaniad, vetvatara, etc.) in the Jblopaniad (cited by Shankara in the

BSB),

Atharvashira and Atharvashikha, Kaivalyopaniad, etc. [Vedantins do not take into consideration
the desperate attempts of theistic schools trying to force a Vaiava interpretation on the patently
iva-specific upaniads. In fact the blogger has, in his comments section, someone belittling the
intelligence of (all smrtas) a popular Achrya, implicitly referring to the Knchi Achrya, deriding
him for giving a derivation for the word ummcchi a Tamil childs undeveloped word for God,
which its mother has taught it - as Um and iva. While the bloggers have put in a lot of
intellectual labor to somehow make Umsahyam, Paramevaram, Trilochanam etc. of the
Kaivalyopaniad and all other iva-specific upaniads to mean only Viu and Lakmi, they did not
have the intellect to appreciate and apply the remark of the Knchi Swami to their own vaiava
interpretation and be happy about it. That would have been graceful, positive, about them. But that
would not be; they have to spew venom on every non-vaiava; that is their norm due to such
training. That shows that their own mind does not accept their own forced interpretation and what

84
is invoked by the names Um and iva is invariably, naturally, what they popularly mean. That is
the strong-point of rhi. All efforts to give up the rhi will only end up in a bland, artificial, effect,
which is what is proved by this event. Their own interpretation betrayed them.

Fortunately

Advaitins do not have to engage in any such gimmicks as for them Vednta is not deitydriven/dependent for survival. It is solely to survive the theistic schools labor so much.]
To add more injury to the bloggers appropriating Sridhara swamin as a non-corrupt Advaitin
(those who hold Hari-Hara abheda are corrupt Advaitins as per the criteria, apart from that they put
on the bhasma, by the bloggers), Sridhara Swamin pays obeisance to Lord iva exclusively in his
invocation to his Bhagavad Git commentary:

[Having prostrated to Sri M-dhava (now prostrating) Um-dhava (Lord iva) who is the Lord of
the universe (Vivea) with ardour, propelled by (my) devotion (to both Hari and Hara) I
commence this commentary to the BG called subhodhin. The tat in the verse can also
exclusively apply to iva. But as an abhedavdin it is but proper to have it apply to both the
deities.] In the VP invocation he says iva is Vivewara. In the Bhgavatam invocation he
says both Hari and Hara are Ivaras that can grant Everything (sarvasiddhivdhyinau), who are
the heart, self, of each other, and who both love to worship each other.This is Sridhara Swamins
hattrick: Invoking the name of Hara in three of his seminal works and equating him with Hari and
holding both Ivara. That is the mark of a true vaiava that the Padmapurna specifies. One
can also notice the pattern: Hari and Hara alone being paired and not any other combination for
such special, outstanding, epithets, applying them common to both, in equal measure.

Thus, there is no truth in the misconceived ideas that when Viu prays to iva it is not really to
iva or when iva prays to Viu it is truly with iva admitting his inferior nature. Sridhara
Swamin puts an end to and rejects such unvedic ideas. In fact the MB reference to Paupati
shown above has in it Brahm (supposed to be the father of Rudra) saying: It is because of
Your grace that I have attained this status of being Prajpati, the Lord of all creatures. That is
why in the Amrta mathanam episode commentary, after composing his own verses bringing out
the Hari-Hara-Brahm abheda, Sridhara concludes with a rebuke: those who quarrel as to
whether Hari or Hara is superior/supreme are simply ignorant, ajnnis. This rebuke is actually

85
articulated by Veda Vyasa himself in the Stasamhit which alone has insprired Sridhara
Swamin. The bloggers twist Sridhara Swamins words and try to mislead the gullible readers.

Vamdhara another eminent commentator of the Bhgavatam, at the end of his commentary that
brings out the glory of Sridharas commentary says, citing the Padmapura extolling the 12th
canto of the Bhgavatam:

The last line there says: He is admitted to be a great vaiava who does not differentiate between
Durg, Viu and iva and looks upon the three to be Brahman Itself. It is to be specially noted
that Sri Appayya Dikita in his famous work Ratna traya park has brought out the above
theme of Veda Vyasa in the Padmapura that the three are none other than Brahman.

Many more verses from the above Padmapura section are cited by Vamidhara

The above verses are from Padmapuras extolling the Bhgavata 12th cantos greatness.

Madhusudana Saraswati:
MS has commented upon the famous work Mahimna stotram of Pupadanta as applying to both
iva and Viu. At the end of the work MS composes a few verses depicting the Hari-Hara abheda:


Obeisance ever to Him, who is resplendent with His body adorned with vibhti, ashes, and is of the
complexion of camphor (or having the moon on His head), the One Atman that is both Hara and Hari.

86
[With the benediction that the understanding of non-difference between Hari and Shankara may rise even
in those with a lowly intellect have I, with effort, commented on the Shivamanhima stotra verses in dualmeaning mode (as applying to Hari and Hara). Let the noble ones accept this as admissible alone.]
Thus everywhere we see that Hari and Hara alone are paired which is not in any way abheda in
the Advaitic Pramrthika level.

Here is another Hari-Hara abhedavdin, Dhanapatisri, Advatin who has commented


(Bhyotkara dpik) on the BGB of Shankara. He pays obeisance to Krishna and iva in the
same way that Sridhara Swamin does, that is, identifying Ka and iva as verily each other:

He pays obeisance to that iva who, as Brahma created the world and gave the vedic religion to
the people thereof for their upliftment (refer BG 3.10), in the form of Vsudeva. For this Advaitin,
iva is Brahm and Viu.

He says Ka and ankaracharya are both Ivara-s and are identical - ektmakau. [Just like
Amalananda does in the stradaranam by identifying Hari-Hara thru their incarnations: Vysa
and ankara and just like Vcaspati Misra paying obeisance to both Bhava and Vysa
[incarnation of Bhagavan Hari.] Dhanapati Sri also, like almost all the prvchryas (from the
ealiriest ones), pays obeisance to Gaea, etc.

The Gitbhya was first authored by ankara who was verily iva who is the Self of Kria. He
has warded off any desparate interpretation that Ka is the antarymi of iva by the word
ektmakau in the 4th verse itself.

87
He says his antarymi is iva. He alone is the impeller of the entire sentient beings and this is
established by the shruti.

At the end he pays obeisance to:

iva that is Ka is the Non-dual Truth to which he pays obeisance through this commentarial
work. He names Paramevara as iva and identifies him with Ka who is none other than iva,
the Sarvevarevara.

r Dharmadatta arm has commented on the Grthadpik of Madhusdana Saraswati. His


commentary appears in the end of the book containing the other famous Advaitic commentaries.
This author too pays obeisance to iva as the Supreme Brahman from whom, owing to the three
guas, the creation, sustenance and dissolution takes place, with iva himself assuming the
trimrti forms.
Thus the entire galaxy of Advaita Acharyas, from the earliest Veda Vysa, ankara, Surevara,
Vcaspati Misra, Sarvajtman, Sridhara Swamin, Vidyaranya, Appayya Dikshitar, Madhusudana
Saraswati up to the most recent shines resplendently with the Invaluable Jewel: Hari-Hardvaita
bhaam. All efforts to rob this jewel will be thwarted and crushed by the power this galaxy
supplies without end.

88

A synopsis:
The bloggers have tried their best to paint Vcaspati Misra as not a Vedntin. Their sole objective behind
this is to somehow or the other vilify him as an unimportant personality in the Advatic lineage and thus
eliminate him. If only Vcaspati had belonged to post 15 CE, the bloggers would not even have bothered
to look at him. Unfortunately for them the Bhmati happens to be the very first complete commentary on
the BSB, that too coming immediately after Shankara in the same century. The only crime of Vcaspati
Misra is that he was a iva bhakta which has what turned out to be a thorn in the flesh of the bloggers
thesis that All early Advaitins were vaiavas. Instead of abandoning their bigoted, unfounded, idea in
the face of the fact of Vcaspati Misras hiva-bhakta status, [being deluded that he was the only iva
bhakta and none else in the Advaita lineage], they went about attempting the eliminating of Vcaspati
Misras very identity from the canvas of early Advaitins!! Such is the bigotry that their Acharyas have
taught them. It has been recorded that Sri Appayya Dikita had to face threats to his life from the
vaiavas. A story has been recorded in this connection:
Vedanta Deikas drama Sankalpa sryodaya contains a verse in its second canto [2.43] that says in
effect: I take the feet of those who subscribe to the views of the Rmnuja school on my head. And I
place my left foot on the head of those who differ from this.

89
It seems on an occasion of staging this play Appayya Dikitar was invited to witness it. While the above
verse was being enacted, the actor came close to where Appayya was seated and lifted his left foot and
gestured its placing on his head. Stung by the misdemeanor Appayya Dikitar vowed to labor to bring out
the glory of Advaita with even more rigor and ivas Supremacy from the scriptures.
One can see how deity-based philosophies cannot free themselves from extremist tendencies. Advaita
alone does not get into this situation since it is beyond any deity.
A number of his works/stutis were triggered by such harassment Appayya Dikitar faced. The bloggers
could not even patiently study the very next verse of Vcaspati Misra where he pays obeisance to Veda
Vyasa as an incarnation of Bhagavan Hari. They have concluded that whoever writes a hymn on iva is
a viu dve. And to their chagarin, their much-trusted Amalnanda has betrayed them by exactly doing
this. That is the kind of training they have received from their Acharyas.
The foregoing study has completey demolished the bloggers theory and scuttled their evil designs and
exposed their ulterior motives to the neutral public so that they will be wary of their blogs and claims. In
this era they are propagating enmity between communities instead of striking the uniting chord that the
Veda, Veda Vyasa, Shankara and all Advaita Acharyas down the line have taught even by practice the
Hari-Hara abheda theme. Their prayers and daily rituals, temples, even household naming are all centred
on this Vedic theme. The desparate attempts of the bloggers to throttle this noble vision and divide the
society on sectarian grounds is indeed regrettable and severely condemnable.
In the process of proving them completely wrong, the above study has laid bare the fact that all the
Advaita Acharyas, starting from the earliest ones up to the contemporary, have been Hari-Hara abheda
vdins. The very criterion used by the blogger (in the case of Vcaspati Misra) which deity an Advaita
Acharya named or praised in his works has been adopted in this study to show how mistaken the
bloggers are. The Advaita Acharyas, from the earliest to the present day, have also paid obeisance to
Gaapati and Saraswati in most of the cases and to Subrahmanya and Surya in some. One has even
held Gaapati as Muktiprada. By viewing the way all these Acharyas have expressed their Hari-Hara
abheda and bhakti to other deities of sanatana dharma, one can easily conclude that they have never
subscribed to the bigoted ideas of Viu-alone is supreme, iva is a jiva, Ganapati worship is a later-day
addition, only later-day Advaitins championed the Hari-Hara abheda idea, etc. iva-supremacy related
verses / episodes in the MB are interpolated, and such portions in puras are tmasik in nature, etc. By
propagating such views the bloggers have made Veda Vysa a tmasik Acharya and brought disgrace to
the entire Sanatana Dharma and the Hindu society.
There is also absolutely no basis for their claim that hankaracharya did not don the bhasma. They
have relied on a commentary that only allternatively gives the meaning to Padmapadas word nirasta
bhtim as one without the vibhti (contrasted with Lord iva) to buttress this claim. That such is not

90
what that word means is easily appreciated when one understands that: While Lord iva had the
mana bhasma (ashes of the crematorium) all over his body, from head to foot, Shankarcharya in his
human form, just as a vaidika, donned the vibhti, produced from the agnihotra ritual (routa) or by other
prescribed (smrta) means and that too in the particular places of the body. There is bhasma dhraa
vidhi and mantras for it. The Bhasmajbla Upaniad and other upaniads and smiti texts are authority
for the time-immemorial practice of bhasma dhraa by vaidikas.
http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/brihajjabala.html?lang=en-IN
This Upaniad teaches that Yati-s too have to don the bhasma:















The above verses stipulate the source of the bhasma for various vara/arama-s. Since Shankaracharya
was a Paramahamsa Parivrjaka, and not an ativarram, he donned the bhasma that has been
produced in the manner stated in the Upaniad. From Shankaras bhya one can deduce the great
importance Shankara gave to the observance of rules and following the dharma of ones rama and
vara. In the vsya bhya 8 he says: [Nothing that the scripture
enjoins is unworthy of adherence.] There are solutions to the problem of not being able to access the
bhasma that is produced as per the method stipulated. A study of the commentary by Upaniad
Brahmayogin to this and several other upaniads will give one the correct vaidika practice. The last cited
verse above also says that for ativararam the bhasma taken from the crematorium is stipulated. Since
Lord iva was such a one, he is resplendent with the bhasma of the crematorium.

91
In the Pranopaniat 2.11 occurs this word: [You are a vrtya] For this ankara comments:
, [O Pra, since you are the firstborn, not having anyone other than yourself to perform purificatory rituals (samskras) you are a vrtya.
What this means is: He is by nature Pure] iva is also given that name.
And since Shankara was a vaidika sannysin, he is stated to be without that bhasma from the
crematorium nirasta bhti like iva. That is what the commentary to Padmapdas verse means.
Since Sri Rma was a traivarika ghastha, the bhasma prescribed for him and worn by him is the one
produced from the agnihotra or virajnala. This is what is stated in the ivagt of the Padmapura.
http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/jabali.html?lang=en-IN
While all those things Padmapda lists in his verse, such as vibhti (whether it is bhasma or aivarya),
Um, snakes, ugratvam, Vinyaka, are all inalienable attributes of iva, such is not the case with
Shankara. That is what the verse means. One can definitely think of Shankara without the bhasma on his
forehead, etc, for instance, when he has just bathed. While Shankara is famous as the Bhyakra, yet
he was not that before writing the bhyas, when he was just a brahmachrin. In the same way the
bhasma without which we cannot conceive of Lord iva, is not so in the case of Shankara. That is all one
has to understand from the verse/interpretation. A comparison will make the purport of the commentary
clear: In the very popular r Venkatewara Suprabhtam, in the mangasanam part occurs this
verse: rvaikuha-viraktya svmi-pukari tae. ramay ramamya venkatya mangalam. The gist
is: Glory to Lord Venkatea who having renounced (virakta) rvaikuha has chosen to abide by the holy
Tank at Tirumala. If the word virakta in the verse is taken to mean literally, then the consequence is that
the Lord, no longer pleased to be in Vaikunha has deserted it and come down to the Tirumala Hill. Such
is certainly undesirable and wrong since the vaiavas most cherished goal is to go to Vaikunham and
be there forever. That is their mukti. So, the viraktya is to be figuratively taken to mean that the Lord
has out of compassion condescended to come down to bhloka and make his presence available to the
people here, soulabhyam. In the same way the nirasta bhtim word commented upon to alternatively
mean bereft of bhasma will have to be taken as stated in the foregoing and not literally and thereby
avoid the contradiction with the ruti cited above. Even in the case of the aivarya such as aim siddhis,
we do have instances where Shankara displayed them on particular occasions such as traveling by the
aereal route to certain places (Vivarpas house in Mhimat) where he later had that debate, para kya
pravea, containing the fury of the flooding Narmada into his kamanalu, etc.

Surevara in his

Naikarmyasiddhi says: Shankara obtained the Knowledge of Brahmman through yogabala.


In fact the angra donned on the forehead by Madhvas is also a product of charcoal of the dhpa alone.
Appayya Dikita has written on this subject of bhasmadhraa, etc. only pained by the harassment from
the vaiavas of his times. That the marks one wears is always a topic of unnecessary dispute is borne

92
out from the fact of court cases being fought between the Vaakalai and Tenkalai sects of the Ramanujafollowing:
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/dispute-over-y-nama-u-nama-in-highcourt/article1275431.ece
See a video on the nma yuddha not on the forehead of humans but elephants between two Iyengar
sects in this Kannada video clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMqV8TXBx9g
It is about a 200 year old dispute.
Read some more opinions depicting how the fighting parties become laughing stocks in public:
https://churumuri.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/whats-in-a-nama-our-honour-my-good-lord/
//Adding to what Mysore Peshva says The Apex Court ruled that the temple elephant
should be naamed U and Y every alternate week. Now, you know how much naamada unde
and kunkuma are required for naaming an elephant (at 12 places!). So they wise men
painted the elephant. Now, the paint cannot be easily removed. So, again the wise men
started scrubbing and scrubbing the elephants body with a bundle of coconut husk week
after week. Within months, the elephant got sores all over the body and eventually died.
Brahmins/Pundits are supposed to be an intelligent community. This is the example of their
wisdom and intelligence. Most of the Vadagalais and Thengalais do not even know why are
they called so and how did they become two groups of the same caste. God save such wise
people and our beautiful country from such idiots. //
Fortunately for vaidikas the Veda, the smitis and Veda Vyasa are not bigots. That is what saves this
sanatana dharma from the onslaughts of extremism.
Read in the History of Dharmasastra by P. V. Kane - the material is available in Volume 2 - Part 1, Page
672-675. It describes both types of Pundradhraa for both Vaisnavas and Saivas. It gives references too
that are relevant to this topic. It also cites the smtimuktphalam that gives a lot of details and a sage
advice that P.V.Kane too is inclined to cite from this work: Instead of calumnising each other, let the
various sects follow what the ias of their community do.
Thus, it is only laughable that the blogger has made this an issue and wants to appropriate Shankara into
his vaiava camp at least on this count since he realized that all other reasons have met with complete
failure.
In the Padmapura is the ivagt where there is an instance of Rma observing a Pupata vrata
taught by Agastya. It involves Rma donning the bhasma as prescribed:

93
http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_giitaa/shivagiitaa.html?lang=hi
This work has a commentary ivagtbhyam written by Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Narasimha Bhrati
who adorned the Sringeri Peeham from 1599 to 1622 AD. The Maha published it in 1962 from the
manuscript preserved with it. It has been newly printed again very recently and is available for purchase.
The Fourth Chapter:






















These verses describe Rma observing the ritual with the prescribed codes such as donning the bhasma at the prescribed places of
the body and also putting on the Rudrka ml while performing this vrata.
There are these verses in the ivagt of the Padmapura from the above URL:

94














The above verses describe the instruction Agastya gave to Rama regarding the bhasma dhraa and the ritual to be followed. He
instructed Rama the iva sahasra nma too that is to be chanted by Rama during the vrata. The above verses say that this iva
sahasra nama is named vedasra ivasahasranma. One can compare this process with the Upamanyus instructions to Ka in
the MB for a similar vratal Ka is to observe where too the iva sahasra nma was instructed. Thus, there is proof for a family in
Tamil Nadu having a picture of Rama being worshiped by them where Rama is seen with bhasma.
There is no proof in the Valmiki Ramayana or other texts on what exact marks Rama, Krishna and other Avataras wore on their
forehead. Pictures painted by followers of Madhva and Ramanuja apply the marks of their choice on the forehead of these gods
thus showing there is no unanimity in this. The above reported fight between two sects of Ramanuja followers is ample proof for this.
Advaitins will happily apply the Sridhara swamins words here: Both Hari and Hara love to prostrate to each other; they are each
others selves and both are Ishvara-s. And thus take such instances of the ivagta or the MB to be arthavda for enthusing
aspirants to have abheda bhakti to Hari-Hara. Advaitins will not, like the bigots do, take these instances as literal and spew venom
on those Acharyas who have cited them or approve those episodes as viu-dveis. Veda Vyasa, Shankara, all the early Advaita
Acharyas, Amalananda, Sridhara swamin, etc. have become the inevltable viu dveis as all these personalities were staunch
Hari-Hara abheda vdins. Much to the disappointment of these bloggers the very VSN Bhya which they try to parade as being in
favor of their bigoted ideas has now been shown to contradict their faith in that work. They tried to paint even the Advaita Acharyas
and Veda Vyasa as bigots. Fortunately such designs get thwarted by some or others work to expose them.
Vedantins do not accept the wail from vaiava bigots that such texts as the Padmapuraa or such portions as the above in that
very pura are tmasic in nature. Vedantins look for tma upadea from Veda Vyasas works and do not consider Veda Vysa to
be a tmasic person. For them all such stories/episodes are instructions in developing bhakti to Hari Hara and not to hate them.
Such is the broad vision the Veda and Smrtis teach which the bigots miss. The bhya on the ivagt contains a lot of instructions
about the mantras to be chanted while donning the bhasma.
Some more references are available in this Tamil Blog:
http://vaidikasaivam2.blogspot.in/2012/11/blog-post.html

95

There is a Mahabharatha verse which is found in some versions/recensions:

13-208-55
.
Purely out of the misguided idea that the early advaitins were vaiavas, the bloggers have gone on to
conjecture that Shankaracharya was not donning the bhasma. While his very name is of iva and he was
an incarnation thereof, his being a vaiava is ab initio ruled out since vaiavas do not bear that name
and that they have not respected iva and his incarnation gaining respect from them is nowhere in the
the realm of reality. Their speculation on what Shankara donned is expressed by Sanskrit literature as
kkadantapark: The maxim of searching after a crows teeth, used to denote any useless,
unprofitable, or impossible task. [Apte The Students Sanskrit-English Dictionary p.305 listed under the
word nyya]
Saint Thyagaraja, a true advaitin who had Sri Rama as his iadevat, nevertheless has composed this
beautiful song depicting Lord iva as the essence, sram, of the blissful smaveda. The Lord in the
Bhagavadgita has said: I am the sman among Vedas. [BG 10.22]. Thyagaraja says iva is the destroyer
of kla.

Who is kla? Death. Destruction of death is none other than liberating, moka.

http://www.karnatik.com/c1184.shtml
Annamcrya reflects in this song: http://karnatiklyrics.blogspot.in/2011/06/entha-matramuna.html
//The

Vaishnavas

The

Vedic

The

Shaivas

worship

philosophers
believe

that

tell
you

are

you

with

that
iva

you
&

the

are

reverence
the

Kapalikas

as

Supreme
praise

you

Vishnu.

Consciousness.
as

Adibhairava.

The Shakteyas consider you as the manifestation of the supreme power Shakti. People chant your praise
in a number of ways. Ignorant people assume that you are insignificant.The wise recognize your infinite
greatness.//
[Iit is noteworthy that Sri Annamcrya excludes the vaiavas from Vedntins, just as ankara has
excluded the Pcartra/bhgavata school from the Vednta darana in the BSB:
koluthuru mimu vaishnavulu, koorimitho vishnudani
palukuduru mimu vaedaantulu, parabrahma anuchu
By Vedntins he obviously refers to Advaitins for they alone hold the Supreme Reality to be Brahman
beyond all names and forms. Those who hold the highest tattvam to be Viu (the deity identified as
Lakmipati, etc.) are not vedantins as per this composer. Shankaracharya who alone holds the highest
truth to be Brahman, therefore, does not come under the vaiava category. His invoking names such

96
as Viu, Vsudeva, Nryaa, Achyuta are invariably Nirgua Brahman and not the deity that nonVedntins understand by these names. Nowhere in the prasthnatraya bhyas has Shankara given
even a remote hint that these names relate to the deity that is popular as Lakmipati or Vaikuhapati.
Nor has Shankara stated that the worshipers of the deity Nryaa, if that is the sagua Brahman, will go
to that loka. Instead, everywhere in the bhya what we read is: the upsakas of sagua Brahman (an
unnamed/unformed deity in Advaita) will go to the chaturmukha brahms loka. That is called krama
mukti. Read some articles here on this subject:
https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/the-concept-of-krama-mukti-in-advaita-2/
https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/752/ ]
Annamacharya by saying Ignorant people assume that you are insignificant.The wise recognize your
infinite greatness is only distinctly stating the former are nstikas and the latter are astikas.

the sentiment of the Mahimnastotra of Pupadanta:


:
:

7
( ,
- - - , , ,
)
and another very popular such verse by an unknown author:


[In this verse the poet identifies the highest Truth to be Hari who alone is seen variously by different
people including the Vedntins who hold this Truth (called Hari) as Brahman.
He echos that sentiment in this another kti:
http://www.lyricsintelugu.com/2010/04/bhavamulona-bhahyamunandunu.html
where he says: all the devats are the incarnations of Hari. Thus one cannot say one is high and the
other is low just as one would not do that with regard to Rama, Krishna and Narasimha, etc. In the same
vein Thyagaraja Swami too says: http://www.karnatik.com/c2757.shtml
rma nannu brovar :

cmalo brahmalo iva keavdulalo .

97

Here, Rama is said to be inhering in all the trimurtis. That means the Rama here is the Parabrahman
who alone appears as the Trimurtis. This Parabrahman alone has been given various names. Shankara
has shown both Nryaa and iva as the Supreme Cause of the universe in his Bhyas including the
VSN for the name Rudra 114 (by citing the authority of the ivapuram: iva parama kraam, just as
the Atharvaikh upaniad says the Supreme Cause is ambhu) Shankaracharya does not subscribe to
the idea of tmasatva of some puras. He has cited from several works like the Bhaviyottara to bring
out the Hari-Hara abheda, Trimurti-aikya concepts.
That all devata-upsanas have the Vedntic Nirgua Brahman in their core is brought out by
Madhusudana Saraswati in his BG commentary at the end of the 15th chapter:

[Those worshipers/meditators of the deities such as iva, Srya, Gaea, Viu and akti ultimately
become one with That Supreme Consciousness that verily am I]
MS is definitely not saying that he is the substratum of all these upsakas. All these upsanas culminate
in the upsaka realizing his oneness with the Supreme Reality, Brahman.
The above verse of Madhusudana is also proof of those sects existing even before his time.
ankaracharya is famed to have regulated the worship of these sects so as to be conducive to the Vedic
Brahman. It is interesting to note that Madhusudana includes vaiavas too in that group and holds that
the upsan of Viu too culminates in the Vedantic Advaitic Brahman alone. Thereby all these schools
are abheda from each other just like the various avataras of Viu are not absolutely different from each
other but really one alone.
Thus all those who follow the Vedas, right from Veda Vyasa, Shankara up to even Kavis like Klidasa
and Thyagaraja uphold the Hari-Hara abheda conception.
Mega Lie: http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_3.html
Ans. So, different traditions follow different ways, but ultimately all end up rejecting the Saiva mata. srI Adi
Shankara rejects them for their non-acceptance of upAdAna kAraNatva and secondarily for worshipping
Siva as saguNa brahman instead of vishNu.
The Truth:
There is absolutely no truth in the above claim under secondarily.. Nowhere in the Shnkara bhya is
there support for such a claim that the Pupata doctrine is rejected because they worship iva as
sagua Brahman instead of Viu. Nor do the commentators give such a wrong idea as the bloggers
have stated, obviously to tarnish Shankaras image and show him as one among them: bigots. First of
all, the Mhevaras do not have the sagua-nirgua division like the Advaitins. In fact Shankara has said

98
very little about this doctrine per se in the entire adhikaraa devoted to that topic. Most of the bhashya
concerns itself with the refutation of those who, by tarka, build up their doctrine. The refutation covers
several schools, all of them in common, and not just this Pupata doctrine in particular. So, nowhere
Shankara has said what has been claimed above about saguna Brahman. Nor can the bloggers draw
that conclusion inferring from the Bhagavata school instance where Shankara has only admitted the
devotional practices of meditation etc.[ ,
, BSB 2.2.42] They have conveniently appropriated this
approval of Shankara as an approval of the Viu-alone sagua brahman doctrine which Shankara
never has taught in the bhyas. The Mhevaras admit, ankara says:
Here yoga is commented upon by Ratnaprabh, Bhmati and Nyyaniraya
(Anandagiri) as dhyna-samdhi. ankara has admitted dhyna- samdhi in the BSB itself 3.2.24:
; [..Yogins
realize the upaniadic Atman during the practice of bhakti, dhyna and such devotional practices.] Thus,
this element, found in the Bhgavata school, is admitted by Shankara and there is no reason to say that
he does not admit this with respect to the Mahevara school. After all, he has not said that yoga, etc. of
their school is not admissible. If devotional practices can neutralize ppa vanas (as per BSB 2.2.42)
there is no reason why these cannot in the earlier adhikarana.
More than this evidence, the clinching evidence to reject the bloggers mischievous suggestion through
that blatant lie is that in the VSN bhyam Shankara has given several verses in proof of Hari-Hara
abheda, on the basis of name and form and upsan too, citing Hari Vama, Viupura, etc. showing
that Hari or Hara can be saguna, upya, Brahman for any aspirant. The Jbla ruti reference is also
given in the foregoing. Thus there is no element of truth in the bloggers claim that Shankara rejects the
Mhevara school because of that secondary reason: They hold iva as saguna Brahman and not
Viu. This is nothing but another vulgar expression of bigotry by the blogger.
This article is written with the sole aim of proving the bloggers claims wrong. Their concerted effort to
wipe off Vcaspati Misra from the face of Advaita has failed. They have embarked on this evil design
only after having failed to wipe off Lord iva from the Shruti, Smti and Puras including the
Mahabharatha. All references to ivas glory, praise, unmatched power, his superiority to Viu are all
interpolations or tmasic sections but those regarding ivas birth is undoubtedly genuine and to be
taken literally. Santana Dharma has survived only because there have been no takers for these spurious
products of bigots. Their designs have been firmly resisted and crushed with an iron hand by followers of
the Vaidika Dharma. Glory to Dharma.
With this I call it a day for writing articles of the above genre. I have written enough of them and they are
there in the public domain, forming models for anyone else to carry forward that task as long as
misrepresentations of Advaita and Santana Dharma continue. I thank all the friends, whom I am not

99
naming here, for helping me with material that I have used here.

Readers are welcome to seek

clarifications regarding contents of this article by writing to me by private email or to my blog (adbhutam in
wordpress and not in discussion forums) where I announce this article and I shall certainly respond to
them.





[Glory forever to the exalted crya ankara. Glory to His blemishless Advaita Darana. Glory to His
impeccable conduct that purifies one and all. May devotion to His Lotus Feet grow forever.]
Om Tat Sat

S-ar putea să vă placă și