The Ultimate sharaNagathi and personal beliefs ...

[Guest guest]

This is a topic that has been bothering me for a

while now. I hope the learned people on this group

can resolve my doubts.

 

I have often had discussions with people who have

been "formally" inducted as a Sri Vaishnava who has

surrendered to the Lord through baraNyAsam. Some of

them I talk to, militantly oppose the concept of

other Gods - like Lord vignEsvarA or Lord ShivA, to

the extent that they even consider it even beyond

their limits to pray to these Gods.

 

I have always been of the belief that the visual

forms that we see in Temples and Photographs are mere

earthly formulations and mental conceptions of

humans. I have believed in sharaNagathi as something

more heavenly, something that is difficult to

visualize, but it is something where one can see the

srIman nArAyaNa thaththuvam (The Philosophy of sIman

nArAyaNa) in all creation. It may be a mahAvigraham

of shrI vignEsvara, one still visualizes the

srIchakra yanthram placed next to him, and not just

as considering him an idol of an other religion, for

religion is a mere boundary of fiction. The concept

of one Supreme being only helps us focus our efforts

in attaining the level of spiritual perfection that

prepares one for mOksham.

 

It is my belief that when one attains this level of

tolerance and maturity of thought, when one can see

the beauty of the Lord in everything that is or can

be thought of, there can be no higher level of

acceptance by the Lord, and you attain mOksham. And

I believe that this could be the Lord in any form,

for after all "nArAyanAyEthagum sarvam" as told in

the nArAyaNOpanishad. He may come to you as perumAl

or paramEsvaran, but it is the human mind that makes

the difference. The spiritually pure mind does not.

Is my thought right ? Or is there something that I

am missing. Would someone clear this question for me

please.

 

Is nArAyaNa a concept or is he a form ? Does he not

say in the Gita that he exists formlessly in all

forms ? Why do we mortals fight about these boundaries

when our goal is beyond that ? Is not the srIchakram

we believe in as "srI vaishnavAs" concieved out of

the third eye of Lord Shiva. Is'nt srIvaishnavism

defined as surrender to Lord nArAyaNa who is:

 

"jagathprabhum dEvadEvam anantham purushOththamam"

 

as told to us by Shri BhIshmA ? So why do we attach

a mortal value to this purushOththaman who is

formless. Is not that a sin ?

 

 

adiyEn

Raja Krishnasamy

raja

[Guest guest]

Before I get anywhere with this posting, I wish to let the learned members of

this group that I do not mean to stir a hornet's st by my questions. All I

expect to is to gain the knowledge I so much lack, so much that leads to the

following confusion. If any of you do feel that I should not be doing this and

that my questions are indeed controversial to any extent, please let me know,

and I will gladly direct my questions to a different sadas. For I indeed

consider this group to be an esteemed sadas, and I do not wish to affect its

regular functioning any way.

 

I have received responses to my posting on this topic, and I am fortunate to be

blessed with this medium of education. I wish to specifically thank Shri.

Murali Rangaswamy, Shri Vijay Triplicane, Shri Krishna Kalale and Shri Sampath

Rangarajan for sharing their knowled on this topic with me. There however

seems to be some misunderstanding of what I tried to convey. My question

assumes that sriman nArAyaNa is indeed the supreme Brahman, and that he is the

ultimate destiny. However, having recognized this as fact, some of us

specifically seem to be tied down to specific forms of the Lord. By

surrendering to the Ultimate Brahman, should I not visualize the nArAyaNathvam

in all His various forms, as opposed to isolating them because of any

particluar reason. It is quite possible that these forms possess certain

qualities that we must learn by example that will help us to understand the

supreme goal. We visualize and idolize Shri Rama for all his KalyANa guNams.

He has indeed set supreme examples for a naran to attain srIman nArAyaNa. We

idolize srI nrisimhan as the supreme protector of his devotee ("tvai rakshathi

rakshakaihi kimanyai, tvai sA rakshathi rakshakahi kimanyai" from

kAmAsikAshtakam). Similarly will we not miss some of the qualities that may be

apparent in some other of His forms, but hidden to the agnAni in his form as

sriman nArAyaNa. Should we not maintain an open mind, and seek the best

qualities that have been exhibited by the various avathArams of our Lord -

irrespective as to what kind of a religious following some of these forms may

have.

 

I have been doing some reading of works by srI chandrasEkhara sarasvathi of

srIkAnchi kAmakOti pITam who attained mahAsannithAnam a few years back. His

discourses at various sadas have been compiled by the pITam in the form of

fifteen volumes called "theivaththin kuRal".

 

There are some sections in Volume 1 where he discusses the abhEdam in srIman

nArAyaNa and srI paramEshvaran. Again I am not trying to incite anyone's

feelings here please. In doing so he tells us that it is true that the concept

of one God has been propogated, but that is none else but the great paramAtma.

The paramAtma who is without form resides in all forms, and we as mortals are

not able to imagine the absence of the lines that have been defined to focus

one's efforts on following one path to the paraman, so we are not diverted from

our goals. And when the AtmA attains that maturity, then such an AtmA is

indeed pure and attains parama pAtham.

 

He quotes srI pEyAzhvAr from moonRAm thiruvanthAthi (Verse 2344):

 

"thaazsadaiyum neeNmudiyum, oNmazuvum sakkaramum,

soozaravum ponnaaNum, thOnRumaal, soozum

thiraNdaruvi paayum thirumalaimEl enthaikku,iraNduruvu monRaay isainthu"

 

While indeed there can be several literary interpretations to this verse, the

great AchAryAl illustrates this as the duality of Lord Shiva and srIman

nArAyaNa, where pEyAzhvAr describes the Lord at Thirumalai as none other than

the union of the two divine forms.

 

"mazuvu" would mean the "udukkai" that srI natarAja has in his hand. While

soozaravu could mean Adiseshan, it could also mean the snake that is around

Lord Shiva's shoulders. He says the Lord at Thirumalai composes these two

divine forms into one beautiful pristine form, that of Sri VenkatEsA.

 

The AchAryAl elsewhere explains to us the tale of two kings: srI rangarAja of

thiruarangam and srI natarAja of thiruchithambaram, both of whom are the Lords

of the resptive sabha's (thiruarangam would mean the holy sabhai, and srI

nataraja is also referred to sabhApathi). They both have south facing

thirumandalams, to signify the victory of fear over death and the concept of

salvation from the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. He says that while these

two are indeed worshipped by people of different walks of life, the learned man

would stop drawing the differes there, and understand the spiritual

significance of the Lord having taken the two forms so he may educate the two

kinds of people. This does not mean that we should disrespect the dEvathAs by

refusing to even look at them. The anology is of having several guests in a

house, but rendering preferential treatments to a few. As srIvaishNavas, one

should indeed worship srIman nArAyaNa, but this srIman is indeed all

pervading.

 

I am not familiar with discourses of our AchAryAL's from the srIvaishNava

paramparai and hence would hope that someone in this sabhai can help me out.

 

Raja Krishnasamy

raja

[Guest guest]

On Jul 23, 11:50am, Raja Krishnasamy wrote:

> Re: The Ultimate sharaNagathi and personal beliefs ...

> My question

> assumes that sriman nArAyaNa is indeed the supreme Brahman, and that he is

the

> ultimate destiny. However, having recognized this as fact, some of us

> specifically seem to be tied down to specific forms of the Lord. By

> surrendering to the Ultimate Brahman, should I not visualize the

> nArAyaNathvam

> in all His various forms, as opposed to isolating them because of any

> particluar reason.

 

These questions are due to the fact that one stillhas to catch up on

what is charanAgathi or baranYasam performed in Srivaishnava sampradAyam.

 

While charanAgathi can be done for obtaining many purposes

Srivaishnavas do it for obtaining mOksham only. Once we surrender or

undertake baranyAsam to one particular deity, it, itself means that we

trust in "that" deity for rendering us with or requested boon. In

(y)our case we "trust" this deity to deliver us mOksham through which

we agree to understand and enjoy the kalyAna gunAs of the Lord. It is

this "trust" or "mahAvisvAsam" that we assure doing baranyAsam and

undertake to keep our faith on "this" deity to deliver us. We have been

preached by our gurupArampariyam that once this mahAviswAsam is not

kept we invoke "aatma nirvEdam" in supreme Lord's mind.

 

 

> It is quite possible that these forms possess certain

> qualities that we must learn by example that will help us to understand the

> supreme goal. We visualize and idolize Shri Rama for all his KalyANa guNams.

> He has indeed set supreme examples for a naran to attain srIman nArAyaNa. We

> idolize srI nrisimhan as the supreme protector of his devotee ("tvai

rakshathi

> rakshakaihi kimanyai, tvai sA rakshathi rakshakahi kimanyai" from

> kAmAsikAshtakam). Similarly will we not miss some of the qualities that may

be

> apparent in some other of His forms, but hidden to the agnAni in his form as

> sriman nArAyaNa.

 

Once we surrender to Sriman nArAyan we surrender even the thought

that we surrendered already. That being the case where is the necessity

to learn these kalyAna gunas "objectively" ? Secondly when HE possess

all kalyAna gunAs in HIMself why must one look to "others" for parts of

the deal ?

 

> Should we not maintain an open mind, and seek the best

> qualities that have been exhibited by the various avathArams of our Lord -

> irrespective as to what kind of a religious following some of these forms may

> have.

>

>

 

Once BaranyAsam or charanAgathi is undertaken we realise that even our

soul belongs to HIM. There is no room there for any intellectual play

for the mind to seek something that is already sought through baranyAsam

or Ultimate sharaNagathi, once again with some "openness" in it.

> I have been doing some reading of works by srI chandrasEkhara sarasvathi of

> srIkAnchi kAmakOti pITam who attained mahAsannithAnam a few years back. His

> discourses at various sadas have been compiled by the pITam in the form of

> fifteen volumes called "theivaththin kuRal".

>

> There are some sections in Volume 1 where he discusses the abhEdam in srIman

> nArAyaNa and srI paramEshvaran. Again I am not trying to incite anyone's

> feelings here please. In doing so he tells us that it is true that the

concept

> of one God has been propogated, but that is none else but the great

paramAtma.

> The paramAtma who is without form resides in all forms, and we as mortals are

> not able to imagine the absence of the lines that have been defined to focus

> one's efforts on following one path to the paraman, so we are not diverted

from

> our goals. And when the AtmA attains that maturity, then such an AtmA is

> indeed pure and attains parama pAtham.

>

> He quotes srI pEyAzhvAr from moonRAm thiruvanthAthi (Verse 2344):

>

> "thaazsadaiyum neeNmudiyum, oNmazuvum sakkaramum,

> soozaravum ponnaaNum, thOnRumaal, soozum

> thiraNdaruvi paayum thirumalaimEl enthaikku,iraNduruvu monRaay isainthu"

>

> While indeed there can be several literary interpretations to this verse, the

> great AchAryAl illustrates this as the duality of Lord Shiva and srIman

> nArAyaNa, where pEyAzhvAr describes the Lord at Thirumalai as none other than

> the union of the two divine forms.

>

> "mazuvu" would mean the "udukkai" that srI natarAja has in his hand. While

> soozaravu could mean Adiseshan, it could also mean the snake that is around

> Lord Shiva's shoulders. He says the Lord at Thirumalai composes these two

> divine forms into one beautiful pristine form, that of Sri VenkatEsA.

>

> The AchAryAl elsewhere explains to us the tale of two kings: srI rangarAja

of

> thiruarangam and srI natarAja of thiruchithambaram, both of whom are the

Lords

> of the resptive sabha's (thiruarangam would mean the holy sabhai, and srI

> nataraja is also referred to sabhApathi). They both have south facing

> thirumandalams, to signify the victory of fear over death and the concept of

> salvation from the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. He says that while

these

> two are indeed worshipped by people of different walks of life, the learned

man

> would stop drawing the differes there, and understand the spiritual

> significance of the Lord having taken the two forms so he may educate the two

> kinds of people.

 

 

 

Our poorvAchAryAL vyAkyAnams are different.

 

 

 

I have not read the book you have mentioned. But between you and me, I

feel that it is good to note down some important differnces of these

south facing deities of chidambaram and Srirangam prior to comparing

them. The moolavar of Sriranganm was worshipped by Rama HIMself while

the moolavar Sri natarAjar of chidambaram worships SriRama himself who is

in nityAvAsam in the form of Sri gOvindaraJan (as per thala purAnam of

thiruch chithrak koodam and Sri Vishnu sahasra nAmam). Chidambaram

natarja is a mobile mangala vigraham and made of pancha Logam while Sri

RanganthA is permanently placed (Vibheeshanazwar could not move HIM) in

sudhdha sattvam and was given to IkshuvAku kulam by Lord Brahma who in

had earlier obtained this Ranganatha from HIS Fathar

aathimoolam Sriman nArAyana even prior to Lord Shiva was created.

Sri nataraja sannidhi is chronologically

later to Sri Govindaraja sannidhi as well.

> This does not mean that we should disrespect the dEvathAs

> by

> refusing to even look at them.

 

We are not disrespecting anyone. When we surrender to Sriman nArAyana

it is itself enough and one must only look at the eyes of SriKrishna in

all forms of Sriman nArAyanA only. Those devathAs who have been

installed as the deivam of everyone including Sriman nArAyana

contradict the para thaththuvam explained in vedham as derived by our

poorvachAryALS and nammAzhwAr. It is conceived that such contradictions

arrive due to their (those devathAs) being governed still under the

influence of Srivishnu mAya and that they have a karm bhAvam in them

that a surrendered SrivaishnaVaL will try to disaassociate with.

Surrendered souls donot want to contract this karma bhAvam which may

induce these surendered jivans who are still in this boolOgam under the

influence of mAya to err and violate the protocol of having this

"trust". Try reading Sri Koorath azhwar's sthuvam and its references

to peaks of thiru maal irum sOlai. This can be understood by a mind

only when one surrenders to Sriman nArAyanA completely.

 

 

> The anology is of having several guests in a

> house, but rendering preferential treatments to a few.

 

Once we surrender to Sriman nArAyana, we are owned by HIM and we cannot

afford to have this thought that we have all these GODS as guests at our

disposal to treat them in anyway we want. On the other hand we undertake

to serve (bagwath kaimkaryam) the "Lord Sriman nArAyanA alone"

as eternal servants at Srivaikundam.

 

 

 

adiyEn

Sampath Rengarajan

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry to enter into a topic that is very close to Srivaishnava hearts,

so please take my comments in the right spirit.

 

You must remember that Sri Candrasekharendra Sarasvati speaks from a very

different perspective. For the advaitin, the one formless nirguna brahman

takes on the form that is best suited for the particular devotee, so that

in an ultimate sense, Siva, Visnu, Devi are all only different aspects of

the same Parabrahman. However, an advaita corollary to the above statement

is that ultimately the particular devotee also realizes that (s)he is the

same Parabrahman. Saying one thing only without the other is not very

consistent with advaita, although it might help the common man in a

preliminary stage. Obviously, the corollary is not acceptable to

non-advaitins, while those who disagree philosophically with advaita will

find fault with the first statement also.

 

A second motivation for his statements is slightly political. It is well

known that he tried to bring together Saiva and Vaisnava traditions by

organizing joint Tiruppavai-Tiruvempavai singing etc. Now, all that is

well and good, but if you read his discourses on Adi Sankara's life

(translated by TMP Mahadevan and published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan), you

will see that he also plays up Saiva feelings over the Vaisnava at certain

points. In other words, such statements suit the audience and are meant

for popular consumption.

 

With all due respect to Sri Candrasekharendra Sarasvati, I beg to differ

with this approach. His words might teach the common man to give up petty

fighting over who is superior to whom. However, they do not help him to

understand the ananya-bhakti that should be directed towards one's

ista-devata. (I'm speaking from an advaita standpoint here.) I would

rather agree with the other, more consistent, strand of advaita teaching

that tells you that gurus teach a particular path that they have

themselves known and understood and which they estimate to be the best for

their disciples. From this perspective, it does not matter even if

peyAzhvAr really meant a union of Siva and Visnu in his words about the

iraNDuruvam at Tiruvengadam. An advaitin may theoretically know that Siva

and Visnu are different aspects of the same Parabrahman, but might find it

hard to actually practice it. And all the divergent mythologies and claims

to superiority don't help him either. Therefore, you are advised to

worship an ista-devata, and follow what your own guru tells you.

 

It is like this. Take a child in need of teaching. If his father tells him

to study, and at the same time, a neighbour tells him to go and play, and

a third friend says let's go watch a movie - the child will not know what

to do, and will only land in trouble. He can do useful work and progress

only if he listens to one person. Maybe he has an exam and really needs to

study. Or maybe, he is on vacation, and his father is being unreasonable.

In any case, the child cannot satisfy all these competing demands at

the same time. He has to choose one thing and stick with it, and later

face the results of his action.

 

Ananya-bhakti has to be like that. Popular religion is one thing. Intense,

earnest bhakti is another. Pick a guru and follow his teaching - ignore

the rest. As the upanisad says - "yasya deve parA bhaktir, yathA deve

tathA gurau" - one can learn much by doing so. If after consistently

following one particular teaching, you find that you have not learnt much,

then you can find fault with it later on. There is no point in getting

confused by different things right at the beginning. As for how you pick a

guru in the first place, "above all, to thine own self be true."

 

With best wishes,

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

At 07:49 PM 7/23/97 -0700, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

>

>I'm sorry to enter into a topic that is very close to Srivaishnava hearts,

>so please take my comments in the right spirit.

>

>You must remember that Sri Candrasekharendra Sarasvati speaks from a very

>different perspective. For the advaitin, the one formless nirguna brahman

>takes on the form that is best suited for the particular devotee, so that

>in an ultimate sense, Siva, Visnu, Devi are all only different aspects of

>the same Parabrahman. However, an advaita corollary to the above statement

>is that ultimately the particular devotee also realizes that (s)he is the

>same Parabrahman. Saying one thing only without the other is not very

>consistent with advaita, although it might help the common man in a

>preliminary stage. Obviously, the corollary is not acceptable to

>non-advaitins, while those who disagree philosophically with advaita will

>find fault with the first statement also.

 

I feel that Sri Sankaracharya makes a distinction in all his

(prastana-traya bhasyas). From the ultimate reality perspective, though he

states that Nirguna Brahman is the one, from the perspective of

conventional reality, Sankaracharya strongly supports 'narayana' or

'vasudeva' or 'visnu' and terms that entity as the one to be meditated upon

(see any prastana traya bhasya). (ie. his commentary on Bhagavadgita,

Upanisads and Brahmasutras)

 

Let me state references:

 

6th chapter, last sloka : yoginamapi sarvesam madgatenantaratmana

sraddhavan bhajate yo mam sa me yuktatamo matah

 

for this Samkarabhasya - states: rudra-adityaadi parananam yoginam yaha

vasudeva meva ....(I am quoting from memory)...

 

But the point is he feels the yogi who meditates on Vasudeva is superior.

Vasudeva is saguna and is not just in-dweller or atman since meditation is

the form of bhajate -sevate, since for nirguna brahman 'seva' is not

advised. Further the comparison is with Rudra, Aditya etc. which are saguna

forms.

 

Further,

 

18th chapter in manmana bhava- madbhaktaha and 18-66 'sarva dharman

parityajya'...

 

Samkarabhasya states : without 'surrender' to the feet of vasudeva, one

cannot attain jnana!!! (check it out)

 

 

Further, let us quote a brhadaranyaka: (apauruseya- more valid according to

some)

 

In the famous 'antaryami brahmana..... yah prithivyam antaro yamayati, yam

prithvi na veda, yasya prithivi sariram......yasya atma sariram......'

 

sri Sankaracharya could have said that an ultimate entity is the in-dweller

and controller of all the 27 entities such as : earth, water, wind fire,

jiva, etc.....,

 

He goes one step further and states: sah antaryamih narayanah (a step not

even taken by other strong vaisnava acaryas!). Please note that by

definition, the term narayana is used for saguna brahma, since creation,

maintenance and destruction is meant by it. This is also the subject of

brahma-sutras as per samkara-bhasya. See 'janmadyasya yatah -sutra'

 

I strongly feel that Saivism and Advaita got mixed up later as a historical

stance against pure vaisnavism. In fact, Sri Sankaracharya might have

strongly agreed to the view that 'Siva' is a guru. In 'manisha panchaka'

the inspiration and idea came from that view point only. This is a stance

verily acceptable to vaisnavas even though they dont come out and write

about it. For example, I dont have any qualms to accept siva as a guru,

since his 'ahirbudhnya samhita - is cited as one of the origins of concept

of 'prapatti'!!.(note there is a slight difference between a guru and one

in a line of acharya-parampara and Siva is not included in acharya

parampara). In the very same context, Vedanta Desika terms Siva as

'dayaluh - who shows the way out of this samsara through - taraka mantra

for those who visit varanasi, in one of his works.

 

I am not sure how to deal with the 'soundarya lahari' or 'daksinamurthi

stotra'. I am not also aware whether in these works, it is stated that

these dieties are termed as ultimate (saguna). Even if that were true, one

should give more credit to 'prastana traya bhasya' and possibly explain the

authorship of these minor works to 'other' Sankaracharyas - since there are

many of them in the lineage and could have happened by error.

 

I would really like to know what is wrong with this hypothesis.

Interestingly, many well known philosophy experts have this view.

 

Only among some advaitins, saivism has taken deeper importance to the

extent of practising ' siva-panchayatana puja'. Some smarthas like saint

thyagaraja have a different ista devata.

 

Incidentally, I myself am a 'pramana-sarana' (sri vedanta desika's term) or

a person who values proofs from authorities such as vedas. I do know that

in many major vaidika karma 'rudra deity' is mentioned. I faithfully follow

those injunctions. I have no qualms accepting what is true and is provable

as per acceptable testimony. As per vaidika testimony, narayana-paratva is

undisputed based on the 'adi-karanatva - criterion' ie. original cause of

all causes - criterion. Mentioning other criteria which are incidental, in

some puranas, some other diety may be extolled; however, when the

adikaranatva criteria is applied, it all converges to the 'narayana'

solution. Note that as per advaita all these applies to only conventional

reality. I am not worried about absolute reality here, since there is a

large ocean of samsara of this conventional reality to deal with and when

we cross this and stand on the banks of viraja river or on the sands of

'ksheera sagara' let us bother about the nirguna or saguna brahman issue!.

 

Regarding, what Raja Krishnaswamy asked regarding Narayana-Siva issue, one

has to read a chapter in'Vaisnavism' by SMS Chari to really understand the

criteria for evaluating the claims and issues, since the subject is deep.

that is the reason I wrote to him to send me his telephone number so that I

can discuss one-to-one rather writing a big essay on that subject, which is

a copy of such chapters.

 

Adiyen Krishna Kalale

 

 

Adiyen Krishna Kalale

[Guest guest]

With respect to Sri Krishna Kalale's recent post,

 

1. Yes, the prasthAna trayI bhAshyas are considered the most important

within advaita tradition too. The minor works are taught as introductory

teaching only. Nobody can claim to have learned advaita without having

read the prasthAna trayI bhAshyas.

 

2. All advaitins hold that nArAyaNa is bhagavAn. There is no question

about that. Siva is also held to be ISvara and as a guru. Similarly,

kRshNa is also regarded as a guru. However, ultimately, from the

standpoint of advaita, we are not interested in drawing devatA-tAratamyas

or describing deities other than vishNu as cillarai devataas, and so on.

This is because our standpoint is abheda at the end, and there is no point

in emphasizing bheda all along the way, beyond the minimum necessary. Even

if one has some sort of hierarchy in one's own mind, for example, if one

can regard Siva only as a guru, then one should always respect the guru

equally with God.

 

3. If you read a very recent advaita work, the commentary to

vivekacUDAmaNi by SrI candraSekhara bhAratI swAmigaL, right at the

beginning, he describes moksha as "tad vaishNavam padam," and throughout

the commentary, there are references to nArAyaNa when the verse talks of

bhakti or ISvara-anugraha. But then, this AcArya was not an exclusive

vaishNava. In fact, he often advised people not to fight over names and

descriptions of God when they haven't even seen His feet, and he always

taught that holding that vishNu is superior to Siva or the other way round

are unnecessary stances that don't help you. In spite of various

historical changes, a very similar situation could have held true for Adi

SankarAcArya too.

 

With best wishes,

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

Krishna Kalale wrote:

 

I apologize in advance since my post is somewhat tangential to the

purpose of the bhakti list. I'd like to make a point which distinguishes

advaita from the other schools:

>Samkarabhasya states : without 'surrender' to the feet of vasudeva, one

>cannot attain jnana!!! (check it out)

 

The statement is simply artha vAda meant to glorify worship of vAsudeva.

shrI sha.nkara is quite clear that GYAna alone leads to moxa and is

quite vehement about this in the brahma sUtra bhAshhya-s, upanishhad

bhAshhya-s and also the gauDapAda kArikA bhAshhya. There isn't a

_single_ place where he says that the worship of saguNa brahman is

necessary in these texts.

 

shrI gauDapAda is quite clear that worship of saguNa brahman is merely a

crutch for those who are not qualified enough. shrI sha.nkara also

expounds on this point very clearly. It is a little know fact (outside

the advaita tradition) that the mANDUkya and the kArikA bhAshhya are

considered superior texts and taught to advanced students only. The GK

very clearly states that people worship saguNa brahman in various forms

and these are merely for people who cannot grasp the tattva instantly.

 

All commentators including shrI Anandagiri, shrI vidyAraNya etc are also

quite vehement that worship of saguNa brahman is not necessary.

>I strongly feel that Saivism and Advaita got mixed up later as a >historical

stance against pure vaisnavism. In fact, Sri Sankaracharya >might have

 

I am not sure if Sri Kalale realizes the implications of his statement.

We have written evidence from the time of shrI vidyAsha.nkara tIrtha

that both shiva and vishhNu were equally held as saguNa brahman. In that

case 400-450 years from sha.nkara's time we have the AchArya-s

overturning a cardinal principle of shrI sha.nkara (according to Sri

Kalale) so that they could win the power struggle against the

vaishnavas. I hope our Acharya's, who we consider as jIvanmukta-s

weren't merely such self serving politicians.

>I would really like to know what is wrong with this hypothesis.

>Interestingly, many well known philosophy experts have this view.

 

I am aware many "philosophy experts" have this view, especially Western

acdemia. That is mainly because they are from a judeo-christian

tradition and are unable to understand the smArtha mentality which is so

very different.

 

The daxiNAmUrti stotra: nothing much can be said about the authorship,

but there is a vArttika on it by the name mAnasollAsa ascribed to shrI

sureshvarAchArya. Prof Karl Protter has a very inept analysis of this in

his encyclopedia. There are very many similarities between the

naishhkarmya siddhi (a "genuine" work of shrI sureshvara) and the

mAnasollAsa. I had posted a brief article about this on the advaita list

a few months back. I would strongly advise not making any conclusions

about the philosophy of shrI sha.nkara by reading works of Indologists

like Protter, Ingalls et al.

 

Ramakrishnan.