DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - HINDUSIM,IS IT A COMBINTION OF CULTURES, RELIGON OR SCIENCE?

**Raj_Copi_Jin** · 02-04-2010, 10:31 AM

I am really sorry to say this, this is nothing but fanatism from vaishnavites, as Far as I know sankaracharya does not refer to the supreme being as 'naryayna'.

He does, at several places, as 'Narayana', 'Vishnu' or 'Hari'. For example, in his Brahmasutra Bhashya, commenting on sutra 1.2.7 (referring to meditation on 'Hari' in the salagramam); or in his commentary on Mandukyakarika, commenting on karika 4.1 (where he speaks of 'Narayana purushottama'); or most unequivocally in his commentary to sutra 2.2.42 (in the Brahmasutra bhashya) where he refers to Narayana (specifically, using that name) as 'paramatma sarvatma'. A scholar will be able to cite many more instances - these are what I can pull out. All this makes perfect sense if you understand what Adi Shankaracharya was trying to do.

As you are aware shaivites completley rejects the above theory!

Well, some of them do anyway, usually by arguing that each of these verses refers to something less than Parabrahman. Others don't (there are many advaitin communities in Tamil Nadu and South India which have no problem with Vaishnavism). I think the original Sanskrit is quite clear, but that's only my opinion.

Ultimately, the point is that it makes very little sense to project Shaivite-Vaishnavite sectarianism - which in its virulent form doesn't go much further back than the period of the Imperial Cholas - onto Adi Shankaracharya. It's about as absurd as trying to interpret the rivalry between the Cholas and Pandiyas in the light of DMK-AIADMK rivalry. Shankaracharya was not a sectarian Shaivite or a sectarian Vaishnavite, because sectarian Shaivism and Vaishnavism did not exist in his day, thank God.

02-04-2010, 10:31 AM	#18
Raj_Copi_Jin Join Date Oct 2005 Age 48 Posts 4,533 Senior Member	I am really sorry to say this, this is nothing but fanatism from vaishnavites, as Far as I know sankaracharya does not refer to the supreme being as 'naryayna'. He does, at several places, as 'Narayana', 'Vishnu' or 'Hari'. For example, in his Brahmasutra Bhashya, commenting on sutra 1.2.7 (referring to meditation on 'Hari' in the salagramam); or in his commentary on Mandukyakarika, commenting on karika 4.1 (where he speaks of 'Narayana purushottama'); or most unequivocally in his commentary to sutra 2.2.42 (in the Brahmasutra bhashya) where he refers to Narayana (specifically, using that name) as 'paramatma sarvatma'. A scholar will be able to cite many more instances - these are what I can pull out. All this makes perfect sense if you understand what Adi Shankaracharya was trying to do. As you are aware shaivites completley rejects the above theory! Well, some of them do anyway, usually by arguing that each of these verses refers to something less than Parabrahman. Others don't (there are many advaitin communities in Tamil Nadu and South India which have no problem with Vaishnavism). I think the original Sanskrit is quite clear, but that's only my opinion. Ultimately, the point is that it makes very little sense to project Shaivite-Vaishnavite sectarianism - which in its virulent form doesn't go much further back than the period of the Imperial Cholas - onto Adi Shankaracharya. It's about as absurd as trying to interpret the rivalry between the Cholas and Pandiyas in the light of DMK-AIADMK rivalry. Shankaracharya was not a sectarian Shaivite or a sectarian Vaishnavite, because sectarian Shaivism and Vaishnavism did not exist in his day, thank God.
	Quote