the idea of nirguna and saguna is entirely foreign to the works that are authentically his
Paul Hacker from Philology and Confrontation
page 93, 1st paragraph;
"according to S.'s point of view, those who have worshipped Isvara through meditation arrive at saguna Brahman. Thus, here, at least once, isvara is a synonym of saguna brahma.
page 96, 1st paragraph;
"The extent to which S. goes with his identification of Isvara with param Brahma is especially evident when he also distinguishes two forms (rupa) of Paramesvara, a saguna and a nirguna (IV,4,19,K978,8)
the idea of nirguna and saguna is entirely foreign to the works that are authentically his.
Shankara says in the sUtra bhAshhya (1.2.14)
nirguNamapi sadbrahma naamaruupagataiH guNaiH saguNaM upasanaarthaM tatra tatra upadishyate
Well, maybe not entirely then I will have to check this out when I get back. It does not prove that he wasn't Vaisnava, however. If Hacker is correct in his observation that Sankara speaks of Brahman and Visnu as if synonymous or equivalent, then Visnu is also nirguNa. This passage reminds me of a passage from the Bhagavata:
sa evedaM sasarjAgre bhagavAn AtmamAyayA sadasadrUpayA cAsau guNamayAguNo vibhuH
The usual trick (I'm being glib here) is to take guNa as the three guNas of MAyA. Thus, when nirguNa is used it is taken to refer only to the three guNas of MAyA, not to all guNas. SaguNa is still taken to mean affected or qualified by the three guNas of MAyA. This is, no doubt, because of the long textual history in some traditions of placing saguNa beneath nirguNa.
I am feeling very benefited by reading your notes on Sankara and his influence on Sri Jiva. I wonder, why is it Sankara doesn’t elaborate on what is Visnu-paramam-padam (or Nirguna-Visnu, as it is presented in this thread)? How it looks like?))) Maybe his attitude is to be a strict adherent of the ways of Sruti, and if Sruti is in the mood of giving some glimpse into That, and not more, he too doesn’t go far from the scheme. But perhaps he could give some more clear answer to the question, how 4-hands form of Visnu is beyond 3-guna forms and how the name "Visnu" is beyond 3-guna names? So, again, is it only once Sankara uses terms “saguna” and “nirguna” (which, I think, are very popular among modern Advaitins)?
The Sri and Madhva Vaisnavas were attacking a set of doctrines that had nothing to do with the real ideas and teachings of Sankara. Unfortunately, Krsnadas Kaviraj also falls into that trap and imputes to Sankara positions that were simply not his.
This matter about “mayavadis-mahaaparadhis” has been making me think it over and over again for years. Elsewhere You said, CC is like Readers Digest of Sri Jiva’s Sanskrit works. So, what I think, from the point of their work for popularization of Krsna, it is not a business of Krsnadas Kaviraja to present things precisely scientific. Who cares that mayavadis are not really in the line of Sri Sankara’s thought? It is evident here, You care, maybe some few of investigators care, but generally no one cares. So, I think, KK speaks of an image of Sankara in society, brand “Sankara” used by many, thus he accommodates needs of general mass of people. Whomever is beyond that lack of discrimination of real Sankara from “Sankara” can be accommodated by Sri Jiva. And besides, KK keeps Sri Sankara’s legacy intact saying in Adi-lila, “Acarya is not at fault that he was taken wrong”.
Last Edit: Dec 27, 2011 3:02:28 GMT -6 by kirtaniya