1

Sarvajñātman misrepresented

In their misplaced enthusiasm to muster the support of ancient Advaitins to their unvedic idea

of ‘nārāyaṇa paratva’ (‘Supremacy of Nārāyaṇa’) the bloggers stated below have gone to awful

lengths in misrepresenting all Advaitins right from Shankaracharya onwards. Here is one more

example of their misadventure. Here the work ‘Samkṣepaĭārīraka’ of Sarvajñātman of the 11 CE

is taken up by the blogger to exhibit his ignorance of Vedānta:

https://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/04/sarvajnatmans-sankshepa-shariraka-lucid.html

//Lord Krishna, and not Shiva, is the one declared as the Supreme in the Vedas:

Towards the end of the 3rd adhyAya of this work, there is a refutation of the doctrine
of kaNAda and the mAheshvaras. Shri Nrsimhashrama Saraswati’s commentary
deserves great notice here.

First, the context: According to the philosophy of kaNAda and other vaisheShikas, who
do not believe in the apauruSheyatva of the veda, the connection between words and
the sense conveyed by them have been constructed by Lord Siva, whom they claim can
be inferred from perception and inference. This is disregarded by Sarvajnatman as un-
Vedic. The author says that according to the Vedas, it is instead Lord Krishna, who is
declared in the Vedas as the Supreme, is the one who created the universe effortlessly.

Note that if ancient advaitins such as Sarvajnatman were hari-hara-abheda vAdins, they
would be quite less inclined to switch to Lord Krishna in the siddhAnta portion when
the pUrvapakSha talks about Lord Shiva.
 2

3.263-264

"pada padārtha paraspara saṅgatiṃ

niramimīta tato na jagadguruḥ॥
matimatāṃ pravaro vṛṣabhadhvajaḥ
kaṇabhugādi munipravaraḥ prabhuḥ॥
na tu (*) dharādijagadracanābalā-
danumito'navakhaṇḍitaĭaktikaḥ ॥263॥"

"api tu vaidika vāṅmanasātigā

(a)nudita lupta cidekarasāt prabhoḥ ॥
abhavad ānakadundubhi nandanā(t)
amatipūrvam idaṃ sakalaṃ jagat ॥264॥"

(*)‘nanu’ as per the recension of Ramatirtha and Madhusudana, implying an objection

from the pUrvapakSha. In Nrsimhashrama’s recension, it is ‘na tu’, implying an
emphatic statement from the uttarapakSha.

Nrsimhashrama expands the first of the above two verses as follows in his
commentary ‘tattvabodhini’ :

“The Lord of sages such as kaNAda and akShapAda, who is inferred as the Lord by
virtue of creatorship of earth and the rest of the universe according to their philosophy,
who bears the bull as his flag, who is called Shankara (i.e., Shiva/Rudra), is excellent in
his knowledge compared to us and in our opinion. However, he does not possess
unbounded prowess, rulership, or knowledge. Hence, he cannot have established the
connection between the words of the Veda and the sense/object conveyed by the
words. The Purvapakshin replies as follows: ‘Then, as per your siddhAnta, by what
reason is the omniscient Lord proven, and how does the connection between names and
 3

forms come from Him?’ The answer is that we only conclude all these things from the
statements of the shruti, such as ‘yaH sarvaj~naH sarvavit’ and ‘satyaM j~nAnaM
anantaM’”

[kaṇabhugādi munipravaraprabhuḥ – kaṇāda akṣapāda muni-ĭreṣṭānāṃ svāmī dharādi-

jagad-racanā balād-anumitaḥ pṛthivyādi-jagannirmāṇa-lakṣaṇa-kārya-balād-anumitaḥ
(kaṇādamate iti upadhātavyaḥ) vṛṣabhadhvajaḥ ĭaṅkaraḥ yato matimatāṃ pravaraḥ
buddhimatām-asmadādīnāṃ ĭreṣṭaḥ asmadādy-apekṣayā'dhikajñānavān na tu
anavakhaṇḍita-ĭaktikaḥ na tv-aparicchinna-jñāna-aiĭvarya-ĭaktikaḥ tataḥ pada-padārtha-
paraspara-saṅgatiḥ padāni ghaṭādi-ĭabdāḥ padārthāḥ ghaṭādayaḥ paraspara-saṅgatiḥ
pada-padārthayor-anyonyaṃ vācya-vācaka-bhāva-sambandhaḥ pada-padārtha-
saṅketān-na niramimīta buddhipūrvān-nirmitavān ityarthaḥ । tarhi bhavanmate vā
sarvajña īĭvaraḥ kena siddhaḥ kathaṃ vā tasmān-nāma-rūpa-tatsambandhāḥ saṃbhūtā
ityāĭaṅkya yaḥ sarvajñaḥ sarvavit satyaṃ jñānam-anantam-ityādi-ĭrutyaiva siddhaḥ ॥]

The commentary for the next verse runs thus:

“‘That which is unreachable by words or the mind, by virtue of the statement ‘yato
vAco nivartante’, that which is devoid of origin and end, which is Pure Consciousness
in essence, the Lord, who was doted upon as his own son
by Anakadundubhi (vasudeva), Lord Krishna Himself. From this Lord Krishna, this
universe proceeds effortlessly, as if it were his breath. In your religion, the conclusion
that the connection between words and their sense is established by the Lord is
conditional upon the premise that the Lord can be inferred. However, we hold that the
word-sense connection is apauruSheya.’ - This is the meaning. In this verse, the author
(Sarvajnatman) also displays the greatness of his Vishnu-bhakti.”

[satyajñānam anantam ityādinā vedena lakṣaṇa-vṛttyā gamyo vaidikaḥ tatra hetuḥ –

vāṅmanasātiga iti । vāṅmanase atikrāntaḥ yato vāca iti ĭruteḥ anudita lupta cideka rasaḥ
 4

utpatti vināĭa rahita caitanyaika svarūpaḥ satyādi vākya lakṣya

vāṅmanasāgocarānuditānastamita bodha svarūpād ityarthaḥ । ānakadundubhinandanād
vasudevena putratetvena abhimanyamānāt ĭrī kṛṣṇād ityarthaḥ । anena svasya
viṣṇubhakty ādhikyaṃ dyotitam । amatipūrvam abuddhipūrvaṃ niĭvāsavad
anāyāsenety arthaḥ । idaṃ paridṛĭyamānaṃ sakalaṃ nāma-rūpa-karmātmakam
ityarthaḥ । tathā ca bhavadabhimateĭvarasya anumānād asiddheḥ tatsiddhiṃ vinā ca
saṅketasya tat kṛtatvāsiddher na ĭabdārtha sambandhaḥ pauruṣeya iti bhāvaḥ ॥]

Note especially the following words of Nrsimhasrama: "Shankara (i.e., Shiva/Rudra), is

excellent in his knowledge compared to us and in our opinion. However, he does not
possess unbounded prowess, rulership, or knowledge." There cannot be a more direct
statement from an Advaitin supporting the position of Vaishnavas regarding Rudra.//

The Vedantin’s response to the above misplaced view:

What is actually discussed in the above verses?

Shankara says in the BSB 1.1.1.5 (Īkṣittradhikaraṇam), while introducing the sūtra:

ु
प्रधानऩरुषसं ु या इनि सांख्या मन्यन्ते । काणादास्त्वेिभ्य
योगा ननत्यानमे ु
े एव वाक्येभ्य ईश्वरं नननमत्तकारणमननममिे ं
, अणश्च

समवानयकारणम ।् एवमन्येऽनऩ िानकि का वाक्याभासयक्त्य

ु ाभासावष्टम्ााः ऩववऩऺवानदन इहोनत्तष्ठन्ते ।

//The Sāṇkhya-s hold that the conjunction between the pradhāna and the puruṣa are to be

inferred to be eternal. On the other hand, the Kāṇāda-s (vaiĭeṣika, tārkika-s), based on these

very creation-passages of the ĭruti, infer an Īĭvara who is (only the) nimitta kāraṇam

(efficient/instrumental cause, as opposed to the Upaniṣadic doctrine of Brahman being both the

instrumental and material cause), and atoms, aṇu-s, to be the material cause. In this manner
 5

other vādin-s too, who base their arguments on tarka, taking recourse to seemingly supporting

shruti passages and pseudo reasonings, line up as opponents (to the Vedānta doctrine). //

It is this ‘inferring’ an Iĭvara rather than understanding the Cause, Brahman, as taught by the

Upaniṣad pramāṇa, that is the subject of the discussion in the relevant Sankṣepa ĭārīraka verses.

To point out quickly the grave error of these bloggers: The Kāṇāda-s hold the inferred Īĭvara to

be merely the efficient cause unlike the Vedāntin who holds Brahman to be the material-cum-

efficient cause of creation. This is the subject matter of discussion in the verses above. One can

easily see that the bloggers, unable to grasp the crucial point here, have hastily jumped to the

conclusion that the issue is ‘the supremacy of Rudra vs Viṣṇu’. To put it in a nutshell,

Sarvajñātman, the Vedāntin, is comparing the Rudra of the Vaiĭeṣika-conception (and not the

Upaniṣadic Rudra, for nowhere in the Upaniṣads Rudra is taught as a mere nimitta kāraṇa of

the jagat) with the Vedāntic Brahman whom the author, being his iṣṭadevatā, has named as

Kṛṣṇa. Madhusudana Saraswati clarifies in the commentary for these verses that the author is

alluding to epithets like ‘jagadguru’ that the Vaiĭeṣika-s specify in their doctrine for the

nimittakāraṇam-Iĭvara. Thus, there is a serious misunderstanding on the part of the bloggers of

the very fundamental issue on hand. Madhusudana also says that the reference by the author to

Kriṣṇa is the incarnation of Nirguṇa Brahman, chidekarasam. Advaitins hold all divine

incarnations are that of Brahman, in association with Māyā..

Thus, when compared to the Vedantic Brahman, the inferred Iĭwara’s omniscience is heavily

stunted. The commentary ‘Tattvabodhinī’ of Nṛsimhāĭrama engages the opponent in a very

long discussion on the untenability of their Iĭvara’s omniscience, which is impossible to happen,

and settles on the omniscience of Brahman, the Jagatkāraṇam. For the opponent, the material

cause is aṇu, atom/particle, whereas for the Vedāntin, it is Brahman alone in association with
 6

māyā. The commentary concludes the argument with the finality at the end of the commentary

to verse 269:

He says: Brahman is also the upādāna kāraṇam (apart from being the nimitta kāraṇam) and this

्
is inferred by the Vedāntin based on the Muṇḍaka mantra: याः सववऻाः सववनवि…[He who is the

Omniscient and all-knower]. On the other hand, the opponent has based his theory of the

Iĭwara of a certain omniscience on mere inference. That is the difference.

In fact the BSB 2.2.37 (the one preceding the pāñcharātrādhikaraṇa) is very relevant here:

Shankara specifies in detail what they hold to be the jagatkāraṇam:

माहेश्वरास्त ु मन्यन्ते —

कायवकारणयोगनवनधदाःखान्तााः ऩञ्च ऩदारावाः ऩशऩु निनेश्वरेण ऩशऩु ाशनवमोऺणायोऩनदष्टााः; ऩशऩु निरीश्वरो नननमत्तकारणनमनि; िरा वैश े

ु ण नननमत्तकारणमीश्वराः — इनि वणवयनन्त ॥

नषकादयोऽनऩ के नित्करनञ्चत्स्वप्रनियानसारे

Just as the pāĭupata-s, the vaiĭeṣika (kāṇāda) too hold Iĭvara to be kevala nimitta kāraṇam and

not the upādānakāraṇam as well, as Vedantins do). The arguments given here by Shankara in

this adhikaraṇam to show that such an Iĭvara cannot be really omniscient, omnipotent (as the

Vedāntic Brahman), are very elaborately discussed by Nṛsimhāĭrama in the commentary for the

section under discussion in the Saṅkṣepaĭārīraka.

Just because Shankara has held the ‘Paĭupati’, the Īĭvara of the Māheĭvara school, as someone

who cannot be the jagatkāraṇam, does he deny that status to Ĭiva? The testimony for Shankara’s

stand on Ĭiva is borne out by:

 7

 His citing the Ĭvetāĭvatara, Jābāla, Kaṭharudra (which explicitly says Viṣṇu is the

highest jiva) and the Kaivalya Upaniṣads in the prasthāna traya and the Viṣṇu sahasra

nāma bhāṣya. All these Upaniṣads have Ĭiva as the Jagatkāraṇam. The Vedāntin need

not say even a word to ‘prove’ this, for it is self-explanatory, as clear as daylight. It is

only the theologians that have to spend tons of energy and write lengthy essays to

disprove what is only obvious to the intelligent perceiver. This only shows how they

are jittery on seeing such Upaniṣads and see these as an insurmountable threat to their

fanciful doctrines. This defect is called ‘kalpanā gaurava, kliĭṭa kalpanam, etc.’ as

opposed to the eminent ṛjvartha and laghu kalpana.

 His citing the Ĭivapurāṇa verse to explain the name ‘Rudra’ in the VSN and holding

him as the Supreme Cause, parama kāraṇam.

Thus, Sarvajñātman is nowhere diminishing the status of the Vedic Rudra as against Viṣṇu. He

is only comparing the unvedāntic, inferred, kevala nimitta kāraṇam, Iĭvara with the Vedāntic

Omniscient, Omnipotent, abhinna nimittopādāna kāraṇam Brahman which alone can be the

jagatkāraṇam and not the mere-instrumental cause that is Iĭvara of the opponent. Thus, the

issue involved in these verses is ‘kevala nimitta kāraṇam’ vs ‘abhinna nimittopādaṇa kāraṇam’

and not ‘Rudra vs Viṣṇu. Someone who is exposed to the Vedantic methods will naturally grasp

this. But someone who has no exposure to the Vedānta will end up with such funny, childish

ideas as the bloggers have done.

Apart from this clincher to conclude that Sarvajñātman is not making a comparison between the

Vedic Rudra and Viĭṇu, there are these other crucial points too that decidedly negate the

blogger’s misconceived and mischievous notion:

 Nṛsimhāĭrama, in his very first invocation says: I bow to that Supreme Consciousness

in which the vādins, disputants, superimpose the difference between Hari, Hara and
 8

Brahmā.

 That makes him the Vedāntin who is the Trimūrti aikya vādin and therefore alone Hari-

Hara abheda vādin too. If, according to the contention of the bloggers, Sarvajñātman

were to really differentiate between Rudra and Krishna, he will be one of the vādins,

disputants, who ignorantly superimpose, āropitā, that difference, bhidā. Such is not to

the approval of his commentator. He would not go to write a very elaborate

commentary on a work that is fundamentally unvedāntic. So, the blogger’s view is

supported only by someone who has to be held to be ignorant. So much for Vishnu’s

supremacy advocated by an ancient ignorant advaitin!!

 In the third invocation, Nṛsimhāĭrama invokes the grace of Shiva, as the one who

liberates jīva-s by giving jñāna. This is also inimical to the blogger’s idea of ‘none but

Viṣṇu can give liberation.’

 Just like Amalānanda, this commentator too, in the 6th and 7th invocations holds Veda

Vyāsa and Shankara as incarnations of Hari and Hara.

 Sarvajñātman, in his very first invocation says: murāreḥ paramapadam. For this term

Nṛsimhāĭrama gives the meaning: Nirguna Brahman and says: the genitive case

‘murari’s supreme state’ as only a figurative, metaphorical usage just as ‘rāhu’s head’.

Rāhu is wholly only head and nothing else. So to say ‘Rahu’s head’ is devoid of any

literal meaning. [So with ‘tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam’ of the Kaṭhopaniṣad.] In the
 9

second interpretation too, citing the story of the demon ‘mura’, the commentator again

arrives at the nirguna Brahman, which is the adhiṣṭhānam, of the deity Viṣṇu.

 Thus, the ‘Kṛṣṣṇa’ whom Sarvajñātman holds as the Upaniṣadic jagatkāraṇam (as

against the Rudra of the Vaiĭeṣika) is actually Nirguṇa Brahman, as also confirmed by

Madhusudana Saraswati in his commentary.

 Sarvañātman prays to Gaṇapati in the fifth verse calling him ‘the world-creator’,

jagatkāraṇam. It is well known that this deity is the son of Ĭiva. If the author were to

hold Rudra to be inferior to Kṛṣṇa, then he will be contradicting himself. When Ĭiva’s

son himself is admitted as one endowed with ‘unlimited aiĭwarya’ by the author, and

also by the commentator, how can Rudra, the father, be of inferior status?

 Moreover, Nṛsimhāĭrama holds this above Ganapati to be the embodiment of the

Trimūrti-s and also affirms that ‘this Ganapati is the one popular in the scripture and in

the world.’ So, as all other commentators for this verse have held, this Gaṇapati is the

popular Lord of obstacles. Thus Sarvajñātman is a Viṣṇu – Gaṇapati abheda vādin.

Madhusudana Saraswati says that it is the Supreme Brahman that has incarnated as

Gaṇapati. Thus, Kṛṣṇa and Gaṇapati are only incarnations of One Brahman.

 Madhusīdana Saraswati and another commentator hold Sureĭvarācharya, the

Vārtikakāra, as the Guru of Sarvajñātman, referred to as ‘Deveĭvara’. It is well known

that Sureĭvara has said in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Vārtika that One Īĭvara alone is known by

various names such as Hari, Brahmā and Pinākī. Anandagiri has also clearly said that

there is no room in the Veda/Upaniṣad for the difference between the trimūrti-s and

any such reference in the itihāsa/purāṇa is not in tune with the Veda. If Sarvajñātman

were to make a real difference between Rudra and Viṣṇu, he will be violating his own

Guru’s and the Veda’s view on this.

 Finally, the only reason why Sarvajñātman holds Kṛṣṇa to be the jagatkāraṇam is that it

is his iṣṭa devatā, as the commentator says: bhaktyādhikyam.

 10

Thus the effort invested by the bloggers to muster support for their nefarious designs from the

ancient Advaitins has only backfired on them, exposing their ignorance and as those taking

their gullible readers for a ride.

I thank Swami Chidghanānandapurī, aka, Srīmallalitālālitaḥ, for his great effort in providing

me with the necessary scanned pages from the commentary of Sri Nṛsimhāĭrama for my study

and reference.

Om Tat Sat
11
12