Unmaiye un vilai enna
Chanced on a short discussion from Shri. Venkatakrishnan on Shamkara, keshava in sahasranAma, bhajagovindam. Needless to say, utterly ignorant a view and was not surprising.
As a tl;dr version — No, that was not what Shamkara said when he quoted harivamsha. His Ishvara is not the same as what Iyengars consider in the form of Keshava/Narayana/Govinda.
Herein lies the problem. As much as Shamkara quotes the harivamsha shloka, he does quote more to clarify his actual view. His view is quite in contrast with such views.
The keshava shaMkara holds is the shuddha caitanya. It is not the Ishvara of the form that shrI. Venkatakrshnan or other Iyengars hold.
Keshava occurs twice in the entire course of the sahasranAma. There is one derivation that occurs at both places and certain others, at one/the other.
The khila harivamsha reasoning occurs in the second instance and not the first time. But, the reasoning of a mUrtitraya (1/2) finds its place at both places.
To not be aware of things is one thing, to attempt a wanton misrepresentation, yet another. This holds sway across the table. Both the smArta adherents of shaMkara and Ramanuja vishiShTAdvaitis fall prey.
That said, smArtas need to understand that shaMkara was uncompromising in certain issues. A sAttvikamUrti, its “use” in attaining cittashuddhi, its need for Atmaj~nAna, one such. The two there wouldn’t come from other mUrtis except a vaiShNava sAttvika rUpa, he has upheld.
Given Atmaj~nAna requires cittashuddhi, he would abhor the upAsana of other entities. All rUpas are ephemeral, like a mirage, but he does play by the sAttvika rule unlike his latter adherents.
1. “kaH ca aH ca IshaH ca mUrtitrayAH yadvashe vartante”
2. “brahmaviShNushivAkhyA shaktayaH keshasaMj~nitAH tadvattayA”