@termite_colony @dhanyavisnu @Ugra___ Yava has ritual usage. There is a śloka inviked to this day in śrāddha by many āpastambīyas & baudhāyanas (when it is used) yavo'si dhānya-rājo'si vāruṇo madhu-saṃyutaḥ / nirṇodaḥ sarva-pāpānāṃ pavitram ṛṣibhiḥ sṃrtam //

***acetana padārthas

And for 2.16.23 he again emphasizes "pratyakṣa-bheda-bhrama" on the single apratyakṣa ātmā as being illustrated by the example of ākāśa (notice also the mūla-śloka)

He goes on to declare in the commentary for 2.14.28: "na tu prati-deha-bhinnaḥ" (no different soul in each body). And gives the example of a single vāyu through a flute to illustrate one ātmā having different upādhi bhedas (again classic śāṅkara advaita to my limited knowledge)

As for the cetana (ātmā), he is clear that there is just one, and vitiating any doubts about his being a bhedābhedin (as some have claimed) he emphatically declares even the yoga for jīva-paramātma-aikya to be ultimately mithyā since there are the same (accdg to him) in 2.14.27

Further he is quite explicit that there is nothing sajātīya *and* vijātīya to ātmā in the commentary on 2.13.13-2.13.18. He elucidates the mithyātvam (according to him) of all the cetana padārthas

In his viṣṇupurāṇa commentary, Śrīdhara-svāmī makes it unambiguously clear that he is an advaitin. He declares all of prapañca to be mithyā in the commentary on 2.6.42 and mentions all the classical advaitic concepts like adhyāsa-apavāda and aparokṣa-jñāna in 2.6.46

Sir I don't want to get drawn into this lafda but I don't think this statement sits well with bhagavatpāda's explicit identification of nārāyaṇa as *parameśvara* in several places. Parameśvara is sopādhika as Śrī Dr Maheśvaran Nambudiri describes here https://t.co/z1jTIdSc8g

When you’re terminally online on X, even insignificant issues start to feel serious and make you think negatively.

अग्निः शेषं ऋणः शेषं शत्रुः शेषं तथैव च । पुनः पुनः प्रवर्धेत तस्मात् शेषं न कारयेत्॥

It takes immense self control to remain silent when you see people running premature victory laps out of ignorance. Especially when they caricature your field of expertise incorrectly to score "victories". I guess patience is an essential part of nivṛtti-mārga

As the heartfelt comments to this video from across the world attest, there are few things like the voice of Kishori Amonkar that can bring together a diverse group of people to have a near divine musical experience https://t.co/AnIIvgnSTb

Rarely this moving 'conversational' verse ननु प्रपन्नः सकृदेव नाथ तवाहमस्मीति च याचमानः। तवानुकम्प्यः स्मरतः प्रतिज्ञां मदेकवर्जं किमिदं व्रतं ते?

Without a second thought, the refuge for me is always govinda in times of peace or distress (admittedly, I sparingly use this śloka) शङ्खचक्रगदापाणे द्वारकानिलयाच्युत । गोविन्द पुण्डरीकाक्ष रक्ष माम् शरणागतम्॥

Entire Hanuman Chalisa in a single Frame.

का खलेन सह स्पर्धा सज्जनस्याभिमानिनः। भाषणं भीषणं साधुदूषणं यस्य भूषणम् । । How can a righteous self-respect man compete with a Rogue who's tounge is terrible and who wears a jewel called insulting wise Men. Subhashitaavali

Thus, the onus is on the detractors of Sāyaṇācārya to show that their alternate interpretation for Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa 3.2.1.21 is prāmāṇika and that it has the sanction of some tradition (and is not sva-kalpitam, to quote Śrī-Yājñikadeva)

Yājñikadeva cites Pārthasārathi-miśrā (10th cent CE) and so is clearly after him. But he says he has thoroughly studied previous bhāṣyādi-granthas and swaers he hasn't done anything creative आलोच्य सूत्रभाष्यादि क्रियते संग्रहो यतः । स्वकल्पितत्व-शङ्कात्र न कार्या विबुधैरतः ॥

Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly) both the commentators cite Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa 3.1.2.21, and their commentaries on these sūtras are in consonance with the commentary of Sāyaṇācārya on that brāhmaṇa

In his commentary on Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa 3.1.2.21, Sāyaṇācārya cites Kātyāyana-Śrauta-Sūtra 7.51 - 7.53 (alternate numbering 7.2.23 to 7.2.25). Here are the commentaries of Karkācārya and Yājñikadeva for those sūtras