Vishnu and Shiva

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaar,

>I feel you've provided some common objections raised by shrI-vaishhNavas,
>which have been later plagiarized by ISK-"con"-ites. I'm however curious
>to see how you're going to answer certain counter-objections.
>

I took evidence given not only Srivaishnavaites, but also by Madhvas. As far
as ISKCON is concerned, it need not be taken seriously as it is not based on
vedas or vedanta.


>Shankara also quotes the Agneya PuraaNa and the Kuurma PuraaNa in his
>famous brahma suutra bhaashhya (3.4.41 and 4.3.10), and the Linga Purana
>in his vishhNu sahasranaama bhaashhya (see his commentary on shiva-naama)
>to emphasize the oneness of shiva and vishhNu. I believe he quotes from
>a few other PuraaNaas also in his other bhaashhyaas.
>
>The Linga puraaNa says that in order to conquer the ego of nRisimha, Shiva
>destroys that avataara of vishhNu and adds that skull to His garland, thus
>"liberating vishhNu from ignorance"!
>
>I remember a thread on soc.religion.hindu when Ramakrishnan B. of this
>mailing list gave several purANic examples where Shiva betters VishhNu


Smriti statements are secondary to the sruti statements. The eg of vishnu
purana was given to show that I have avoided quoting from it as it is smriti
only. Let there be a 1000 statements in the smriti sub-ordinating Vishnu to
Shiva. What I need is a simple and a direct statement from the sruti that
says Vishnu has derived his power from Shiva.(not that which says Vishnu is
equal to Shiva).

>Before we proceed -- how do you identify purushha/nArAyaNa with vishhNu?

Note: I am using sruti only as primary. And I hope you do the same.

1.From the maha upanishad.
2.The Rig Veda praises Vishnu as helping Indra in defeating his enemies.
Again it is the Kena Upanishad, which says that the victory of Gods is
actually the victory of Brahman.(Brahman = Narayana).
3.The very statement that Rudra derives his power from Vishnu(in the
Rig-veda)and the statement made that Narayana is Rudra(just like Tat Tvam
Asi Shevataketu which does not mean shvetaketu is the creator) shows that
Vishnu has greater claim to be Narayana than anyone else. By no means of
imagination can I interpret Tat Tvam Asi to mean that Shvetaketu is creator,
preserver or destroyer. It means that the jiva of Shvetaketu is Brahman in
the stage of moksha.
4.The purusha sukta which calls purusha as having Lakshmi as His consort.
Again the Narayana sukta calls Narayana as purusha.
5.The Katha Upanishad which talks of Vishnu.(here however,Sri Adi Shankara
interprets it as all-pervading)
6.Vishnu is the solar diety. And the Upanishads call the "being" in the sun
as Brahman and more importantly as the Purusha, which as shown earlier is
applicable to Vishnu.
7.Again it is Vishnu who is treated as the sacrifice as his head was cut
off. Dont you see the similarity with the Purusha of the Rig Veda who was
also the sacrifice?
8.And in the Rig Veda itself, in the devi suktam, Devi mentions herself as
having her source of power in the oceans. Who is the being in the oceans? Is
it not Vishnu?
9. And Devi says that she is the power behind Indra and Rudra. No mention of
Vishnu over there. Thus she can be treated as identical to Narayana(she
being the source of power for Rudra) or derived from Narayana. Again, if you
identify this devi with the Uma of the Kena Upanishad, you can call her as
Brahma-Jnana.
10.Again, Devi calls herself as the Queen of the Universe and the giver of
wealth to those who worship Her. This can be taken as a similarity to
Lakshmi.
11. All major schools interpret Vishnu as Narayana.

As I said earlier, let there be a 1000 statements in the smriti which
sub-ordinate Vishnu to Shiva. I need one statement from sruti which says
that Vishnu derived his power from Rudra.

>(The statement in the nArAyaNa suuktam.h that goes as "sa brahma, sa
>shivaH sa hariH sendraH soksharaH parama.ssvaraaT.h" does not include
>"hariH" in the shrI vaishhNava tradition, and they claim that the broken
>chandas is a later addition.)

First of all, I am a smartha only and not a sri-vaishnava or a madhva.
Proof: I am an extreme and a fanatical believer in nirguNa brahman.(neti
neti of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Turiya of the Mandukya Upanishad.)

Now, to the subject. Let Hari and Shiva be treated on an equal footing.
After all saying "Tat Tvam Asi, Shvetaketo" does a similar thing. But by no
means of wild imagination do we say that Shvetaketu is the cause of all
causes.

By saying that Rudra derives his power from Vishnu, it is clear that the
statements that treat Rudra as - equal to Vishnu, most auspicious, the
Supreme among Gods, etc., must be interpreted in the same way in which we
say "Tat Tvam Asi, Shvetaketo".(This is at the stage of moksha only).
Similarly all supremacy goes to the Brahman or Narayana in Shiva.


>There are several statements in the Vedas where rudra is praised as
>supreme, especially the shvetaashvatara upanishhad.

>There are also statements where other gods are praised as supreme:
>
>agni is the foremost among the Gods (Rg Veda 1.1).
>"rudro vA eshhayadagniH", rudra verily is agni. (RV)

Please see the above explanation. Also, in the Upanishads, it is mentioned -
In fear of That(Brahman) fire burns. So if fire = rudra as you seem to say,
then rudra must be afraid of Brahman.

The word Gods is not necessarily used to mean Brahman. Brahman is that which
is not understood even by the Gods. Please refer to the Kena Upanishad. In
case your reading is right, then Fire, being Brahman should also be afraid
of Itself, which looks ridiculous.

PS: I repeat once again that this discussion is purely academic and not with
any other motives.

Best Regards
Kalyan




>From: Sankaran Kartik Jayanarayanan <kartik at ECE.UTEXAS.EDU>
>Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
><ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
>To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
>Subject: Re: Vishnu and Shiva
>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:29:40 -0600
>
>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:
>
> > Namaskaar,
> >
> > Before I start, please note that this topic is purely for academic
>interest
> > and I have no intention to hurt the feelings of anyone. Thank you for
>your
> > understanding.
> >
>
>I feel you've provided some common objections raised by shrI-vaishhNavas,
>which have been later plagiarized by ISK-"con"-ites. I'm however curious
>to see how you're going to answer certain counter-objections.
>
> > I understand that there are many puranas, some which praise Vishnu, some
> > Shiva, some Shakthi etc. But puranas are smriti and not sruti. From my
> > understanding it is sruti and not smriti which is more authoritative.
>For
> > that matter there are innumerable quotes in the puranas which praise
>Vishnu
> > as supreme. Eg. Vishnu Purana etc.(Sri Adi Shankara uses Vishnu Purana.)
>But
> > I refrained from quoting puranas as they are only smriti.
> >
>
>Shankara also quotes the Agneya PuraaNa and the Kuurma PuraaNa in his
>famous brahma suutra bhaashhya (3.4.41 and 4.3.10), and the Linga Purana
>in his vishhNu sahasranaama bhaashhya (see his commentary on shiva-naama)
>to emphasize the oneness of shiva and vishhNu. I believe he quotes from
>a few other PuraaNaas also in his other bhaashhyaas.
>
>The Linga puraaNa says that in order to conquer the ego of nRisimha, Shiva
>destroys that avataara of vishhNu and adds that skull to His garland, thus
>"liberating vishhNu from ignorance"!
>
>I remember a thread on soc.religion.hindu when Ramakrishnan B. of this
>mailing list gave several purANic examples where Shiva betters VishhNu.
>
> > I want to know what the srutis say. The Rig Veda which is definitely a
>sruti
> > seems to say that Rudra derives his strength from Vishnu.(RV 7.40.5) And
>in
> > the Narayana and the Purusha suktas, it is Narayana/Purusha(Vishnu) who
>is
> > praised as the supreme. Here I foresee an objection ---
> >
>
>Before we proceed -- how do you identify purushha/nArAyaNa with vishhNu?
>
> > Objection - Vedas praise Rudra also as supreme.
> >
> > Tentative answer1.(not my own) - When Rudra is praised as supreme it is
> > actually the Narayana inside the rudra who is praised.
> >
>
>We can equally say that when Rama/Krishna/Vishnu are praised, it is
>actually nArAyaNa inside who is being praised. Again, the identification
>of nArAyaNa with vishhNu is crucial and lacking support.
>
>(The statement in the nArAyaNa suuktam.h that goes as "sa brahma, sa
>shivaH sa hariH sendraH soksharaH parama.ssvaraaT.h" does not include
>"hariH" in the shrI vaishhNava tradition, and they claim that the broken
>chandas is a later addition.)
>
> > Tentative answer2.(not my own)- Narayana is a proper noun, while siva,
> > rudra, shambhu etc. are common nouns. So the words siva etc. could be
>used
> > for narayana also.
> >
>
>Objection - there is no ground whatsoever for saying that nArAyaNa is a
>proper noun whereas rudra, shiva, nIlakaNTha etc. are not. What is your
>justification for introducing such a distinction between various names?
>
> > Objection - When the sruti praises Narayana it could actually be
>referring
> > to rudra(just as what was said for sruti praising rudra)
> >
> > Tentative Answer-That is not correct, for the sruti calls narayana as
>the
> > supreme self and the para brahma and more importantly, it would then be
>a
> > contradiction to call Rudra as deriving his strength from Vishnu.
> >
>
>There are several statements in the Vedas where rudra is praised as
>supreme, especially the shvetaashvatara upanishhad.
>
>There are also statements where other gods are praised as supreme:
>
>agni is the foremost among the Gods (Rg Veda 1.1).
>"rudro vA eshhayadagniH", rudra verily is agni. (RV)
>
> > I appreciate sharing of ideas on this subject.
> >
> > PS: Please use sruti and not smriti to justify your answers. Thank you.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Kalyan
> >
>
>Regards,
>
>Kartik


_________________________________________________________________
Cricket World Cup 2003- News, Views and Match Reports.
http://server1.msn.co.in/msnspecials/worldcup03/