Vishnu and Shiva

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,


>Yes, Smriti is considered as secondary to sruti **only in the case where
>there is a conflict between the two** - if there is no conflict smriti is
>as
>valid a means of knowledge as sruti itself. Why then would want to not
>consider the smriti statements?

I dont disagree sir. But in case smriti sub-ordinates Vishnu to Shiva, it
directly contradicts Rig Veda and such statements(not necessarily the enrire
smriti)must be either discarded or interpreted in a different way.

>Are you not kind of contradicting yourself? I mean only, is this "Brahman =
>Narayana", not an assumption as much as any other, .

No. Narayana and Brahman are terms of reference to the same entity. This is
not an assumption. Sruti says Narayana is param brahma and paramatma. Sruti
says Narayana is Purusha. Sruti says Brahman is purusha. Sruti says Brahman
is paramatma.

>the word Brahman that which words cannot describe and even mind cannot
>conjure up. How then can you make an implicit assumption that one adjective
>(narayana) is actually equal to Brahman?

Brahman is unknown. Narayana is unknown. Equating Brahman to Narayana does
not mean Brahman is known. It means Narayana is a another term  for Brahman.

Proof again: Only Brahman can be the Self. As Narayana is Brahman and also
the Self, Narayana and Brahman dont indicate any difference and are used for
the one and same "entity" i.e. Self.

>Yes, literally Vishnu is an adjective too - omnipresense - implying all
>prevading ... so, if you decide to stick to adjectives, stick to
>adjectives.

Let Vishnu be an adjective. But then if you stick to adjectives at all
places, saying that Rudra gained his strength from Vishnu would not have
meaning unless Vishnu here is looked upon as a"BEING" or an "ENTITY" rather
than just an adjective which only qualifies an entity.

Infact in the Advaita sampradaya, Vishnu is often interpreted as "the all
pervading Atman." It is only such an interpretation that can be used in the
Katha Upanishad. Note the additional Atman which shows that Vishnu is not an
adjective.


>How do you equate Vishnu as the solar deity. Again, strictly speaking, the
>adjective used for the solar deity is savita, not vishnu. How do you say
>**vishnu is THE solar deity**?

>From Sri Rudram Itself. You have already shown that Rudra is THE solar
diety. But Rudra derives his power from Vishnu. Thus even from your point of
view, Vishnu is the Reality behind the solar diety.

Again, in the Isa Upanishad, the Sun is asked to remove its rays so that the
Purusha within the Sun may be viewed. Does this not resemble Rudra being THE
solar diety and Vishnu being the source of strength for Rudra?

>poison drunk to save His devotees, He is indeed seen as the deity of
>reddened eyes, as the deity of the solar region. Indeed even the whole
>universe (vishvaa bhUtani uta) as well as the gopah (sheperds?) as well as
>the mainden who get water etc ...
>well, here is a strict sruti statement for you that identifies Shri Rudram
>as the deity of the Sun / solar region.

Yes. And that Purusha or Vishnu is the Reality behind Rudra. Otherwise the
Rig Vedic statement 7.40.5 becomes useless.

>oM namo bhagavate rudrAya || - what does the word bhagavate stand for? It
>is
>clearly an adjective. The meaning of the word bhagavate can be variously
>interpreted but all point in general to the all supreme God does it not?

The word "bhag" is used to denote source. Does it mean source for everything
here? If it means that, then it must be source for Vishnu, in which case the
Rig Vedic statement 7.40.5 becomes meaningless.

Infact Praajna of the Mandukya Upanishad is the place for the origin and
dissolution of beings. But do you call Praajna as the Self? Infact Praajna
is seen as just one of another illusions like the snake in the rope.

>fact, I have read that Shri Shankara interprets this word as the indweller
>of all and thereby revealing Himself as That which is to be really sought.
>

In exact harmony with the Mandukya Upanishad which calls Praajna as the
inner dweller of all. Then what is Turiya. Turiya is Atman.  Proof: Mandukya
Upanishad. And Narayana is Atman. Proof: Veda. Thus, Narayana is nothing but
nirguNa brahman.

Anyway, even otherwise you have to present me valid proof as to why this can
be interpreted as Shiva being the inner dweller of all. Let Shankara
interpret it as being the indweller. The main aim of Sri Adi Shankara was at
that time to defeat Buddhism and other schools and not to bring in divisions
within hinduism. It is to the credit of this great guru that he has done his
job perfectly.

>Next, look at Shri Rudram 1.6 - adhyavochadadhi vaktA prathamo daivyo
>bhishhak.h  - by denoting Shri Rudran as prathamaH, it is clearly indicated
>that He is indeed the first. First in what sense? First in respect all
>aspects. The first cause even.

Which in itself shows that there is something called second, which implies
that Shiva is linked with duality and is therefore not Turiya.

Even otherwise, first does not necessarily mean first of all causes. First
means "first among Gods". And Brahman is not always treated as one of the
Gods. The RV 7.40.5 statement shows that here being the first does not mean
being Brahman, as Brahman is not derived from anything else. Infact even
this shows that Vishnu is Brahman, as Vishnu is the Reality behind even the
First(Rudra).

>Look at your point 11. Here you take for your argument the "opinions" of
>other schools. How is this any more valid than using smriti? It's all or
>nothing if you decide to strictly stick to the sruti as source of support
>for your argumentsd right?

No. It is not all or nothing. Statements from smriti which tend to
contradict sruti must either be discarded or interpreted in a different way.
It does not mean that the entire smriti should be thrown away.  ONLY sruti
is all. Smriti is not all. That is my understanding.

>More can be devoted to counter your argument. Hopefully the above suffice.

I would be glad to know what they are. But apparently, I am not convinced by
your arguments.

Thank you for participating in the discussion.

Best Regards
Kalyan


>From: Vaidya Sundaram <vaidya_sundaram at HOTMAIL.COM>
>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: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:52:13 -0600
>
>Namaskaram.
>  I have some questions for you, "purely from an academic standpoint" ...
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "kalyan chakravarthy" <kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM>
>
> > 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).
>
>Yes, Smriti is considered as secondary to sruti **only in the case where
>there is a conflict between the two** - if there is no conflict smriti is
>as
>valid a means of knowledge as sruti itself. Why then would want to not
>consider the smriti statements?
>
> > 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).
>
>You wrote the above quoted section in the first part of your mail, and then
>go on to state in the lower part of your post
>
> > 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.
>
>Are you not kind of contradicting yourself? I mean only, is this "Brahman =
>Narayana", not an assumption as much as any other, . Remember, we denote by
>the word Brahman that which words cannot describe and even mind cannot
>conjure up. How then can you make an implicit assumption that one adjective
>(narayana) is actually equal to Brahman? This is a valid question to me, as
>this discussion is purely academic.
>
>
> > 5.The Katha Upanishad which talks of Vishnu.(here however,Sri Adi
>Shankara
> > interprets it as all-pervading)
>
>Yes, literally Vishnu is an adjective too - omnipresense - implying all
>prevading ... so, if you decide to stick to adjectives, stick to
>adjectives.
>If you decide to go anecdotal, be it sruti or smriti, they are both
>anecdotal and hence equally valid. See for example Jaldhar's note from a
>few
>days ago - yagyavalkya is seen in both upanishadas and also smritis - which
>one of his statements is more valid than another?
>
> > 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.
>
>How do you equate Vishnu as the solar deity. Again, strictly speaking, the
>adjective used for the solar deity is savita, not vishnu. How do you say
>**vishnu is THE solar deity**?
>Now to give you sruti examples that rudra is in fact seen as the solar
>eity  - refer shri rudram verses 1.8 etc -
>utainaM gopA adR^ishannadR^ishannudahAryaH |
>utainaM vishvA bhUtAni sa dR^ishhTo mR^iDayAti naH ||
>The translation reads some thing like - He whose neck is darkened by the
>poison drunk to save His devotees, He is indeed seen as the deity of
>reddened eyes, as the deity of the solar region. Indeed even the whole
>universe (vishvaa bhUtani uta) as well as the gopah (sheperds?) as well as
>the mainden who get water etc ...
>well, here is a strict sruti statement for you that identifies Shri Rudram
>as the deity of the Sun / solar region.
>
> > 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.
>
>Look at your point 11. Here you take for your argument the "opinions" of
>other schools. How is this any more valid than using smriti? It's all or
>nothing if you decide to strictly stick to the sruti as source of support
>for your argumentsd right?
>
>Now for some other sruti statements. Take the first line of Shri Rudram -
>||
>oM namo bhagavate rudrAya || - what does the word bhagavate stand for? It
>is
>clearly an adjective. The meaning of the word bhagavate can be variously
>interpreted but all point in general to the all supreme God does it not? In
>fact, I have read that Shri Shankara interprets this word as the indweller
>of all and thereby revealing Himself as That which is to be really sought.
>
>Next, look at Shri Rudram 1.6 - adhyavochadadhi vaktA prathamo daivyo
>bhishhak.h  - by denoting Shri Rudran as prathamaH, it is clearly indicated
>that He is indeed the first. First in what sense? First in respect all
>aspects. The first cause even.
>Now does it not immediately follow that Shri Rudra was not in any way
>(academically ofcourse) derive His power from Vishnu. For the first cannot
>depend something else, for if it did, then it is not the first!
>
>More can be devoted to counter your argument. Hopefully the above suffice.
>
>bhava shankara desikame sharaNam
>Vaidya.


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