Vishnu and Shiva

[Vaidya Sundaram]

Quite frankly, I find your arguments are circular and self defeating, for
you switch contexts when it suits your thought. Read your own message(s)
again and you will see where.  I am clear on my context. I am not
knowledgeable enough on everything else to devote more time to what appears
to me to be a fictitious argument in the first place. I don't have any thing
more to say on this subject.

bhava shankara desikame sharaNam
Vaidya.

----- Original Message -----
From: "kalyan chakravarthy" <kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Vishnu and Shiva


> 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/
>