Vishnu and Shiva

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Aniruddhan,


>Based on *one* quote saying that rudra derives his power from vishnu, and
>others saying that vishnu is the supreme, you are going to discount all
>other numerous statements in the vedas about rudra being the supreme???

Let me tell you an analogy. The vedas praise Brahman as having innumerable
attributes. This should mean that Brahman cannot be nirguNa at all. But the
neti neti of the Brihadaranyaka upanishad is enough to show nirguNa brahman
even though the other portions indulge in praising Brahman. Now, if I accept
your arguments, then you must reject nirguNa brahman. Are you willing to do
that by trying to give another interpretation for neti neti? Infact nirguNa
brahman is the best interpretation for neti neti and so nirguNa brahman MUST
be acccepted even though other portions talk about the gunas of Brahman.


>Especially since, from the context, it is not clear whether vishnu with the
>shankha-chakra or brahman (in an etymological sense) is being referred to
>in the "rudra derives his power from vishnu" quote?

In either case, it shows that Rudra is not Brahman as Brahman is not
derivative.

>Therefore vishnu is not brahman, because brahman is nirguna,

SaguNa brahman is not different from nirguNa Brahman.


>If you are using vishnu to refer to brahman, then you will get
>no arguments from anybody here

That is not my point. I am saying rudra cannot mean Brahman as Brahman is
not derived and rudra is derived. I hope I will get some arguments on this.

>In fact, in all the rigvedic quotes you
>have given, are there any references to the qualities of vishnu to show
>that the bhagavan vishnu is being referred to as opposed to vishnu just
>being used as another name of brahman in the etymological sense?

If I accept this as valid, then all the innumerable verses from the
upanishads which praise the attribute of Brahman could not have been
referring to Brahman. All this confusion is arising because you are seeing
saguNa brahman and nirguNa brahman as different.

>The Purushasuktam says H^rishchate LakshmIshcha patnyau. i.e. H^ri AND
>Lakshmi are the consorts of the Purusha. Usually H^ri refers to Parvati. So
>Rudra has as much right as Vishnu to be the Purusha of the Purushasuktam.

If rudra is Brahman, then rudra must not be derivative from vishnu. RV
7.40.5.

>Maybe Varuna, the lord of the oceans?

Just a maybe. But Varuna is a lord of oceans and is not a lord of other
things. It is not logical to say that something(Varuna) which is the lord of
oceans alone can give power to something(devi) who claims herself to be the
power behind even indra and rudra.

>Why no mention of brahmaa(prajapati), varuna etc? because they are all
>brahman only, and indra and rudra have been singled out because they are
>NOT brahman? No, Indra and Rudra have been mentioned as examples only.

Even in that case, rudra cannot be Brahman. And anyway you are not disputing
the fact that Vishnu is Brahman.


>Are there any quotes that say that only Lakshmi devi is the Queen of the
>Universe and that Parvati and Sarasvati derive their powers from her? Maybe
>we can then discount the statements in the vedas that say Parvati/Sarasvati

No. But if Rudra is the King of the Universe, then Parvati is the source of
strength of Rudra, and so Rudra cannot be Brahman.

Let Parvati or Sarasvati be the queens of the Universe. Let them be givers
of wealth. Let Lakshmi/Parvati/Sarasvati be the same. Let us call that
combined entity as Sri Adi Parashakthi or just Shakthi for short.

Now Narayana being the Self can be
1.Source of Shakthi.
2.Identical to Shakthi.

In the latter case, Shakthi is supreme and cannot have her source from
something else(the being in the oceans). What remains is the former which is
the only valid thing.

Even otherwise, if this argument is defeated, it still shows that rudra
cannot be Brahman.

>In any case, in the advaita school, vishnu is not always interpreted as
>Narayana. It is quite common to interpret vishnu in the etymological sense.

Even the etymological interpretation must have a BEING as a basis.
Otherwise, the Katha Upanishad statement becomes meaningless.

>In fact, by the "narayana-in-shiva" reference this means that narayana is
>nirguna brahman only, and not vishnu.

SaguNa brahman is not different from nirguNa brahman.

>Is there any vedic quote in support
>of this one god in another god statement?

All gods are beings. Praajna is the inner director and controller of all
beings. The Upanishads call That Reality as the "one who resides in the
heart." The word gods as used by you can only mean devas. Otherwise
Brahman(GOD) will have a second which contradicts vedas. Yes, all
devas(gods) have Brahman as the "one in their hearts".

>In fact, in the narayana suktam,
>there is not one reference to the qualities of bhagavan vishnu like
>shankha-
>chakra etc and at the end it says "sa brahma...sa harih..." etc.

Narayana as purusha has Lakshmi as His consort. Thus Narayana is Vishnu.
Your earlier objection as to relating to Hree as being the consort has
already been dealt with as directly contradicting RV7.40.5. Anyway you also
accept Vishnu as supreme. So, you and I dont have problems in this regard.

>lines before bhishasmad-agnishcha-indrashcha ("agni and indra are in fear
>of brahman"), the upanishad says bhishodeti suryah (the sun is in fear of
>brahman).

The word solar diety as I used means, the diety which presides the Sun and
not the Sun itself. Let sun be in fear of Brahman, who is the Reality behind
the Sun. Anyway that does not show that rudra is Brahman.
It also shows that Vishnu as the solar diety must be understood as the
Reality behind the sun.

Best Regards
Kalyan













>From: Aniruddhan <ani at EE.WASHINGTON.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: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:56:28 -0500
>
>namaste Sri Kalyan,
>
> >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).
>
>Based on *one* quote saying that rudra derives his power from vishnu, and
>others saying that vishnu is the supreme, you are going to discount all
>other numerous statements in the vedas about rudra being the supreme???
>Especially since, from the context, it is not clear whether vishnu with the
>shankha-chakra or brahman (in an etymological sense) is being referred to
>in the "rudra derives his power from vishnu" quote?
>
> >1.From the maha upanishad.
>
>Can you please give the relevant quote from the maha upanishad? Is this the
>same as the mahAnArAyaNopanishad? maybe you are referring to the narayana-
>suktam?
>
> >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).
>
>Therefore vishnu is not brahman, because brahman is nirguna, but vishnu has
>shankha, chakra, resides in the milk-ocean, has the qualities of pure
>sattva etc. If you are using vishnu to refer to brahman, then you will get
>no arguments from anybody here. In fact, in all the rigvedic quotes you
>have given, are there any references to the qualities of vishnu to show
>that the bhagavan vishnu is being referred to as opposed to vishnu just
>being used as another name of brahman in the etymological sense?
>
> >4.The purusha sukta which calls purusha as having Lakshmi as His consort.
> >Again the Narayana sukta calls Narayana as purusha.
>
>The Purushasuktam says H^rishchate LakshmIshcha patnyau. i.e. H^ri AND
>Lakshmi are the consorts of the Purusha. Usually H^ri refers to Parvati. So
>Rudra has as much right as Vishnu to be the Purusha of the Purushasuktam.
>
> >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?
>
>Maybe Varuna, the lord of the oceans?
>
> >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.
>
>Why no mention of brahmaa(prajapati), varuna etc? because they are all
>brahman only, and indra and rudra have been singled out because they are
>NOT brahman? No, Indra and Rudra have been mentioned as examples only.
>
> >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.
>
>Are there any quotes that say that only Lakshmi devi is the Queen of the
>Universe and that Parvati and Sarasvati derive their powers from her? Maybe
>we can then discount the statements in the vedas that say Parvati/Sarasvati
>is the supreme devata :-)
>
> >11. All major schools interpret Vishnu as Narayana.
>
>Agreed that in the popular context nArAyaNa refers to bhagavan vishnu only.
>In any case, in the advaita school, vishnu is not always interpreted as
>Narayana. It is quite common to interpret vishnu in the etymological sense.
>For example, the Shloka "ShuklAmbaradharam vishnum..." is interpreted as
>referring to Lord Ganesha, the God who removes obstacles, as opposed to
>bhagavan Vishnu.
>
> >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.
>
>In fact, by the "narayana-in-shiva" reference this means that narayana is
>nirguna brahman only, and not vishnu. Is there any vedic quote in support
>of this one god in another god statement? In fact, in the narayana suktam,
>there is not one reference to the qualities of bhagavan vishnu like
>shankha-
>chakra etc and at the end it says "sa brahma...sa harih..." etc.
>
> >>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.
>
>may I refer you to your point #6:
>
> >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.
>
>If I am not mistaken, your quote above that "in fear of brahman fire burns"
>is from the taittiriyopanishad - bhishasmadvata:pavate etc. In fact, two
>lines before bhishasmad-agnishcha-indrashcha ("agni and indra are in fear
>of brahman"), the upanishad says bhishodeti suryah (the sun is in fear of
>brahman). In light of your statement above that vishnu is the solar diety,
>what does this mean? Also shown earlier is that the title of Purusha is as
>applicable to Rudra as to Vishnu.
>
>Aniruddhan
>
>Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
>namAmi bhagavatpAda Sam.karam lokaSam.karam


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