[Advaita-l] Sources for some statements

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

On 5/29/06, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy <annapureddy at gmail.com> wrote:

> -- Also, while talking to a Vaishnava friend of mine, he was mentioning how
> Narayana is a proper name and not a title because of the "second" na used at
> the end  (in accordance with a grammatical rule of Panini). He also
> mentioned that Appaya Dikshita gave up on establishing the Siva
> Sarvottamatva because of this. Could someone provide more background on the
> grammatical issues involved and the source for Appaya Dikshita's statement?

I think this is basically some pseudo-paninean nonsense which none of
the ancient authors have used. I would think that at least Madhva, who
came up with the most logical alternative to the samaartha-advaita way
of worship, would have recognized this.

I would strongly suggest taking any comment about advaitic authors in
the bhakti list (not active any more)  with a sackful of salt. There
were a few people there desperately trying to "prove" that advaitic
authors and composers such as Sankara, Appayya, and Thyaagaraaja were
"Viravaishnavas", namely the peculiar doctrine that Vishnu alone
should be worshiped (not Siva, etc), and which is not accepted by
anyone else including Madhva. The Vira-vaishnava doctrine is
especially troublesome for Srivaishnavas in the USA because it is
practically impossible to build temples without having Siva, etc., in
them. Also both the smaarta and dvaita way of worship (acknowledging
all Gods), though different, seem more appealing as they are both
logical, but with different premises in interpreting the veda. So, the
tactic some of these people seem to be taking is to make all smaartas
into fools by claiming Sankara, etc., were actually Viravaishnavas.
All I can say to that is, good luck and happy delusionary thinking!

Rama