[Advaita-l] The word 'NARAYANA' - A COMMON NOUN

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 2:11 AM Keshava Mahadeva via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Below is a link to a blog that gives a wonderful explanation on why
> Narayana cannot be a proper noun and can be a COMMON NOUN only according to
> the rules of PANINI GRAMMAR. It is a must read for everybody. Check out the
> below link for the blog:
>
>
> https://jagatgurublog.wordpress.com/2018/06/24/is-narayana-actually-only-a-proper-noun/


The above blog says:

//Finally we will look at one verse in the Harivamsa

नामानि तव गोविन्द यानि लोके महान्ति च |

तान्येव मम नामानि नात्र कार्य विचरण ||

Whatever names you have oh Govinda which are famous as Sahasranaamas , they
are my names only without doubt.
These are the words of Maheshwara in Harivamsa. This means that all the
names of Vishnu including Narayana may be applied to Shiva as well.//

The above is correct. Shankaracharya, in his commentary to the Vishnu
Sahasra Nama, introductory part, has cited the above verse and several
other verses from Vishnupurana, etc. to show that there is abheda across
the Trimurtis. Shankara brackets all such verses under the concept
'abheda'. Even within the VSN bhashya Shankara, for the name 'Shivah' (27),
citing the Kaivalyopanishad  'Sa brahma sa shivah...' and says 'iti
abhedopadeshAt.' (this Upanishad teaches the abheda of these deities). For
Shankara, 'Hari' is the Tattvam which is the one that appears as the
ignorant samsari jiva. He has cited a verse to this effect in the
introduction.

The claims of Vaishnavas are only laughable for they hold a person and not
a Tattvam as Brahman. Shankara alone steered clear of such silly ramblings
and portrayed the correct Brahma Tattva of the Upanishads as a non-deity,
non-person.  The labor expended by Ramanuja in the Vedartha Sangraha and
Madhva in his works to portray Brahman as a person as different from other
persons/deities is enough proof for the fact that Shankara's Advaita alone
rises above all these theological schools and emerges as the only Vedanta
Darshana.

The study of Sayanacharya's commentary to the Narayana  suktam in its
original reveals a fund of Vedantic concepts and how it is very closely
aligned with Shankara's Bhashyas. Just one example: After citing the famous
etymological verse for the name 'Narayana', Sayana cites the Vedic mantra:
 ‘इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुः’ (ऋ. १ । १९४ । ४६) to say that Narayana is
called 'deva' in the sukta because it is this Tattvam that appears as all
the gods such as Indra, Mitra, Varuna.  Shankara has cited this very  Rg
vedic mantra in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya 1.4.6 for the same purpose.
Thus Shankara does not hold Narayana or Vishnu or Vasudeva as mere persons
who are distinct from other persons/deities. For the Vedantin, Brahman is a
Tattvam, the Truth that is no person. In order to understand that Truth
Vedanta admits the upasana of that Truth in the medium of a personal god.
Others have taken the means to be the end itself. And this is the cause for
all the rancor and fights as 'my god alone is superior'.  This shows how
immature these theological followers are. Vedanta is quite above such silly
considerations. Advaitins had to enter this field only because of the
propaganda of the non-advaitins to malign Shankara's Advaita and Shankara
as supporter of such childish ideas.

warm regard
subbu

>
>
>
>