[Advaita-l] REFERENCES FROM VARIOUS PURANAS, UPANISHADS, SASTRAS WHERE VISHNU, RAMA, KRISHNA DON BHASMA TRIPUNDRA AND VISHNU IS A PARAMA SHIVA BHAKTA

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:02 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> > That hEtu is not there for nothing.
> >
> > Sri.krishna in gIta clearly says "vEdEschha sarvErahamEva vEdyaH"
> > highlighting the point mukhya tAtparya of sarva vEdas is Krishna (Vishnu)
> > only.  Note the 'Eva' kaara.
> >
>
> The above and the other 'pramana-s' cited below by you are contradicted by
> various other pramana-s from shruti, smriti, agama, etc.
>

Let's have it, shall we?



>
> There is no basis, justification, for Shaiva-Vaishnava quarrels - says
> Jayantha Bhatta, a vaidika, a naiyayika, of 9th Century CE in his
> Nyayamanjari.
>
>
> The same Jayantha Bhatta is refuted in Dvaita texts. Also he is been
refuted in dvaita.org. Please check veda apourusheya thread.




>
> In order to see the embedded comments please read from the linked page.
>
> शैववैष्णवकलहस्य निर्मूलत्वम्
>
> [The baselessness of the Shaiva-Vaishnava tussle]
>
> 214एकस्य कस्यचिदशेषजगत्प्रसूति-
>
> हेतोरनादिपुरुषस्य महाविभूतेः ।
>
> सृष्टिस्थितिप्रलयकार्यविभागयोगात्
>
> ब्रह्मेति विष्णुरिति रुद्र इति प्रतीतिः ॥ ८३ ॥
>
> [In this verse, Jayantha Bhatta says 'One Beginningless, Infinite, Purusha,
> of great splendor, who is the One complete cause of the creation,
> sustenance and destruction, owing to these very cosmic functions, comes to
> be called Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra.]
>
>
That is his opinion, hardly any pramANa I suppose.


> The embedded commentary 214 in the above citation cites the famous Vishnu
> Purana verse:
>
> सृष्टिस्थित्यन्तकरणीं ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवात्मिकाम् ।
> स संज्ञां याति भगवान् एक एव जनार्दनःवि. पु. १-२-६६
>


Did he forget balAbala of pramAna-s? When I have Rigvedic pramANa (asya
devasya mILhuSo.....) , his Vishnu Purana's quote is quite impotent. I am
not  accepting that purana is really saying it, as we all know puranas are
quite mutilated.



>
> [Jayantha Bhatta says: In the Veda, repeatedly we hear 'One Rudra alone,
> none second to him (Atharvashikha/shira 3). And 'idam vishnurvichakrame'
> Tai Samhita 1.2.13, Rg.samhita1.22.7 thus about Rudra and Vishnu. The
> method of worshiping these deities is also taught in the Veda itself. In
> the Shaiva and Pancharatra Agma-s these methods alone have been taught in a
> different way. This much is no ground to hold the latter to be
> contradicting the Veda as methods are always optional. Therefore, since
> these Agamas have been composed by 'Apta-s', venerable ones, and also since
> these do not contradict the Veda, the two stated Agama-s are quite valid.]
>
>
These are all well addressed in Dvaita literatures. I have uploaded a
Kannada book by Sri.Raayapalya Raghavendra Acharya here
https://drive.google.com/open?id=17SdRD2ULI7G5HgX-8XOJ7GsW9HkxThvb

Please read if you find a chance.



> The point to be noted is while Jayanatha Bhatta (9th Century CE) did not
> have to add even a single word after just citing the shruti, smriti, etc.,
> Ramanuja, in his Vedartha sangraha finding himself in a predicament, had to
> labor hard only to deny the straightforward, rujvartha, of the above cited
> passages:    http://www.shyamjoshi.org/vedarth-sangrah/11/       [It looks
> like the blogger has disenabled search and copying in the blog].
>
> This charge may applies to rAmanujIya camp, but not for others.




> The difficulty in this issue for non-advaitins is due to the fact that for
> them Brahman is a vyakti, a person, a some 'body', who is different from
> every 'body' else.


I am not sure where you got these idea. I am afraid you are not
representing your pUrvapaxa correctly.



> In order to maintain this position they are compelled to
> distinguish this 'body' from other 'bodies'.  For Advaitins Brahman is a
> Tattva, Truth, which is no-'body'. Hence, for them, Brahman can be
> represented by any-'body'.
>
>
For Dvaitin too Brhamn is a Tatvava, otherwise why the name 'Tatvavaada'?

/sv