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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 2:22 AM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>> The same Jayantha Bhatta is refuted in Dvaita texts. Also he is been
> refuted in dvaita.org. Please check veda apourusheya thread.
>

That is beside the matter.

>
>> 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.
>

He has cited pramanas only, from shruti and smriti.

>
>
>> 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.
>

The above pramana is cited by Ramanuja. If you say Puranas are mutilated,
you should never rely on puranas and even Mahabharata which Madhva admitted
is mutilated. Also Jayanta Bhatta has cited shruti pramana too, as seen
below. So, your balAbala argument holds no water.

>
>
>
>>
>> [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
>

These are all only a personal opinion and hardly qualifies to be 'well'
addressed.

>
> 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.
>

It applies to all including the link you have provided above who had only
to labor hard to present 'their' view of a shruti/smriti passage.

>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>

I get the idea from Madhva's commentary in the BG where he says 'Prakriti
is Brahman's bhAryA'. Only human-like persons can have bhAryA. A Tattva
cannot have any relationship with anything/anyone. The Tattvam is asanga.
Brahman has son (aniruddha, brahmaa), grandson (pradyumna?, shiva), etc. as
per non-advaitins. Advaitins do not take puranic pictorial descriptions as
literal.

>
>
>
>> 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'?
>

See above.

>
> /sv
>
>
>