[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 5:43 AM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:02 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The above and the other 'pramana-s' cited below by you are contradicted by
>> various other pramana-s from shruti, smriti, agama, etc.
>>
>> There is no basis, justification, for Shaiva-Vaishnava quarrels - says
>> Jayantha Bhatta, a vaidika, a naiyayika, of 9th Century CE in his
>> Nyayamanjari.
>>
>>
> The problem with Jayantha Bhatta is that during his time (9th Century),
> there was no unified robust siddhanta which  had unified and did excellent
> samanvya of vast vEdic and aagamic literature. He was yet to witness the
> doctrine of sarva shabda (both vaidIka and loukIka alike) vacAchyatva to
> Brahman expounded by Acharya Madhva later in 13th Century.
>

Not all who have come after 13th century have accepted the 'samanvaya' that
you have stated. Those who lived in the 13th Century like Narayanashrama,
Amalananda, Shankaranandanda, etc. who have written on Upanishads like
Atharva shikha and Advaitic works have not subscribed to any particular
samanvaya you talk about. Sayana, Vidyaranya, Appayya Dikshita, etc. who
came post-13th Century too did not get influenced by the above samanvaya.
They had their own samanvaya. The upakrama, etc. lingas that you talk about
below is also known to everyone and hence that does not clinch the issue.


>
> When viewed with only the mindset of rudyArtha/prassidhiartha, of course
> various descriptions praising various deities as sarvottama in vedic
> literature appears to be contradictory.. One's understanding goes haywire.
> Hence various daarshanika-s takes one or the other position and conclude
> either all deities are same or all names/forms are illusory.. It took no
> less than caliver of poorna-pragna to property apply sUtra's mandate tattu
> samanvayAt to all vedic texts and come with uniformed robust framework. One
> needs to study that school's sUtra-bhAshya to understand how four types of
> shabdas in vedic vaangmaya (such as tatraiva-prasiddhi, annyatra-prasiddhi,
> ubayatra-prasiidhi and annyatraiva-prasiddhi) are harmonized and applied to
> Brahman.
>
> Fourth sUtra OM| tattu samanvayAt | OM constitutes four terms ; `tat',
> `tu', `sam' and `anvayAt'. Here `anvaya' means application of tAtparya
> linga-s in understanding of vEdic terms. These linga-s are upakrama,
> upasaMhAra, abhyAsa, apUrvata, phala, arthavAda, upapatti. Why 'sam' shabda
> is used in that sUtra by sUtrakAra? Any special significance He intended?
>
> In several instances one can derive several opposite meaning for Upanishad
> vAkya-s. Out of which, a particular meaning may be compliance with
> upakrama. A totally opposite meaning would be in compliance with
> upasamhAra. In such circumstances, one needs to evaluate relative strength
> among these linga-s and should come to correct conclusion. Thus,
> sam-anvayAt means applying (anvaya) these linga-s correctly (sam). Without
> proper samanyava, one would get confused as which being(s) the vEda-s are
> glorifying.
>
> For example, consider following seemingly contradictory statements
> regarding who exactly is the creator of this jagat ;
>

Here itself is the problem raising its head. The 'creator' of the jagat,
you have concluded, is a 'who', a person and not a Tattva. And about the
'process' of creation.  For Advaitins it is not some'one' sitting or
standing or lying down somewhere physically engaging in any creation
process. So, all the following passages take a different dimension
altogether.

>
> ' EkO rudrO na dwitIyAya tastE ' (None existed before creation except
> Rudra)
>
> ` hiraNyagarbhaH samavartatAgrE' (Charturmukaha was there in the beginning)
>
> ` jIvAd bhavanti bhUtAni ` (sristi is from jIva-s)
>
> `pradAnAd IdamAvirAsIt' (sristi is from jada prakriti (pradAna) )
>
> Following this methodology of samanvaya, Madhva holds the position that
> all vEdic names in their highest primary sense (yOgika parama-mukhyArtha)
> refers to one Supreme Being. It is only in their secondary meaning refers
> to the other sentient /insentient in their respective spheres of
> jurisdiction as the context demands.
>

Shankara cites a Shiva purana verse that gives the yogikArtha for the term
'Rudra' while commenting on the name 'Rudra (114) of the Vishnu Sahasra
nAma. Ironically, this yogikArtha verse on Rudra concludes: tasmAt shivaH
parama kAraNam.  So, for Shankara, the Vishnu of the VSN is not a
particular person who has different features, wife, location, etc. from
another person who has different features, etc.

>
> But why  vishNu  is designated as that Supreme Being? Why not Rudra? In
> other words, why only 'vishNu' shabda refers to Brahman in its direct
> primary sense and why not 'rudra' shabda?
>
> To answer that question, one needs to understand the concept of
> flawlessness.
>
> Take for example -- when you have a shabda 'nArAyaNa', by its yogika artha
> it denotes 'flawlessness' (dOShavivarjitaM) only. How? 'ara' is dOSha. When
> you have prefix of negation 'na' kaara it denotes absence of dOSha, which
> is flawlessness. So the entity Who is 'aayana'  (aaShrya) for 'na-ara' ,
> you have it!  Also you do have vAkya 'nArAyaNaM anAmayaM' etc, to further
> enforce this concept. Given this notion of Naarayana being flawless, how
> can you accept Shiva-para vAkya-s to denote sub-ordination of
> Narayana/Vishnu to Shiva? Isn't sub-ordination a flaw? Btw, there is a work
> called 'nArAyaNa shabdArtha' by Sri.Jalahalli Srinivasa Tirtha, in which
> some 76 different yogika artha for nArayANa-shabda is expounded.
>

Others are capable of giving quite contrary interpretations, meanings,
derivations, etc. to the ones you speak of above. If you say Rudra/Shiva is
full of flaws and only Narayana/vishnu is flawless, there are others who
can say and said otherwise. On 'narayana' shabdArtha, someone has written a
paper on how that word applies to Shiva. So, it is only a good knowledge of
vyakarana that is required to give what interpretation one wants to. In
fact narayana himself addresses shiva as narayana. The weak excuses that he
is addressing the antaryami of shiva, praising only himself, etc. are only
laughable and will delight manda mati-s and not serious tattva chintaka-s.
For, tattva transcends persons.


> I can go on and on, but it is suffice to say Jayantha Bhatta is quite at
> loss in his understanding.
>

Beauty lies in brevity. Jayantha Bhatta conveyed what he wanted in the most
minimum words. For him the pramanas he cited speak for themselves, and do
not need lengthy explanations. So with advaita Acharyas who have commented
on those pramanas. Only to deny that one has to labor hard, write volumes
and go on and on

regards
vs

>
> /sv
>
>
>
>
>
>