[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 9:47 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>> That may be the position for Shankara, but Hari shabda, by its yogIka
>> artha denotes only Vishnu (harithi iti hariH).
>>
>
> For both wods Hara and Hari, the dhAtu, hr, is the same. Both words
> indicate that 'harati paapaani'.  (harati is to remove, destroy, etc.)
>

nirupapada viShEsha always denote the excellent in that class. So, if you
interpret harati pApAni, the unqualified 'pApa' indicate the highest one in
that class, that is this bandhana. Hara does not fit for that qualification
as the 'remover' because saakshAt Hara Himslef said “ahaM bhogaprado vatsA,
mokShadastu janArdanaH ', Who are you to dispute that? If you still adment
and say it is Shiva only the remover of samsAra, you cannot handle Rig vEda
7.40.5 I have quoted earlier ( asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya
prabhRthe havirbhiH vide hi ***rudro rudriyaM*** mahitvaM yAsiSTaM
vartirashvinAvirAvat)


>
>
>> Also per nArayaNAya vidmaye vAasudevAya dhimahi tanno vishNu prachodayAt .
>> If you just say Hari is nirguNa brahman that does not fly. Do not forget
>> your NB is avAchya and no single shabda denotes it.
>>
>
> The above is a wrong understanding. All words have etymological
> derivations. In the Narayana sukta, Sayana has cited the famous verse of
> the manu smriti and other puranas that give the etymological meaning of the
> name 'narayana'  - Apo nArA iti proktआः..'
>
> 'आपो नारा इति प्रोक्ता आपो वै नरसूनवः ।
>
> अयनं तस्य ताः पूर्वं तेन नारायणः स्मृतः ॥ ‘ [मनुः १.१०]
>
>
and said that 'nArAyaNa is not any mrUrivishesha.'  Any deity can be
> assigned to that definition. As per the definition, Narayana is the
> adhiShThAnam of the jagat adhyasa.
>


adhiSThaAnaM is agreed, but where does Manusmriti says adhistana of
'adhyasa' ? It is indeed a quite laborious interpretation. If
adhyAsa-bhAshya is not laborious, what else is?

Any deity can be assigned to nArAyaNa shabda? You must be kidding, Appaya
Dixita a mahA ShaivA himself gave up on interpreting 'nArayaNa' in favor of
Shaiva due to the presence of Na-kaara and absence of na-kaara.




> Hence, N is NB.  Likewise Vishnu means that which is vyApaka. Nirguna
> Brahman is sarvavyApi and hence Vishnu denotes Brahman. So with Vasudeva,
> etc. names.
>

If you say so, two issues -- one from gramatical point of view and other
doctrinal point o view.. On the grammatical issue -- do not forget  your NB
is never vAchyArtha and always been laxyArtha only. There where is the
question of application of yOgika-artha of any word, let alone nArAyanAdi
shabdas?

On the doctrinal issue -- if you interpret in a way that NB is adhistanata
and vyApaka, then NB is no more nirguNa, as such qualifications adhisttavaM
and vyapakatvaM will render it as SB.

Should I remind you again, NB is nEti nEti. So, interpret those shabda-s in
negative term as 'non-non-supporter' or 'non-localized' etc. Remember
satyam-jnAnaM-antaM  case? Instead o interpreting straight way, the
negative way 'not-asatya, not-ajnAna, not-antam' is indeed a laborious
way.


/sv