[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 Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:02 AM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:59 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 must have composed that verse but a commentary cites the Vishnu puranam
verse that is of the same meaning. So, the concept is prAmANika.


>
>> He has cited pramanas only, from shruti and smriti.
>>
>
> He cited from shruti and smirti which are contradictory in nature. He did
> not address the philosophical standpoint from them except concluding
> Hari-Hara abeda, that too when he has a glaring bAdaka from Rgvedic asya
> devasya mILhuSo vayA  pramANa.
>

All people do not see the above Rg veda passage in the same way. Hence, it
cannot be said to be bAdhaka.

>
>>
>>
>
>>>> Even your Shankara said in Soundryalahari parabrahman has pattamahiShi,
> so?
>
> prakriti, bhArya, stree, yOni etc are all vydIka shabda-s. They need to be
> understood in that context. Your (ill) understanding of bhArya is only
> meant to be a human wife, is quite questionable on your schooling.
>
> When shruti says 'jagat prasUti'  are you going to say because the word
> "prasUti" is there, that tatva went to  maternity hospital (prasUti-gruha)
> or called midwife? If not why not?
>

These expressions are only to give a personified touch to the
transcendental Tattva of Brahman. All stutis/stotras are to be seen in that
light.

>
> When purusha sUkta calls Brahman as 'purUSha', are you going to say
> Brahman is a purusha (and not stree) as in mundane language? If not why not?
>

There are standard vyutpatti-s for 'Purusha' - pUrNatvAt puruSha, puri
(dehe) shayanAt puruSha, sarvam pUrayati iti puruSha, etc. So, it is not
any gender-specific term.


>
> Your objections, which are based on silly understanding of pUrva paxa is
> not worthy of addressing.
>

So do I think about your objections as well.

vs

>
> /sv
>
>
>
>