[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 Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:41 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:07 AM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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)
>>
>
> This is an English translation of the above mantra:
>
> Rig Veda 7.40.5:
>
> Rudra is mentioned along with a litany of other deities in Rig Veda
> 7.40.5. Here is the reference to Rudra, whose name appears as one of many
> gods who are called upon:
>
> अस्य देवस्य मीळ्हुषो वया विष्णोरेषस्य परभ्र्थे हविर्भिः |
> विदे हि रुद्रो रुद्रियं महित्वं यासिष्टं वर्तिरश्विनाविरावत ||
>
> “ This Varuna, the leader of the rite, and the royal Mitra and Aryaman,
> uphold my acts, and the divine unopposed Aditi,earnestly invoked: may they
> convey us safe beyond evil. I propitiate with oblations the ramifications
> (vayāh) of that divine attainable Vishnu, the showerer of benefits. Rudra,
> bestow upon us the magnificence of his nature. The Aśvins have come down to
> our dwelling abounding with (sacrificial) food. “
>
>
That is not correct translation. Even going by "english" translation at
sacred-texts.com, Rv 7.40.5 says --

"With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the
bounteous Visnu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Asvins, ye sought
the house that hath celestial viands."

If you were to pada-chEda tnaslation;

asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viShNoreShasya prabhR^ithe havirbhiH |
vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat.h || (Rig
Veda 7:40:5)

"Asya devasya viShNoH" (Of this dEva, Vishnu) -- All in shaShThivibhakti.
"mILhuShaH" -- from the dhatu 'mih' which means 'to bestow',
"vayA"  -- from the root 'vaya' means bandhana, hence the word 'vayA'
meaning 'bandhaka' (one who causes us to be bound),
"prabhR^ite havirbhiH"  -- by devoted  offerings in the sacrifice
"vide" = lebhe (obtained)
"hi" = indeed,
"rudro" = rudra,
"rudriyaM mahatvaM" = the glory associated with rudra.

Then this verse proceeds to link the above in reference to Ashvini
devataas. Thus, By offerings with extreme devotion (pra-bhR^ithe) to this
deva, viShNu, who is very bestowful, rudra obtained the glory that is
associated with him (rudriyaM mahatvaM)

Your translation of Rudra bestows upon us the bliss of Rudra is quite wrong.



> //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?//
>
> The Vedas and Veda Vyasa have disputed that immensely. There is the
> Atharvashikha upanishad, cited by Ramanuja and also commented upon by
> Advaitin Acharyas in 13 century CE which says 'the trimurtis are born from
> Shambhu'.  Jayantha Bhatta has cited from this Upanishad.
>

In that case Atharvashikha upanishad must be contradicting RV 7.40.5 above.
Either one is true -- both RV and AtharAtharvashikha upanishad are invalid
(as both contradict), or the 'Shambhu' mention in that Upanishad is not
same as Rudra of RV.




> Any amount of trickery to convert 'shambhu' to Vishnu will not succeed.
> Also in the Mahabharatha Veda Vyasa has penned a dialogue where Krishna
> without mincing words says 'worship of Vishnu and Rudra lead to the same
> result':
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/worship-of-shiva-or-vishnu-lead-to-the-same-result-mahabharata/
>    One can read the dialogue here.
>

All porushEya texts must be interpreted inline with apouruEya vEda.
Otherwise they will be rendered invalid.



>
> In the Mahabharata, Ashvamedha parvan, there is a dialogue between Krishna
> and Yudhishthira on the ‘vaishnava dharma shāstra’:
>
> http://bombay.indology.info/mahabharata/apps/UD/Supp14.txt
>
> All these verses are also found in the Kumbhaghoṇam (Madhva) edition too:
>
> http://sanskritdocuments.org/mirrors/mahabharata/mbhK/unic/mbhK14_sa.html
>
> 14_004_1454 निवेशयति मन्मूर्त्या आत्मानं मद्गतः शुचिः
>
> 14_004_1455 रुद्रदक्षिणमूर्त्यां वा चतुर्दश्यां विशेषतः 14_004_1456
> सिद्धैर्ब्रह्मर्षिभिश्चैव देवलोकैश्च पूजितः 14_004_1457
> गन्धर्वैर्भूतसंघैश्च गीयमानो महातपाः 14_004_1458 प्रविशेत्स महातेजा मां वा
> शंकरमेव वा
>
> 14_004_1459 तस्यापुनर्भवं (sic) राजन्नात्र कार्या विचारणा
> Whoever on the Chaturdashī, gives himself up in devotion to My (Vishnu’s)
> form or to the form of Rudra-Dakshināmūrti, will be worshiped by the
> siddha-s, brahmaṛṣi-s and the devaloka-s and praised by the gandharva-s and
> the bhūta-groups, he, such a devotee is Mahātapāḥ. Such a devotee endowed
> with great Tejas will be united with Me or Shankara; he will be freed from
> rebirth. No doubt need to be had in this, O Yudhishtira!
>

This does not establish Hari-Hara abhEda. It only says phala is either
Vishnu or Shankara. Do not forget in the final verdict of vEda -- sarva
dEva namaskAraha kEShvam pratigacchati

Again all porushEya texts must be interpreted inline with apouruEya vEda.
Otherwise they will be rendered invalid.




>
>> 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?
>>
>
> It is not a result of interpretation of Manu smriti. It is based on
> 'upAdAna kAraNa - kArya ananyatva' of Brahasutra and the Chandogya 6th
> chapter. . Narayana is the source from which the pancha bhutas emerge. The
> bhautika prapancha is thus a vivarta of Narayana.
>


That indeed, a laborious understanding.

Shruti itself has given us straight forward understanding for the term "ApO
nArAha" ;

"ApO nArAha iti proktAha ApO vai nara-soonavaha |  ayanam tasya tAha
poorvam tEna nArAyaNa smritaha"
(Waters are said to be nArAha.  They are indeed the creation of nara.  They
are at the beginning the abode of It.  Therefore, it is NArAyaNa)

Other shrutis also convey same idea -- ambhasyapArE bhuvanasya madhyE
nAkasya prshTe mahatO maheeyAn
(The greatest of the great resides in the waters)



> There is no basis for the above story. It has been told too many times so
> as to lose all credibility. The 'Na-kAra' aspect is laughable. For
> Narayana, Shiva is 'Narayana'. Read an article here:
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/shiva-is-narayana-for-narayana/
>

It is your personal opinion, not valid argument.


>
> Here is another instance of the name ‘Narayana’ applied to someone other
> than Vishnu.  The Lingapurana has a stuti by Vishnu and other gods and
> sages addressed to Shiva:
>
> Again all porushEya texts must be interpreted inline with apouruEya vEda.
Otherwise risk of loosing your pramANa.






>
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>
> The above is not a correct understanding of Advaita. If that were the
> case, no bhashya would have been written for the upanishads, etc.
>

That is not valid argument. Bhashya-s may have written to indicate nEti
nEti, or the absence of negative idea. Never to say NB is 'iti' type.



>
>> 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.
>>
>
> They are not guna-s of Brahman. With reference to the world, Brahman is
> adhisthanam. Since world is mithya, the adhishthanatva is also not real. So
> with vyapakatva. Only if vyapya jagat is admitted, Brahman is said to be
> vyapaka.
>

Ok then -- if vyapya jagat is taken out of equation, vyApakatva shabda
'vishNu' also to be taken out. Then why are you saying vishNu shabda refers
to NB?

Either say vishNu word refers to SB or say vyapya jagat is mithya and not
try to say anything about NB. Your illogical stance is quite glaring.





>
>> 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.
>>
>
> These are non-issues.
>

Why not? See above.

/sv