[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 Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 3:14 AM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>> 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."
>

The translation I have given is very close to the Sayana Bhashyam, an image
of which I have provided. I prefer to go by Sayana who is not a sectarian.


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

Why? That sUkta is a prayer to the various deities to bestow various things
to the seekers. Another translation, Rigved: Hindi Indology By Dr. Ganga
Sahai Sharma   https://tinyurl.com/y9mo5enw   too gives the same
translation as above.

>
>
>
>> //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.
>

Advaitins do not see these as contradictions. The reason is, for them
Brahman is not a paricchinna vyakti who is different from another vyakti
(vastu pariccheda). Various Vedic portions do the stuti of Rudra and Vishnu
as jagat kaaraNam too.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>


   प्रविशेत्स महातेजा मां वा शङ्करमेव वा | न स्यात्पुनर्भवो राजन्नात्र
   कार्या विचारणा ||१४-१०३-११७ (९५९६८)
      The Kumbhakonam (Madhva) edition too has the word: apunarbhavam = no
      rebirth
   = moksha.



> Do not forget in the final verdict of vEda -- sarva dEva namaskAraha
> kEShvam pratigacchati
>
I have already given the meaning of 'Keshava' = the one under whose control
are the Trimurtis.

>
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> "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)
>

The above does not add anything or change my understanding.

>
>
>> 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.
>

The 'NakAra' episode is someone's fertile imagination and hence does not
deserve consideration.

>
>
>> 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?
>

The jagat/srishti etc. is adhyaropa by the shaastra in order to teach the
Truth. 'adhyAropa apavAdAbhyAm niShprapancham prapanchyate is a line cited
by Shankara as that of 'sampradAyavit's statement. So words are used to
denote the Truth which has nothing to do with jagat.


>
> 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.
>

Your improper understanding of Advaita is what is glaring in all this.

>
> vs
>
>
>
>>
>>> /sv
>
>
>
>
>