[Advaita-l] Shankara authenticates Shiva

[D Gayatri]

Namaste Sri Sujalji,


> Where did you find these discussions *started* by Advaitin, claiming Siva is
> supreme and that vishnu is not supreme?

Let me make it clear that I have no problem even if these discussions
are started by advaitins. But if discussions saying Shiva is superior
to Vishnu are acceptable and the intentions of such posters is not
questioned, then discussions saying Vishnu is superior to Shiva must
also be acceptable, especially when they have support from
bhagavatpAda. That's all I am trying to convey in my message. I am
appealing to the principle of fairness. If someone else is allowed to
post one view point without their intentions being questioned, then I
must also be allowed to post the opposite view point without my
intentions being questioned, as long as my view point is consistent
with Shankara's view and as long as quote works of Shankara and
Krishna-Dvaipayana.

Many of the hari-hara aikya vAdins are not really true hari-hara aikya
vAdins. They first denigrate Vishnu and then in the end add a
disclaimer that they are for hari-hara aikya. That does not sound
really convincing. Be that as it may, I have no problem with such view
points also, as long as the opposite view point is also given equal
space. So people should not be selectively objecting to things. People
are free to post that Vishnu is inferior god. But the opposite view
point also should be equally acceptable and those who post the
opposite viewpoint should not have their intentions selectively
questioned. You see the point that I am trying to make?


> Advaitins in general do not attack any school of thought,

In his BSB, Shankara attacks all schools of thought including sAmkhya,
mImAMsa, yoga, pAshupata, pancharAtra, cArvAka and Buddhists. So I
dont think your statement holds any water.


> To talk straight, I had a direct interaction with authors of Narayanastra
> Blog over email and on other forums. The claims that they are making simply
> didnt fit advaita. They consider VSN bhashya as authentic work of Adi
> Sankara. When shown quotes #27 Siva and #114 rudra and #505 soma, they will
> ignore. Then they quote Madhusudan Sarasvati, a great kRShNa bhakta. When
> shown quotes from Siddhanta Bindu, BG or his unique commentary on Siva
> mahimna stotra - all showing Siva = Vishnu, they will disregard it as mere
> grammatical play of words. They will disregard writings of Sri Vidyaranya
> Swami. They will disregard the whole set of puranas as tamasika. They will
> disregard all the pUrvAchArya-s of advaita who saluted to Siva or Ganesha
> and say that they are not following true teachings of Adi Sankara. Honestly,
> in the beginning all seems well to discuss with them, but as discussion
> continues, they become hostile, start name calling openly in public forums
> like Veera Shaiva, etc, and their language changes. Apologies for directly
> brining them here, but many posts here that you are pointing out are replies
> to them.

You are saying - "we didn't start the fire, some one else started it".
That some one else will say that the fire was started by yet some
other people. The last person will say that the fire was always
burning.

Since you bring the Narayanastra bloggers explicitly into this
discussion, you should also be knowing that their blog, though it is
independent now, was initially started as a reaction against a Shaiva
blog (I wont be taking names here).

The following were some of the claims of that Shaiva blog (and note
that this blog started before the narayanastra blog) -

1. Rudra is the only one qualified to be called Purusha and Vishnu
does not deserve this title.

2. Narayana suktam does not praise Vishnu but it praises Tripura sundari.

3. Bhagavad gita is not really taught by Krishna. Shiva made Krishna
as his mouth piece for that duration and BG actually praises Shiva.
The implication was that Krishna was just a puppet during the duration
that he taught the BG to Arjuna.

4. Certain incidents in the vAlmiki Ramayana, which propound the
superiority of Vishnu over Shiva are fake. (I honestly dont understand
what "fake" means, unless it means an interpolation).

5. Top N reasons why Srimad Bhagavatam is a bogus scripture and has
never been written by Vyasa. It is the Devi Bhagavatam which is the
correct scripture. (To clarify, I do agree that Srimad Bhagavatam is
post-Shankaran, but so are many other puranas)


> Adi Sankara has also explained rudra in VSN, but you tend to ignore this
> fact.

Because, one must only look at the authentic works of Shankara and not
others. On the other hand, if you accept that VSNB is an authentic
work of Shankara, the next argument one can genuinely raise is why did
he choose only VSN and not SSN? That itself shows that Shankara did
not consider SSN to be equal in importance to VSN. These kind of
tarkas are available to all.


> Had there been no such topic, there would not have been such quotes. Nobody
> is stopping you from quoting verses. You are only getting replies.


I acknowledge that. But if one questions my intentions, as if I have a
hidden agenda, then the intentions of the opposite party should be
equally questionable. I hope you are getting my point. To summarize, I
have no issue if someone denigrates Vishnu, but then the intentions of
the person who presents the opposite viewpoint should not be
needlessly questioned.