[Advaita-l] REFERENCES FROM VARIOUS PURANAS, UPANISHADS, SASTRAS WHERE VISHNU, RAMA, KRISHNA DON BHASMA TRIPUNDRA AND VISHNU IS A PARAMA SHIVA BHAKTA

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri rAghava prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Thanks for clarifying the context.  Yes, clarification like this is very much required for the neophytes of Advaita whenever they are reading statements like rAma, vishNu don bhasma and vishNu is parama shiva bhakta etc.  The ONLY purpose of showing hara's superiority in Advaita is nothing but an attempt to drive home the point that there is absolute abedha in hari-hara tattva.  If that purpose is not served then we will be spending our whole energy and time in proving either hari/hara  sarvOttamatva by stating Vishnu parama shiva bhakta or rudra deva is parama bhAgavata 😊 I was just wondering about the categorization of puraNa-s by some acharya-s outside the tradition of dvaita to prove the shiva sarvOttamatva.  I reckon whenever these topics discussed from Advaita perspective, the clarification you provided should follow.  Otherwise, we will end up in shivAdvaita followers instead of shuddhAdvaita / vedAnta pradipAdita Advaita  followers 😊 Since I was one of  the victims of this type of prejudiced mentality once upon a time, my special concerns now !! 😊 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Bhaskar

PS :  I Don’t know anything about nArAyaNAstra blog if at all these mails are shooted in reply to  the objections in that blog.  But if we go with these references to the group called vAdAvaLi, most formidable defenders of dvaita/tattvavAda there have one or more answer for each and every point of reference which depicts the shiva's superiority over vishNu 😊 So, in a way, it is never ending story / fight.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Bhaskar


Namaste Bhaskarji
The context is that

1. "There are numerous references from shAstras which refer to Vishnu as a Shiva Bhakta etc." - the advaitic members are only pointing to a fact. Its not a conclusion

2. None of the advaitic members has ever made any conclusive statement to the effect that "therefore Shiva is superior to Vishnu".

 I request not to conclude hastily and wrongly state that "therefore even advaitins are being bigoted in proclaiming that Shiva is superior". It is patently unfair to those who are posting these references and misrepresents their position.

 'Point 1" is a rejoinder to the unstated bigoted Vaishnava nyAya syllogism.

The Vaishnava logic being that
'Vishnu is sarvottama' - sAdhya
'because Shruti Smriti purANas all refer to that.' - hetu

It is necessary to show the vyabhicAri vaishnava hetu by showing numerous references which indicate 'Shiva is superior to Vishnu'.

Conclusion : brahmAtma which is nirguNam and nirAkAram is the truth

None of the posters has given any bigoted *conclusion* of their own - they are merely drawing attention to facts. That there are references which talk on n different ways. No more no less.

Om
Raghav