[Advaita-l] REFERENCES FROM VARIOUS PURANAS, UPANISHADS, SASTRAS WHERE VISHNU, RAMA, KRISHNA DON BHASMA TRIPUNDRA AND VISHNU IS A PARAMA SHIVA BHAKTA
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 02:42:46 EST 2019
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:12 AM Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 4:28 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > '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'.
> That hEtu is not there for nothing.
> Sri.krishna in gIta clearly says "vEdEschha sarvErahamEva vEdyaH"
> highlighting the point mukhya tAtparya of sarva vEdas is Krishna (Vishnu)
> only. Note the 'Eva' kaara.
The above and the other 'pramana-s' cited below by you are contradicted by
various other pramana-s from shruti, smriti, agama, etc.
There is no basis, justification, for Shaiva-Vaishnava quarrels - says
Jayantha Bhatta, a vaidika, a naiyayika, of 9th Century CE in his
The 'nyayamanjari' is a renowned work of Jayantha Bhatta
work is a detailed exposition of the Nyaya sutras of Gautama. Under the
section of Veda praamaaNya, Jayantha Bhatta discusses the issues related to
the Veda vs. Agama problem. The entire discussion, in simple Sanskrit, is
available in the link shown above. Just one aspect is highlighted here:
[there are several typos in the above page. Incidentally, Jayantha Bhatta,
while refuting the Vedanta Darshana, along with Sankhya, etc. has
considered Shankara's Advaita as the purva paksha and made a detailed
refutation. One can see the analogies, arguments, etc. present in Shaankara
Bhashya replicated while refuting.]
In order to see the embedded comments please read from the linked page.
[The baselessness of the Shaiva-Vaishnava tussle]
हेतोरनादिपुरुषस्य महाविभूतेः ।
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.]
The embedded commentary 214 in the above citation cites the famous Vishnu
सृष्टिस्थित्यन्तकरणीं ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवात्मिकाम् ।
स संज्ञां याति भगवान् एक एव जनार्दनःवि. पु. १-२-६६
The meaning of the above verse is the same as what is given for Jayantha
इत्याद्यप्यत्र द्रष्टव्यम् ॥
[The Vedic nature of the practices taught in the Shaiva and Pancharatra
वेदे च पदे पदे एक एव रुद्रोऽवतस्थे न द्वितीयः अथ. ३,
इदं विष्णुर्विचक्रमे तै. सं. १-२-१३, ऋ. सं. १-२२-७ इति रुद्रो
विष्णुश्च पठ्यते । तद्योगाश्च 215तदाराधनोपाया वेदेऽपि चोदिता
एव । शैवपञ्चरात्रयोस्तु तद्योगा एवा216न्यथोपदिश्यन्ते । न चैष
I.637 एव वेदविरोधः; वैकल्पिकत्वादुपायानाम् । अतः आप्तप्रणीतत्वात्,
वेदाविरुद्धत्वाच्च न तयोरप्रामाण्यम् ॥
[Jayantha Bhatta says: In the Veda, repeatedly we hear 'One Rudra alone,
none second to him (Atharvashikha/shira 3). And 'idam vishnurvichakrame'
Tai Samhita 1.2.13, Rg.samhita1.22.7 thus about Rudra and Vishnu. The
method of worshiping these deities is also taught in the Veda itself. In
the Shaiva and Pancharatra Agma-s these methods alone have been taught in a
different way. This much is no ground to hold the latter to be
contradicting the Veda as methods are always optional. Therefore, since
these Agamas have been composed by 'Apta-s', venerable ones, and also since
these do not contradict the Veda, the two stated Agama-s are quite valid.]
The point to be noted is while Jayanatha Bhatta (9th Century CE) did not
have to add even a single word after just citing the shruti, smriti, etc.,
Ramanuja, in his Vedartha sangraha finding himself in a predicament, had to
labor hard only to deny the straightforward, rujvartha, of the above cited
passages: http://www.shyamjoshi.org/vedarth-sangrah/11/ [It looks
like the blogger has disenabled search and copying in the blog].
The difficulty in this issue for non-advaitins is due to the fact that for
them Brahman is a vyakti, a person, a some 'body', who is different from
every 'body' else. In order to maintain this position they are compelled to
distinguish this 'body' from other 'bodies'. For Advaitins Brahman is a
Tattva, Truth, which is no-'body'. Hence, for them, Brahman can be
represented by any-'body'.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list