[Advaita-l] Shankara authenticates Shiva as the son of Brahma

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:58 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sorry for sending a blank post.
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:19 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <
>> svedagarbha at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-08-14 7:50 GMT-04:00 D Gayatri via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no indication in the BG, that the Vishwaroopa has anything to
>>>> do with Rudra. Yes, Rudra is sometimes treated as the deity of
>>>> destruction, there is no doubt about that. And Brahma is treated as
>>>> the deity of creation. There is no doubt about that too. But the
>>>> Mahabharata itself says that both these deities are nimitta mAtras at
>>>> the will of Aniruddha, who is Vishnu. And both are born from Narayana.
>>>> And Narayana is the one who is praised by all vedas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Above position is quite valid and quite vEdic.
>>>
>>> We have shruti pramANa for that -- Rig vEda 7.40.5 is quite clear on
>>> this topic when it says ;
>>>
>>> asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya
>>> prabhRthe havirbhiH vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM
>>> vartirashvinAvirAvat
>>>
>>> It clearly establishes the fact that Rudra's power is due to Vishnu.
>>> Please note interesting part here that shruti uses "vishNu" shabda and not
>>> nArayaNa shabda. This refutes other member's argument that Narayana is
>>> different from "Vishnu" and trimUrthi's power is from nAryaNa.
>>>
>>
> The above kind of depiction in the Puranas and the Veda is addressed to
> those who cannot take the ultimate truth straightaway.  It is like the
> picture book and stories that are required to convey the subtle truth.
>

This kind of nirNaya (on purANa/vEda vAkyas) itself must be conveyed by
some pramANa in order to be true, for at the end of day all we speak must
be be based on pramANas. There is no such evidence present.



>
> There are also verses that show the trimurtis emerging from Shiva, in the
> Mahabharata and other puranas. So, there is no finality for such
> depictions.
>
> यस्त्वां वेत्ति स मां वेत्ति यस्त्वामनु स मामनु।
> नावयोरन्तरं किंचिन्मा तेऽभूद्वुद्धिरन्यथा।।   12.352.67
>
> अद्यप्रभृति श्रीवत्सः शूलाङ्को मे भवत्वयम्।
> मम पाण्यङ्कितश्चापि श्रीकण्ठस्त्वं भविष्यसि।। 12.352.68
>
> Translation:
> Hari, then addressed the illustrious Īśāna and said these words:–He that
> knows thee, knows me. He that follows thee, follows me. *There is no
> difference between thee and me. Do thou never think otherwise.* The mark
> made by thy lance on my chest will from this day assume the form of a
> beautiful whirl (śrīvatsānka), and the mark of my hand on thy throat will
> also assume a beautiful shape in consequence of which thou shalt, from this
> day, be called by the name of Śrīkanṭha.
>
>>
>>>
>>>

First I doubt it is part of so called critical edition. Even if it is,
since it contradict Rig. Veda, its prAmANya ceases to be valid  Do not
forget apourusheya vEda has prabala pramANya over pourusheys works.

/sv