[Advaita-l] An interesting anecdote on Sanskrit usage

[V Subrahmanian]

An incident related to HH Jagadguru Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Swamigal of
Sringeri.

The gist of the incident is:  A Sanskrit scholar, by name Pārthasārathy,
working as a teacher somewhere, was taking leave of the Acharya after
having; his  darshan and some conversation with him about the nuances of
the Sanskrit language. The Acharya, with a smile asked him:  You said you
are Pārthasārathi. Is it a bahuvrīhi or ṣaṣṭhī tatpuruṣa? [In the former
samāsa the name will be explained as 'पार्थः सारथिः यस्य सः ’' He for whom
Pārtha is the sārathi.'  Arjuna was the charioteer to the Virāṭa prince
Uttara Kumāra during the period of the incognito life of the Pandavas.  The
ṣaṣṭhī tatpuruṣa samāsa will mean the well known 'Pārthasya sārathiḥ', that
is Lord Krishna who was Arjuna's charioteer.]

[The above incident ends here.]


We have a similar occasion in the Mahābhārata:

12328019c नारायणात्मको ज्ञेयः पाण्डवेय युगे युगे

The word  नारायणात्मकः can be explained as: 1. नारायणः आत्मा यस्य सः
[He for whom Nārāyaṇa is the ātmā, self] In this case the term is a
bahuvrīhi samāsa. In the context of the MB below, the person referred
to by the term is Śiva. 2. नारायणस्य आत्मा [Nārāyaṇa's self]. In this
case the term is a ṣaṣṭhī  tatpuruṣa samāsa, which also will refer to
Śiva alone. The particle/suffix 'ka' at the end is an addition that
has no special meaning: svārthe ka-pratyayaḥ.


12328020a तस्मिन्हि पूज्यमाने वै देवदेवे महेश्वरे 12328020c संपूजितो
भवेत्पार्थ देवो नारायणः प्रभुः

Krishna continues: If Śiva, the devadeva, maheśvara, is worshiped,
Lord Nārāyaṇa stands well worshiped.

12328021a अहमात्मा हि लोकानां विश्वानां पाण्डुनन्दन

I am the Self of all the worlds (beings), O Arjuna.

12328021c तस्मादात्मानमेवाग्रे रुद्रं संपूजयाम्यहम्

Therefore, I worship My Self that is Rudra,first.

12328022a यद्यहं नार्चयेयं वै ईशानं वरदं शिवम् | 12328022c आत्मानं
नार्चयेत्कश्चिदिति मे भावितं मनः

If I do not worship Śiva, the Lord, the bestower of boons, no one will
worship the Self. Such is my conviction.

12328022e मया प्रमाणं हि कृतं लोकः समनुवर्तते 12328023a प्रमाणानि हि
पूज्यानि ततस्तं पूजयाम्यहम्

That which I place as a role model for people, they follow suit. Those
which are the ideals are to be worshiped and hence I worship Śiva (who
is such an ideal).

12328023c यस्तं वेत्ति स मां वेत्ति योऽनु तं स हि मामनु 12328024a
रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधाकृतम्

He who realizes Śiva, knows Me and he who realizes Me, realizes Śiva
as well. For, Rudra and Nārāyaṇa are one Principle, manifesting as
two.

Thus, when these two interpretations of the term 'nārāyaṇātmaka' are
taken, the entity referred to is Śiva. This theme Veda Vyāsa has also
placed in the Harivamśa from where Shankara cites verses in the Viṣṇu
Sahasra Nāma Bhāṣyam:

Harivamśa 3.88. 61, 61, 62 which are addressed by Maheśwara during the
Kailāsa yātra episode:


अहं त्वं सर्वगो देव त्वमेवाहं जनार्दन ।

आवयोरन्तरं नास्ति शब्दैरर्थैर्जगत्त्रये ॥


[I am thou and thou alone am I, O Janārdana.  There is no difference
between us, by word or by sense in all the three worlds.]


The supreme import of the above idea of the absolute identity is brought
out by Shankara by citing the Jābāla shruti in the Brahmasutra bhāsya:
4.1.3 :


एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः — आत्मेत्येव परमेश्वरः प्रतिपत्तव्यः । तथा हि
परमेश्वरप्रक्रियायां जाबाला आत्मत्वेनैव एतमुपगच्छन्ति — ‘त्वं वा अहमस्मि
भगवो देवतेऽहं वै त्वमसि भगवो देवते’ इति ; तथा अन्येऽपि ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’
इत्येवमादय आत्मत्वोपगमा द्रष्टव्याः । ग्राहयन्ति च आत्मत्वेनैव ईश्वरं
वेदान्तवाक्यानि — ‘एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ४ । १)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=3&id=BR_C03_S04_V01&hl=%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%B7%20%E0%A4%A4%20%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%83>
‘एष
त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ७ । ३)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=3&id=BR_C03_S07_V03&hl=%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%B7%20%E0%A4%A4%20%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83>
‘तत्सत्यं
स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ (छा. उ. ६ । ८ । ७)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S08_V07&hl=%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%EA%A3%B3%20%E0%A4%B8%20%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF>
इत्येवमादीनि । यदुक्तम् — प्रतीकदर्शनमिदं विष्णुप्रतिमान्यायेन भविष्यतीति,
तदयुक्तम् , गौणत्वप्रसङ्गात् , वाक्यवैरूप्याच्च — यत्र हि
प्रतीकदृष्टिरभिप्रेयते, सकृदेव तत्र वचनं भवति — यथा ‘मनो ब्रह्म’ (छा. उ.
३ । १८ । १)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya?page=3&id=Ch_C03_S18_V01&hl=%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE>
‘आदित्यो
ब्रह्म’ (छा. उ. ३ । १९ । १)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya?page=3&id=Ch_C03_S19_V01&hl=%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE>
इत्यादि ; इह पुनः — त्वम् अहमस्मि, अहं च त्वमसीत्याह — अतः
प्रतीकश्रुतिवैरूप्यात् अभेदप्रतिपत्तिः ; भेददृष्ट्यपवादाच्च ; तथा हि — ‘अथ
योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद’ (बृ. उ. १ । ४ । १०)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=1&id=BR_C01_S04_V10&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A5%20%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%B8%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A6>
‘मृत्योः
स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । १९)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=4&id=BR_C04_S04_V19&hl=%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%87%E0%A4%B9%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF>
‘सर्वं
तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनः सर्वं वेद’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । ६)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=2&id=BR_C02_S04_V06&hl=%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A6>
इत्येवमाद्या भूयसी श्रुतिः भेददर्शनमपवदति ।


//Brahman is to be known as one's self alone. Thus the Jābāla-s, in the
context of Parabrahman, acknowledge this one as the Self indeed.'I am
indeed Thou, O Lord, and Thou are indeed myself.'  //


Just as in the śruti cited, the Harivamśa too makes the statement both
ways: I am thou, thou alone am I. This is called व्यतिहारः, and such a
usage brings about emphasis of the theme sought to be conveyed. This is
what is found in the words of Śiva.


There is the other very well known shruti passage that directly proclaims
the identity between Śiva and Viṣṇu where too the concept of 'vyatihāra' is
present:


http://upanishad.info/upanishads/text/krishna-yajurveda/sanskrit/skanda
[Sri Upaniṣad Brahma Yogin, an advaita Acharya, has written the commentary
for this Upaniṣad as well along with the entire 108 Upaniṣads.)


शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय शिवरूपाय विष्णवे ।
शिवस्य हृदयं विष्णुः विष्णोश्च हृदयं शिवः ॥८॥
यथा शिवमयो विष्णुरेवं विष्णुमयः शिवः ।
यथान्तरं न पश्यामि तथा मे स्वस्तिरायुषि ॥९॥
यथान्तरं न भेदाः स्युः शिवकेशवयोस्तथा ।[Skandopaniṣat]


[(obeisance to Śiva who is of the form of Viḷṣṇu, and to Viṣṇu of the form
of Śiva. Śiva's heart (self) is Viṣṇu and Viṣṇu's self is Śiva. Just as
Viṣṇu is fully verily Śiva, so too Śiva is fully verily Viṣṇu. As I do not
see any difference between them, let me be prosperous and long-lived. Let
there be no difference between Śiva and Keśava. In fact the Mahabharata
itself contains a similar verse:


शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय विष्णवे शिवरूपिणे ।।

दक्षयज्ञविनाशाय* हरिरूपाय* ते नमः। 3.39.76 (*हरिरुद्राय*) [These are the
words of Arjuna to Lord Śiva.]

In the Harivamśa, an extension of the Mahabharata, we have Markandeya's
words:

मार्कण्डेय उवाच॥ शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय विष्णवे शिवरूपिणे। अथान्तरं न पश्यामि
तेन ते दिशतः शिवम् ।


Sridhara Swamin, an advaitin who has commented on the Srimadbhāgavatam and
the Vishnupuranam (two unique texts with great advaitic content, especially
the VP, at the beginning of the commentary there Sridhara Swamin says: for
those who have not had the opportunity to get the advaitic teaching from
the Upanishads, this purana contains that in immense measure) captures the
heart of the Veda and Veda Vyasa):


माधवोमाधवावीशौ सर्वसिद्धिविधायिनौ। वन्दे परस्परात्मानौ परस्परनुतिप्रियौ॥
[invocation to the commentary to the Srimadbhāgavatam]

I bow to Mādhava and Umādhava (Shiva) who are both 'Isha-s' Supreme Lords. They
are capable of bestowing all accomplishments (to their devotees). *They are
both the selves of each other* and both love to engage in the stuti of each
other. In fact none other than an advaitin can make such statements. For
non-advaitins, who are bigots, combining Hari and Hara in a single
expression is unimaginable.

The 'parasparātmānau' is the one that especially annotates the Upanishad
and Vedavyasa works.


The first cited Skandopaniṣad verses are chanted daily during
sandhyavandanam by Telugu and Kannada speaking  smārta-s.  A Telugu
sandhyavandanam book by Krishna Pandita printed in the early 1900's has
these verses. Vedantins alone, as taught by the Veda and Veda Vyasa, can
steer clear of all petty mentalities and practice the Hari-Hara abheda
tattva.


The absolute identity proclaimed in the verse foregoing is being elucidated
in the sequel in the Harivamśa:


नामानि तव गोविन्द यानि लोके महान्ति च ।

तान्येव मम नामानि नात्र कार्या विचारणा ॥


[O Govinda, your esteemed names alone are mine as well; no doubt need to be
had in this regard] There Veda Vyasa, through Shiva, conveys that all the
names of Viṣṇu, including the name ‘Nārāyaṇa’ are that of Śiva.  Thus the
thousand names of Viṣṇu are also those of Śiva since there is no difference
in name and sense between the pair Hari and Hara.


त्वदुपासा जगन्नाथ सैवास्तु मम गोपते ।

यश्च त्वां द्वेष्टि भो देव स मां द्वेष्टि न संशयः ॥

[The worship/meditation of You, O Gopati, let that be meditation of mine
too.  He who hates you O Deva, hates me too, undoubtedly.]


Thus, he who worships Viṣṇu, is by default also worshiping Śiva, whether he
likes it or not.


Shankara brings out the trimūrti aikya as one of the senses, in one of the
occurrences of the name 'keśava' in the Viṣṇu sahasra nāma:


23. keśava: kaśca, aśca, īśaśca keśāḥ te yadvaśena vartante sa keśavaḥ.
Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra are the trimūtis collectively known as 'keśa-s, and
who are under the control of Parabrahman known as Keśavaḥ. Thereby for
Shankara, who uses the plural and not dual, the entity 'Viṣṇu' who is part
of the trimūrtis, is different from Parabrahman under whose control are the
trimūrti-s. It is utterances of this nature that have made Shankara an
adversary to vaiṣṇava-s who can never stomach the idea of Viṣṇu, who is
just one among the many deities for Shankara,  being under someone's
control.


For Shankara, the names occurring in the text of the VSN are those of
Brahman and not of a finite deity. Even at the beginning for the names
bhūtakṛt, etc. Shankara comments as the forms of Brahman engaged in the
cosmic functions of creation, etc. The commentary of Sridhara Swamin for
the Bhāgavatam 2.10.40,42,43 instance where these functions are stated is
again in the same vein:


*ब्रह्मरूपेण* स्रष्टृत्वमुक्त्वा *विष्णुरूपेण* पालकत्वमाह ।.....*रुद्ररूपेण*
संहर्तृत्वमाह ..। [After having stated the creatorship *as Brahmā, *the
sustainership* as vishnu *is being stated*.*] Thus, it is one Brahman that
takes these three forms.


While commenting on the name 'Rudra' (114 of the VSN), Shankara cites a
verse from the Śivapurāṇa:

रुर्दुःखं दुःखहेतुं वा तद् द्रावयति यः प्रभुः ।

रुद्र इत्युच्यते तस्माच्छिवः परमकारणम् ॥ (samhitā 6, ch.9, verse 14)

(‘Ruḥ’ means misery or the cause thereof. Since the Supreme Lord, Shiva,
who is the Ultimate Cause (of creation, etc.) is called ‘Rudra’). This
verse too, according to Shankara, goes to highlight Hari-Hara abheda. It is
interesting to note that in the prasthānatraya bhashya Shankara has not
cited the Shiva puranam. He has cited from the Lingapuranam in the
Kathopanishat bhashya 2.1.1 to give a definition for the term ‘Ātman’.

For the name 'soma' (505); occurring in the VSN, Shankara gives the meaning
of 'Umāpati' alternatively. उमया सहितः शिवो वा

In the Kenopaniṣat bhāṣya too, for the word 'umā' Shankara gives a similar
meaning:  उमैव हिमवतो दुहिता हैमवती नित्यमेव सर्वज्ञेनेश्वरेण सह
वर्तत...Uma, the daughter of Himavān, who is eternally with the Omnicient
Ishvara and therefore she is aware of the Brahmatattvam....And in the VSN
Bhāṣya, again, Shankara cites the Kaivalyopaniṣad as teaching the abheda
across the deities Śiva, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, etc. For an advaitin such
statements from the scriptures are never probeamatic.needing manipulation
by adding this or that alibi and apology such as 'antaryām,śarīra-ātmā,
interpolated, tāmasa purāṇa, etc.'

Shankara also brings out the theme of Hari-Hara, Trimūrti abheda, in the
vyatireka form where the scripture censures differentiation: [The verses
cited by Shankara shown here earlier carry the message 'the two/three are
one'. That is called 'anvaya'. Here are verses that teach that 'difference
aught not to be perceived.' This is called 'vyatireka'.

Two seminal verses from the Bhaviṣyottara purāṇa in the introduction to the
VSN:

Maheśvara (Śiva) says:

विष्णोरन्यं तु पश्यन्ति ये मां ब्रह्माणमेव वा ।

कुतर्कमतयो मूढाः पच्यन्ते नरकेष्वधः ॥

[Those fools who, devoid of proper thinking, consider Me and Brahmā as
different from Viṣṇu, will be baked in the lowly hells.]

ये च मूढा दुरात्मानो भिन्नं पश्यन्ति मां हरेः ।

ब्रह्माणं च ततस्तस्माद् ब्रह्महत्यासमं त्वघम् ॥

[Those fools, wicked ones, by seeing Me and Brahmā as different from Hari
are committing the heinous sin of brahmahatyā.]

One can recall a similar verse in the Śrīmadbhāgavatam (Dakṣayajña section)
as said by Viṣṇu: such jiva-s will not attain liberation.

Clearly, such verses of the scripture are never a favorite of non-advaitins.

That Hari and Hara are non-different is brought out by the Mahabharata,
etc. in many ways: as Hari worshiping Hara and as Hara praising Hari, etc.
This inalienable identity is beautifully brought out by Sridhara Swamin in
his invocation to his commentary to the Bhagavatam:

माधवोमाधवावीशौ सर्वसिद्धिविधायिनौ। वन्दे परस्परात्मानौ परस्परनुतिप्रियौ॥

I bow to Mādhava and Umādhava (Shiva) who are both 'Isha-s' Supreme Lords. They
are capable of bestowing all accomplishments (to their devotees). They are
both the selves of each other and both love to engage in the stuti of each
other.

http://dravidaveda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3044

There is a 'shankara-nārāyaṇa avatāra' which has been praised by an Azhwar.

This idea is contained in the Sauptika Parva of the Mahabharata too where
Krishna says that the worship of both Hari and Hara leads to the same
result. Only Advaitins such as Veda Vyasa, Shankara, Sridhara Swamin,
Sureshwara can boldly proclaim the aikya/abheda theme. In fact such verses
are easily comprehensible requiring no convoluted explanations and
apologies such as 'Śiva says that as antaryāmi, praises go to the
antaryami, śarīra-ātma, etc.' It is a defect, kalpanā gauravam, in the
nyāya śāstra, when something can be explained without resorting to such
excuses.   Sri Vachaspati Mishra has said:

कल्पनालाघवं यत्र तं पक्षं रोचयामहे | कल्पनागौरवं यत्र तं पक्षं न सहामहे ||

'https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=
web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjxpY3uhK_VAhUVT48KHU7PDzgQFghOMAg&url=
http%3A%2F%2Fsanskrit.uohyd.ac.in%2FCorpus%2FCIIL%2F*Tarkabhashaprakasika*
%2Ftarkabhasha_prakasika_s.txt&usg=AFQjCNHESdR8dFQLIhVmP8nl_ocD3Aa5PA

Where there is brevity of explanation, laghukalpanā,  that is pleasing to
us. On the other hand, that which is cumbersome, gauravakalpanā,  is
despised by us. [guru = heavy]

A Dvaita-Advaita meet was held in Bangalore on the topic of 'dvā suparṇa
śrutyartha vichāra' where an Advaitin scholar, Sri Maheswaran Nambuthiri,
was assigned thetask of presenting a paper on the 'Advaitic verses in the
Srimadbhāgavatam'. He commenced the reading of a long list, verse after
verse and at a point paused and remarked with a smile: 'The verses
themselves are so direct and to the point; requiring no commentary
whatsoever.'  Those very verses will have to be dressed in lengthy
explanations in order to deny the straightforward, यथाश्रुतार्थ, advaitic
meaning by non-advaitins. The cited verses of the Mahabharata and Harivamśa
too are of similar nature. Shankara brings out that dictum in the
Praśnopaniṣat bhāṣya 6.3:  तत्र हि गौणी कल्पना शब्दस्य, यत्र मुख्यार्थो न
सम्भवति ।  [only when the primary meaning of the word is impossible,
resorting to secondary meaning is admitted.].

It is Sri Appayya Dikshitar who has made the unnegatable statement:

  // viShNurvA shankaro vA shruti-shikhara-girAmastu tAtparya-bhUmiH
na-asmAkam tatra vAdaH prasarati kimapi spaShTam-advaita-bhAjAm |
kintu-Isha-dveSha-gADhAnala-kalita-hRRidAm durmatInAm duruktIH
bhanktum yatno mama-ayam nahi bhavatu tato viShNu-vidveSha-shankAm ||

The meaning of the above beautiful verse is:

'I have not the slightest objection, to anyone coming to any conclusion,
that the spirit of the Vedas and the Vedantas, declare either Vishnu or
Shiva as the First God. I am a follower of the Advaita doctrine. I have no
difference between Shiva and VishNu. But if in order to establish Vishnu as
the main God, if somebody starts abusing Shiva or hates him, I cannot bear
it. (There are as many proofs or pramanas in the Vedas, Vedantas, Puranas
and Agamas to establish that Shiva is a mighty God, as there are to prove
that Vishnu is a powerful one.) However, I am propagating my religion and
indulging in debate and disputation, only to persuade everyone not to hate
Shiva. Let no one have the slightest doubt that I either hate or wish to
denigrate Lord Vishnu simply because I praise the grace and greatness of
Lord Shiva.'

The sublime devotion of Dikshita to Lord Vishnu is fully seen from his
great work 'Varadaraja stava' where he has sung in ecstatic poetry about
Lord Varadaraja of Kanchipuram. Vaishnavas declare that Vishnu is the
supreme being and that Shiva has a lower status, being a mere jiva. Sri
Dikshita however proves in his 'Ratna-traya-parIkShA' that Shiva, Vishnu,
Ambika, all the three are the same, viz., the supreme reality,(*) and
proves it with the pramanas taken from the puranas, vedas and agamas. //

The above is quoted from the book: 'Sri Appayya Dikshita' (p.66,67) by
Dr.N.Ramesan, IAS.

And Veda Vyasa in the Mahabharata vouches for the above view of Appayya
Dikshita:

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्।
लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। 12-350-27a 12-350-27b.

  (*) The Padmapurāṇa, in the section on the Srimadbhāgavatapurāṇa
māhātmyam of the 12th canto says that 'he is the greatest vaiṣṇava who
holds Śiva, Viṣṇu and Durga as non-different, Brahman.

The verses Shankara cites in the VSN bhāṣya, and those of the Mahabharata
and Harivamśa cited above do not suffer from such a weakness of the need to
resorting to any secondary meaning by giving up the primary meaning:
yathāśrutārtha.

Thus, the word 'नारायणात्मकः’, in both the samāsa-s mean Śiva alone: 1. as
having Narayana as his self and 2. as being the self of Narayana.
[परस्प्रात्मानौ as put by Sridhara Swamin. The term 'Jagadguru' too yields
to such dual interpretation: जगतः गुरुः (one who is the guru to the world),
जगत् गुरुः यस्य सः (one for whom the world is guru). In fact when someone
asked 'why are you called Jagadguru', HH Sri Narasimha Bharati Swamiji
(33rd pontiff) of the Sringeri peetham preferred to reply with the second
interpretation.

Om Tat Sat