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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

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.

Harivamsha clearly says 'vEdE rAmAyaNE chaiva purANE bhAratE tadhA ,
AdavantE cha madhE cha viShNuH sarvatra gIyatE'

Upanishads clearly and explicitly asserts -- sarvE vEdA sarvE GhOSha Ekaiva
vyArhutiHsarvE vEdA sarvE GhOSha Ekaiva vyArhutiH. Then who is that Eka?
Same Upanishad says 'sarvE vEdA yatpadamAmananti ......tadviShNOH paramam
padam'

Also, the Naaradiiya clearly says: "Sarvagnyam sarva-kartaaram Naaraayanam
anaamayam."   Aamayapadam dosha-gnyaapanam. In other words "aamaya" is a
signifier of flaw; one who is described as an-aamaya cannot have a flaw
such as "subordinate to Shiva" etc.

Then coming to your argument that same texts elsewhere also indicates
'Shiva is superior to Vishnu'. How do we do smanvaya of this?

The problem with your understanding is that 'rudra' (or 'Shiva') shabda are
interpreted in their prasiddhi (rUDi) artha. That is not correct. because,
the Rgveda itself is very explicit on that and says  the bearer of all
names of gods is only One: yo devAnAM namadhA eka eva. And who is that
exactly? The answer is in RgVeda itself -- paro divA para enA pRthivyA paro
devebhirasurairyadasti -- That, who is beyond the heavens and this earth,
who is beyond all devas and asuras. Note the same characteristic mentioned
by the speaker of ambhraNi sUkta of rgveda: paro divA para enA
pRthivyaitAvatI mahinA saM babhUva.

Now, to whom does this characteristic belong to?

To the source of her prowess, who resides on the Ocean: mama yoniH apsu
ante samudre. She also declares her superiority over everybody else by
telling us that, whomsoever she wishes to make, she makes that one as Rudra
or Brahma or a sage or a wise man.

That same idea (of Vishnu is source of power to Rudra) is echoed in Rigveda
7.40.5:
   asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH |  vide hi
rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiShTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat ||
This clearly establishes the fact that Rudra's power is due to Vishnu.

So, in all tatva-nischyaa process, prasiddhi/ruDyArtha should not be used
when pitting against other deities with Vishnu.




> Conclusion : brahmAtma which is nirguNam and nirAkAram is the truth
>
>
It is claimed in Advaita that nirguna Brahman, with the limiting adjunct,
that becomes the Saguna Brahman (Paramaatman).

NaaradIya says "Sarvagnyam sarva-kartaaram Naaraayanam anaamayam" and says
Saguna Brahman Narayana is anaamayam (flawless).

We have two problem here;

1. nirguna Brahman, picks up a flaw, namely the limiting adjunct, and
becomes something flawless, namely the Paramaatman.
Does it make sense for something to pick up a flaw and thus become
flawless? No -- this would be preposterous

2. There are two entities, namely, the limiting adjunct (or the flaw) and
Brahman, or the entity that acquires the flaw. What is the relationship
between two?
The flaw cannot be the same as Brahman (otherwise the flaw would be
Brahman's self-same nature, which is not sublatable and thus Iishvara,
rather than the nirguna Brahman, becomes the Paaramaarthika satya). Also,
the nirguna Brahman, being characterized by this characteristic, would no
longer remain nirguna. However, on accepting utter difference between
Brahman and the flaw, Advaita/abheda is lost.

No harsh feelings to anyone, I am just following my master's dictum
harisarvottamatvaM cha sarvadA pratipAdyayaM

/sv