BLOG STATUS: Updated 10 Aug 2016. New article on Skambha Sukta (Part 2, extension of Part 1 published earlier) - Read here

Vishnu – The Supreme Brahman according to all Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis, and prominent Acharyas

sarvadA sarvakAryeShu teShAM nAstyamaN^galam |

yeShAM hR^idistho bhagavAn maN^galAyatano hariH ||

 lAbhasteShAM jayasteShAM kutasteShAM parAjitaH |

eShAm indIvarashyAmo hR^idayastho janArdanaH ||

Introduction

The royal Vedic path of Vaishnavism

The way of anti-Vaishnavite agents

The "Mahapashupatastra" blog

Questionable tactics employed by the blog's author to hide the truth

The anti-Vaishnavite’s motives made clear

A few truths revealed

Truth# 1: The Uttama Purusha in Chandogya Upanishad is Vishnu only. Hence, the Supreme Lord identified in the Bhagavad Gita is Lord Vishnu only, and not Lord Shiva:

Truth# 2: Shri Rudram extols shrIman nArAyaNa only. Moreover, the Vedas speak about the supremacy of Lord Vishnu only everywhere

Truth# 3: Narayana Suktam praises Shriman Narayana alone as the Supreme, and tAmasa purANas are not authoritative

Truth# 4: The so-called Upanishads which proclaim Shiva/Shakti's supremacy are bogus

Truth# 5: Adi Shankara did not write stOtras which glorify any deity other than Vishnu

Conclusion

Appendices

The works of Shri Ramasubba Shastri of Tiruvisanallur

Appayya Dikshita’s desperation, confession, and confusion

References

Reading list for the interested

Introduction

My dear friends! Seekers of The Truth! The purpose of this essay is not to coerce anyone to accept what I believe in, or to hurt well-meaning people of any faith (especially those among smArtas, advaitins, and shaivas). What is written below is indeed what I believe with utmost sincerity, illustrated by undeniable evidences that have not been tampered with. This endeavour of mine was undertaken to defend vaiShNava dharma that has been unfairly maligned, lampooned, and denigrated on the internet and other media by individuals with vested interests. Be you a Vaishnava or not, if you are committed to truth, honesty, and above all to the presentation of Vedantic traditions in a fair and honest way, you will certainly be opposed to this trend.

What you are going to read in this essay may shake you up a little bit, but it has been written with the best of intentions to present the truth without mincing words. While I have done everything to maintain good decorum, you may find my tone a little stern and confident at places. But this is only to emphasize important facts and not to spew hatred at anyone. Those who are willing to honestly consider what I have to say, even if it contradicts their favorite and dearly held beliefs, are invited to continue reading. Those who would rather give this a miss are welcome to avoid my writing and close this page immediately.

We begin here...

Readers, I state thus with confidence: From time immemorial, the most enlightened of souls in this great nation bhAratavarSha (India), including Adi Shankara whose fame is worldwide, have considered Lord Vishnu alone as the Supreme Soul and as the Person par excellence (puruShOttama) spoken of by the Vedas. Not only is He the agent behind the universe's sustenance (signified by his popular conception of the “protector” among the trinity -- Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva), but also the One who performs creation and destruction as well. He Himself creates the four-faced brahmA from the lotus that springs from His navel (due to which He is popularly known as padmanAbha) and assigns the task of creation during every great eon. Likewise, He is the creator of Lord rudra, variously known as shiva, pashupati, IshAna, mahAdEva, mahEshvara etc. in common parlance in India. He is their in-dwelling controller (antaryAmin), as He is to the entire universe, performing the threefold acts of creation, sustenance, and destruction all by Himself. Thus say the scriptures about Lord Vishnu:

atashca saN^kShiptamimaM shR^iNudhvaM nArAyaNaH sarvamidaM purANaH |

sa sargakAle ca karoti sarvaM samhArakAle ca tadatti bhUyaH ||

Translation: Hear thence this short statement: The ancient nArAyaNa is all this; he produces the creation at the due time, and at the time of reabsorption he consumes it again.

yataH sarvANi bhUtAni bhavantyAdi yugAgame |

yasmiMshca pralayaM yAnti punareva yugakShaye ||

Translation: (This puruShOttama, this viShNu) is from where all the beings were born when the great eons start, into whom they dissolve when these eons pass.

The first quote is given as a  statement from the purANas by Adi shaN^kara bhagavatpAda (Adi Shankara/Adi Shankaracharya) in his brahma sUtra bhAShya, in the smR^ityAdhikaraNa section [BrSuBhS:1]. The brahma sUtra bhAShya is arguably the most important work in Advaita Vedanta by this AcArya. The second verse occurs in the Vishnu Sahasranama Adhyaya of the Mahabharata, and is also quoted by bhAskara (who lived after shaN^kara but before rAmAnuja), in the same smR^ityadhikaraNa section of his commentary on the brahma sUtras [BrSuBhB]. Hence, by no hook or crook can any honest being on the earth dismiss these verses as inauthentic.

Indeed, Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada says in his commentary to the Bhagavad Gita thus:

"(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'":

ahaM paraM brahma vAsudevAkhyaM sarvasya jagataH prabhava utpattiH | matta eva sthiti-nAsha-kriyA-phalopabhoga-lakSaNaM vikriyA-rUpaM sarvaM jagat pravartate |

(Sri Sankara's commentary to Bhagavad Gita, 10.8) [GBhS:1].

"It (the Bhagavad Gita) expounds specially the nature of the Supreme Being and the Truth known as vAsudeva, the para-brahman, who forms the subject matter of the discourse":

paramArtha-tattvaM ca vAsudevAkhyaM parabrahma-abhideya-bhUtaM visheSataH abhivyaj~nayad vishiSTa-prayojana-sambandha-abhideyavad gItA-shAstraM

(Introductory Chapter, Sri Sankara's bhagavadgItAbhASya). [GBhS:2].

As per all the vedAnta darshanas, there can only be one Supreme God. Even as per Adi Shankara's Advaita vedAnta, the existence of multiple supreme beings is denied. In his authentic works (the bhAShyas on brahma sUtras, gIta, and the ten upaniShads), Shri Shankara identifies the Supreme Being as none other than Vishnu. Here is a short summary:

  1. In his introductory section in bhagavad gItA bhAShya, it is stated that the Supreme Being is "Vishnu, the one known by the name nArAyaNa, the primordial Creator" (Adi kartA nArAyaNAkhyo viShNuH), that he is "beyond the material universe" (nArAyaNaH paro.avyaktAt) and that He is the original Creator of the universe (sa bhagavAn sRShTvedaM jagat). [GBhS:3].

  1. In his commentaries to the Upanishads, where the shruti (the text of the Upanishad) talks about the Supreme Deity but does not show that the name or form of the deity, Shankaracharya clearly identifies the Supreme Being as

  1.  "Supreme Lord with with the name nArAyaNa" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhAShya, 3.7.3) [BrUBhS:1].

  1. "Vishnu, or Ananta, who is the primordial being, who has all the three worlds for His body, and who is the in-dwelling Soul of all the beings" (Mundaka Upanishad bhAShya, 2.1.4) [MuUBhS:1].

  1. "The all-pervading Brahman, the Supreme Soul, known by the name vAsudeva" (kaTha upaniShad bhAShya, 1.3.9) [KUpBhS:1].

  1. In the bhagavad gItA bhAShya 11.43, Shri Shankara says that Vishnu is the unparallelled Supreme Deity, and that there can not be another Supreme Deity, since that would violate logic: [GBhS:4].

na tvat samo.asti, abhi adhika kuto-anyo loka-trayo-api, apratima-prabhAva?

(Bhagavad Gita, 11.43)

[There is none who is equal to you, and when that is the case, how even can there be any who is superior to You in any of three worlds, Oh Lord, who is of unrivaled power?]

Sri Shankara's explanation reflects the Acharya's opinion that the above mode of praise is not at all exaggerated. The Bhagavatpada-Acharya explains thus:

"na hi IshvaradvayaM saMbhavati, anekeshvaratve vyavahAra-anupatteH"

Translation: For there cannot be two Supreme Gods, if so, the world as it exists now will not be able to function properly.  

  1. Commenting on Gita verse 10.2, Sri Shankara explains: [GBhS:5].

na me viduH na jAnanti suragaNAH brahmAdayaH | kiM te na viduH? mama prabhavaM prabhAvaM prabhushakti-atishayam, athavA prabhavaM prabhavanaM utpattiM | na-api maharSayaH bhR^igvAdayaH viduH | kasmAt te na viduriti-ucyate -- aham AdiH kAraNaM hi yasmAt devAnAm maharSINAM ca sarvashaH sarvaprakAraiH

["(Lord Krishna says) 'neither the devas -- Brahma and others -- know; -what do they not know? My majesty, abundance of lordly power-or, derived in the sense of 'coming into being', it means origin. Nor even the great sages, Bhrgu, Marici, Atri, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu and Vasistha. This is because I (Lord Krishna) am the Supreme Primordial Cause of all, including the devas and the sages.'"]

[Note: As to why Adi Shankara later came to be wrongly depicted as though he smeared ashes in his body, followed the six faiths equally (Shanmatha), and had works such as "Shivanandalahari" (singing deities other than Vishnu to be supreme and superior to Vishnu) attributed to his name is a matter that is outside the scope of our discussion, at this point.]

That all the other prominent Vedanta Acharyas - Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Chaitanya, Nimbarka, etc. have thus praised Lord Vishnu as the Supreme Brahman, does not need any proof. However, for the sake of completeness we have provided the details in the "Vaishnava commentary on Rudram" page.

[Back to contents]

The royal Vedic path of Vaishnavism

This Lord Vishnu, Person par excellence (the puruShottama) is also the means to liberation from suffering, the most approachable and the best means to eternal bliss and is an End in Himself. Thus, the most enlightened of the souls in the great nation of India, exemplary in their discipline, conviction, and virtues, have been taking refuge in Him from time immemorial thus establishing Vaishnavism as the most supreme and complete path in Vedic sanAtana dharma. With single-minded devotion (ananya bhakti), following the best of the bliss-bestowing scriptures (sAttvika shAstras) such as pA~ncarAtra Agama-s, they have been practicing and preaching the five-fold path of abhigamana, ijyA, pUjA, japa, and svAdhyAya.

[Back to contents]

The way of anti-Vaishnavite agents

From time to time, however, fallen souls, driven by their lowly nature which they have unfortunately accrued as a result of their own actions (karma), have developed a sense of contempt at such single-minded ananya bhakti. Shankara, the advaita AcArya, instead says that the vaiShNava position regarding the (i) supremacy of nArAyaNa, (ii) the practice of single-minded devotion, and (iii) the various holy rites and rituals enjoined in pA~ncarAtra samhitas are not to be refuted, but respected by any one who claims to be in the path of Vedanta (Upanishads):

"tatra yattAvaducyate yo.asau nArAyaNaH paro.avyaktAt prasiddhaH paramAtmA sarvAtmA... yadyapi tasya bhagavato.abhigamanAdilakShaNam ArAdhanam ajasram-ananya-cittayA.abhipreyate, tadapi na pratiShidhyate, shrutismR^ityorIshvarapraNidhAnasya prasiddhatvAt"

[We do not intend to oppose the doctrine that nArAyaNa, who is superior the material universe, who is the supreme soul (paramAtmA), and the soul for all (sarvAtmA)... Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing single-minded devotion on the Supreme Lord which appears in the Pancharatra doctrine under the forms of abhigamana (visiting Vishnu temples with utmost devotion in mind, with senses subdued) etc., for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from shruti and smRti. - Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 2.2.42] [BrSuBhS:2]

Instead of following this advice, today they cavil at vaiShNavas when these devotees, with the sole purpose of enjoying the Lord’s form, nature, and deeds (bhagavad-anubhava), write or talk about the supreme position of bhagavAn vAsudeva as it is established clearly in the veda as well as in the itihAsas, purANas, and other ancillary texts that solely serve the purpose of explaining the purport of the Vedas. They find it unbearable when the bhAgavatas show lucidly that the puruShottama, the Person par excellence in the Vedas, is none but shrIman nArAyaNa. They ask, "why can't you let Shiva have his share of glory?", seldom knowing that there is nothing from Lord Vishnu's Supreme attributes that are available for sharing by others. For it is clearly stated in the Gita and in the commentaries of Shri Shankara and other knowledgeable personalities thereon that "there cannot be two Supreme Gods, if so, the world as it exists now will not be able to function properly".

Filled with hate directed at Vaishnavas and desperate to win them in debate (which is impossible), they resort to dishonest means such as:

  1.  Spreading blatant lies deliberately,

  1. Maliciously interpolating verses into shruti and smRti texts, making them look as if these texts actually support their side,

  1. Appropriating works that celebrate Vishnu and fabricating ways to reinterpret them, with the same motive as above,

  1. Hiding and misrepresenting historical information,

  1. Demonizing vaiShNavas as “intolerant”, “abrahamic”, etc.,

  1. Hiding and misrepresenting vaiShNava writings, and

  1. Destroying works written by vaiShNavas, thereby effectively silencing them.

We shall briefly describe one such attack on Vaishnavism and explain the truths revealed by the incident.

These attacks against Vaishnavism are not new. Nor is there any reason to think that Vaishnavism has no defense to such attacks, for history has shown otherwise.

[Back to contents]

The "Mahapashupatastra" blog

The owner of the aforementioned blog displays his hostility to traditional Vaishnavism through his articles. Through them, he seeks to vehemently oppose traditional vedantins, especially those who follow rAmAnuja and madhva. In addition, his aim is to censure authors on the internet and social media who boldly speak about the supremacy of Vishnu, the Purushottama. His blog page itself (link) contains ridiculous claims, such as:

(i) nArAyaNa sUktam is a shAkta hymn and shrIman nArAyaNa is not the  deity praised in it.

(ii) Bhagavad Gita is actually told by Shiva and Lord Krishna is just a mouthpiece/loud speaker through whom Shiva speaks

(iii) The bhAgavata purANa, which extols Vishnu above Shiva, is a bogus text.

There are many such utterances and loads and loads of garbage on that blog that can easily confound any genuine truth-seeker. Moreover, the way such anti-Vaishnavites explain the Vedas makes it look as if the Vedas are all gibberish.

[Back to contents]

Questionable tactics employed by the blog's author to hide the truth

I, along with a shrIvaiShNava bhAgavata, entered into a debate with the author of "Mahapashupatastra" (from here on, whenever I refer to 'our friend', it will refer to this person) by posting comments under a certain article. The article under question was titled "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is FAKE!" (link). Of course, anything that clearly establishes Vishnu's supremacy is fake according to our friend.

In the course of the debate, this shaivite author was clearly owned by me and the bhAgavata. Our friend was clearly getting choked. Enraged because of this and afraid that his friends may find out that he lost in debate, he removed all the comments that I and the bhAgavata posted. The bhAgavata protested, followed by a reply by our shaivite friend smugly laughing at us, as if he had won something:

UnknownApril 13, 2013 at 12:05 AM

I see you have deleted my posts as well as that of another Vaishnava which soundly refuted your asinine views.

Deleting our posts does you no good. Only shows your ignorance and desperation. Oh well, atleast it shows that what you have is not a 'mahApashupatastra', but a broken twig!

Reply

Replies

  1. Santosh Kumar AyalasomayajulaApril 13, 2013 at 5:06 AM
    I am NOT scared of your and his absurd arguements. It is your opinion that your points successfully refuted me. Live in your utopia.

    I deleted those stupid arguements to save the readers of this blog from getting misled or confused. I have full capacity to refute every such arguements and I'll do slowly slowly. You know what? Your and his arguements gave me nice points tro write articles. I don't debate with my full intensity because of two reasons:-


    1. I don't keep a database of anti-vishnu references handy with me like you vaishnavas who are always equipped with anti-shiva references. For me Vishnu is also adorable but not the way you vaishnavas do. I have my own love for him hence seldom prepare with references to attack.

    2. I strongly believe in the saying what my friend's guru said to him - "Debate produces a lot of heat but no light!". Therefore you and your friend are not so significant in my life to spend my valuable time in clarifying/countering your points. My time is precious hence cannot waste it on you and your friend.

    3. Gone are those days when people used to debate professionally, following the right rules of it. Now I see all these Vaishnavas doing mud-fight and not a professional debate. Debate needs to be done following authentic scriptures, NOT demented cult generated philosophies. And hence I have no interest in speaking to you and your cult-people.

    4. I gain my coherent thoughts while writinga rticles where i refute strongly the demented philosophies. But in direct debates i usually do not remain synergetic and coherant. So, even whatever replies I gave to your and your friend's comments; all were very casual and fluffy. SO, removed even my replies which were also confusing to the audience.



    But rest assured your and your friend's time spent on this space is not wasted. I have deleted all your and your friend's stupid comments from this blog, but know that I have saved a copy of them with me personally. You both have given me NICE points to refute. Thanks to both of you. You have given me nice topis to create articles. In fact you both have helped me in generating more articles here.

    I deleted your comments because they were arbitrarily posted and I see a great opportunity for thrashing them through articles, but the readers of this blog would get misled by your arbitrarily placed specially tailored arguments; which I don't want to do to the readers of this blog.

    And yea, your comment on mahapashupatastra as a broken twig really gave me laughter. I laughed for few seconds. Thanks for giving a good HUMOUR. But rest asusured in few years I will give you all a big TUMOUR (hehehe...just some word to follow a rhyme scheme, but you would have understood what it meant :-) )

    You have no idea about my capacity, my strengths; so pinching me every now and then by posting comments is not good for you. Pls refrain from visiting my blog or at least posting your stupid arguements here. In 2-3 years (if everything goes right by god's grace)I'll make sure that you all would not even dare to visit this blog, commenting is a remote option! (Sounds funny? It should sound funny now, but it would take away your laughter off your face once i succeed in establishing my vision)

    Good bye! I don't want to see anti-shiva people's inauspicious presence in my blog. So, kindly stop irritating me with your comments.

You can clearly see our friend's dishonesty here. His statement that he "removed comments because it will confuse its readers" makes his position look like that of Islamist fundamentalists who run Saudi Arabia that won't allow any religious literature "written by infidels" that criticize Islam out of fear that "it will spread corruption in their pristine Islamic society".

A person who hides truths from innocents and gullible people that have placed blind trust on him commits an act of violence and betrayal. Such an act is a deliberate effort to push the gullible and faithful truth-seekers into the hellfire of self-denial.

We now come to the main point here. Our poor friend was seldom aware that I had subscribed to the comments in that thread, and that every comment that was posted in that thread made its way into my email inbox, and hence removing the comments from his blog post did not do any good. I am posting here below, all of the comments that were removed by our shaivite friend. Genuine seekers of truth can see below what is being hidden from their viewing. (Note: the bhAgavata posted as "Unknown" and I posted as "Humble Bhagavata Bandhu"). For completion, I am posting these with the first few comments which our friend has not deleted. I have highlighted a few points made by our side in green and have explained it here below the comments.

Unknown                           April 3, 2013 at 2:28 AM

LMAO, This blog is utter rubbish.

Fact no. 1 - Vaishnavas do not interpret jR^imbhitam as 'unstrung'. We interpret it as 'rendered inert'. That means, the war cry of Vishnu rendered both Shiva and his bow ineffective. Shiva became unconscious and the bow was rendered 'inert', ie, incapable of usage.

'saayakam dhanuu' means pArvati pati handed over the bow along with the arrows. It does not indicate he fitted the arrows to the bow. Again, read the vaishnava commentaries on ramayana.

Fact 2: Your other posts on nArAyaNA being tripura sundari, etc are errant nonsense not supported by pracIna vaidikas like adi shankara, ramanuja, madhva, etc.

Fact 3: The Rudra mentioned in the Rudram is none other than Sriman Narayana. I have written a detailed commentary on the 1st anuvakam of Rudram myself. All names like Nilalohita, Tripurantaka, Tryambaka, Rudra, Sarva, Shiva, Shambhu, Svayambhu, Girisha, etc refer only to nArAyaNa.

In fact, Rudram establishes the 5 forms of Vishnu in the mantra 'asau yo tamrO aruna...' and goes on to say that this Rudra descends as Vishnu (avasarpati), as the antaryamin of nilagriva (parvati pati) and antaryami of vilohita (brahma; he is red because of rajO gunam)!

Fact 4: The tattvam of the Tripura Samharam is as follows.

The name 'Hara' as per ranga ramanuja muni's vyakhyanam for svetasvatara means 'one who enjoys prakrti', ie, refers to the jivatmna. In the Banasura charithra of Harivamsha, the Sivajvara refers to Shiva as 'Hara,the destroyer of Tripura'.

So, In the tripura samharam, Shiva is Hara, ie the Jiva. The facts about vedas becoming chariot, devas giving their powers, omkara becoming bow string, brahma as chariotdriver refers to various accessories of upasana, namely, bhakti yoga such as pranavOpasanam, sadaacharyan, etc. Vishnu, as the arrow tip, is the indirect upayam for completion of bhakti yoga, as he is the parabrahman. The three cities are sattva, rajo and tamo guna, which are transcended by completion of upasanam. The releasing of the arrow by Shiva is equal to the performance of upasanam by jivatma, ie, the self effort required. The arrow tip destroyed the cities, ie, Vishnu, the eternal brahman, completes the upasanam.

Thus, this incident shows shiva is a jivatma. 'Eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma, nEshana...' Siva did not exist during pralaya. The 'nakaara' in nArAyaNa makes it a proper noun and he is identified with Vishnu in the Vishnu gayatri. All other gayatris, including RudraGayatri, begin with 'tatpurusha' whereas Vishnu Gayatri begins with 'Narayana'.

Fact 5: The mandara mountain did not literally become the bow, just as the sun and moon did not literally become chariot wheels. It means, the power of the mandara mountain, sun, moon, devas, etc was imparted to parvati pati during tripura samhara. So, there is no contradiction in saying the bow mentioned in the rAmAyaNa is the same as the one used in Tripura Samharam.

It was Vishnu who misled the asuras with false matham. It was Vishnu who took away the chastity of the wives. It was Vishnu who drank up the pool that rejuvenated the asuras to life, preventing them from rejuvenation. It was Vishnu who was 'tripurAntaka', ie, the arrow tip that destroyed the cities.

The tamasa puranas try to hide all this by saying Shiva destroyed tripura with a smile. Since they are tamasa puranas that contradict the veda, they are rejected.

Even now, I have no issues with Shaivas claiming supremacy of Shiva. That is their matham. I only wanted to counter the claim that we interpret jrimbhitam as unstrung, when we do not. Just don't put words into the mouth of Vaishnavas that we do not utter ourselves.

Of course, all this is lost on a Vaishnava dveshi like you. I am sure you will come up with more incoherent ideas that are the product of an overactive imagination in a feeble attempt to counter this. Keep rambling..

Santosh Kumar AyalasomayajulaApril 4, 2013 at 1:02 AM

[QUOTE]I am sure you will come up with more incoherent ideas that are the product of an overactive imagination in a feeble attempt to counter this. Keep rambling.[UNQUOTE]

I didn't want to reply to your comment because i don't like to interact with anonymous/"unknown" people. But seeing your "surity" of belief that i would reply, in order to make your words not to get falsified, i am replying. May your belief be true! :-)

Your parents would have given a very beautiful name to you, and you should be pround of displaying your name. What is this name "unknown"??. I don't like people who hide behind screens and pass comments. I don't play hide and seek with anyone hence byd efault i expect others also to be open, revealed to me. Ownership is important. What you write, you should own it. Whatever i write i own it. that's why i always display my full name with all expansions. Hope you would follow my suggestion in future.

Well, yes your belief is correct. i'll keep rambling; but unfortunately these days i am over burdened with work and higher studies so not able to ramble much. But surely your wish ("keep rambling") would be fulfilled. Just pray to god to give me some free time so that i can ramble hehehe. :-)

[QUOTE]Of course, all this is lost on a Vaishnava dveshi like you. I am sure you will come up with more incoherent ideas that are the product of an overactive imagination in a feeble attempt to counter this. Keep rambling.[UNQUOTE]

Who told you i am a vaishnava dweshi? i oppose only those vaishnavas who hate shiva. My late maternal grandpa was a great devotee of krishna and i always enjoyed his krishna-bhakti. i had no issues with his devotion which was flawless, and he never saw any differences between krishna and other gods. he was a true vishnu bhakta and i am always ready to hug such pious devotees of vishnu.

{QUOTE]Even now, I have no issues with Shaivas claiming supremacy of Shiva. That is their matham. [UNQUOTE]

If you have no problems with shaivas then my blogs are not for you. Kindly do not block my path. My blogs are only for those vaishnavas who hate shiva and not for them who are neutral towards shiva.

Here are explanations for your points:

Santosh Kumar AyalasomayajulaApril 4, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Ans to your fact no. 1:

jRmbhitam has several meanings as given below. It can be used as an adj. or a n. and likewise here are the meanings.

Adj -caused to yawn (fatigued / broken), expanded, increased, enlarged, unstrung, exerted, opened

n.-bursting, wish, exertion, opening, yawning/fatigued, swelling, developing, unfolding, kind of coitus.

I've called jrimbhitam as "unstrung", if that is incorrect as per you, then be it so. Let me go by some authoritative translator. Valmiki ramayana has been translated into english by sri Desiraju Hanumanth Rao. He translates that verse as follows.

tadaa = then; hum kaareNa = by 'hum', sound [of Vishnu]; bhiima paraakramam shaivam dhanuH = ruinously, overpowering, Shiva's, longbow; jR^imbhitam = yawned [fatigued, broken]; atha trilocanaH mahaadevaH = then, triple-eyed, Mahadeva; stambhitaH = motionless [frozen.]

"By the 'hum' sound of Vishnu that ruinously overpowering longbow of Shiva is broken, and the triple-eyed God, Mahadeva, is frozen... [1-75-17b, 18a]

This is even a much bigger contradiction if you see. If by hummm sound that bow is broken how could shiva again give that to devaraata? The rendered inert is given as "sthambhitah" , and it was shiva who was rendered inert and not his bow. his bow was broken by vishnu's humm sound. Jrmbhitam and sthambhitah both are different and jrmbhitam doesn't mean rendering inert. I don't care what you translate it as, since your personal opinions are immaterial to me.

Regarding saayakam dhanuh here is the translation by Desiraju hanumanth rao ji.

samkruddhaH = with indignation; mahaayashaaH rudraH tu = celebrated, Rudra, on his part; videheSu = among Videha [kings]; sa saayakam dhanuu = with, arrow, longbow; raaja R^iSeH = to Kingly, sage; devaraatasya haste dadau = in Devaraata's, hand, handed over.

"That celebrated Rudra on his part with indignation has handed over that longbow, which is already fitted with unloosened arrow, to the sagely king among Videha kings, namely Devaraata... [1-75-20b, 21a]

And again i do not care what you personally translate it as! And you have asked me to read vaishnava commentaries on ramayana. thanks for the suggestion but sorry i can't take it. Ramayana is not a vaishnava property, Sri Rama and Vishnu are also not a copyright of vaishnavas. they are equally worshippable for all hindus. And i like impartial translations instead of secetarian translations. Your secetarian commentaries have always tried to supress truths and elevate falses. so can't follow your suggestion, sorry!

Ans to your fact no. 2:

Hmmmm my errant nonsense on narayana suktam as being a hymn of tripurasudnari is not analyzed by prachina vaidikas because they wanted this information to be disclosed by me :-) shankara, madhawa, ramanuja had foreseen myself to be the right person to analyze that hehehe. Well, whether it looks errant nonsense to you or whatever, the fact is fact that none of the scriptures ever called vishnu as travelling through susumna nerve. that is always kundalini (tripurasundari) and hence my analysis is correct. If you donot like, then it's your problem. please keep your problem with you. I don't go by your opinions, i go by scriptures and my intellect. Thx!

Santosh Kumar AyalasomayajulaApril 4, 2013 at 1:05 AM

Ans to your fact no. 3:

Congratulations to you for having written a commentary on rudram first anuvaka. At personal level i can congratulate you and can say good job! But at professional level i am sorry to say that your udnerstanding of rudram being a hymn to narayana is totally wrong!

In mahabharata veda vyasa and sri krishna have indicated rudram being a hymn of lord shiva in 3 instances. I would go by their words rather than following your "opinion" unless you want to say you are greater scholar than vyasa and sri krishna.

You said, "vilohita (brahma; he is red because of rajO gunam)!" LOL...I think you didn't read puranas where brahma is depicted to have the same color as lakshmi, pink of golden complexion. Brahma is not red!! If i go by your logic of red means rajas then narayana/vishnu being black/dark complexioned must be a god full of tamo-gunam! :-)

Ans to your fact no. 4:

Well, i don't follow kaliyugi saints and their logic. i go by scriptures. hence i respect "ranga ramanuja muni ji's" opinion, but that's just his opinion and not a fact! Several acharyas came in kaliyuga and expressed several opinions, but none of their opinions are acceptable if they contradict scriptures or words of ancient sages. ranga ramanuja ji cannot propose a theory different from what's there in scriptures. Kaivalya upanishad states that tripura is sthoola, sukshma, karana dehas and the lord who sports within them is shiva and he liberates jiva by destroying those tripuras. The three gunas are not tripuras. And for your kind information, the arrow tip was NOT vishnu; vishnu was just the shaft/stem of the arrow, the actual hood (point) was agni which destroyed the tripura. And again agni is none other than rudra. You'll not understand this but still let me state - it again shows "agni somAtmakam jagat" principle and it again glorifies uma-maheshwara tatwam alone.

You said "shiva is jivatma" - but that's not true however, the truth is the other way round - "jivatma is verily shiva". You need to understand the difference between these phrases. I don't know which acharya first propagated this bogus theory of shiva being a liberated jiva and all such nonsense; but know from me that none of the standard scriptures support that view. shiva is verily the parabrahman, the supreme lord.

Well, for your verse which stated shiva didn't exist at the time of pralaya, may i request you to read my narayana suktam article completely? i have already refuted that verse and explained what it means. And regarding narayana being a proper noun or a verb or an adjective, i don't care what part of speech it is, but one thing i can tell you is narayana has several meanings and yes it definitely refers to vishnu but the narayana sukta doesn't praise vishnu there narayana is the name of goddess tripurasudnari.

Santosh Kumar AyalasomayajulaApril 4, 2013 at 1:06 AM

Ans to your fact no. 5:

Well, i agree that the mountain didn't become the bow etc. that arguement i need to correct in my article which even i realized lateron but didn't get a chance to rework on that. Will do that when time permits. But leaving that also the other contradictions that i showed they are valid and hence that story is bogus one. The bow used in tripurasamhara is not the same as the one present in janaka's palace.

Even if for time being i assume that they really fought and then also the reason why shiva got defeated is because shiva gave a boon to narayana saying he would be invulnerable to every weapon and he also said that even if he ever has to fight against shiva then he would be victorious.it exists in mahabharata. so it is shiva's mercy that vishnu would win whenever he has to fight with him. Vedas cleary declare that rudra is unconquerable, and he overpowers his enemies in battle. And if you still want to say ramayana story (which contradicts vedas) is true, then ramayana story needs to be rejected as anti-vedic. Now coming back to tripura-samhara, Vishnu misled the asuras and their wives so how does that make shiva inferior? Staff always does the actual hands-on work but always reports to the supervisor. vishnu helping shiva cannot be a yardstick to call shiva as inferior. Also, i have told you above that vishnu was not the arrow tip he was just the shaft/stem, arrow tip was agni and agni is rudra alone.

There is no logical reason behind calling a purana tamasic. you people are fond of rejecting shaiva puranas as tamasic because they are threat to your beliefs. other than that there is no reason to categorize puranas with gunas. Your satvik purana bhagawatam itself is bogus one, and you are pointing a finger at shiva related texts, huh!

And here come the deleted comments. As the readers can see, these comments were seen by our anti-Vaishnavite friend as a formidable opposition:

Unknown has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

[QUOTE] My late maternal grandpa was a great devotee of krishna and i always enjoyed his krishna-bhakti. i had no issues with his devotion which was flawless, and he never saw any differences between krishna and other gods. he was a true vishnu bhakta and i am always ready to hug such pious devotees of vishnu.[/UNQUOTE]

A Vaishnava is one who worships Vishnu as Supreme and who consider Shiva as a Jivatma. This is based on pramanas like Satapatha Brahmana declaring Rudra to be anapahatapapma and the MahOpanishad declaring Ishana to be absent during pralaya.

Hence, you are no vaishnava. Neither are your friends.

[QUOTE]This is even a much bigger contradiction if you see. If by hummm sound that bow is broken how could shiva again give that to devaraata? The rendered inert is given as "sthambhitah" , and it was shiva who was rendered inert and not his bow. his bow was broken by vishnu's humm sound. Jrmbhitam and sthambhitah both are different and jrmbhitam doesn't mean rendering inert. I don't care what you translate it as, since your personal opinions are immaterial to me.[/QUOTE]

Let me give you a gist.

As pert Govindaraja's vyakhyanam, 'Jimbritam' means Broken. The war cry of Vishnu cracked Shiva's bow just a little. And hence, it was rendered unusable. So, Shiva gave the bow along with the arrows to Janaka's dynasty.

And this is also one of the reasons why Parasurama is claiming that Rama's feat of breaking the bow was not great. Because, the Bow was already slightly cracked. It broke entirely when Rama handled it.

As per the commentary of some madhva scholars, jrimbhitam means rendered 'motionless' or 'jada'. This means, the bow lost its tejas. As you know, the bow of shiva is a divyAstra and hence, it lost its divya tejas and became motionless, ie, incapable of usage.

Either way, the interpretation is consistent.

[QUOTE]And again i do not care what you personally translate it as! And you have asked me to read vaishnava commentaries on ramayana. thanks for the suggestion but sorry i can't take it. Ramayana is not a vaishnava property, Sri Rama and Vishnu are also not a copyright of vaishnavas. they are equally worshippable for all hindus. And i like impartial translations instead of secetarian translations. Your secetarian commentaries have always tried to supress truths and elevate falses. so can't follow your suggestion, sorry![/QUOTE]

LMAO, you take one commentary as authoritative and then say that we are sectarian for following other commentaries. This is hilarious. You are trying to refute us evil vaishnavas, who have such wicked and crooked minds!! So, I suggest you take Vaishnava commentaries to refute us.

We interpret sAyakam dhanu as 'he gave away the bow along with the arrows'.

[QUOTE]shankara, madhawa, ramanuja had foreseen myself to be the right person to analyze that hehehe. Well, whether it looks errant nonsense to you or whatever, the fact is fact that none of the scriptures ever called vishnu as travelling through susumna nerve. that is always kundalini (tripurasundari) and hence my analysis is correct. If you donot like, then it's your problem. please keep your problem with you. I don't go by your opinions, i go by scriptures and my intellect. Thx![/QUOTE]

Here we have the proverbial 'patting oneself on the back'. Fact remains, what Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva say is taken more seriously than what you have to say. Tripura Sundari is not nArAyaNa and the identification of nArAyaNa with Vishnu is as per pracIna vedAntA.

Posted by Unknown to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 6:17 AM

Humble Bhagavata Bandhu has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

There have been many non-Vaishnavite commentators on the Ramayana, including Shiva bhaktas like Nagoji Bhatta, Shiva Sahaya etc. None of them have identified this section about the battle between Shiva and Vishnu as bogus! Somehow that is apparent to you!!

The claims made by you sir, the blog's author, are ludicrous and can be demolished easily.

The name "nArAyaNa" cannot be interpreted etymologically, and can ONLY be used to denote Shankha Chakra Dhari Vishnu, since as per grammar the name can only be used as a proper noun. Only if it was "nArAyana" and not "nArAyaNa" you could interpret it as a common noun etymologically. This is because of the rule "pUrvapadAt saJjyAyAM agaH" (8.4.3) identified by Panini in his Ashtadhyayi.

This point has been accepted by even non-Vaishnavites such as Bhanuji Dikshita (who, btw, is the disciple of Bhattoji Dikshita, in turn a disciple of Appayya Dikshita) in his treatise Ramasrami on Amarasimha's Amarakosha. (look in this treatise where the name "nArAyaNa" occurs as one of the names of Vishnu). Much more important, the point has been accepted by another non-Vaishnavite, Bhatta Bhaskara, a commentator on the Vedas, who lived before the time of Ramanuja (see Bhatta Bhaskara's Bhashyam on Purusha Suktam section of Taittiriya Aranyaka 3.12).

Hence, it is quite well established that "nArAyaNa" refers only to Shankha-chakra dhAri viShNu and none else.

You quote Shankaracharya as an authority. You will benefit to know that the authentic works of Shankara are his Bhashyas, and not Stutis like the Laharis, which were authored by later-day Advaitins after the 15th century and propagated in Shankara's name. Proof? Because none of the Advaitic commentators between 8th and 15th centuries have even touched these texts. They invariably quote only from his Upanishad, Brahma Sutra, Gita, and Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashyas only. This may not be accepted by Mutts and the lay people, but both Indian and Western scholarship accepts this. Even a child reading Shankara's Bhashyams would identify Adi Shankarar as a pure Vaishnava only.

Sri Shankara, while rejecting Pashupata/Saiva/Maheshwara matham categorically (Brahma Sutra Bhashyam 2.2.37-41), pauses to concede that the Upasana parts of Pancharatra matham (specificically he cites Ananya Bhakti) are perfectly acceptable for Vedantins such as himself. Note that this is the only instance (2.2.42-45) where the Acharya concedes merit to any other religious/philosophical system.

It is the same Shankara Acharya who proclaims in the Gita Bhashya (9.25) that Vaishnavas (Shankaracharya specifically uses the word "Vaishnavas" here) attain to the highest state of liberation, while the worshippers of other devatas receive comparitively petty fruits.

And in the same Gita Bhashya Shankara explains Gita 18.61 as "IshvaraH IshanashIlaH nArAyaNAkhyaH (one known by the name 'nArAyaNa')", while you interpret it as Siva! Thus your interpretation is not acceptable even to Sri Shankara Acharya, who you proudly proclaim is Siva's avataram!!

(contd. in next post)

Posted by Humble Bhagavata Bandhu to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 6:06 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

[QUOTE]Jivatma is verily shiva". You need to understand the difference between these phrases. I don't know which acharya first propagated this bogus theory of shiva being a liberated jiva and all such nonsense; but know from me that none of the standard scriptures support that view. shiva is verily the parabrahman, the supreme lord.

Well, for your verse which stated shiva didn't exist at the time of pralaya, may i request you to read my narayana suktam article completely? i have already refuted that verse and explained what it means. And regarding narayana being a proper noun or a verb or an adjective, i don't care what part of speech it is, but one thing i can tell you is narayana has several meanings and yes it definitely refers to vishnu but the narayana sukta doesn't praise vishnu there narayana is the name of goddess tripurasudnari.[/QUOTE]

Oh, Jivatma is Shiva alright. However, the Shiva is not pArvati pati, but as per vishnu sahasranama, 'sarvam sarva shivas sthanur', it is nArAyaNa.

And no more of that tripura sundari nonsense. Your so called 'narayana suktam commentary' is a fail. Everyone from Adi Shankara till recent vedantins know that nArAyaNa is Vishnu. I won't even deign to answer that.

[QUOTE]ven if for time being i assume that they really fought and then also the reason why shiva got defeated is because shiva gave a boon to narayana saying he would be invulnerable to every weapon and he also said that even if he ever has to fight against shiva then he would be victorious.it exists in mahabharata. so it is shiva's mercy that vishnu would win whenever he has to fight with him. Vedas cleary declare that rudra is unconquerable, and he overpowers his enemies in battle. And if you still want to say ramayana story (which contradicts vedas) is true, then ramayana story needs to be rejected as anti-vedic. Now coming back to tripura-samhara, Vishnu misled the asuras and their wives so how does that make shiva inferior? Staff always does the actual hands-on work but always reports to the supervisor. vishnu helping shiva cannot be a yardstick to call shiva as inferior. Also, i have told you above that vishnu was not the arrow tip he was just the shaft/stem, arrow tip was agni and agni is rudra alone.

There is no logical reason behind calling a purana tamasic. you people are fond of rejecting shaiva puranas as tamasic because they are threat to your beliefs. other than that there is no reason to categorize puranas with gunas. Your satvik purana bhagawatam itself is bogus one, and you are pointing a finger at shiva related texts, huh![/QUOTE]

That which contradicts Veda is tamasic. The tamasa puranas like shiva, vayu purana, etc have not been considered pramanika from the time of adi shankara till madhusudhana saraswati. So pracIna tradition is honored here.

Vishnu being supreme is not a belief. It is a fact based on veda.

The anusasainika parva containing shiva sahasranama has not been commented upon by anybody. Hence, shiva sahasranama is an interpolation. Only Vishnu sahasranama has been commented on. Hence, it is authentic. Nobody prior to 16th century has even referenced shiva sahasranama. If it had existed, shaivites before 16th century would have quoted it.

Posted by Unknown to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 6:19 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

[QUOTE]Well, i don't follow kaliyugi saints and their logic. i go by scriptures. hence i respect "ranga ramanuja muni ji's" opinion, but that's just his opinion and not a fact! Several acharyas came in kaliyuga and expressed several opinions, but none of their opinions are acceptable if they contradict scriptures or words of ancient sages. ranga ramanuja ji cannot propose a theory different from what's there in scriptures. Kaivalya upanishad states that tripura is sthoola, sukshma, karana dehas and the lord who sports within them is shiva and he liberates jiva by destroying those tripuras. The three gunas are not tripuras. And for your kind information, the arrow tip was NOT vishnu; vishnu was just the shaft/stem of the arrow, the actual hood (point) was agni which destroyed the tripura. And again agni is none other than rudra. You'll not understand this but still let me state - it again shows "agni somAtmakam jagat" principle and it again glorifies uma-maheshwara tatwam alone.[/QUOTE]

Well, it doesn't matter what opinion you follow. As I said, I don't mind you calling Rudra as supreme so long as you stop foisting unfounded claims on Vaishnavas.

The shastras indicate that Vishnu was the arrow and Agni was the tip. In other cases, it says Agni was the arrow and Vishnu was the tip. It does not change the meaning. Agni refers to sacrifice. Let me explain once again.

The vedas are the chariot, meaning Shastra jnAnam is required. Brahma is the charioteer, meaning, he is acharyan who guides the Jivatma. As Brahma is senior to Rudra, it is appropriate. The bow is sometimes referred to as mandara, at other places as time and so on. The bowstring is the pranava. The poles of the chariot are the directions. All these refer to the accessories for the upasana. Such upasanas are aimed at destroying samsara. What is samsara? it is caused by prakrti also known as maya, which consists of sattva, rajas and tamas. And in the tripura samhara, the asura maya builds the three cities which are the sattcva, rajas and tamas.

Agni is the sacrifice, ie, the offering of 'namaha' essential to upasana. The arrow, or its tip, is the Parabrahman Vishnu, without whose grace, the Upasana cannot be completed. The other acts of Vishnu, such as misleading the asuras, taking away their punya, removing the rejuvenating well, etc show the grace of parabrahman in making the environment conducive for the jivatma to perform upasanam.

Shiva is the jivatma known as haran, who enjoys prakrti, who shoots the arrow, ie, performs upasana with the small act of releasing the arrow.

Posted by Unknown to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 6:17 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

[QUOTE]Congratulations to you for having written a commentary on rudram first anuvaka. At personal level i can congratulate you and can say good job! But at professional level i am sorry to say that your udnerstanding of rudram being a hymn to narayana is totally wrong![/QUOTE]

Rudra simply means one who destroys samsara. The Vishnu Sahasranama contains these names - 'RudrO bahushirA babhrU', 'Svayambhu Shambhur Aditya', 'IshAna prAnada prAnah', 'AdidevO mahAdevO', etc.

So, these names indicate Vishnu only. And Vaishnava Scholars have interpreted Rudram with perfect grammatical usage to refer to nArAyaNa only.

[QUOTE]In mahabharata veda vyasa and sri krishna have indicated rudram being a hymn of lord shiva in 3 instances. I would go by their words rather than following your "opinion" unless you want to say you are greater scholar than vyasa and sri krishna.[/QUOTE]

The mahabhArata incident involving Arjuna and Krishna chanting Satarudriyam to Rudra is not at all contradictory. As Krishna mentions in the Santi Parva, whenever Maheswara (pArvati pati) is worshipped, it is only nArAyaNa, the antaryamin of mahEswara who is worshipped. Furthermore, as Krishna is Parabrahman, all weapons of all devas get their strength from Krishna. So, worshipping Pasupatastra with Satarudriyam is also not a problem.

Even in Tripura Samharam, Karna Parva (or is it Drona Parva), it is said that Rudra's bowstring was made untouchable by the asuras. This was because Bhava (Rudra) had Vishnu as his inner self, ie, antaryamin.

The Satarudriyam involves asking Bhagavan to shed his Ghora rupam (Vishwarupam) and attain a peaceful form, ie, as shanka chakra gada pAni, which is Aghora (not terrifying) and shantamaya. This is in accordance with the 11th chapter of Gita.

[QUOTE]You said, "vilohita (brahma; he is red because of rajO gunam)!" LOL...I think you didn't read puranas where brahma is depicted to have the same color as lakshmi, pink of golden complexion. Brahma is not red!! If i go by your logic of red means rajas then narayana/vishnu being black/dark complexioned must be a god full of tamo-gunam! :-)[/QUOTE]

The same Brahma is also said to have red color because of RajO gunam elsewhere in Srimad Bhagavatam (I believe the verse is 10.3.20). It is also mentioned elsewhere that Bhagavan Narasimha donned the red skin of Brahma as a metaphor to describe his skin color.

Red is symbolic of rajO gunam.

And your comment on nArAyaNa is quite irrelevant. Bhagavan has appeared in many colors, with black being his preferred color. Know why? Its actually because black is symbolic of tamas. But Bhagavan's blackness is not prakrti made, but a body assumed of suddha sattvam (pure jnanam). This quality of bhagavan, ie, appearing in a color perceived as negative is to show people that even the base things become transformed in association with him. This quality is called agatitagatanasamarthyam and is mentioned as 'Aho Ratre' in Purusha Suktam - Day and Night are at his sides, ie, he can combine opposites!

Posted by Unknown to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 6:17 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

Addendum:

I forgot to address this in my previous posts:

You mentioned: "agni somAtmakam jagat....glorifies uma-maheshwara tatwam alone".

I say: Wrong again. As I mentioned before, 'Agni' in the Tripura Samharam incident is the offering of 'namaha'. The Upanishads describe the jivAtmA as 'somarAja' (panchAgni vidyA, chandogya upanishad). 'SomarAjA' means he who enjoys 'sOma', and 'sOma' refers to the objects of enjoyment.

The jagath is filled with agni and sOma, ie, sacrifice and objects of enjoyment. And you have convieniently omitted the next line in the mahAbhArata which states that the jagath is filled with Vishnu, who pervades all this and hence, agni and sOma as well.

So, Agni refers to namaha and sOma refers to the articles of sacrifice, or the objects of enjoyment procured by the upAsaNa. This includes wealth, long age, etc. which are all ancillories needed for performing the upAsaNa.

This is the meaning of SOma in this context.

Next thing - sOma also has another meaning of 'umApati', which is not intended as the meaning of Tripura samharam incident. But 'umApati' is not only the name of pArvati pati. umApati is the name of Narasimha, along with Sankara, PinAkI, Nilalohita as per the Tapaniya Upanishad. And in case anybody thinks the Narasimha TapanIya is of recent origin, let me assure you that it has been quoted and referenced by the great VedAnta Desikan, kavi tArkika simham, the acharyan of Vishishtadvaita, in the 13th century in his work, kAmAshikashtakam.

So even 'sOma' as it occurs in, for instance, the satarudriyam, is not a monopoly of pArvati pati.

Posted by Unknown to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Humble Bhagavata Bandhu has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

It is indeed Adi Shankarar who, in his Upanishad Bhashyams, in three important places identified Brahman as Lord Vishnu:

"IdRgIshvaro nArAyaNAkhyaH" - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 3.7.3

"eSha devo viShNur anantaH... sarva bhUtAnAM antarAtmA" - Mundaka, 2.1.4

"viShNOr vyApanasheelasya brahmaNo vAsudevAkhyasya paramam utkRShTam padam sthAnam" - Katha, 1.3.9

Thus Shankarar has stamped his Upanishad Bhasyam with the three namas found in Narayana Gayatri, especially where the Upanishad does not specify the name of the Parabrahman, thus showing that the devatA of nArAyaNa gAyatri is indeed parabrahman.

Shankara argues clearly in the first Chapter of Brahma sutra that the Saguna Brahman, the Highest Lord paramAtmA cannot be a deity who was created at the beginning of the Kalpam. He specifically rules out the sUrya devatA from the position of the Highest Lord (as an aside: this ruling out of Surya devata means Shankara could not have accepted Saura matham, thus debunking the theory that he was "Shanmata Sthapaka"). In bRhadAraNyaka Upanishad bhAShya, the same Shankara says that Lord Rudra, the Pasupati, was created by Brahman (1.4.10-11). Again the same AchArya says in Brahma Sutra Bhashya third chapter that Rudra is a receiver of a boon from Sanatkumara (3.3.32). Putting this together, Adi Shankara's original matham cannot have taken Rudra for Highest Lord!

You quite often quote verses in current editions of Mahabharatam, which no Acharya before has used. Here is what all Acharyas, including Shankara (see his Vishnu Sahasranama Commentary) quote from the Mahabharata and Harivamsa:

"After having analyzed all the shastras critically many times, I can say for sure this one rule -- that nArAyaNa is always to be meditated upon" (AlODya sarva shAstrANi vicArya ca punaH punaH idam ekam suniShpannam dhyeyon nArAyaNaH sadA)

"There is no shAstra higher than the Veda and there is no deity higher than Keshava". (vedAt shAstram param nAsti na daivam keshavAt param)

"In the Vedas, Ramayana, and Mahabharata, Vishnu is alone proclaimed as the highest everywhere" (vede rAmAyaNe puNye bhArate ca bharataRShabhaH Adau madhye tathA cAntau viShNuH sarvatra gIyate) note: hence there is no dOsham in identifying Vishnu as the upAsya devatA in rudram, shvetAshvatara upaniShad etc.

The first and last verse above have been quoted by Sri Adi Shankara in Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashyam.

In the Mahabharata, there is a samvAda between Shiva and Brahma about the nature of Parabrahman. Here Brahma addresses Shiva as his son, and tells Shiva that "the Supreme Brahman cannot be known by me, or by you. He is the Lord of all beings" and goes to identify the Supreme Purusha as Vishnu, Narayana. This part has been quoted by Ramanuja in Vedartha Sangraha, and more importantly by Shankara in Brahma Sutra Bhashyam 2.1.1.

If you want challenge me to give proofs of the above citations (with exact references) I can do the same! You don't even have to go hunting for the books, I can scan the pages and send to you!!

Posted by Humble Bhagavata Bandhu to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 6:06 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

The Rudra mentioned in the Satarudriyam and the Svetasvatara Upanishad is none other than nArAyaNa, who is Vishnu. 'RudrO bhaushira babhrur' in the sahasranama clearly states this. Rudra means, 'one who destroys samsara', 'one who makes others cry with happiness on experiencing his gunas'. The same Rudra is hailed as Girishanta, which means 'Creator or Girisha (shiva)'. Here, 'anta' refers to limit, which is etymologically interpreted as the source or cause of Girisha.

No matter, Shiva can grant boons. But in the same mahabharata, santi parva, Krishna explains that nobody grants boons to Vishnu and that he bows down to his devotees and takes boons out of his own volition. He, by his own supreme will, lowers himself to accept the boons of others. It is like a mother condescending to her child. This gunam is called 'SousIlyam', it is the purport of the Rudram mantras like 'avasarpati nilagrIvo vilohita', he descends (avasarpati) as himself (vishnu), as the antaryamin of nilagriva and vilohita (rudra and brahma). He can be seen by cowherds and all beings, says this mantra. This is called sousIlyam.

So much for that.

Posted by Unknown to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 6:19 AM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

Dear friend,

Mahabharata defines Narayana as follows in two chapters

"In ancient times I called the waters by the name of Nara; and because the waters have ever been my ayana or home, therefore have I been called Narayana (the water-homed)". (MBH.Vana Parva)

"The waters have been called by the name of Nara, for they sprang from Him called Nara. And since the waters in former times, were my refuge, I am, therefore, called by the name of Narayana". (MBH.Santi Parva)

So, it means "that entity whose resting place (ayana) is waters (nara) is narayana". My definition of Narayana as tripurasudnari is also in similar lines as "that entity whose direction (ayana) is nara is narayana and is nothing but tripurasudnari". If my definition is erroneous then even the Mahabharata definition of narayana should be erroneous because both follow the same logic.

Secondly, the Vedic grammar is non-paninian and preceeds Panini in time. so, I don't think it is correct to apply Panini grammar on Vedic verses. thirdly, even srikantha acharya seems to have believed the way my thought process goes. However, I don't know much about his works so kindly don't ask me to quote from his works.

I quote acharyas only in those instances where they remain in sync with vedas and other scriptures. Whatever shankara might have said about Vishnu as brahman, I may or may not completely agree with him. so, your quotes from his bhashyam I may not buy. for me the first authority is scriptures; an dthen only come acharyas.

You are bombarding me with too many missiles at once; I have very less free time these days, busy at work. Wait for 2-3 years, and then you'll find some more articles from me which would clear all your misconceptions. that's what I can say at present. I've no time to enter a never ending debate now. 2-3 years later (hopefully I get time to complete my works), then there would not be any need for debates.

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

I have no interest in reading proofs from your "vaishnavite-mahabharata" :-) I have the Mahabharata with myself and I can read that on my own. your say on Mahabharata as "current versions" from which I quote is baseless. all these claims are originated from your cults who have customized the Mahabharata in their own taste and removed/altered all the non-vaishnavite portions. it's your books which are unauthentic, not what I follow.

Your versions of Mahabharata, Ramayana and puranas are not followed outside of your cult. And if you cannot accept the version of Mahabharata that everyone (excluding vaishnavas) follow, then there is no point debating with you. our sources are different hence we can never come to a concensus.

therefore saying "good bye" to you is the only intelligent thought I feel.

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

I am not a vaishnava that is true, but as I said, Vishnu is not your personal property. I have full rights to love him. I do not need your permissions or a "U" mark stamp on my forehead for worshipping him.

OK? I do not need to explain you my love for Lakshmi-narayana. but at the same time know that I cannot tolerate insult to shiva.

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

That's what! you guys analyze Vedic hymns by using Vishnu sahasranama a smriti portion huh??

Did any of your ahcaryas ever do abhishekam on Vishnu's idol while chanting rudram? no!

Those acharyas had their duty to establish/elevate Vishnu bhakti so they used all such tools to manipulate meanings and to establish Vishnu's lordship. but none of them ever worshipped Vishnu with rudram.

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

commentaries are not a yardstick to judge what is authentic and what is not. in that case many texts have not been commented upon, that doesn't mean all of them are unauthentic. Anushashana parva's shiva sahasranama is very much authentic and I don't believe in the commentators and their commentary logic what you stated. Moreover, interpolating a chapter at the end of a book is easy but it would get caught if you instert a chapter at the beginning of the book since you would have to move the rest of the chapters by n+1 number, whereas if you add a new chapter towards the end the no. of chapters need to be moved would be less hence less chances of getting identified as interpolation.

therefore shiva sahasranama which happens to be in the 13th chapter (beginng of the huge book anushasana parva) is logically more valid than the Vishnu sahasranama which happens to come after 100s of chapters (towards the end).

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

[quote]Here we have the proverbial 'patting oneself on the back'[unquote]

hehehe...don't you understand what has been said in jest as a joke ?

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Humble Bhagavata Bandhu has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

I quote acharyas only in those instances where they remain in sync with vedas and other scriptures. Whatever shankara might have said about Vishnu as brahman, I may or may not completely agree with him. so, your quotes from his bhashyam I may not buy. for me the first authority is scriptures; an dthen only come acharyas.

Amusing, you believe you are smarter and much more learned when it comes to interpreting scriptures, than the veda bhAShyakAras and even Adi Shankara! (which means that you are smarter than your own Lord Shiva) Very nice to know! What do you say for this *authentic* (unlike your references) Harivamsa verse quoted by authorities: "vede rAmAyaNe puNye bhArate ca bharataRShabhaH, Adau madhye tathA ca ante viShNuH sarvatra gIyate"? Are you smarter than Veda Vyasa?

"In ancient times I called the waters by the name of Nara; and because the waters have ever been my ayana or home, therefore have I been called Narayana (the water-homed)". (MBH.Vana Parva)

"The waters have been called by the name of Nara, for they sprang from Him called Nara. And since the waters in former times, were my refuge, I am, therefore, called by the name of Narayana". (MBH.Santi Parva)

So, it means "that entity whose resting place (ayana) is waters (nara) is narayana". My definition of Narayana as tripurasudnari is also in similar lines as "that entity whose direction (ayana) is nara is narayana and is nothing but tripurasudnari". If my definition is erroneous then even the Mahabharata definition of narayana should be erroneous because both follow the same logic.

I didn't say the Mahabharata definition is erroneous. It goes only as far as to give the reason behind the naming. It doesn't show how "nArAyana" became "nArAyaNa", which can be explained only by grammar.

Panini only codified the earlier Vedic grammar that is one of the six Vedangas. He didn't concoct things in the sense that you understand.

Srikara/Srikanta's Bhashya is plagiarism of Ramanuja Sri Bhashya, with Vishnu forcefully replaced by Shiva out of envy. Proof: the book "Srikantha Samalochana" which even Smarthas have accepted.

Good to know you finally have been forced to renounce Adi Shankaracharya also. Let me now show that you now even have to renounce Appaya Dikshita also.

Appayya Dikshita was converted into Vaishnavism (he tried to reconcile Advaita, Dvaita, and Vishishtadvaita and wrote treatises on all three) later in his life. Proof: see Siddhanta Lesha Sangraha, a treatise in Advaita Vedanta written by Dikshita, where he has identified Lord Sri Rama as parabrahman (in contrast to his earlier works such as Shivatattva viveka). Bhanuji Dikshita, whose parama-guru was Appayya Dikshita writes in his Grammatical treatise "rAmAshramI" that nArAyaNa can only refer to shankha-chakra-dhAri viShNu.

All Vedanta darshanas followed Vaishnavism as theology, until Appayya Dikshita's time. Purely because of this reason, Meykkandar (principal Saiva Siddhanta Acharya of South India) in 13th century rejected Brahma Sutras and wrote his own Saiva Siddhanta Sutras.

Posted by Humble Bhagavata Bandhu to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

Good! I would still request you to visit my site back after 2-3 years. why hurry? I am confident that I would not die for the next 3 years, and am also sure that you would also be there. so why hurry? let's see what I have to say from scriptures.

let me ramble first and then let's discuss if need be:-)

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

[quote]Appayya Dikshita was converted into Vaishnavism[unquote]

ok. let me also try my best to support shaivism, and let me learn on my own at the end what's right and what's wrong. why should i follow others? they might also be erroneous. if i happen to reveal right things about shiva that's great, and if at all i happen to udnerstand by my own that vishnu is the ultimate reality, that is also fine with me since vishnu is also my father. Let me go my way and realize the truths on my own. why to refer to other's experiences?

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Humble Bhagavata Bandhu has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

[QUOTE]

Let me go my way and realize the truths on my own. why to refer to other's experiences?

[UNQUOTE]

Well said. You are welcome to test all paths and decide which one is best for you. But please, show some humility, at least until you are educated enough in scriptures, bhAShyas, and religious history, by not calling other Acharyas' pramANas (especially Srimad Bhagavatam for which) as "bogus" etc.

Posted by Humble Bhagavata Bandhu to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Humble Bhagavata Bandhu has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

Oh really?? I am quoting from "customized" Mahabharata? I give you the references from your own current versions, where two of these verses have survived the hands of interpolators and vandals:

(2)

satyaM satyaM punaH satyamuddhR^itya bhujamuchyate l

vedashAstrAtparaM nAsti na daivaM keshavAtparam ll 2-15

http://mahabharata-resources.org/harivamsa/sheshadharma/sheshadharma-chap2.html

(3)

vede rAmAyaNe punye bhArate bharatarShabha |

Adau chAnte cha madhye cha hariH sarvatra gIyate ||3-132-95

http://mahabharata-resources.org/harivamsa/bhavishyaparva/hv_3_132_mpr.html

(Vishnu has been replaced by hariH, which is no harm).

And here is the most important one: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12c050.htm (Mahabharata translation by Kisari Mohan Ganguli), from which I quote

[Quote]

"While the four-faced Brahma of great intelligence was seated there, his son Mahadeva, who had sprung from his forehead encountered him one day in course of his wanderings through the universe."

"In days of yore, the Three-eyed Siva endued with puissance and high Yoga, while proceeding along the sky, beheld Brahma seated on that mountain and, therefore, dropped down quickly on its top."

"With a cheerful heart he presented him before his progenitor and worshipped his feet. Beholding Mahadeva prostrated at his feet, Brahma took him up with his left hand. Having thus raised Mahadeva up, Brahma, that puissant and one Lord of all creatures, then addressed his son, whom he met after a long time, in these words."

"The Grandsire said, 'Welcome art thou, O thou of mighty arms. By good luck I see thee after such a long time come to my presence. I hope, O son, that everything is right with thy penances and thy Vedic studies and recitations. Thou art always observant of the austerest penances. Hence I ask thee about the progress and well-being of those penances of thine!'"

"Rudra said, 'Self-born thou art. Many are the Purushas that have been created by thee. Others again, O Brahma, are being created by thee. The Infinite Purusha, however, of whom thou speakest, is one and single. Who is that foremost of Purushas, O Brahma, that is being meditated by thee? Great is the curiosity I feel on this point. Do thou kindly dispel the doubt that has taken possession of my mind.

(continued in the next post)

Posted by Humble Bhagavata Bandhu to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Humble Bhagavata Bandhu has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

continuing here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12c051.htm

"'Brahma said,--'Listen, O son, as to how that Purusha is indicated. He is eternal and immutable. He is undeteriorating and immeasurable. He pervades all things. 1 O best of all creatures, that Purusha cannot be seen by thee, or me, or others. Those that are endued with the understanding and the senses but destitute of self-restraint and tranquility of soul cannot obtain a sight of him. The Supreme Purusha is said to be one that can be seen with the aid of knowledge alone. Though divested of body, He dwells in every body. Though dwelling, again, in bodies, He is never touched by the acts accomplished by those bodies. He is my Antaratma (inner soul). He is thy inner soul. He is the all-seeing Witness dwelling within all embodied creatures and engaged in marking their acts. No one can grasp or comprehend him at any time."

"The learned speak of him as the one Purusha. That one eternal Being deserves the appellation of Mahapurusha (the great supreme Purusha)."

"The person who realises that inconceivable Purusha and comprehends his subtile existence in the quadruple form of Aniruddha, Pradyumna, Sankarshana, and Vasudeva, and who, in consequence of such comprehension, attains to perfect tranquillity of heart, succeeds in entering into and identifying himself with that one auspicious Purusha. Some persons possessed of learning speak of him as the supreme soul. Others regarded him as the one soul. A third class of learned men describe him as the soul. 2 The truth is that he who is the Supreme Soul is always divested of attributes. He is Narayana. He is the universal soul, and he is the one Purusha."

[End Quote]

I hope this is enough!

Posted by Humble Bhagavata Bandhu to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Unknown has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

[QUOTE]Did any of your ahcaryas ever do abhishekam on Vishnu's idol while chanting rudram? no![/QUOTE]

Highly errorneous. My own acharyas have indeed referenced the Rudram, as can be seen in srI ranga rAmAnuja muni's vyAkhyAnam on the svetAsvatArA.

Furthermore, who told you Rudram is not chanted in Vishnu temples? I have myself heard the Rudram being chanted for SrI pArthasArathy in Thiruvallikeni along with various other suktams during major utsavams. The 1st rk of Rudram talks about SrI rAmA's anger at the ocean king itself!

In addition, it is also a misconception that our acharyas do not use the name of Shiva to address nArAyaNan. In the works of Vedanta Desika, you will come across such names being addressed in praise of nArAyaNa. Lokacharya, another great acharya, repeatedly uses only the name 'Iswara' to address nArAyaNa in his works.

Although the devata of the Rudram may be pArvati pati, the mantras and the qualities described by the mantras address the nArAyaNa indwelling in pArvati pati. This indwelling nArAyaNa is also called 'Rudra', 'Sankara', 'Nilalohita', etc. Jaimini, the disciple of Veda vyAsA states 'sAkshAt api', meaning that the mantras are *directly* (note the word *sAkshAt*) addressed to nArAyaNa.

In the case of the mahAbhAratA quoting Satarudriyam for pArvati pati, it is necessary to use the concept of body-soul analogy expounded by the brihadAranyaka which states 'yasya AtmA sarIram', ie, the universe and the jivas are the body of Brahman. So, just as a name 'jack' denotes both jack's body and soul, all names denote bhagavan nArAyaNa only.

So, any prayers to the pasupatAstra go the indweller of that astra namely nArAyaNa. Any prayers to Shiva go to Keshava, the indweller of Shiva, who has Shiva as his body. The mantras like Rudram directly address Vishnu. This is what is explained by Krishna in the Santi Parva where he clearly states that when he worshipped MahEswara (pArvati pati), he was worshipping the nArAyaNa within MahEswara (ie, himself) using the Satarudriyam mantras. Krishna also states that nobody can give Vishnu boons and that Vishnu will not bow to anyone unless it is of his own will.

The Shiva Sahasranama is not found in the ancient manuscripts of mahAbhArata. Whereas, the Vishnu SahasranAmA is found in all manuscripts and has multiple commentaries. If the Shiva SahasranAmA had existed, so many Shaivites would have commented or even referenced to it. But they haven't. This has and will always be the yardstick to judge the authenticity of a particular work.

Sarvam SrI KrishnArpanam astu.

Posted by Unknown to Maha Pashupatastra at April 4, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

hmmm I know these chapters from MBH since I follow KMG MBH. However, the system of vasudeva, sankarshana, pradyumna, aniruddha is something which is pancharatra type and is not authentic. seems that you have also read shankara bhashyas. then you might have read that in brahma sutras shankara rejects the fourfold expansion theory of this system saying there cannot be four eshwaras.

this system of fourfold Vishnu expansion is not even present in shruti. so I don't believe in these chapters. Vishnu is only one and he is narayana, his names are anirudha, pradyumna etc..but I dislike this system where people create new separate gods out of his names. even if that were to be true then also after death I wouldn't like to go to that abode where I would get confused to know which Vishnu is which Vishnu and so on..all are of same appearance but hold weapons differently in cyclic fashion et. all such stories I have heard many times and they are not convincing to me. there is only one Vishnu and his names are all these, that's it! and any theory which states him to be of fourfold form etc., is not available in vedas and Upanishads and also in VR and also stands incorrect in terms of logic.

anyway, "yad bhavam tad roopam", so I don't have any issues with what others follow, but this system is not correct. therefore the chapters what you quoted are most probably interpolations since santi parva of Mahabharata contains lot many interpolations even this is called out by KMG.

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM

Humble Bhagavata Bandhu has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

How arbitrarily and conveniently you are able to deem certain portions of Mahabharata as inauthentic, but the portions that you like are authentic! Don't you see the bias in your own stance?

Again, you are wrong. vyUha concept occurs in Vishnu Sahasranama itself.

Yes, Adi Shankaracharya refutes the vyUha concept *as it is explained in the Pancharatra*, but he accepts the vyUha concept in his Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya, for which he quotes vyAsa smRti as authority. "caturAtmA caturvyUhas caturdamShTrash caturbhujaH" goes Vishnu Sahasranama, a text praised by the Ayurvedic Charaka Samhita as one of the best stotras. How can this be un-vedic?

Amalananda Sarasvati, 13th century advaitin, respectfully disagrees from Sri Adi Shankara in his "Vedanta Kalpataru" (which is a commentary on "bhAmati" written by vAcaspati mishra) and defends pA~ncarAtra as 100% Vedic. Vedanta Kalpataru, btw, has a sub-commentary by Appaya Dikshita called "parimaLa".

Coming to Shankaracharya, he does not disagree that there can be four vyUhas. In his commentary the Acharya says:

"Concerning this system we remark that we do not intend to controvert the doctrine that Nârâyana, who is higher than the Undeveloped, who is the highest Self, and the Self of all, reveals himself by dividing himself in multiple ways; for various scriptural passages, such as 'He is onefold, he is threefold' (Kh. Up. VII, 26, 2)', teach us that the highest Self appears in manifold forms.".

Here Shankaracharya interprets Pancharatra text to be teaching jIvOtpatti. (Ramanuja, and even the later advaitin amalAnanda, disagree saying that the statements have to be taken in the "gauNa" sense).

Vishnu Purana, from which Shankara has quoted (and which has no interpolations, since we have commentaries on it intact, right from Sridhara Swami's time) also supports the four vyUha theory:

"To him who is one with true knowledge, who is and is not perceptible, I bow. Glory be to him, the lord Vásudeva, to Sankarshańa, to Pradyumna, and to Aniruddha 7." (Book V, Chapter 18).

(shrImad bhAgavatam also supports the four vyUha concept, but of course, you have deemed the whole text as bogus, so I am not quoting it.)

What more? Read sUrya siddhAnta, written by Vedantin/Astronomer AryabhaTa, who in the 12th chapter of his work, identifies puruSha sUkta as referring to Lord vAsudeva only. Here, AryabhaTa identifies the roles of two of the other three vyUhas, Sankarshana and Aniruddha in the creation:

12.12a: *vāsudevaH* paraṃ brahma tanmūrtiH puruṣaH paraH/

12.12b: avyakto nirguṇaH śāntaH pañcaviṃśāt paro +avyayaH//

12.13a: prakṛtyantargato devo bahir antaś ca sarvagaH/

12.13b: *saṅkarṣaṇo* +apaH sṛṣṭvādau tāsu vīryam avāsṛjat//

12.14a: tadaṇḍam abhavad dhaimaṃ sarvatra tamasāvṛtam/

12.14b: *tatrāniruddhaH* prathamaṃ vyaktībhūtaH sanātanaH//

This explanation is the same as you find in "Mudgala Upanishad" from which Adi Shankara has quoted a statement in his Taittiriya Upanishad bhAShya:

"We shall explain the Purusha-sukta... The glory of Vishnu is given in 'Etavan' (so much is his greatness). The same stanza states his four-fold nature. 'Tripad' etc., speaks of the glory of Aniruddha."

Mudgala Upanishad itself is thus 100% Vedic, and here you find the vyUha concept as well.

Posted by Humble Bhagavata Bandhu to Maha Pashupatastra at April 5, 2013 at 3:17 AM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

I didn't conveniently reject some portions from Mahabharata as per my comfort. the chapters what you quoted this vyuha theory from they encapsulate the topics on samkhya and yoga systems. And here is what Kisari mohan ganguly has to say about them in the beginning of santi parva itself.

"The Santi Parva is a huge interpolation in the Mahabharata, in the genre known as 'wisdom literature.' The narrative progression is placed on hold almost from the first page. Instead we get a long and winding recapitulation of Brahmanic lore, including weighty treatises on topics such as kingcraft, metaphysics, cosmology, geography, and mythology. There are discussions of the Sankya and Yoga philosophical schools, and mentions of Buddhism.". hence he says santi parva having these topics are interpolations.

therefore I said I don't accept those theories. again your Vishnu sahasranama is a smriti scripture and you cannot use it to analyze vedas which are shruti. actually vedas should be used to analyze puranas and other smritis. my style of analysis is to analyze smriti using shruti and when we do so, many puranic concepts get negated.

anyway, one thing I liked in you is you quote relevant references in your posts which is a best practice and it is what I follow in my articles so naturally I would like that even in opponents, good job.

Well, this discussion with you is very useful and adds to my learning, but as I stated earlier, I am too busy these days to find time out of work, so this discussion is wasting my time in that sense. Let god give me some free time and let some more articles come from my pen, many of the theories would get refuted. yeah I know people might not agree with me, but this is my duty that my antar-atman has assigned me, hence I would do that at the cost of anything.

See, we are not comparing apples with apples. the acharyas which you follow, I don't concur with their thoughts; so debate/discussion between us is fruitless and is a time waste for both of us. if you disagree with my articles, you may stop visiting this blog, and if you have patience to wait for 1-2 years, you'll see some nice reasoning done in some articles (upcoming ones). Hope to see a good bye note from you and not another "reply-inviting" post. hehe :-)

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 5, 2013 at 3:59 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

[quote] again your Vishnu sahasranama is a smriti scripture and you cannot use it to analyze vedas which are shruti. actually vedas should be used to analyze puranas and other smritis. my style of analysis is to analyze smriti using shruti and when we do so, many puranic concepts get negated.[/quote]

Again, more nonsense. We do not not use smriti to interpret the shruti (though there is nothing wrong in that). We interpret Shruti using smriti as a tool.

For the record, we do not need Vishnu Sahasranama to prove that the Rudra of Sri Rudram is NarayaNa. Considering that the mahOpanishad declares Rudra to be absent during pralaya (eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma nEshana), the nArAyaNopanishad declares Rudra to be born of nArAyaNa (nArAyaNat rudrO jAyatE), the name 'nArAyaNa' being a proper noun and the names like Rudra, Shiva being common nouns having general meanings like 'auspicious', 'one who destroys samsara', the conclusion is that it is well within grammatical and logical limits to attribute the names of Rudra, etc to nArAyaNa only.

Furthermore, the satapatha brAhmana declares this Rudra to be 'anapahatapapma', ie not cleansed of karmas when he was born to brahma. This new born requests Brahma to therefore give him names that would cleanse his karmas. Brahma gives him names like Rudra, Mahadeva, Isana, etc. This clearly shows that these names were pre-existent and applied to the supreme brahman before pArvati pati was born.

Even in nArAyaNa suktam, you come across terms like 'shivam achyutam', which confirms that such names belong to nArAyaNa, who is Vishnu only as per the Vishnu gAyatri.

The Vishnu SahasranAmA, is then, not the primary text, but merely a *CONFIRMATION* of this interpretation of shruti. Since it gives the names of nArAyaNa as Rudra, Shambhu, Shiva, etc. The only reason we resort to Vishnu Sahasranama is to show that our interpretation is supported by the ancient rsis as well.

And even if we first see the Vishnu SahasranAmA and then go on to interpret the shruti, there is nothing wrong with that. It will still be correct as opposed to interpretations that blindly search for 'Rudra', 'Shiva' and other such names in the Veda and jump on them to give wrong meanings that clash with other vAkyAs declaring the birth of pArvati pati.

Posted by Unknown to Maha Pashupatastra at April 5, 2013 at 5:59 AM

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula has left a new comment on the post "Story of Subduing Shiva's Pride from Ramayana is F...":

See Mr. Unknown,

For the last time let me tell you, this narayana meaning based on grammatical thing is not there in Mahabharata. in Mahabharata the logic what has been used is same as what I have arrived at in my article. From narayana as Shakti, all the so called ambiguities get clarified (mhopanishad, narayanopanishad etc.). Evan himavan in purana hails devi as "I salute your that thousand headed form called narayana". so, my logic of narayana = tripurasudnari is not bogus one rather a hint of it exists in puranas itself. Whether you accept/deny it doesn't matter to me. You cannot prove that Vishnu travels through sushumna nerve using any scripture. it is always kundalini that does that. So, either accept my theory or stop blabbering, leave me alone and let me live in peace. secondly you have seen shatapatha br. but haven't seen the vedas which state rudra existed before brahma and he manifested again through brahma. brahma is hiranyagarbha which is nothing but this universe, so rudra's manifestation is nothing but his appearance within this universe. it has nothing to do with physical birth and he is unborn who appeared within this. so all your understanding about birth of rudra is bogus. I can explain but don't want to owing to less time with me.

Boss. know one thing, your opinions aren't going to change me. But my articles are going to always taste bitter since truths are bitter and we both come from different streams hence can't meet in common stream. therefore, I do not see any value add in continuing this discussion, so may I request you to move away and not waste mine and your time further?

Posted by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula to Maha Pashupatastra at April 5, 2013 at 7:48 AM

[Back to contents]

The anti-Vaishnavite’s motives made clear

You can see clearly above who made a spectacle of themselves in the debate. And you can see why our friend deleted the above posts. He found the following facts hard to digest:

  1. That Adi Shankara was a Vaishnava though philosophically an advaitin,

  1. That the section that is traditionally called "Mokshadharma" in the Mahabharata (and therefore, merely from its name a very authoritative section) identifies the supreme being as Vishnu only, and never as Shiva,

  1. That Adi Shankara has identified "Ishvara" in "IshvaraH sarva bhUtAnAM" as Lord Narayana only,

  1. That Adi Shankara has specifically used the term "Vaishnavas" in the Gita Bhashyas, and states that "The worshipers of other deities reach the realm of those other deities. Even though their effort in worshiping is the same, they do not reach the highest result, but obtain finite results which are impermanent and run out in time. Vaishnavas alone reach the highest fruit of mukti",

  1. That Adi Shankara has specifically praised the method of worship followed by the Vaishnavas (including their single-minded devotion to Vishnu without praying to other deities) as Vedic,

  1. That all Vedanta Acharyas (including Adi Shankara) have identified the Supreme God praised by Vaishnavites, Lord Vishnu/Narayana/Krishna/Vasudeva as the Supreme Being sung in the Bhagavad Gita; our friend thus stands against even Adi Shankara's position regarding the Gita,

  1. That it was accepted by even Adi Shankara that Lord Vishnu ALONE is praised as the Supreme Being EVERYWHERE in the Vedas, Itihasas, and Sattvika Puranas, and

  1. That Vyasa has stated in the Mahabharata as follows: "Having examined all the Vedic scriptures inside out many times, I deem the following to be sure: That it is Narayana who is always to be meditated upon".

The aforementioned truths are big obstacles to our anti-Vaishnavite friend's unholy cause. Hence, he wants these to be hidden from as many people as possible, so that the gullible followers of his blog can be cheated with lies.

After timidly stating:

"ok. let me also try my best to support shaivism, and let me learn on my own at the end what's right and what's wrong. why should i follow others? they might also be erroneous. if i happen to reveal right things about shiva that's great, and if at all i happen to udnerstand by my own that vishnu is the ultimate reality, that is also fine with me since vishnu is also my father. Let me go my way and realize the truths on my own. why to refer to other's experiences?", he retracts this sentiment by deleting ALL the comments except for the first few, followed by a return to anti-Vaishnavite ranting in his latest post. What a display of honesty!

The fact that our friend will resort to any sort of dishonest means is exemplified by the following episode in the debate:

When I tried to show that Lord Vishnu's supremacy is established clearly in the mOkShadharma section of the mahAbhArata, he tried to claim that the mOkShadharma (which is part of the twelfth book, shAnti parva) is a later interpolation, citing the English translator K. M. Ganguli's opinion that can be found on this link.

However, our friend quotes liberally from the thirteenth book, the anushAsana parva. He uses quotations (which were never authenticated by any of the early AcAryas like Shankara) found in that section to establish Shiva's supremacy as per his whim. The same K. M. Ganguli says that the anushAsana parva is also a later interpolation (see this link):

"The Anusasana Parva, like the Santi Parva before it, is a long hiatus in the narrative of the Mahabharata. Set on the deathbed of Bhishma, the Anusasana Parva is a huge treasure-trove of Brahmanic lore which is obviously a later interpolation in the epic."

But of course, our friend won't accept this when it comes to his favorite quotations regarding Shiva's supremacy (some very clearly later interpolations). Wise people are aware that if we were to take modern indologists' opinion without examining them critically, then we may as well say that the Vedas are just poems composed in 2000 BC and are the figments of the minds of early forest-dwellers who were afraid of natural forces like thunder, rain, cyclone etc., shall we not???

[Back to contents]

A few truths revealed

Let us now come to the following points highlighted in green in the comments above:

Truth# 1: The Uttama Purusha in Chandogya Upanishad is Vishnu only. Hence, the Supreme Lord identified in the Bhagavad Gita is Lord Vishnu only, and not Lord Shiva:

It is well known that the Bhagavad Gita has been recognized by everyone as the highest Hindu scripture. Hence, every attempt is made by anti-Vaishnavites to distance the Bhagavad Gita from Vishnu's supremacy, Vishnu, and Vaishnavism. Our shaiva friend is no exception to this, and has taken great pains to explain in about 10 blog postings (conveniently omitting key verses that clearly speak for Vishnu's supremacy) that Siva is identified as the supreme being in the Bhagavad Gita.

Getting into details, we relate this attack to the identification of "uttamaH puruShaH" as stated in the Chandogya Upanishad by Shaivites as Shiva. The reader can see below which side is true. The following is found in a Shaivite work called "shrIkaNTha bhAShya" (written by someone known as shrIkaNTha between the 13th and 16th centuries, and was supported by Appayya Dikshita in his works such as Shivadvaita Nirnaya):

Saivite opponent: [SrkBh:1]

The Vaishnavites claim thus: As the highest light, an object to be attained by the freed souls, is denoted by the word 'Highest Person' (Purusottama), so the phrase.  'The Highest Person" (Uttama Purusah) refers to it. Further, the word 'Highest Person* directly refers to Narayana. Hence, he is the highest light standing for the highest person. To this, we reply : Here the highest light, an object to be obtained by the freed souls, is none else but the Supreme Brahman, called Supreme Siva. For, it is seen that those only who attain Him do not return (to transmigratory existence). How can this kind of non-return be appropriate on the part of those who attain some one other than the Supreme Brahman? Although the words 'Highest Person' directly refer to Narayana, yet it is applicable to Brahman as well, as He is superior to all persons or individual souls. In the Brahma-medha-kalpa too, viz. in the text, "To encircle the Highest Person", the name 'Highest Person' has been employed as a synonym for the Supreme Brahman, the object to be obtained. Hence, the Supreme Brahman alone is the highest light.

The Truth:

The above explanation of Chandogya Upanishad is not authenticated by any early Acharyas. In fact, it directly contradicts and condemns Shankara Bhashyam, and hence deserves to be rejected by those who place authority on Shankara. It is also against the Bhagavad Gita. We shall see how.

(1) First of all, in Bhagavad Gita, Shri Krishna says:

uttamaḥ puruṣastvanyaḥ paramātmētyudāhṛtaḥ.

yō lōkatrayamāviśya bibhartyavyaya īśvaraḥ..15.17..

Here, Shankara's commentary says that Uttama Purusha in the vedAnta refers to Ishvara, the controller whose name is Narayana: [GBhS:6].

uttamaḥ utkṛṣṭatamaḥ puruṣastu anyaḥ atyantavilakṣaṇaḥ ābhyāṅ paramātmā iti paramaśca asau dēhādyavidyākṛtātmabhyaḥ, ātmā ca sarvabhūtānāṅ pratyakcētanaḥ, ityataḥ paramātmā iti udāhṛtaḥ uktaḥ vēdāntēṣu. sa ēva viśiṣyatē yaḥ lōkatrayaṅ bhūrbhuvaḥsvarākhyaṅ svakīyayā caitanyabalaśaktyā āviśya praviśya bibharti svarūpasadbhāvamātrēṇa bibharti dhārayati; avyayaḥ na asya vyayaḥ vidyatē iti avyayaḥ. kaḥ? īśvaraḥ sarvajñaḥ nārāyaṇākhyaḥ īśanaśīlaḥ..

and then in 15.18 comes the bombshell which should impale Vishnu-haters. Prelude given by Shankara below, and then the Sloka: [GBhS:6].

yathāvyākhyātasya īśvarasya 'puruṣōttamaḥ' ityētat nāma prasiddham. tasya nāmanirvacanaprasiddhyā arthavattvaṅ nāmnō darśayan 'niratiśayaḥ aham īśvaraḥ' iti ātmānaṅ darśayati bhagavān

yasmātkṣaramatītō.hamakṣarādapi cōttamaḥ.

atō.smi lōkē vēdē ca prathitaḥ puruṣōttamaḥ

Translation: "Since I am superior to the immutable and the mutable, I am known in the world and in the Vedas as the Purushottama". Here, the key phrase is "both in the world and in the Vedas". "In the world" refers to the popularity of the name "Purushottama" in the world as Vishnu's (rather than Siva's).

Madhusudana Sarasvati - another advaitin who lived in the 16th Century and followed Shankara’s Vedanta, quotes Kalidasa's Raghuvamsam [RVmsKD:1]to this support in his gUDhArtha dIpikA: [GuMS:1]

lōkē ca kavikāvyādau 'hariryathaikaḥ puruṣōttamaḥ smṛtaḥ' ityādiprasiddham |”,

showing that even Kalidasa, who was a Shiva bhakta predominantly, accepted that the name “puruShOttama” refers to Lord Vishnu only.

It is to be noted here, even without taking the support of Shankara Bhashyams, that those who proclaim that Krishna refers to Siva alone in the “so(a)hambhAva when he says "worship me", "surrender me", "I am the supreme" etc., will stumble when they come to this verse. BhagavAn Krishna, who knows the past, present, and future, has foreseen these misinterpretations and hence to annihilate them, states "loke vede ca".

Saivites may very well use twisted yuktis to argue that Uttama Purusha in Vedas is Siva, not Krishna. But they stand exposed when they are asked to quote any itihAsa/purANastatement or kavi or kAvya or nighaNTu in history that assigns the name Purushottama to Siva. Their position is undermined even by Kalidasa, himself a devotee of Siva!!!

I challenge our anti-Vaishnavite author of the “mahapashupatastra” blog page to refute logically this ONE observation. I will promise that I would consider such a refutation tantamount to answering all of my points here defending Vaishnavism!

For "vede" Madhusudana Saraswati quotes the Chandogya verse which Dikshitar adamantly proclaims as Siva's:

sa uttamaḥ puruṣa iti vēda udāhṛta ēva

Hence, Bhagavad Gita is all about Lord Vishnu's supremacy alone, and not Lord Shiva's as "mahA pAshupata astra" author claims.

(2) Let us take Chandogya Upanishad Bhashyam of Shankara, and look at the corresponding verse that Dikshitar vehemently argues as referring to Siva:

Chandogya 8.12.3 Shankara Bhashyam: [ChUpBhS:1]

evaṃ ca sa uttamapuruṣa uttamaścāsau puruṣaścetyuttamapuruṣaḥ sa evottamapuruṣo 'kṣisvapnapuruṣau vyaktāvavyaktaśca suṣuptaḥ samastaḥ saṃprasanno 'śarīraśca svena rūpeṇeti /

eṣāmeṣa svena rūpeṇāvasthitaḥ kṣarākṣarau vyākṛtāvyākṛtāvapekṣyottamapuruṣaḥ kṛtanirvacano hyayaṃ gītāsu /

Here, Shankara refers to the Nirvachanam in Gita, hence again confirming that the Uttama Purusha is Vishnu only. This is supported by Anandagiri, who in the Chandogya Upanishad Tika, quotes the Gita 15.17 and 15.18.

All this firmly establishes that the “Uttama Purusha” spoken about in the Chandogya Upanishad is none but Lord Vishnu only. These also establishe that only Lord Krishna is glorified as Supreme Brahman in Bhagavad Gita.

[Back to contents]

Truth# 2: Shri Rudram extols shrIman nArAyaNa only. Moreover, the Vedas speak about the supremacy of Lord Vishnu only everywhere

The shrIvaiShNava bhAgavata in the above debate has commented on the Sri Rudram mantras, and says that they sing Vishnu's supremacy alone. This may come as a surprise to many from the Smarta/Shaiva background who see Rudram chanted in Shiva pUjas. Here is my analysis:

We first take a look at the Bhagavad Gita verse 15.15::

sarvasya ca-ahaM hRdi sanniviSTo mattaH smRtirj~nAnamapohanaM ca |

vedaishca sarvairahameva vedyo vedantakRt-vedavit-eva ca-aham ||

(Bhagavad Gita 15.15)

In the above verse, Lord Narayana, in his Krishna form, teaches the following to Arjuna: "I am seated in the hearts of all beings. Memory, knowledge, as well as their loss come from Me. I alone am to be known from all the Vedas; I am indeed the author of Vedanta as well as its knower."

Here, the message is that Lord Krishna/Vishnu alone is glorified by all the Vedas.

The following portion, pertaining to the nAma "kathitaH" from Shri Shankara's Vishnu Sahasranama commentary contains a key verse from the Harivamsa. The commentary and this verse establishes that Lord Vishnu indeed is spoken of everywhere in the Vedas as the Highest, and that this was in accordance with Adi Shankara's own belief [VSBhS:1]. Read carefully below:

vedAdibhir-ayameka eva paratvena kathita kathita iti kathitaH | sarvairvedaiH kathita iti vA kathitaH | "sarve vedA yatpadamAmananti", "vedaishca sarvairahameva vedyaH", "vede rAmAyaNe puNye bhArate bharatarSabhaH! adau madye tathA cAnte viSNuH sarvatra gIyate" iti shruti-smRtyAdi-vacanebhyaH |

Translation:  He (Vishnu) is known as kathitaH since He alone is declared as supreme by the Veda and Vedic texts; or He who is described by all the Vedas. The following statements from the shruti (Vedas) and smRtis confirm this:

"All the Vedas describe His status.." (Kathopanishad 1.2.15),

"I alone am to be known from all the Vedas" (Bhagavad Gita 15.15),

"Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata!" (Harivamsa, 3.132.95).

This is the reason why everyone begins and ends Vedic chanting with "hariH OM" (Lord Vishnu's name).

The above points, by themselves, should put to rest any objection against identifying Rudram as Shriman Narayana's praise.

Nevertheless, we shall discuss the Sri Rudram portion specifically, in order to confirm these statements. The full details are found in the "Vaishnava commentary on Sri Rudram" page bearing an article written by the shrIvaiShNava bhAgavata who supported Vaishnavism along with me in the above debate.

One needs to consider the following:

(1) The shvetAshvatara upaniShad contains a few mantras from Sri Rudram. Clearly, the Supreme Brahman established in the Vedas is Vishnu alone, as shown by the above arguments. Hence, shvetAshvatara upaniShad must be a praise of Vishnu alone, and hence at least a few mantras in Sri Rudram must be considered a praise of Vishnu as Parabrahman.

(2) It is well known that Valmiki Ramayana is traditionally considered an avatAra of the Veda, and which Valmiki composed to explain the Veda. This is established in the following shloka recited traditionally before the recitation of Ramayana:

"veda vedye pare puMsi jAte dasharathAtmaje

vedaH prAcetasAt AsIt sAkShAt rAmAyaNAtmanA"

In the Ramayana, there is a chapter where Valmiki describes Shri Rama's anger when He threatens to annihilate the Samudra Raja with a single arrow. At this juncture, Samudra Raja appears praises Shri Rama, fearing his wrath. The verses recited by Samudra Raja correspond in meaning to mantras in Shri Rudram. Hence, it is Valmiki Maharishi's opinion that Shri Rudram indeed addresses Lord Vishnu. The specific verses and their connection to Shri Rudram can be found in the relevant page. Here is the relevant portion:

yAmishuM girishanta haste bibharshyastavE |

shivAM giritra tAm kuru mA himsI: purushaM jagath ||

Meaning: O Girishanta (Creator of GirishA/pArvai pati Rudradeva), O Giritra (Lord, who is propounded in the VedAntA), shoot that auspicious arrow you hold in your hand (to destroy the obstacles to my knowledge of Brahman). Do not cause injury to the JivAtmA who is migrating in the samsAra (purusham jagat)....

The same happens in srimad rAmAyaNam. When samudra rAjan appeases the anger of SrI rAman, he gets a reply from bhagavAn that his arrow needs a target. Upon hearing this, samudra rAjan makes the following statement:

 tairna tatsparshanam pApam saheyam pApakarmabhiH || amoghaH kriyatAm rAma tatra teShu sharottamaH | (~ vAlmiki rAmAyaNam 2-22-33)

Meaning: (Samudra rAjan said:) I am not able to bear that touch of those wicked people, the evil doers. O rAmA, Let this excellent arrow (that is never rendered in vain) be released over them there.

(3) It is accepted that the devatA of Sri Rudram is Lord Siva or Rudra. However, this does not mean that Rudram can not be considered as a hymn of Vishnu. For that matter, the devatA of vishvakarmA sUkta is recognized as vishvakarmA. However, the hymns in this sUkta contain a description on of how the entire Universe, after mahApralaya, was created from Lord Vishnu's navel. Thismantra that goes as:

"ajasya nAbhau adhyekaM arpitaM yasmin vishvAni bhuvanAni tasthuH"

[In the navel of the unborn was (the entire universe) stationed - Rg veda, 10th maNDala, 82nd sUkta, 6th mantra]

has been explained by Bhishmacharya in the Mokshadharma parva of Mahabharata as referring to Lord Vishnu, occurring in the stOtra that he sang for Shri Krishna paramAtmA:

"ajasya nAbhAv adhyekaM yasmin vishvaM pratiShThitaM |

puShkaraM puShkarAkShasya tasmai padmAtmane namaH ||"

[I salute that lotus flower which appeared from the navel of the unborn Lord with lotus-like eyes, in which the entire universe was stationed (during creaetion)]

Moreover, Shri Adi Shankaracharya states in his Vishnu Sahasranama commentary that the mantra in the vishvakarmA sUkta only refers to Lord Vishnu's form as padmanAbha [VSBhS:2]:

"sarvajagatkAraNaM padmaM nAbhau yasya saH padmanAbhaH, 'ajasya nAbhAvadhyekaM arpitaM' iti shruteH"

Translation: The explanation for the name padmanAbha is as follows: The one whose navel contains the lotus that is the cause of the entire universe. 'ajasya nAbhAvadhyekaM arpitaM', says shruti.


Hence, it is accepted by authorities of great reputation that the Vishvakarma sUkta speaks of Vishnu alone as the Highest Brahman, even though the devatA for that sUkta is named 'vishvakarmA'. Similarly, the being praised as the Highest Brahman in the Shri Rudram is Lord Vishnu only, even though the devata for Shri Rudram is identified as Rudra.

 (4) Another point in support of this was offered by the shrIvaiShNava bhAgavata, the details of which are given in the relevant page "Vaishnava commentary on Sri Rudram" on this page. The proof is from bhagavAn Lord Krishna's himself. The verses quoted in that page relating to this point correspond to the Shanti Parva section in the Mahabharata (12.328.5 onwards, dialogue between Lord Krishna and Arjuna).

Thus, the Rudram refers to Shriman Narayana as the antaryAmi of Lord Rudra, and also refers to Shriman Narayana Himself directly at places. This explanation is in line with Brahma Sutras. This was explained by the bhAgavata to me, in private: When we say 'vaishvAnara', it refers to gastric fire. At the same time, the name 'vaishvAnara' means 'giver of life', which is a direct name of nArAyaNa. The Brahma Sutras establish that vaishvAnara therefore, refers to the antaryAmin of (the) gastric fire, i.e., nArAyaNa.

Vaishnavas (rightly) claim that Shri Rudram can be interpreted to address Lord Vishnu, and that this is as per the pronouncement of maharShis like Vyasa and Valmiki who held that He alone is praised in all the Vedas.

To this our friend retorts thus: "Can Vaishnavas show even one Vishnu temple where Shri Rudram is chanted as part of abhiSheka, as in Shiva temples?"

Our friend does not seem to be aware that there are prescribed sUktas in pA~ncarAtra and vaikhAnasa Agamas (the Vaishnavite Agamas) for recitation during tiruma~ncanaM (thirumanjanam, or abhiSheka) and that traditional worship of Lord Vishnu are strictly based on these Agamas. For that matter, one can not substitute the nArAyaNa sUkta or viShNu sUkta in an area where the Vaishnava Agamas prescribe the chanting of puruSha sUkta.

The bhAgavata who defended Vaishnavism in the debate also notes that in a Vishnu temple in his locality in Chennai (pArthasArathi perumAL temple in tiruvallikkeNi/Triplicane), Shri Rudram is recited as part of veda pArAyaNa and in major utsavas.

I also wish to point out an authority from a non-Ramanuja/Madhva source in these matters as an evidence. The great Mahamahopadhyaya Ramasubba Shastri of Tiruvisanallur in Tanjore district, who lived in the last half of the 19th and first few years of the 20th century, has proclaimed Vishnu's supremacy in his works.This advaitic scholar has upheld Shankara as a Vaishnavite in his works.

He has written a work called "shvetAshvatara upaniShad vilAsa" in which he has explained that the mantras of shvetAshvatara upaniShad, some of which are in Shri Rudram, clearly extol Lord Vishnu as the Supreme. Another such work of his is "atharvashiropaniShadvilAsa" which proves similarly that Vishnu is declared as the Supreme in Atharva Shiropanishad also.

Yet another important work of his is viShNudveShakara-mahAshaivamata-mardanam directed against a shaivAdvaitic personality known as "Mahamahopadhyaya Raju Shastri" of Mannargudi. Unfortunately, Raju Shastri held clout in the Kumbhakonam mutt (Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt of today), even though he lost in debate to the former after finding himself unable to answer questions after a certain point. This is the reason why Adi Shankara continues to be misrepresented till today as a shaiva or as advocate of shaNmata.

Though Ramasubba Shastri's manuscripts have not been published in the press till now, they are well preserved. In the recent years, some of them have been passed on to a trustworthy scholar, which gives us hope that Shri Ramasubba Shastri's works will see the light of the day very soon. See this article for some light on this matter:

http://www.academia.edu/1119793/Ramasubrahma_yas_Manuscripts_A_Kaveri_Delta_Collection_Then_and_Now_preprint_version_

[Back to contents]

Truth# 3: Narayana Suktam praises Shriman Narayana alone as the Supreme, and tAmasa purANas are not authoritative

It is well established that the name "nArAyaNa" refers to Lord Vishnu only - in the Vedas and in common parlance. This is because of the grammatical rule explained above. Vedas themselves identify nArAyaNa with viShNu and vAsudEva, all of which are names of Hari:

"nArAyaNAya vidmahe vAsudevAya dhImahI 

tanno viShNuH pracodayAt"

Our friend retorts that Paninian grammar is post-Vedic and hence can not be relied on for explaining Vedic mantras. The truth is that Panini only codified existing Vedic grammatical rules, and did not create new rules.

It is exactly because of this reason that Appayya in his Shivadvaita Nirnaya, identified nArAyaNa as viShNu only in his shivAdvaita nirNaya, taking pains to prove and state time and again that nArAyaNa is not brahman. This is also the reason for his attempt to explain the mantra "nArAyaNaH paraM brahmA" as "nArAyaNAt paraM brahmA" which was condemned by even advaitins such as bOdhEndra sarasvati in works such as hariharAdvaita-bhUShaNa.

We will look at the opinion of learned people in this matter. All Vaidikas, including Advaitins explained the Narayana Sukta as a hymn of the Puranic Narayana/Vishnu only. You can see this point from surEshvara's bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad bhAShya vArtika in the antaryAmi brAhmaNa section, and Anandagiri's TIka to the same (Sureshvara is one of the disciples of Adi Shankara, and Anandagiri is an advaitin of the 13th/14th Century): [BrUphV:1]:

kR^iShNadvaipAyano vyAso vedAtmA dhvAntahAnikR^it |

prahemameva bahushaH praNInAM hitakAmyayA ||

nArAyaNaH paro.avyaktAt aNDamavyakta saMbhavam |

aNDasyAntastv ime sarvAH lokAH saptadvIpAshca medhinI ||

tasmai namostu devAya nirguNAya guNAtmane |

nArAyaNAya vishvAya devAnAM paramAtmane ||

etameva samuddishya mantro nArAyaNastathA |

vedavidbhir mahAprAj~naiH puruShair viniyujyate ||

Translation: Krishna Dvaipayana, the Vyasa, who is Vedas personified and who is the remover of ignorance, has said the following time and again for the welfare of beings: Narayana is beyond avyakta (prakRti); from avyakta is the entire cosmig egg born; inside this cosmic egg are all the worlds, the seven islands, and the earth. To that Narayana, I offer salutations - to Him, who is lustrous, devoid of attributes (nirguNa) and also the one with all auspicious attributes - to Him, who is the universe personified, who is the Supreme among all deities. With Him as the object are the nArAyaNa mantras (in the Vedas) being recited by the great knowledgeable personalities who are well-versed in the Vedas.

Anandagiri's TIka says here: [BrUpBhV:1]:

na kevalaM purANAgamAbhyAMeva so.adhigamyate, kiM tu shrutyakSharair api ityarthaH | etameveti | sahasrashIrShaM devaM vishvAkShaM vishvashaMbhuvaM vishvaM nArAyaNaM devaM akSharaM paramaM padaM' ityAdi mantraH vedavidbhir antaryAmiNaM uddishya viniyukto.ataH sa vaidikaH ityarthaH

Translation: (surEshvarAcArya explains here that) not only is nArAyaNa's greatness known from Puranas and Agamas, but from Vedic mantras such as 'sahasrashIrShaM devaM vishvAkShaM vishvashaMbhuvaM vishvaM nArAyaNaM devaM akSharaM paramaM padaM' that serve to show this as the Vedic position.

This shows that the Narayana Sukta mantras praise the Puranic Vishnu only.


Moreover, in Sayanacarya's commentary on the Narayana Sukta, we find the following statement pertaining to the mantra "nArAyaNaH paraM brahmA" etc: [TASyB:1]

"purANeShu nArAyaNashabdena vyavahriyamANo yaH parameshvaraH, sa eva 'paraM' utkR^iShTaM"

Translation: The Supreme Lord who is denoted by the term 'nArAyaNa' in the purANas - He alone is the Highest.

Hence, Sayana also understands the Narayana of the Narayana Sukta as the puranic nArAyaNa only.

Our friend says in his latest post (in this link) that sAyaNa and bhaTTa bhAskara were 'impartial commentators'. The same 'impartial commentators' identified the deity praised in the Narayana Sukta as the Puranic Narayana only. Will he accept the following observations made by these 'impartial commentators'?

  1. The puruSha sUkta refers to Lord Narayana only (Sayana and Bhatta Bhaskara in their Taittiriya Aranyaka commentary) [TASyB:2] [TABBB:1]

  1. The name "nArAyaNa" is a proper name and refers only to Vishnu, and this is because of Panini's grammatical rule (Bhatta Bhaskara on Narayana Sukta commentary) [TABBB:2]

Our shaivite friend's claim that Itihasa-Puranas can not be used to understand and explain the Vedas is rather bizarre. All traditional scholars accept the maxim: "itihAsapurANAbhyAM vedaM samupabrahmayet", which means that the Vedas have to be understood with the help of Itihasas and Puranas, where there is no contradiction. In Valmiki Ramayana also, we have the following shlOka which explains that Valmiki composed the Ramayana to explain Vedas in a lucid manner:

sa tu medhāvinau dṛṣṭvā vedeṣu pariniṣṭitau |

vedopabṛṃhaṇārthāya tau agrāhayata prabhuḥ || 1-4-6

Translation: On seeing that pair intellectuals who are proficient in Veda-s that self-reliant sage Valmiki made those two to memorize the epic, as the epic Ramayana is composed only to reinforce the import of Veda-s, as an ancillary. [1-4-6]

In light of all this, our shaivite friend's claim that the nArAyaNa sUkta is a hymn to Tripura Sundari is indeed laughable. So is his vulgar commentary that the nArAyaNa sUkta "describes the union of Tripurasundari with her consort Shiva" and that it describes the ascent of "seminal fluids". He claims that the "heart" in nArAyaNa sUkta is actually the sushumnA nADi. Nowhere does the nArAyaNa sUkta talk about these terms.

Also ridiculous is his explanation of the name "nArAyaNa" as "nara + ayana". Our friend does not even know how sandhi operates in Vedic Sanskrit. If you combine the word "nara" with "ayana", you would get the word "narAyanaH" (नरायनः) and not "nArAyaNaH" (नारायणः)

Our friend asks as follows:

Another example could be “rAmAyaNa” which is “rAma + Ayana (direction of movement)” is identically same as the definition of Tripurasundari as nArAyaNa. And on similar lines it is spelt as “rAmAyaNa” and not “rAmAyana”. This “rAmAyaNa” is again a proper noun applicable on Rama’s lifestory (epic) only but still we have Valmiki Ramayana, Kamba Ramayana, Bhushundi Ramayana, Tulasidas Ramayana and so on… Where has been the rAmAyaNa which is again a proper noun, infallible in this case? It has become a common noun when only read as “rAmAyaNa”, but it remains a unique proper noun when we prefix the version (Valmiki, Kamba etc…) to the word “rAmAyaNa”.  

This again shows his ignorance. These other rAmAyaNas are called rAmAyaNa because they have been named thus. Similarly, my neighbor's son can very well be called "nArAyaNa" if he has been given that name by scholars, and also because these books revere the original  rAmAyaNa of vAlmIki as the authoritative one. In contrast, nowhere are Shiva, Durga, and others given the name nArAyaNa. In any case, Kamban's work was not originally called "rAmAyaNa" but "irAmAvatAram", and Tulsidas' work "rAmacaritamanas".

The point behind the "Na" in rAmAyaNa is as follows: You can not take a story of some other person named "Rama" and describe it as "rAmAyaNa". But you can describe it as "rAmAyana" since it makes sense etymologically.

Our friend quotes a kUrma purANa passage which seems to proclaim that nArAyaNa is a name of Uma. He claims that the verse goes like this:

"I salute thy form called Narayana, O Lalita, which has a thousand heads, which is of infinite energy, having a thousand arms, the ancient Person..."

I have checked the Kurma Purana text available in the following non-Vaishnava pages:

http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/puranas/kurma_purana.pdf

http://fiindolo.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gret_utf.htm#Pur

However, I could not find the verse that this shaiva friend has quoted. It seems that Bhaskararaya has quoted from  his own version, interpolated with pro-shAkta verses (Update: Mahapashupatastra's author has pointed out that the verse exists as 1.11.245 in the above version. Point taken and I acknowledge this). Even then, this does not matter. The verse that Bhaskararaya has quoted just says that nArAyaNa is a vibhUti of Shakti not sAkShAt shakti.

If nArAyaNa is the name for Tripurasundari used by Vedas to denote parabrahman, how come Lalita Sahasranama does not have the name "nArAyaNa" as a name of umA? If nArAyaNa is the name used by Vedas to denote Shiva who is absolutely non-different from umA as parabrahman, how come the shiva sahasranAmas do not contain the name "nArAyaNa" as a name of Shiva? If the name "nArAyaNI" is to be found in Lalita Sahasranama, this can very well be etymologically interpreted as "one who is related to nArAyaNa".

Tamasic purANas are not authoritative, and hence can not be used to understand the Vedas. This has been very well spelled out not only in Padma Purana, but also in the Matsya Purana. Ramanujacharya and even prior to that Yamunacharya has quoted the following verse from it:

agneḥ śivasya māhātmyaṃ tāmaseṣu prakīrtyate /

rājaseṣu ca māhātmyam adhikaṃ brahmaṇo viduḥ //

sāttvikeṣu ca kalpeṣu māhātmyam adhikaṃ hareḥ /

teṣv eva yogasaṃsiddhā gamiṣyanti parāṃ gatim //

The respective works of Yamunacharya and Ramanuja which quote this passage are Agama-prAmANya and vEdArtha-saMgraha. The full text of the Vedartha Sangraha is available here and the reader can verify that I  have copied the text from there:

http://fiindolo.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/6_sastra/3_phil/vedanta/ramvaspu.htm

 In the Agama-prAmANya, this verse is quoted in the 81st section.

The above Puranic verse quoted by Ramanuja is authentic and (unlike Bhaskararaya’s quote which can not be found in the current versions of Kurma Purana) is to be found in the current editions of Matsya Purana hosted on non-Vaishnava pages also. See line 68 in page 216 here and in the plain text version here. The reading is slightly different, but the meaning is the same:

sāttvikeṣu purāṇeṣu māhātmyamadhikaṃ hareḥ /

rājaseṣu ca māhātmyam adhikaṃ brahmaṇo viduḥ // MatsP_53.68 //

tadvadagneśca māhātmyaṃ tāmaseṣu śivasya ca /

Due to the three-fold division of Puranas into sAtvika, rAjasa, and tAmasa conveyed by the above verse, prAcIna advaita AcAryas such as Adi Shankara never quoted any verse from these Tamasic purANas which show Shiva as supreme, but quotes only the passages which show Vishnu as supreme in all his bhAShyas.

Another advaitin's opinion can also be cited here, that of Sri Narayana Bhattathiri of Kerala who composed Narayaneeyam (nArAyaNIyam), now popular in smArta homes. After stating that Lord Krishna is indeed the refuge of even Shiva, and that the boons granted by Shiva are impermanent and are not to be desired by mumukShus, in the 90th dashakam, Sri Narayana Bhatta says:

ye svaprakṛtyanuguṇā giriśaṃ bhajante

teṣāṃ phalaṃ hi dṛḍhayaiva tadīyabhaktyā /

vyāso hi tena kṛtavānadhikārihetoḥ

skāndādikeṣu tava hānivaco'rthavādaiḥ // 90.9

bhūtārthakīrtiranuvādaviruddhavādau

tredhārthavādagatayaḥ khalu rocanārthāḥ /

skāndādikeṣu bahavo'tra viruddhavādās-

tvattāmasatvaparibhūtyupaśikṣaṇādyāḥ // 90.10

Translation: Those who, in conformity with their natural inclinations, or tendencies (Vasanas), worship Siva, do obtain the desired ends by firm devotion to him (Siva) only. It is with a view to encourage and motivate such persons that Sage Vyasa has eulogised Siva in his works like Skanda Purana, and made statements deprecating Thee. Arthavadas, or exaggeratory declarations, are of three kinds, namely, those which are neither contrary to available pramanas (proofs or authority) nor verifiable by experience; those which are verifiable by experience; and those which are contrary to experience, bordering on perverted interpretations. These are all devices employed by their proponents with a definite objective in view, or to score debating points, and are not to be taken in the literal sense. Statements in the Skanda and other Puranas attributing Tamoguna or defeat to Thee etc fall in this category and are motivated by the objective of intensifying devotion to one's chosen deity, and are not to be understood as belittling Thee.

This clearly puts into perspective the division of purANas into sattvika, rAjasa, and tAmasa.

Shri Mahamahopadhyaya Ramasubba Shastri also notes that Shri Shankara never quoted from the sections in the anushAsana parva of mahAbhArata that claim Shiva-supremacy (such as Shiva Gita, Suta Samhita, Shankara Samhita) and hence they are not authoritative (specifically, the Upamanyu episode found in some editions of the anushAsana parva is a later-day interpolations). All of the mahAbhArata quotations in Shankara's bhAShyas are from sections such as mOkShadharma which proclaim Vishnu's supremacy.

Our shaivite blogger is really deluded to think that he is smart enough to achieve what Appayya did not achieve, i.e. explain the name "nArAyaNa" as referring to someone else other than viShNu.

Our friend asks Vaishnavas in which Vishnu temple Shri Rudram is chanted while during puShpArcana or abhiShEka. Has he seen any Shiva/Shakti temple in which the nArAyaNa sUkta is recited during puShpArcana to umA?

[Back to contents]

Truth# 4: The so-called Upanishads which proclaim Shiva/Shakti's supremacy are bogus

Our shaivite friend presents certain "Upanishad" texts to support the theory that nArAyaNa sUkta is a praise of Tripurasundari. From the first three truths, it is clear that these shaiva and shAkta texts that go in the name of "Upanishads" today are not part of Vedas at all unlike authentic Upanishads, but texts written by shiva and shakti worshipers of the medieval ages (14th-15th Century onwards). This fact is also strengthened by the observation that no shaiva/shAkta personalities before 14th Century ever quoted from these so-called "Upanishads". Haradatta (a shaivite writer who lived before appayya dIkShita) labors in his "Sruti-Sukti-Mala" to establish shiva as the brahman by quoting only from the authentic Upanishads which all advaita, vishiShTAdvaita, and dvaita AcAryas accept. If these pro-shaivite upaniShads were extant at Haradatta's time, he would have easily established shiva as the supreme using them.

[Back to contents]

Truth# 5: Adi Shankara did not write stOtras which glorify any deity other than Vishnu

I have shown in numerous quotations above that Adi Shankara was a Vaishnavite by theology, even though he is an Advaitin (belief in EkAtma vAda) by philosophy. In spite of this, and after deleting all my comments which establish this truth, our shaiva friend claims that dakShiNAmUrti upaniShad which proclaims Shiva's supremacy is authoritative and quotes a dakShiNAmUrti stOtra attributed to Adi Shankara. Adi Shankara wrote no stotras or shlokas praising Shiva, Uma, Ganesha, Skanda, or Surya as paramAtmA. This has been stated by shrI nArAyaNa bhaTTa in nArAyaNIyam, 90.5 [Nym:1]:

śrīśaṅkaro'pi bhagavān sakaleṣu tāvat

tvāmeva mānayati yo na hi pakṣapātī /

tvanniṣṭhameva sa hi nāmasahasrakādi

vyākhyad bhavatstutiparaśca gatiṃ gato'nte //

Translation: Sri Sankara Bhagavadpada, who is reputedly free from bias, worshipped Thee particularly among all Sakala forms (those having attributes) of Thine. He wrote Commentatries only on Vishnu Sahasranama, Bhagavadgita and other works depicting Thee. In the end, he also attained salvation singing Thy praises.

In the commentary to the above nArAyaNIyam verse, desha maN^gala varya, another Keralite advaitin states that "Shankara wrote commentaries explaining Vishnu alone and not Shiva and others as the Supreme. He was not inclined to writing stotras glorifying Shiva.". [Nym:1]

This establishes that the stotras glorifying Shiva, Shakti etc. (such as the two Laharis) are authored by some recent Shankaracharyas who are heads of mutts, and they have been attributed to Adi Shankara for the cause of Shaivite propaganda and anti-Vaishnavism.

I wish to reiterate the following points, observed from Shri Shankara's authentic bhAShyas:

In Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (9.23-9.25), Shankara says worshipers of other deities, such as vinAyaka etc. obtain finite results, whereas the vaiShNavas, who worship Lord vAsudEva obtain the eternal fruit of mOkSha [GBhS:8]. Here, Shankara specifically uses the term "vaiShNavas" and states that they alone attain eternal bliss, worshiping vAsudEva as the Supreme and as the in-dweller of all other deities. He specifically says that even though the devotees of other deities spend an effort of equal measure as the Vaishnavas (but not directed at the worship of vAsudEva), they obtain finite results which are subject to return to the samsAra (cycle of birth and death).

Shri Shankara states, also in the bhagavad gItA bhAShya (6.47) that among the yOgis, those who worship Rudra, Aditya, etc. are inferior to those who are vAsudEva bhaktas: [GBhS:9]

yoginām api sarveṣāṃ rudrādityādi-dhyāna-parāṇāṃ madhye mad-gatena mayi vāsudeve samāhitenāntarātmanāntaḥ-karaṇena śraddhāvān śraddadhānaḥ san bhajate sevate yo mām, sa me mama yuktatamo 'tiśayena yukto mato 'bhipreta iti

Shankara also says in the pA~ncarAtra adhikaraNa (Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 2.2.42) that there are certain aspects of the Pancharatra doctrine which are to be accepted, and says that worshipping Lord Vishnu as the Supreme Soul with unceasing ananya devotion as inculcated by the Pancharatra Shastras is as per the vEda and smRtis. However, Shankara does not make any such approving statements regarding the rites of worship according to the shaiva doctrine (discussed in the previous adhikaraNa, from 2.2.37-2.2.41). Shankara rejects the whole doctrine as vEda bAhya. He does not identify the pUja aspect of the shaivas to be according to the vEda.

Other early advaitins such as Sureshvara and Sarvajnatma muni also held Vishnu as supreme. Sureshvara calls Vishnu as "purANaH" and "shAshvataH". [BrUpBhV:2] [BrUpBhV:3]

Sarvajnatman (sarvaj~nAtma muni) begins his work "saN^kShepa shArIraka" (Sankshepa Sariraka) with an invocation to "murArEH paramaM padaM" (The supreme station of murAri, the slayer of the demon 'Mura'). After mentioning Vishnu as the Supreme Brahman time and again, and at a certain point disowning Vaisheshika and mAhEshvara/pAshupata theories as un-Vedic, Sarvajnatman ends his work with an invocation to Vishnu's Supremely Auspicious Form and Pastimes: [SSSM:1]

bhujaN^gamAN^ga shAyine vihaN^gamAN^ga gAmine

turaN^gamAN^ga bhedine namo rathAN^ga dhAriNe

                                                                                       [Concluding verse of Sankshepa Sariraka]

As for umA-mahEshvara, Sureshvara says that their mutual affection is laukIka i.e., worldly, and hence subject to the three modes of prakRti. This reference is found in Yajnavalkya's dialogue with Maitreyi, as told by Sureshvara in his Brihadaranyaka Bhashya Vartika. After commending Maitreyi thus (Br.Up.Bhas.Vart. 2.4.67-68):

"All persons, by their own nature, give up a person who is seeking liberation. You however do not wish to abandon me even while I am seeking for liberation, because of your intense devotion to me Unable to endure separation from me, you wish to follow me even in liberation with the full desire of being one with me.", 

Yajnavalkya, according to Sureshvaracharya, tells Maitreyi thus (2.4.69): [BrUpBhV:4]

atisnehApakR^iShTomA dehArdhaM shUlinaH shritA

tvaM tu sarvAtmanA AtmAnaM kR^itsnaM mAm Aptmuicchasi

Translation: Carried away by great love, Uma occupied half of the trident-bearer's (Shiva's) body body. You, however, wish to secure the whole of me, the Self, by your whole self.

Thus, all the early advaitins where Vaishnava in their theology and faith.

In light of all this, will our friend honestly and loudly proclaim that he rejects Adi Shankara, in addition to retracting the comment "Adi Shankara established 6 sects (Shanmatha Sthapana) viz.  Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Koumaram, Ganapatyam, Souram." from his introductory page? Will he stop using any of the stOtras praising Shiva as supreme that have been wrongly attributed to Adi Shankara in his arguments? It would be interesting to see how far our friend's honesty carries him.

[Back to contents]

Conclusion

Sri Vedanta Desika in tAtparya candrikA, commenting on the shlOka 18.66 of Bhagavad Gita, points out thus (the interested reader can do a fact check at the Gita Supersite 2.0 web page, the details of which are given in the References section):

"pishAca-rantideva-gupta-shaN^kara-yAdavaprakAsha-bhAskara-nArAyaNAryayaj~nasvAmi-prabhR^itibhiH svaM svaM matamAsthitaiH parashshatairbhAShyakR^idbhiH asmatsiddhAntatIrthakaraishca bhagavadyAmunAcAryabhAShyakArAdibhiravigItaparigR^ihIto.ayamatra sArArthaH -- bhagavAneva paraM tattvam, ananyasharaNairyathAdhikAraM tadekAshrayaNaM paramadharmaH -- iti"

Gist: "The conclusion 'Bhagavan (Narayana) is the Supreme Brahman. Taking refuge in Him alone, and resorting to none else is the highest of all dharmas.'-this has been unanimously accepted as the essence of the Bhagavad Gita by Shankara, Bhaskara, Yadavaprakasha, Narayanarya, Yajnasvami and others, though they were different in philosophy".

This is observation of Vedanta Desika is being conveniently hidden/forgotten by anti-Vaishnavites who claim that Ramanuja or other later Vaishnavas started maligning Shiva by preaching ananya bhakti and viShNu sarvOttamatvam .

Truth will always prevail no matter how hard detractors try. Anti-Vaishnavism will fail because it is anti-Veda. Bhagavan Manu states thus:

yā vedabāhyāḥ smṛtayo yāś ca kāś ca kudṛṣṭayaḥ /

sarvās tā niṣphalāḥ pretya tamoniṣṭhā hi tāḥ smṛtāḥ // 12.95 //

utpadyante cyavante ca yāny ato 'nyāni kāni cit /

tāny arvākkālikatayā niṣphalāny anṛtāni ca // 12.96 //

[All those traditions (smriti) and those despicable systems of philosophy, which are not based on the Veda, produce no reward after death; for they are declared to be founded on Darkness. All those (doctrines), differing from the (Veda), which spring up and (soon) perish, are worthless and false, because they are of modern date.]

So will the contents and the message of the "mahA pAshupata astra" blog be regarded, since it contains many newly invented and newly imagined explanations with newly fabricated logical devices that have no trace of existence in past traditions. They are also fundamentally flawed. 

Our opponent's blog contradicts the Vedas, pUrvAcAryas, and the Supreme Purusha of the Vedas. Thus, it is a work that knowledgeable and neutral people can read and have a good laugh at.

What to say of the crushing power and compassionate grace of Shri Lakshmi Narasimha, the parabrahman!

He indeed is the destroyer of the foes of vaiShNavas, shredding them into bits with the sharp nails of logic!

I am but an instrument at the Supreme Vishnu's hand; whatever good may come out of my writing will go to show His glory alone.

Humble prostrations to bhAgavatas of every sect who worship Lord Shriman Narayana as the Supreme.

|| sarvaM shrIman nArAyaNArpaNamastu ||

[Back to contents]

[Back to contents]

Appendices

The works of Shri Ramasubba Shastri of Tiruvisanallur

Coming soon! Keep checking this page periodically.

[Back to contents]

Appayya Dikshita’s desperation, confession, and confusion

Coming soon! Keep checking this page periodically.

[Back to contents]

References

Note: Most of the links provided with the references contain scanned pages (courtesy of Digital Library of India) from original books. The entire book can be downloaded from these links. Links from Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages are as [Göt]. English translations are indicated as (tr.) where available.

[BrSuBhS]

Adi Shankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya:

[Göt.:Chapter 1][Göt.:Chapter 2][Göt.:Chapter 3][Göt.:Chapter 4]

The Brahmasutra Shankara-Bhashyam, with the commentaries Ratnaprabha, Bhamati, and Nyayanirnaya of Shri-Govindananda, Vachaspati, and Anandagiri”, Ed. 2, edited by Mahadeva Shastri Barkare, Nirnaya Sagar press, Bombay, 1909. [Link] (orig.)

  1. Adhyaya 2, Pada 1, Sutra 1 (pp. 348), retrieved from [1] and [2] (tr.)

  1. Adhyaya 2, Pada 2, Sutra 42 (pp. 494-495), retrieved from [1], [2], and English (tr.) [3]

[BrSuBhB]

Bhaskara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya:

Brahma Sutra, with a commentary by Bhaskaracharya, Part I”, the Chowkhambika Sanskrit Series (A collection of rare & extraordinary Sanskrit works), vol. ??, no. 70, Vidya Vilas Press, Benaras, 1902. [Link] (orig.)

  1. Adhyaya 2, Pada 1, Sutra 1 (pp. 87-88), retrieved from [1] and [2]

[GBhS]

Adi Shankara’s Gita Bhashya:

[Göt.: up to Chapter 17]

The Bhagavad-Gita Bhashya”, Shri Shankara Granthavali - Complete Works of Sri Sankaracharya in the original Sanskrit, Volume 6, Samata Books, Madras, 1982 (first pub. 1910). [Link]

  1. Adhyaya 10, Shloka 8, pp. 283, retrieved from [1]
  2. Introductory section, pp. 4, retrieved from [1]
  3. Introductory section, pp. 1-2, retrieved from [1] and [2]
  4. Adhyaya 11, Shloka 43, pp. 328, retrieved from [1]
  5. Adhyaya 10, Shloka 2, pp. 280, retrieved from [1]
  6. Adhyaya 15, Shlokas 17 & 18, pp. 445, retrieved from [1] and [2]
  7. Adhyaya 15, Shloka 15, pp. 443, retrieved from [1]
  8. Adhyaya 9, Shlokas 23-25, pp. , retrieved from [1], [2], and [3]
  9. Adhyaya 6, Shloka 47, pp. 210, retrieved from [1]

The Bhagavad Gita with Eleven Commentaries”, critically edited and thoroughly revised second edition, The Proprietors of the Gujarati Printing Press, Bombay (Mumbai), 1935. [Link] (orig.)

“The Bhagavad-Gita, with the commentary of Sri ankaracharya”, English translation, edited by Alladi Mahadeva Sastri, The “Vedic Religion” series, Mysore, 1901. [Link] (tr.)

“Gita Supersite 2.0”, contains original Sanskrit verses, English translations, various commentaries in Sanskrit and their English translations, in Unicode Text format. URL: http://202.3.77.102/acquia/?q=node/20

[BrUBhS]

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Adi Shankara’s commentary

[Göt.]

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad - Shankara Bhashya with Anandagiri’s Tika”, edited by M. C. Apte, Anandashrama Sanskrit Series, no. 15, Anandashrama Press, 1891. [Link] (orig.)

  1. Verse 3, section 3.7 (antaryAmi brAhmaNa), pp. 450, retrieved from [1]

Text:

“ya īdṛgīśvaro nārāyaṇākhyaḥ, pṛthirvī pṛthivīdevatām, yamayati niyamayati svavyāpāre, antaro 'bhyantarastiṣṭhan, eṣa ta ātmā, te tava, mama ca sarvabhūtānāṃ”

[MuUBhS]

Mundaka Upanishad - Adi Shankara’s commentary

The Mundaka Upanishad with Sri Shankara’s commentary”, edited with notes by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, Holenarsipur, 1960. [Link] (orig.)

  1. Second Mundaka, Section 1, Verse 4, pp. 50-51, retrieved from [1] and [2]

Text:

ESha dEvO viShNur anantaH | prathamasharIrI trailOkyadEhOpadhiH sarvEShAM bhUtAnAm antarAtmA |

Mundaka Upanishad, with the commentary of Shankaracharya”, edited by Pt. Shridhara Shastri Pathak, Lokasangraha Press, Pune, 1925. [Link] (orig.)

[KUpBhS]

Katha Upanishad - Adi Shankara’s commentary

Kathakopanishad - Shankara’s Bhashya with Tika”, Anandashrama Sanskrit Series, no. 7, pub. by Hari Narayan Apte, Anandashrama Press, 1906. [Link] (orig.)

  1. Adhyaya 1, Valli (section) 3, Verse 9, pp. 66, retrieved from [1] 

Text:

tad viShNOr vyApanashIlasya brahmaNaH paramAtmanaH vAsudevAkhyasya paraM prakR^iShTam padaM sthAnaM satattvaM ityetad-asAv-Apnoti vidvAn ||

[SrkBh]

Srikantha Bhashya (commentary) on the Brahma Sutra

“Srikantha Bhasya or Commentary of Srikantha on the Brahma Sutras (in English)”, Doctrine of Srikantha vol. II, Pracyavani Research Series, vol. XI, ed. by Dr. Roma Chaudhuri, Calcutta, Apr. 1959. [Link] (tr.)

  1. Sutra 1.3.42, pp. 140, retrieved from [1]

[GuMS]

Gudhartha Dipika - a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita by Madhusudana Sarasvati

[Göt.]

  1. Adhyaya 15, Shloka 18 (verse 15.18), retrieved from [1]

[RVmsKD]

Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa

[Göt.]

  1. Verse 3.49, retrieved from [1]

[ChUpBhS]

Adi Shankara’s Bhashya (commentary) on the Chandogya Upanishad

[Göt.]

Samaveda’s Chandogya Upanishad, with the Bhashya of Shri Shankaracharya...”, Advaita Grantha Ratna Manjusha Ratna, no. 24, ed. by Pandit Subrahmanya Shastri, Maharishi Research Institute, Varanasi, 1982. [Link] (orig.)

  1. Verse 8.12.3, pp. 417, retrieved from [1]

[VSBhS]

Adi Shankara’s Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya

Visnusahasranama with the Bhasya of Sri Samkaracarya, translated into English”, ed. by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry, The Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1980. [Link] (orig. & tr.)

  1. Nama 848 of 1000, pp. 361-362, retrieved from [1] and [2]
  2. Nama 49 of 1000, pp. 109, retrieved from [3]

[BrUpBhV]

Suresvara’s Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya Vartika

Brihadaranyaka-upanishad-bhashya-vartikam of Srimat Suresvaracarya, with the gloss of Anandagiri called Shastraprakashika”, Parts 2 & 3, Anandashrama Sanskrit Series, no. 16, ed. by M. C. Apte, Anandashrama Press, 1894. [Link (part 3)] (orig.)

  1. Adhyaya 3, Brahmana 7, Verse 39-44, pp. 1286-1287, retrieved from [1] and [2]

  1. Adhyaya 1, Brahmana 4, Verse 135, pp. 135, retrieved from [1].

  1. Adhyaya 2, Brahmana 1, Verse 268, pp. 931, retrieved from [1].

  1. Adhyaya 2, Brahmana 4, Verse 69, pp. 1045, retrieved from [1].

[SSSM]

Sanksepa Sariraka of Sarvajnatma Muni (10th C)

Text with the commentary of Ramatirtha (orig.) in Sanskrit [Link]

  1. Verse 1.1, pp. 3, retrieved from [1] & concluding verse (4.63), retrived from [2]

[TASyB]

Sayana’s commentary on the Taittiriya Aranyaka

The Taittiriya  Aranyaka of the Black Yajur Veda, with the commentary of Sayanacharya”, ed. by Rajendralala Mitra, Bibliotheca Indica - A Collection of Oriental Works, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1872. [Link] (orig.)

  1. Prapathaka 10, Anuvaka 11, pp. 824, retrieved from [1]

  1. Prapathaka 3, Anuvaka 12, pp. 327, retrieved from [2]

[TABBB]

Bhatta Bhaskara’s commentary on the Taittiriya Aranyaka

The Taittiriya Aranyaka, with the commentary of Bhatta Bhaskara Misra”, Volumes I & II, ed. by A. Mahadeva Sastri and K. Rangacharya, Governmental Oriental Library Series, Bibliotheca Sanskrita, no. 26 & 27, Mysore, 1900 & 1902. [Link (Vol. I)] [Link (Vol. 2)]

  1. Prapathaka 3, Anuvaka 12, pp. 293, retrieved from [1]

  1. Prapathaka 6, Anuvaka 11, pp. 124, retrieved from [2]

[Nym]

Narayana Bhatta’s Narayaneeyam with commentary

The Narayaniya of Narayana Bhatta, with the commentary Bhaktapriya of Desamangala Varya”, ed. by T. Ganapati Sastri, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, no. XVIII, Travancore Government Press, 1912. [Link]

  1. Adhyaya 90, Shloka 5 and commentary, retrieved from [1]

[Back to contents]

Reading list for the interested

[SrKSL]

Srikanta Samalochanam:

Srikanta Samalochanam” (in Sanskrit orig.) by Varadacharya, Srimad Vedanta Desika Vihara Sabha, Mysore, 1963. [Link]

A work in Sanskrit that proves, among other things, the following:

  1. The so-called Srikanta Bhashya that poses to be of pre-Ramanuja time is actually a work of the 16th century or later.
  2. Shiva-Vishishtadvaita is a recently devised bogus system, and that Vishishtadvaita has always been a monopoly of Vaishnavas traditionally.
  3. Srikanta Bhashya steals ideas from Ramanuja’s Sribhashya. This has been pointed out by Purushottama and Giridhara of the Vallabha school of Vedanta, who call Srikanta as “rAmAnuja mata cOra (one who stole ideas from Ramanuja’s siddhanta)”.
  4. Advaitins should reject Appayya Dikshita’s Shiva-paratva works, since they contradict and condemn Adi Shankara in many places.
  5. Adi Shankara was Vaishnava, and did not write stotras praising Shiva, Ganapati, Ambika, Skanda, etc. and he did not wear Shaivite ashes (vibhoothi) all over his body.

[SVaiKI]

“Sankararum Vainavamum” -- A work in Tamil that establishes beyond doubt that Adi Shankara held only Vishnu/Narayana as Saguna Brahman.

Sankararum Vainavamum (சங்கரரும் வைணவமும்)”, Sri S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar (Puthur/Puttur Swami - editor of Srivaishnava Sudarshanam), Sri Vaishnava sri, Srirangam, 1965-1971. [Link]

[Back to contents]