RE: Vishnu and Shiva (to Nomadeva's first mail)

[Guest guest]

>

> Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr]

> Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:45 AM

> vedic astrology

> [vedic astrology] Re: Vishnu and Shiva (to

Nomadeva's first mail)

 

Dear PVR garu

 

> Here is the rejoinder that I promised. I may not be

able to give such

> detailed reply in future though, as

> my plate is too full (actually overflowing :-) ).

But please feel free to post a detailed reply.

 

Hope you don't mind the delay in reply. I will try to

reply as concisely as possible (due to time

constraints), but still do expect the mails to be

longer; the person supporting the siddhAnta (in this

case, my siddhAnta) will always have more work to do

:-)

 

As many mails have indicated so far, I too feel that

this topic is off the list objective. If you think so

too, we can take it offline.

 

> > Yet despite all that, the conclusion of Shiva and

> > Vishnu being equal or whatever is a flawed and

arises

>

> I want to clarify my position a bit. In my view,

Vishnu and Shiva are

> different expressions of the same Brahman or

Paramatma and they are

> incomparable. In limited contexts, some Srutis or

Smritis may call either

> superior or equal, but, in an absolute context, they

are incomparable

> and different forms of the same Brahman.

 

That's fine, just wanted to tell you that it is not

the advaitic position. Brahman, 'in the absolute

context' does not have any forms, for Vishnu and Shiva

to be different forms. It is not even that they are

different 'names' of the same Brahman; for Brahman

would no more be nirguNa (to be precise, nirvisheSha)

as a name always implies a quality (atleast in our

culture); an unpalatable idea to advaita. That is why,

the Upanishadic quote 'nAmarUpa vihAya' is oft

referred (wrongly so in my opinion) to express the

idea that Brahman has no form or name. Unfortunately

or otherwise, your idea that formless refers to forms

other than that of 4D space-time continuum, is not

found in advaitic literature. nirAkAra is taken

literally.

 

So, as of now, I will take it that your position is

different from advaitic nirvisheSha brahman. However,

notice one contradiction in your mail: your position

that Vishnu and Shiva are forms of Brahman contradicts

the idea that they are Brahman's forms with various

combinations of gunas. Brahman is said to be above

guNAs and yet His forms are with guNAs? So then, that

would make Brahman different from His forms! The most

important objection to all that there is no scriptural

support to your idea; pls show me a _shruti_

supporting your point that Brahma is Brahman+rajo

guNa, Vishnu = Brahman+sattva guNa and Shiva =

Brahman+tamo guNa. Another problem would be to

reconcile such a position with shrutis such as

'tadviShNoH paramaM padaM' or 'yasmAt.h paraM

nAparamasti' (Shvetashvatara), for, in your thesis,

there would be something which is 'para' to Vishnu or

Rudra or whoever.

 

I will make my position clear: (This will answer some

questions raised in the latter portion of your mail).

This is the dvaita school of Vedanta, as given by Sri

Madhvacharya and I hope you won't just brush it under

(a wrongly imagined) the concept of 'both advaita and

dvaita are correct'. To say so, one must compromise on

both doctrines. Search the net, and you will find such

attempts at reconciliation. Many advaitins (like

Vivekananda, for example) have reverberated

Gaudapada's words that advaita can shelter all

philosophies, but that is an empty boast. Neither does

Gaudapada nor do ppl like above understand the dialect

of dvaita -- IMO.

 

Vishnu, the Lord of Lakshmi, is supreme and absolutely

independent. He is full of infinite auspicious

qualities such as infinite knowledge, bliss etc. He

has no limitations (Having an infinite form is hardly

a limitation). He is the basis of everything that

exists. Starting from Brahma, Garuda, Sesha, Rudra (or

if you wish, Shiva), everybody else is a jIva, an

individual soul; all of them are eternally different

from Him and are absolutely dependent on Him. This

aspect of 'dependence' is one of the things that makes

them inferior to Vishnu. Other aspects are (whatever

is common to Jivas): limitedness, ignorance, lack of

complete knowledge of Vishnu, being subject to birth

and death, limited bliss, being subject to happiness

AND misery.

Narayana, Krishna, Rama and his avataras (as stated in

scriptures) are just Supreme. There is no dimunition

in any of His qualities in his incarnations vide

'paraM bhAvamajAnanto mamAvyayamanuttamam.h' and

'pUrNamadaH pUrNamidaM'.

 

Vishnu is the source of all qualities in other devatAs

like Brahma, Rudra, Indra etc. These names indicate a

quality, which is actually present in the Lord. In

relation to the matter at hand, the shivatva of shiva

(auspiciousness) is actually Vishnu's, as indicated in

the kAThakAraNyaka reference I gave. His being

'sarva-shabda-vAchya' is also known by the Bhallaveya

shruti reference. Which is why 'ekaM sat viprA bahudhA

vadanti'.

 

Shiva is one of the 11 Rudras. However, when the word

'Rudra' is used without an adjective, it is only the

pradhAna-rudra that is meant and not others. This is a

well known rule: Whenever Gita is mentioned without

the use of any adjective, it is BhagavadGita that is

referred to, whenver vyAsa is mentioned without any

adjective, it is vAsiShTha vyAsa that is referred so

on (There is a quote to this effect. I will dig it up

if you are interested). This kind of usage of

referring to the primary member without an adjective

is a norm, which is why the Rudra of 'namakaM

chamakaM' is said to refer to the primary one; not

simply because there is no harm in doing so.

 

This usage is also seen in the Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad [1.4.11] that, while describing the creation

of the 'Shiva' as the presiding deity of kshatriyas:

yAnyetAni devatrA kshatrANIndro varuNaH somo rudraH..'

and uses the word rudra to describe shiva. It later

describes the creation of other 10 rudras as presiding

deity of vaishyas: yAnyetAni devajAtAni gaNasha

AkhyAyante | vasavo rudrA AdityA vishve devA maruta

iti | Notice the plural here 'rudrAH' and the singular

'rudra' in the earlier para. The point is that

scripture refers to Shiva as Rudra.

 

In any case, the point that Shiva/Rudra (For me, the

referrent of the words is same. :-)) is subject to

death, to be precise, was beheaded by Indra (actually

Vishnu in Indra), as described in the kAThakAraNyaka,

stands. For, this Rudra is later to be said to be fond

of 'abhyaJNjana' and that a name he is fond of is

'bhagavan' (220). The later verses also describes

names Rudra/Shiva is fond of. The Kurma Purana

supports the same idea:

 

raxitaM naiva shaknoShi svAtmAnamapi shaN^kara |

yuddhe kiM jeShyasi tvaM mAM pUrvavR^ittaM mayochyate

||

yadA madbhaktashakrasya yaj~nadhvamsaH kR^itastvayA |

tadA.ahaM te shirashChitvA tatkratU raxito mayA |

tato mAM prArthayAmAsa manobhIShTAya pArvatI |

tadA vai matprasAdena prANAn.h lebhe bhavAn.h shiva ||

 

(Vishnu says:) Hey Shankara, you are not capable of

protecting even yourself. How can you win over me in a

war? I shall recount an old account (pUrvavR^ittaM).

You came to ruin the yajna performed by Indra. Then, I

protected that Yajna, having got your head severed.

Then, to obtain you back, Parvati prayed to me; after

which, you got your life due to my grace.

 

This version should be acceptable because this idea is

corroborated by shruti and, also by purANa

(itihAsapurANAbhyam vedaM samupabR^imhayet --

ityukteH).

 

> > However, these

> > devatAs, be it Shiva or Indra or Agni or Pushan,

are

> > all substitutes to Vishnu, who is Brahman.

>

> Now, please give me a quote that says Vishnu is

Brahman.

 

Just see, even if I get such a quote, it is not of

much or any help _to me_; Isn't it? That is because it

is effectively same as shruti vAkya such as 'sarvaM

khalvidaM brahma' (the fifth 'mahAvAkya' you missed).

If one is nitpicky, one could retort that such a

statement only means that Vishnu is equal to the four

faced brahma. Why we cannot take these mahAvAkyas at

their face-value, I will come to that later.

 

So, how was Vishnu being Brahman proven then? You have

missed the main passage. The way is to go by laxaNa;

asAdhAraNa-laxaNa to be precise. That is, we have use

the characteristics of Brahman, something unique that

gives us a clue. I had covered this in the earlier

mail, but will explain again.

 

Ramanujacharya (No, I am not a vishishtadvaitin), in

his Vedarthasangraha, refers to the Narayanopanishat:

yamantaH samudre kavayo vayanti and the subsequent

passages to show that (a) the Being on the ocean is

higher than everybody else (b) that He does not have

any Lord, © the mention of creation of Chaturmukha

Brahma (adbhyaH sambhUto hiraNyagarbho which rejects

the possibility of Chaturmukha Brahma as parabrahma)

and (d) that the mention of 'hrIshcha te lakshmIshcha

patnyau' and thereby points out the unique

characteristic of Brahman is His having 'lakshmI and

'hrI' as wives; which is Lord Narayana. (hrI refers to

bhUdevi).

 

Your thesis further down this mail that Narayana or

Sadashiva is the actual parabrahman, while Vishnu or

Shiva are certain forms of Brahman associated with

Gunas is rejected by shruti here. How is that? This

Being, whom the wise consider as Brahman, is said to

be the husband of lakshmI: Parabrahman with relations?

It also shows that Lakshmi is NOT parabrahman; so the

direct meaning of 'sarvaM khalvidaM brahma' does not

apply!

 

Some more points to note: Nearly every devata (even

their vehicles at times) are praised as Brahma in this

passage. But the phrase 'yo deveshvadhi deva eka'

clearly says it is ONLY one who is the greatest of

them all. If all of them were actually one or

different forms of one, the Upanishad would NOT have

said 'kasmai devAya haviShA vidhema' and does not make

sense to say 'adhi eka eva'? Moreover, if they all

were different forms of the same Brahman (who is said

to be possessing anantarUpa: that's an anti-thesis for

ParaBrahman being nirakara), how can it be that any

form is associated with a prakriti guNa (this is your

thesis; not Shankaracharya's!)?

 

Sri Madhvacharya's brahmasutrabhashya and other works

have a more complete proof in this regard. For, it is

shown that the ambhraNI sUkta (or the devI sUkta)

informs us of a lady whosoever she wishes, would make

Him as Brahma or Ugra (another name of Rudra. Check up

Nirukta if you wish to), a sage or a wise man. She

also tells us that the source of her powers is the

Being on the Ocean. This brings in two points: In

addition to Her being more powerful than Brahma, Rudra

and others, She is different from 'source of her

powers' and more importantly, 'Source of her powers'

is different from Brahma, Rudra ityAdi.

 

He also quotes Bhallaveya shruti that says: nAmAni

sarvAni yamAvishanti taM vai viShNuM

paramamudAharanti. I shall not get into this majorly,

but the idea is that Vishnu is the repository of all

qualities, denoted by names of other gods too. You

will find a parallel in the Moksha dharma section of

Shanti parva: When Arjuna asks:

 

vedeSu sapurANeSu yAni guhyAni karmabhiH

teSAM niruktaM tvatto.ahaM zrotum icchAmi kezava

na hy anyo vartayen nAmnAM niruktaM tvAm Rte prabho

 

Sri Krishna says:

Rgvede sayajurvede tathaivAtharvasAmasu | purANe

sopaniSade tathaiva jyotiSe.arjuna |

sAMkhye ca yogazAstre ca Ayurvede tathaiva ca | bahUni

mama nAmAni kIrtitAni maharSibhiH

gauNAni tatra nAmAni karmajAni ca kAni cit | niruktaM

karmajAnAM ca zRNuSva prayato.anagha | (this is in

Harvard-Kyoto convention).

 

This idea is also there in the Rigveda: yo devAnAM

nAmadhA eka eva: He is only one who is the bearer of

names of all Gods. And who is this deity? The

subsequent verses clarify that it is He, from whose

"navel" all these worlds have emanated.

 

Thus, noting that Brahman is said to have the

exclusive characteristic of resting on the Ocean, one

notes that it is indeed the well-known Vishnu who is

Brahman.

 

> Of course, the four mahavakyas (great sayings) of

srutis are:

>

> Aham Brahmaasmi (I am Brahman).

> Tat tvam asi (You are that (Brahman)).

> Ayam aatmaa Brahmaa (This indwelling self is

Brahman).

> Prajnaanam Brahmaa (Supreme knowledge is Brahman).

>

> Using these, you can establish that every soul is

Brahman. But, that

> will not do it for me, as you are distinguishing

between Vishnu and Shiva

> and saying that only Vishnu is Brahman and Shiva is

not Brahman. So

> I need an explicit quote.

 

If I were to believe in the meanings of the four

statements you have provided, it would be silly to say

anybody is greater than anybody else. The problem is

the four statements are misinterpreted. I will give a

brief rebuttal of the interpretation:

 

1. The speaker of first statement is Brahman Himself,

not anybody else. So, Brahman's statement that 'He is

Brahman' is taken, quite thoughtlessly so, to apply to

every other soul.

 

2. None of the nine illustrations given there suit the

interpretation. It has been accepted by advaitins such

as Vachaspati Mishra. It is, anyway, not a

straightforward interpretation. A technique called

'jahajalladalaxaNa' is applied.

 

3. The Atma in Mandukya Upanishad is said to possess

19 heads in the waking state. So, it cannot refer to

the 'indwelling self': Sheer commonsense.

 

4. I will leave this one out as it is 'neutral' to our

discussion.

 

5. 'sarvaM khalvidaM brahma' has been dealt with,

partially.

 

Btw, the idea of 'pancha-maha-vakyas' was developed by

later advaitins, not Shankaracharya. It is absent in

his works.

 

> tasyaassikhaayaa madhye paramaatmaa vyavasthitah

> sa brahma sa shivah sa harih sendrah soksharah

paramah swaraat

>

> This talks about the paramatma (supreme being) and

says that "He is

> Brahma, he is Shiva, he is Hari (Vishnu), he is

Indra, he is imperishable, absolute and supreme".

> You said "Vishnu, who is Brahman". But the above

will make me say that Shiva is also Brahman

> (or paramaatmaa).

 

He is said to be the possesor of all deities named

there. Identity cannot be meant because: first it is

said that 'yena Adityastapati'-- by whom (or by whose

powers) the Aditya burns; And later, on the same lines

as 'sa brahmA sa shivaH..', it is said that He is

Surya : tadevAgnistadvAyuH ..tatsUryas.. How much

sense is there in saying 'It is that Being, who is

same as Aditya, because of whom, Aditya burns'?

 

So, does it make Vishnu different from nArAyaNa? No,

'nArayaNAya vidmahe ... tanno viShNuH prachodayAt.h'.

No other deity in the list has an explicit reference

to 'nArAyaNa'.

 

> > Consider this from RgVeda (7th Mandala):

> > asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viShNoreShasya

prabhR^ithe

> > havirbhiH |

> > vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM

> > vartirashvinAvirAvat.h ||

> >

> > This one clearly says that Rudra got his

'rudratva'

> > from Vishnu. Even Sayanacharya (who is otherwise

> > obsessed with giving mImAsa readings everywhere)

>

> (1) If Sayanacharya did not give mImAmsa readings

for this verse, does

> it prove that this verse is crystal-clear? Honestly,

to me, this verse is not at all crystal clear.

 

Siiir, that was an unnecessary comment from myside.

Pardon me. I honestly believe that clarity has nothing

to do with whether Sayana has given mImAmsa readings

or not.

 

> If it is so clear to you, can you

> kindly give prati-padaartham (word-by-word meanings

from Sanskrit to English)?

 

The following is the sanskrit text of the translations

provided by Sri Vadiraja, a saint in Mâdhva tradition:

 

 

mILhuShaH miha sechane iti dhAtoH

bhaktAnAmabhIpsitasakalapuruShArthasechakasya eShasya

iShu ichChAyAmiti dhAtoH AsamantAdapratihatechChasya |

devasya krIDAdiguNavishiShTasya | asya --

sakalajagadbhinnatvena akAra shabdavAchyasya viShNoH |

havirbhiH -- yAj~nIyahavirbhiH | prabhR^ithe --

prakarSheNa bharaNe 'tR^itIyo.atishaya' iti sUtrAt.h

bhR^itameva bhR^ithaM tasminnudarabharaNe kR^ite sati

sampUrNapUjayAmityarthaH | vaya bandhana iti dhAtoH

vayA ahaN^kArarUpeNa bandhako rudraH |

rudrAntaravyAvR^ittyarthaM vayA ityuktaM | rudriyaM

rudrasambandhi | samudriyamitivat.h idamapi padaM

boddhavyam.h | mahitvaM mahimAnaM vide vivide hi lebhe

hItyarthaH | tena kAraNena he ashvinau devau yuvAmapi

viShNorhavirbhiH prabhR^ite kR^ite sati | irAvat.h

'irA ityannanAmA' iti brAhmaNavachanat.h annavat.h

yaj~nAhutirUpAnnavaditi yAvat.h | vartiH vartanaM

vR^itu vartana iti dhAtoH sarpiH

padavannapuMsakapadamidaM AuNAdike Disanpratyaye

kR^ite sati jAtaM | yAsiShTaM -- ayAsiShTaM

prApnavantau sthaH | mahAsamartho rudro.api yato

viShNu archanenaiva mahimAnaM prApa |

tato.apyatinIchayoryuvayoH viShNu archanenaiva

yaj~nabhoktR^itvAkhyavR^ittirAsIditi kiM vAchyamiti

bhAvaH

|..... dR^iShTAntatayokteH rudrasyArchakatvaM

viShNorarchyatvaM rudrapadadAtR^itvaM cha siddham.h |

 

In simple words:

Rudra, who binds Jivas by inducting Ahamkara i.e.,

attachment of self interest, got his glory only by

worshipping the Supreme God Vishnu who bestows all

desires of men, whose will is infallible and who is

called 'a' as he is distinct from all others.

 

You might object to the translation of 'asya' as

'akAra shabdavAchyasya'. That is done to avoid

'punarukti' ('asya' and 'eShasya' serve the same

purpose)

 

> (2) Even assuming this verse makes it crystal-clear

that Rudra got his

> Rudratva from Vishnu, does it prove

> that Vishnu is "superior" to Rudra? Superior in what

way? What exactly is the definition of superiority?

 

Superiority is in the sense of determining other

devatA's prowess/greatness.

 

> For example, RigVeda verse 2.33.10 says that Rudra

preserves the

> entire universe and is the most powerful

> of all gods. What if Rudra got his powers from

Vishnu? If he is still more

> powerful than Vishnu, who do you call Vishnu

superior?

 

Au contraire, in this passage

 

stuhi shrutaM gartasadaM yuvAnaM mRgaM na

bhImamupahatnumugram.h |

mRlA jaritre rudra stavAno.anyaM te asman ni vapantu

senAH ||

 

sage Gritsamada says: O Rudra (rudra) , you pray

(stuhi) to that (deity) who resides in the cave (of

heart) (gartasadaM), who is ever young (yuvAnaM), and

who took a fierce form to kill (the asura)

(upahatnumugram.h) and killed (the asura) by pouncing

(on Him) and who is conveyed by the entire Veda

(shrutaM: shrutyA dyotaM). Who else is this, but the

Lord Narasimha!

 

> of superiority and inferiority is meaningless. I am

talking your language

> (language of grading gods) just to make a point.]

 

The Aiteraya Brahmana starts with this: agnir vai

devAnAm avamo viShNuH paramaH. There comes the

gradation.

 

> So give me a quote from srutis relating to Shiva (or

Maheswara) and

> Vishnu.

 

Don't you think it is my time to ask for a little

favor: Can you give me a shruti that talks of Shiva

vis-a-vis Rudra ?

 

> > Consider this from the kAThakAraNyaka (100): Here,

the devatas

> > interact with a Being, whose identity they seek to

know. That Being

> > says 'ahaM rudro.ahamindro.ahamAdityo.ahaM

sarvasyAvayA haraso

> > divyasyeti'. He later clarifies what this means by

the

> > following statements: 'yadruvanna

> > abhyadvadattatrudrasya rudratvam.h' and 'sa

> > shivo.abhavat.h | tachChivasya shivatvam.h'. He

> > proclaims Himself to be the possessor of all guNas

>

> Well, again you are equating Rudra and Shiva.

 

Ok, but 'tachChivasya shivatvaM' proves my point.

 

> Secondly, I am not suggesting that Shiva and Vishnu

are absolutely

> identical. I am only suggesting that > they are

different forms of the

> same Supreme Being (Paramatma or Brahman) and they

are incomparable.

 

See, if they were the forms of the same brahman, you'd

say they are equal; you wouldn't say 'they are

incomparable'.

 

> Narayana here is nothing but the Brahman (the

supreme being). That

> Brahman is above the 3 gunas and has > manifested in

several forms,

> including Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Agni, Indra etc,

with various

> combinations of > gunas. Thus, Vishnu is of sattva

guna, but the

 

Can you pls give me a _shruti_ quote that considers

Vishnu to be of sattva guNa? In any case, it should

not be difficult to interpret; just like in Gita 2.45,

it is said:

 

traiguNyaviShayA vedA nistraiguNyo bhavArjuna |

nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogaxema AtmavAn.h ||

 

The first line behooves one to be outside the purview

of three guNAs; the second one says that one should

ALWAYS be situated in 'sattva'.

 

Btw, by saying that both Vishnu and Shiva are

infinite, yet one is situated in sattva guNa and the

other in tamo guNa, makes Vishnu supreme, even in your

thesis.

 

> As the Kenopanishat quote given by Sarbani in a

previous post says,

> "whether Brahman is this god or that

> god is debatable (meemaamsyam)".

 

That interpretation was wrong, by which, it is held

that, as long as one keeps debating about Supreme

Brahman, one is supposed to have known the Supreme

Brahman!!

 

The mail has grown really long. I will end this with

one last point:

 

> > Statements such as 'ekaM sad.h viprA bahudhA

vadanti'

> > is no obstacle. That is because Vishnu is the

primary referrent of

> > all names of devatas. So says the

>

> You need to really establish that better. The

statement "ekam sadviprA

> bahudhA vadanti" is indeed a serious obstacle to

those who want to

> grade gods. Mind you, I am not even arguing that all

gods are the same

> > (even though the verse says that!), I am simply

suggesting that your

> way of grading gods into a superiority list is

wrong.

 

That Vishnu is the referrent of all names; a shruti

vAkya says that. (Actually there are other shrutis.

More later, if needed).

 

The verse cannot be interpreted as 'It is one reality

that is called by many names' because (i) it is not

'ekaM satya' and (ii)in that case, the all names

should have been in same vibhakti (case) as the names.

It should have been either 'indraH mitraH (note this

means sUrya, not a friend), varuNaH... ekaH ... OR

'.... divyaM suparNo garutmAnaM | ekaM

satAM/satyaM...'. This is just food for thought. Often

grammatical details are not treated with care.

 

In my interpretation, it would be 'it is one, who is

referred when Indra is referred to, when Agni is

referred to.....

 

The idea of gradation is quite vedic: agnir vai

devAnAm avamo viShNuH paramaH (Ait.Bra. 1.1.1). Btw,

some allegories in the Upanishads prove this point.

 

> It was a great pleasure to reply to your mail!

 

it was quite a pleasure for me too.

 

Regards,

Nomadeva

 

P.S. I just saw a mail from Sanjay-jI that it was

Shankaracharya who put the Gita verses together. That

is not the case. The Padma Purana gives a detailed

account of 'gItA mAhAtmya'. Just to suit one's thesis,

it will have to be said that Padmapurana was written

later than Shankaracharya (!) or these verses were

introduced after him.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.