swamy,

During my study, adiyen came across an advaita site, on the subject. Since the reference was on a vaishnavite text, I referred to the respective chapter in the book written by a Sri Vaishnavite and checked the content with advaita site. The meaning found to be same.

I normally check with the meaning (word by word) of the hymn rather than the commentary, because commentary will have the influence of the school of thought of the commentator. It may not be totally correct approach. adiyen do not have deep knowledge in spirituality. Hence, this approach will filter out others’ influence and can get unbiased view. I try to judge and take the detail appropriately.

Whenever I come across some detail from other side, I try to explore about the correctness instead of totally avoiding. This will give more satisfaction and unshakeable confidence.

The subject details of chapter 125 could not be found in Hari vamsam audio.

adiyen

Swāmi , here’s an excerpt from an article I read.
“Harivamṣa 3.88. 61, 61, 62 which are addressed by Maheśwara during the Kailāsa yātra episode:
nāmāni tava govinda yāni loke mahānti ca ।
tānyeva mama nāmāni nātra kāryā vicāraṇā ॥
Note what that shloka says. It only says all names apply to both, not that they are identical. This is because Shiva begins this section by first saying the following,

ahaM tvaM sarvago deva tvamevAham janArdana |

“sarvatragO” explains why Shiva is saying this. It is a reference to all-pervasiveness. This all-pervasiveness is because everything is his body, and just as an Atma pervades a body, and all names of the body refer to the Atman, Bhagavan has pervaded Shiva and thus names of Shiva refer to Hari. Names of Hari refer to Shiva on this account as well, because when the Atman is being referred to, it includes the body as well.

So, explaining the whole shloka:

āvayorantaraṃ nāsti śabdairarthairjagatpate ।
nāmāni tava govinda yāni loke mahānti ca ॥
tānyeva mama nāmāni nātra kāryā vicāraṇā ।
tvadupāsa jagannātha sevāstu mama gopate ॥
yaśca tvāṃ dveṣṭi deveśa sa māṃ dveṣṭi na saṃśayaḥ ।
na tadasti vinā deva yatte virahitaṃ kvacit ॥
yadāsīdyacca varteta yacca bhāvi jagatpate ।
sarvaṃ tvaṃ deva deveśa vinā kiñcitvayā na hi ॥

Meaning: O Lord who possesses the Universe as his body! there is no difference between us in terms of words and their meanings (which extend to the antaryAmin by virtue of body-soul relationship). (On account of this), Whatever names are applicable to you are applicable to me too. Whoever worships you worships me too. Whoever hates you, he hates me too. There is nothing whatsoever that is without you. Whatever was, Whatever is, Whatever will be, is due to you. You are everything; there is nothing without you, O Lord of the Gods.

By the term “AvayorantaraM nasti”, note that Shiva says there is no difference between them *in terms of words and meanings*. So, he is not saying there is no difference at all or implying identity here, but is proving sharIrAtma bhAva. Since Shiva is the body and the Lord is the innerself (yasya Atma sharIraM), both body and soul are denoted by the same name, just as “Jack” denotes both Jack’s body and Jack’s self.

So, when one says “Shiva”, it can refer to the deva, and also to his antaryAmin, nArAyaNa. Similarly, when one says “nArAyaNa”, it can refer to the Lord and also Rudra-sharIraka-paramAtma, of whom Rudra is his body and hence an inseparable attribute. This explains how the Lord can do a penance by praising Shiva (the praise goes to his antaryAmin only) and how the shAstras (such as the shiva stuti in the bhAgavataM) refer to Shiva with attributes of supremacy (again, only refers to his antaryAmin).

Note that Shiva clearly says in the end “sarvaṃ tvaṃ deva deveśa vinā kiñcitvayā na hi” – You are everything, and nothing exists – This has two implications:

1 )Firstly, by saying “sarvam tvam”, Shiva clarifies that just as everything is him, so is Shiva (aham tvam) and this is because of all-pervasiveness (sarvatrago). That is, the Lord who is sarvAntaryAmin (sarvaM) and rudrAntaryAmin (ahaM) is Krishna only (tvaM).

2) Without him, there is nothing – Just as a body cannot exist without the Atma, neither can “Sarvam” (everything) or Shiva.

Even in the Gita, Arjuna says in the 11th chapter, “as you pervade everything, you are everything!”.

By addressing the Lord as “Jagatpati”, Shiva clarifies that there is no identity, but the above oneness due to sharIrAtma bhAva. “pati” means possessing the Jagat (as his body/inseparable attribute).

He is everything, meaning, he is the innerself of everything which is his body. Without him, there is nothing, meaning, just as a body cannot exist without the self, nothing can exist without being his body.” Is this the sloka Devareer were talking about?

Srimate Raamanujaye Namaha,

Swami, interesting to see the above detailed post with the actual verses.

I have one query, some of the explanations above seem to be applicable to normal jeevatamas like us also, but we know that we cannot recite the same slokas Lord Shiva recited and claim the same. So perhaps there is more inner meaning to these slokas?

Adiyen

swamy, 

Thank you for your response.

I quoted the reference :

“In Hari vamsam, during the description of the war with Bana asuran (Part 2, chapter 125), there is discussion between Brahma and Sage Markandeya on Siva and Vishnu.”

and not 

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

The verses referred here are 2.125.23 to 60.

“(Note: There is an interpolation in the Harivamsha by some shaivas here ( The Banasura charithram, just preceding the part where Skanda battles with Bhagavān) in the form of a “hari-hara stuti”. Even though this stuti does not pose a problem and can be interpreted as that of vishNu, this is clearly an interpolation since no acharya has quoted it. In addition, it disrupts the continuity of the battle, is riddled with absurd errors and even contradicts the above slOkas. The stuti is also clearly modelled after appayya dikShita’s works, which shows it is of later period. This has already been addressed in the article on interpolations in the mahAbhArata)”. I guess this must answer Devareer’s question.

Thank you for your efforts. If you have the reference, kindly share the same.

These verses are from Brahma after the battle is over. On the advice of Brahma, Siva stops the battle. After that these discussion between Brahma, sage Markandeya and sage Naradha takes place. Hence, there is no question of disrupting the battle. (Ref Hari Vamsam part 2 by U.Ve. S. Ramanuja Iyengar).

Whether utterance of Bhagavat Gita disrupted the battle?.

I have observed mention of “inserted after later period” on several texts. One important text being Purusha suktam which is stated to be added later on (by some people, probably who do not accept Narayanan). More over, commentary of Purusha suktam saying Siva as Supreme is also available.

Having wanted to confirm some detail, I have checked in the case of one of the Upanishad. Several verses (same verses) are not covered in the upanyasam by both visishitadvaita and advaita acharyas. In this case, I could understand the reason for not covering. But, later on there are chances that some body (probably) to say that those verses are not in the Upanishad itself (a wild guess, only for example, but could be proved wrong).

So, whenever I read some abedhas, I check with visishitadvaita, advaita and saivism, depending on the detail. I look with open mind to understand properly and to know about the contributing factor for the abedha.

Yes, finally we have reached 2000 members / accounts – we were in 1900’s when enpani audios were reaching 2000, i was expecting this to happen at the same time as 2000th audio, but finally after 328 days 80-100 accounts/members have joined..so it is like one account for every 3 or 4 days in average.

Just now made a special post.

Can you give the link, if you are aware?.

What I have mentioned in this thread is the Siva – Vishnu abedham. This I believe is not to be compared with the six vaarthai of kanchi perumal. The bedham referred in this six vaarthai indicates the existence of bedham between atma and Brahmam.

If you listen to Velukkudi Swamy property in this video, he refers to equality of all forms as Vishnu. Only shareera bedham applies as Shiva or Brahma.

You don’t get a one line answer for everything . You have to apply your logic and Guru’s explanations.

adiyen read and understood about Swaroopa Bedham and  Shareera Bedham. But the point of discussion is on Hari Vamsam, chapter 125 and would like clarification based on the slokas of Hari Vamsam.

I quote one of the sloka:

sloka 2-125-41 :

rudrasya paramo viShNurviShNoshcha paramaH shivaH |

eka eva dvidhA bhUto loke charati nityashaH ||2-125-41

Meaning :

The supreme lord of rudra (shiva) is viShNu and the supreme lord of viShNu

is shiva (rudra). The same lord is moving in the world always in two forms

Here, it is mentioned that “the supreme lord of viShNu is shiva” i.e., shiva is greater than Vishnu.

That’s why Narayana nama is said to be supreme & incomparable. My old friends told Vishnu Nama is a little less than NarayaNa nama in terms of comparison.

It could be PaNiNi grammar or the 2nd capital “N” narayaNa. See if it appears in comparison & let me know adiyen.

ShivAya Vishnu RoopAya
Vishnu RoopAya Shiva

Some people quote above shloka from some upanishad saying they are equal

We all know Vishnu in Sahasranaman VishNu has the name Shiva & Rudra. There are various types of Rudras. VishNu claims supremacy in each one of them.

We should understand, even if it comes to Shiva, Vishnu holds supremacy in the best form of Shiva.

VishisAdvaitam says Perumal is the best of best

Kurai ondrum illadha Govinda

He is the poorNan

So anything lesser cannot be attributed to Vishnu

Yedho BEST adhu dhAn nAn says VishNu

If you say Shiva greater than VishNu even for name sake I am that Shiva says VishNu.

Sriman Narayana anthar bahischa tath sarvam
He is in the best of form
He is the best of non forms

Even when Shiva giving markandeya Maharishi chiranjeevi pattam he enquired antharyAmi NArAyaNa (ref Ranganatha Paduka)

So let there be no confusion. Perumal dhan great

Perumal is everything
Everything not Perumal

I am not brahmam
Brahmam can be me

Nambaduvan charithiram says Narayana should not even be compared with others it is the greatest Sin

Let any shloka say anything, we know our Sriman Narayana

Uyar Vara uyar nalam udayavan

Ini arindhen eesarkkum naan mugarkkum deivam

Ivlo irukku nama edhukku manasa kalaya vidanum?

Dasanudasan

The discussion is not to get clarification on the supremacy of Narayanan. It is only on the quotes mentioned in the scripture.

It is to be noted that the context of discussion is after the war by Lord Krishna. Hence, the comparison and other quotes are w.r.to Krishna. It has been a general practice to use Vishnu or Krishna interchangeably for Narayanan. There are several hymns in this chapter from 2-125-23 to 2-125-58, praising both the Lords. The names Vishnu, Kesava, Hari, lakShmIpataye, one having thousand heads and dAmodara are used in them.

I am quoting two verses from them, since quoting all those verses will be lengthy.

Sloka : 2-125-23

na cha tau pashyate kechidyoginau yogamAgatau |

eko brahma tathA kR^itvA pashya.NllokAnpitAmahaH

Meaning :

No one else could realize that both kR^iShNa and shiva are one with yoga. Only the grandfather brahma who has seen the world has made them so, realized them as one.

There is a quote of Lord Narayanan in the same chapter.

Sloka 2-125-37 :

kartR^ikAraNakartArau kartR^ikAraNakArakau |

bhUtabhavyabhavau devau nArAyaNamaheshvarau ||

Meaning :

Both the lords, nArAyaNa (viShNu) and the great lord (shiva) are the creators of the creation and reason. They are the creators of all beings. Both of them are the past, future and the present.

adiyen

So what if Vishnu comes in Shiva form will you reject?

Are we bhakthi sArar to reject such offers 😊
The whole idea is to get to Moksham & disregard material pleasure

Anything below Moksham is lesser.
I really don’t care if Perumal comes in his own form or some other form as long as he exposed himself as Perumal.

SlhlokA says NarayaNa Maheswarow
Correct NarayaNa is MahEshwaran

MahEshwaran means Maha Eeshwaran

Eeshwaran shabdhan according to Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy upanyAsam possessor of everything

Why are you comparing maheswara with Shiva? 😁

Brahmam is EkamEva adwitheeyam

ChandhOgya UpaNishad Sath Vidya PrakaraNam

So saying they both are creators utter foolishness

There are no two Brahmans

Narayana Para Brahma Tattvam Narayana para:

NarayaNa sukhtham

In fact Advaita says two levels in brahmams

That itself is subject to Khandanam by Swamy Desikan

No upper birth Brahmam & lower birth Brahmam 😂

Dasanudasan

NAnmuganai nArAyanan padaithAn , nAnmuganum thAnmugamAi sankaranai thAn padaithan nAnmugan thiruvandhAdhi-1.

நான்முகனை நாராயணன் படைத்தான் நான்முகனும் தான்முகமாய்ச் சங்கரனைத் தான் படைத்தான்”

Thirumazhisai Azhwaar in Thondainaadu / திருமழிசையாழ்வார் தொண்டைநாட்டில்

Sakkiyam Katrom, Samanam Katrom, Sankaranaar Aakiya Aagamanool Aaraainthom, bakkiyathaal Venkatkariyanai Sernthom

Unfortunately Thirumazhisai PirAn looks to have missed the shlokAs you quoted thank God he was saved🙏🙏🙏🙏

Dasanudasan

Even in Sandhya Vandhanam we call Shiva and Brahma.

It means we are calling AntharyAmi

When fire 🔥 ritual we offer to Agni deva

Technically we are offering to AntharyAmi

When eating we offer to prana vyana apana udana samana brahmaney

It agains means we offer to AntharyAmi

Again according to Sanskrit Maheswarow means dual

Tarunow roopa sampannow sukumArow mahAbalow
Pundareeka visAlakshow

Remember this Ramayana shloka praising the beauty of Ram Lakshman? By SoorpaNakhai

Same way Narayana is Brahma
Narayana is Shiva
Narayana is Indran

Says Narayana sukhtham

So it doesn’t matter if it shows dual or single or multiple all three SiddhAntham points to Sriman Narayana undoubtedly second to none

What’s the point even comparing with someone Swamy?

Dasanudasan

Refer to my earlier response. I  mentioned earlier to you the source to be from an advaita site. The other source is Hari vamsam (book) by U.Ve. S. Ramanuja Iyengar. 

I hope I have clearly mentioned about my observation to be the Siva-Vishnu adebham and also mentioned the sloka 2-125-41 

Here, it is mentioned that “the supreme lord of viShNu is shiva” i.e., shiva is greater than Vishnu.From SriVaishnava dasan

There is a difference between humbleness and supremacy. Hence, I did not consider your answer.

Swami, out of humbleness and love one can make another as supreme and then the other person can also do the same. There is nothing stopping them to do so.

For example for a wife , she can consider her husband as the most beloved and husband can do the same to his wife..

Also we have seen how a mother or grandmother calls a child ” En Raasa” 
(My king)..what does that mean ..out of love you can consider that person as Supreme.. So in spiritual world based on love and humility there is no competition.

Adiyen

Considering one supreme and who is actually supreme matters. I would prefer the route of scripture only in this aspect.

adiyen

Yes true swami, the above is the explanation for the so called apparent contradiction.
Adiyen

Considering one supreme and who is actually supreme matters. I would prefer the route of scripture only in this aspect.From SriVaishnava dasan

I would prefer the route of receiving the knowledge from a knowledgeable authority whose life is an example of his teachings. Because I am fully aware of my limited intelligence and the vastness and depth of the scriptures. I can not ever study, understand, analyse and arrive at a conclusion on my own, even after multiple life times! But I have come across a few knowledgeable persons who are living by a certain set of principles. Their life and speech shines an assured clarity in their knowledge and  thoughts. They say their philosophy is based on Ramanujacharya; I learn from them that Ramanujacharya has extensively studied all scriptures and arrived at a comprehensive conclusion. 

So, I simply accept Ramanujacharya’s conclusion at the outset; now when I read scriptures in light of Ramanujacharya’s conclusions, it is easy to understand. There are still certain things which are not clear; but I am sure these too will become clear in the days to come.

adiyen.

I think your response is not w.r.to the point on Hari Vamsam. I have pointed out a contradiction from Hari Vamsam on the Supreme Being. There are two approaches on coming across this point. One – to get the clarification from this august forum on such point and Two – simply keep quiet on coming across such statement. I took the former route which will also educate the members of the forum. This is nothing to do with my belief on the supreme.

A. Point on Hari Vamsam :: Is there any work on Hari Vamsam by Ramanujar?. Is so kindly share.

B. Your point of response is on the Philosophy i.e., about Brahmam in general. I view / take Brahmam in two ways.

1. Accept the purvacharyar’s work and
2. Parallelly carry on Brahma vichara.

I know that it is a hilarious task to understand about Brahmam on one’s own. I already expressed about my sort of displeasure in the organisation of our scriptures in providing the detail in a straight forward and direct manner in the thread

https://www.kinchit.org/dharma-sandeha/thread/aid-to-understand-spiritual-philosophy-correctly/

I standby on my views expressed in that thread and wish details are available in a direct manner for the benefit of everyone. If one need to know the detail, presently he has to go through enormous volume of (almost all) scriptures, amounting to becoming a vedanti / udaya vedanti.  

Ramanujar has categorically said it is natural and encouraged Brahma vichara in his work “Sri Bashyam”. So I do not feel it is wrong to do Brahma vichara. Everyone and their approach is different. I am yet to conclude my exploration on Brahma vichara, not sure about the success.

adiyen

Svetasvatara Upanishad Chapter 3, verse 11

Meaning : He who is in the faces, heads and necks of all, who dwells in the the cave (of the heart) of all beings, who is all-pervading, He is the Lord and therefore the omnipresent Siva.

It says siva is antaryami.

I was going through dasa Upanishads a couple of months back and had this ref.

On seeing the content of your response, I decided to abstain further from reply. I had the idea of posting sloka itself in my last post. Since, I do not know how to insert an image, I could not do that. It is clear that even if the sloka is given, it may not be accepted. However, I have given the name of the Upanishad, chapter no and verse no. Anyone can get the sloka and the meaning (I have given meaning already) using this reference, from the site in which one has confidence and conclude according to his understanding.

Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha

It is upto Devareer to beleive which is reliable source or not. You have not refuted any of my statements above

Misconception can happen That’s what we want to sort out.

My father used to say “Veda praises many Gods but we must know who is behind all those supremacy statements”.

Shiva said he is servant of Narasimha

In mantra raja padam sthothram will those Shaivites accept?

Narayana Para Brahma Tattvam Narayana para:

Devareer also know, not sure why get carried away by incorrect interpretations

Yadavaprakasar was Ramanujar’s Guru

He made a wrong comparison

Compared the colour of 🐒 monkey’s prishta bhAgam
color with Vishnu’s color

(avar level of thinking avlo dhAn)

RAmAnujA corrected him

Yadavaprakasar himself became sishya of Ramanuja

We need to know what is the correct source of information

What is the correct interpretation

Do you know?
Lord Shiva is compared to Bhu

Thirukkudanthai Andavan says:
We should use only water that has connectivity to Bhumi (Bhu Sparsham)

So Ganga Jalam can be accepted even though it comes from Shiva’s head

So don’t ask then what about Bhuma Devi? Is Shiva wife of lord Vishnu?

Each interpretation will have a contextual meaning

We should not go by face value

Sorry if my previous response was harsh

Dasanudasan

Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Srimathe Sri Varaha Mahadesikaya Namaha
Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy Thiruvadigaley Sharanam
Sri:

Sri Ramanuja’s Method
Bhagavad rAmAnujar points out that the Upanishads variously describe the cause of the universe as Sath, AtmA and Brahman. In the mahOpanishad, a more specific description of this Cause is mentioned as follows,
“Eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma, nEshana…”.
“Only nArAyaNa existed prior to creation. There was no Brahma, no Shiva (Ishana), no stars, moon, etc….”

Ref Narayanastra.blogspot.com