What scriptures describe Sadashiva carrying Vishnu in Vishnu's abode of Paramapadam?

Question

As I discuss in this question, the Sri Vaishnava sect (of which I am a member) places great importance on the Divya Desams, the 108 sacred places of Vishnu which are mentioned in the poems of the Alwars. Now two of the Divya Desams are not even on Earth! As I discuss here, there is Thiruparkadal, Vishnu's ocean of milk, and then there is Paramapadam, the abode of Para Vasudeva or the supreme Vishnu as well as the destination of those who have attained Moksha. (See my answer here for more information on Para Vasudeva.)

In any case, here is how the Sri Vaishnava Acharya HH Chinna Jeeyar Swami describes Paramapadam in one of his discourses:

Swamiji narrated the seating arrangement of Paravasudeva in Vaikuntam starting with Kurma (holy tortoise) forming the base on which Adisesha lies down as the bed hosting eight different demi-gods on 8 sides namely, Dharma, Adharma, Aiswarya, Anaiswarya, Jnana , Ajnana, Vairagya and Avairagya (each with three heads namely, Satva, Rajas and Tamas) and 12 different Ganas holding various weapons. All of these demi-gods hold a Lotus that hosts Simha Mukhas (Loin Faced demi-gods) on four corners and Sadasiva with 25 heads in the middle holding Bhadrasanam on which, Vaikuntanadha is seated with Sreedevi, Bhudevi and Neela devi. Vaikuntanadha holds a mudra with his right hand extending an invitation to all the souls to come to him. His left hand is placed on the ‘Bhadrasanam’ giving it the needed support. In the other two hands he holds the divine conch and the discuss like ornaments to assure his devotees that he is not exposed to the evil eye.

Bhadrasana refers to a sitting posture, but my question is, what scriptures describe Sadashiva carrying Vishnu in Paramapadam?

As you can see in the image above, how Paramapadam is usually depicted is with Vishnu sitting directly on his serpent couch along with his wives Lakshmi, Bhudevi, and Niladevi. But HH Chinna Jeeyar Swami seems to be saying that Sadashiva is on the serpent couch and then Vishnu and his wives are being carried by him.

I'm also surprised that Sadashiva is playing a role at all; as I discuss in this answer, in Shaivism Sadashiva denotes the supreme Shiva, whom Shaivites equate with Brahman. But Sri Vaishnavas believe that Para Vasudeva (the supreme Vishnu) is Brahman, and that Shiva is a Jiva, so what role could Sadashiva play? The only Vaishnavas I know of who acknowledge the existence of Sadashiva are the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who believe on the basis on the Brahma Vaivarta Puranas that Sadashiva came from the body of Krishna.

On a side note, I found it strange that Sadashiva was described as 25-headed, when he's usually depicted as 5-headed as I discuss here. But this webpage says there is a so-called "Mahasadashiva" form, which has 25 heads relating to the 25 elements found in the Samkhya system. (24 elements of Prakriti plus Purusha.)

Why do you believe in such stories? Sadashiva is Nirguna Brahman of Advaita so there is no point in discussing him having 25 heads. — Pinakin, Feb 23 '16 at 11:01
@ChinmaySarupria Well, I believe in Visistadvaita, so I believe that Saguna Brahman is supreme, not Nirguna Brahman. And philosophical Shaivites, the kind that emphasize the Shaiva Agamas, don't believe in Nirguna Brahman either. They think Sadashiva is a being endued with a form, usually 5-headed but apparently with a 25-headed variant. — Keshav Srinivasan, Feb 23 '16 at 11:55
Shiva Linga is Sadashiva. The upper part - Brahma, middle part - Vishnu, lower part - Rudra, bottom part - Shakti. When we see both the lower part and bottom part together, it becomes Maheswar and Maheshwari or Mahakaal and Mahakaali, so all these parts add up to 4 and when we see all these parts together, it is called Sadashiva. That is 5th. Maybe they got 5th head from there. — Pinakin, Feb 23 '16 at 12:12
@ChinmaySarupria In the Shaiva Agamas, the five heads are known as Sadyojaya, Vamadeva, Aghora, Tatpurusha, and Ishana. They do have a correspondence to Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Maheshwara, and Sadashiva, but they also have specific identities and stories. Like I discuss the story of Ishana in my answer here: http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/6794/36 — Keshav Srinivasan, Feb 23 '16 at 12:18
@ChinmaySarupria This article from the Saiva Siddhanta Church should clarify things: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5286 The Saiva Siddhanta Church believes in Advaita (as I discuss here), so they're not quite representative of mainstream philosophical Shaivism, but the article still does a good job of laying out what the Shaiva Agamas say. — Keshav Srinivasan, Feb 23 '16 at 12:28
Even this looks to elevate Vishnu. Sada Shiva as said by @Chinmay is Nirguna. — The Destroyer, Feb 23 '16 at 14:24
@AnilKumar Well, obviously this description elevates Vishnu; Sri Vaishnavas believe that Vishnu is supreme. In any case, I'm a Sri Vaishnava and HH Chinna Jeeya Swami is a Sri Vaishnava Acharya (although he's not my Acharya), so I'd like to find out where he got this description from and if it's a general belief of the Sri Vaishnava sect. — Keshav Srinivasan, Feb 23 '16 at 14:30
@AnilKumar And yeah, as an Advaitin you may believe that Sadashiva is Nirguna Brahman, but traditional Shaivites believe that Saguna Brahman is supreme and they think that Sadashiva has a very specific form. — Keshav Srinivasan, Feb 23 '16 at 14:33
The only Vaishnavas I know of who acknowledge the existence of Sadashiva are the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who believe on the basis on the Brahma Vaivarta Purana that Sadashiva came from the body of Krishna. --- Can you tell me where did you get that info? Thanks. — brahma jijnasa, Feb 26 '16 at 05:45
@KeshavSrinivasan, you mentioned HH Swami is not your Acharya, so I'm curious who is ? — ram, Jun 27 '16 at 20:10
@Ram My Dad's a Thenkalai and my Mom's a Vadakalai. My Dad's family follows the Vanamamalai Matam Jeeyar and my Mom's family follows the Ahobilam Matam Jeeyar. So by birth I belong to the Vanamamali Mutt, although my personal beliefs lean more to the Vadakalai side. Who is your Acharya? — Keshav Srinivasan, Jun 27 '16 at 20:22
The thing is all this conjecture is just that "conjecture" based upon the interpretations of imaginary Jiva... none exist only God exists the rest are imaginary and have no self nature what-so-ever... except that all are modes of God's own consciousness.. imaginary Jiva do not know and cannot know Him -- after all can the reflection in the consciousness known as Jiva know more than the reflection in your bathroom mirror? — Ananta Bindu, Oct 31 '17 at 18:57
Can the image in the mirror do anything? of course not.
Many will argue with anything anyone says.. but the the challenge is to disprove what is mentioned on the following page

Ananta Yoga Darshana — Ananta Bindu, Oct 31 '17 at 18:57
What is the statute of limitations on this question? How much time has to elapse with no answer to conclude that no scripture says something like this? — S K, Dec 05 '17 at 01:05
@SK There are no statutes of limitations. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But in this case, I actually do have an answer. Someone contacted Chinna Jeeyar Swami on my behalf, and he specified exactly which Pancharatra Agamas describe this. I just haven't posted it yet, because I haven't found them in English translation. — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 05 '17 at 01:16
@SK I agree that demigod is a bad translation of Devas. The proper translation of Devas is gods. Demigod would only be a fitting term for, say, the Pandavas, since they were the sons of gods on one side and humans on the other. In any case, Chinna Jeeyar Swami is not referring to Devas here, but to Nitya Suris, i.e. Jivas who have never been in Samsara, but who have instead dwelt in Paramapadam forever. — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 05 '17 at 01:20
what basis do pancharatra agamas to claim things not found in sruti, smriti or puranas? — S K, Dec 05 '17 at 02:00
since there is no statute of limitations - what is to stop someone from posting something like 'what scripture contains "the world originated from a watermelon"'? — S K, Dec 05 '17 at 02:03
@SK The Pancharatra Agamas are scriptures; they were revealed by Vishnu's incarnation Narayana. In any case, if you can find a claim from an Acharya that Hindu scripture describes the world originating from a watermelon, you can certainly post a question on it. — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 05 '17 at 06:53
"Someone contacted Chinna Jeeyar Swami on my behalf, and he specified exactly which Pancharatra Agamas describe this. I just haven't posted it yet, because I haven't found them in English translation"@keshav srinivasan - please post the Sanskrit. enough people know Sanskrit here to be able to translate. also please name actual document that allegedly contains this material. — S K, Jan 27 '18 at 23:11
@SK Sorry, I didn't see your previous comment before you didn't put a space before the "@" sign. Chinna Jeeyar Swami says that it's described in two Pancharatra Agamas, the Padma Samhita and the Prashna Samhita. — Keshav Srinivasan, Feb 01 '18 at 16:38
did he give you an exact reference? someone who requests that any siva portraits in any hall he gives a speech be covered up before his speech is not credible on this topic. please cite what is claimed in sanskrit or english @keshav srinivasan — S K, Feb 01 '18 at 16:45
@SK No, he didn't give an exact reference. That's why I want to find English translations so I can verify this. In any case, I find Chinna Jeeyar Swami perfectly credible. And asking that Shiva portraits be covered sounds like just trying to abide by the rules of his post-Sharanagati life. — Keshav Srinivasan, Feb 01 '18 at 16:56
let me find it for you and jeeyar if it exists. are the two agamas available electronically anywhere? this jeeyar seems not as mature as another jeeyar (true story) apparently he and his iyengar followers had to say at an Iyer's house for a function or festival. the iyer mami of the house made hot typical tambrahm coffee for the iyengars in the morning but they all balked about "iyer veettu.kapi" (in their eyes it was Halahala maybe). but the jeeyar said "I'll drink it - thats all they know." @keshav srinivasan — S K, Feb 01 '18 at 17:08
please verify that jeeyar stands by what he allegedly said. If you click the link you provided, there is nothing. searching for "siva" etc also yield nothing. @keshav srinivasan — S K, Feb 01 '18 at 20:33
the answer is no scripture says what jeeyar said @keshav srinivasan — S K, Feb 02 '18 at 03:25

score 0 · Answer 1 · edited Feb 07 '21 at 07:23

0

I find it strange that sadashiva is twenty-five headed as he's usually described as five-headed:

According to Shaivite texts, the supreme being, parashivam manifests itself as pentads. His five deeds are known as panchakrityas and are assigned to his five aspects, panchamurti: Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Maheshwara and Sadashiva - that is creation, preservation, destruction, illusion and liberation.

The five faces then emanating from these five aspects 'in whom we cannot find any distinctions from himself' are then praised as 'panchabrahmas', the five creators of the five realities.

This at least explains where the twentyfive-fold aspect comes from...

Wikipedia article on SadaShiva

DR. S.P. SABHARATHANAM SIVACHARYA. "Kamika Agama Uttara Pada". Hmalayan Academy. Retrieved 28 September 2017.
B.N. Sharma (1976). Iconography of Sadasiva. Abhinav Publications. pp. 1–3.

edited Feb 07 '21 at 07:23

The Destroyer

31,363
14
169
343

answered Nov 24 '20 at 17:02

Mozibur Ullah

204
2
10

2

please provide the link about the source, thank you. – Lucky Pashu Nov 30 '20 at 09:25
It's on Wikipedia. You should be able to fact check it given what I've written. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 02 '20 at 18:00
2

Wikipedia is not a valid source – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Dec 12 '20 at 03:44
@Carmen Sandiego: Wikepedia ten years ago would not have been a hood reference as many articles wrre ropy to ssu the least. But over the last decade it has matured by leaps and bounds. So I say it is a valid reference. I've also seen it being used as a reference by other people I respect. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 12 '20 at 04:04
I disagree. If you are citing wikipedia, then please take efforts to look up the original source that has been used in wikipedia (assuming that the original source is not a oped, blog post etc) – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Dec 12 '20 at 04:13
@Carmen sandiego: There's enough information in the text for anyone who is interested to find articles about this on Wikipedia using search engines. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 12 '20 at 04:24
5

I can only repeat. Your answer needs to be backed by valid sources. Just saying it is there in Shaivite texts because wikipedia says so is not good enough – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Dec 12 '20 at 04:32
1

Yes, wikipedia is not a valid source. Please read this meta post to know the reason. You can discuss this on meta if needed. – Mr_Green Dec 14 '20 at 08:05
@Mr_Green: Wikepdia would not have been a valid source ten years ago. It has much improved and has been used as a source and reference by a wide variety of authorities. If you want to discuss it on meta, go ahead. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 14 '20 at 08:09
2

You are repeating the same again. It has already been discussed and concluded. I agree with the conclusion and I don't want to discuss it again. I am asking you to discuss if you feel otherwise. I can't be much clear than this. – Mr_Green Dec 14 '20 at 08:43
@Mr_Green: Wikipedia is a valid source. You are just being silly. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 14 '20 at 09:01
2

You mean the whole community is being silly? are you trolling? Just calling me silly doesn't make it valid. Take out some time, instead of responding to me, and read the help page and FAQ. – Mr_Green Dec 14 '20 at 09:15
@Mr_Green: You're the one whose trolling me by wasting my time. You know perfectly well that wikipedia is a valid source yet you insist on telling me otherwise. You also know perfectly well that I wasn't calling the community silly, but rather you. Stack Exchange really ought to know better than allowing trolls on to the site but then again the whole industry is at fault here in terms of authentication and accountability. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 14 '20 at 11:01
Wikipedia is not a valid source for this community. HSE community altogether decided not to use Wikipedia as a primary source to the least. – Mr_Green Dec 14 '20 at 12:37
@Mr_Green: Thats just wrong. Wikipedia is valid source whatever the community decides on. Secondly you're confused about what constitutes primary sources. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 14 '20 at 13:19
@MoziburUllah Visit this meta post on citing Wikipedia. – Pandya Dec 22 '20 at 03:33
Some users think you are trolling... https://hinduism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2052/is-this-trolling-and-what-can-we-do – Say No To Censorship Jan 09 '21 at 22:14
I have just added original references cited by Wikipedia it self. No need to mention my name in the answer. Haha – Pandya Feb 05 '21 at 17:42
@Pandya: I didn't put in the references - you did. That's why I've put in your name. – Mozibur Ullah Feb 05 '21 at 17:45
Ok. Btw, did you understand it that we don't rely on Wikipedia only and expect scriptural or verifiable reference? :) – Pandya Feb 05 '21 at 17:48
@Pandya: Wikipedia is a generally seen as safe to refer to, I've seen it quoted in textbooks and the like. This is different from a decade ago when the quality of it's articles were very variable, to say the least. That is not the case now. I don't see trouble with using it. – Mozibur Ullah Feb 05 '21 at 17:51
Have a look at this answer – Pandya Feb 05 '21 at 17:54
@Pandya: I've removed the "(moderator)" part when referring to your use handle, as it may be the case that your moderator status may change in the future. So I've just left your name in. – Mozibur Ullah Feb 05 '21 at 17:54
@Pandya: I had a look at your answer. I see it got all of two votes. In my opinion, relying on someone as an academic who relies purely on Wikipedia would be a mistake. However, this is not the case here. – Mozibur Ullah Feb 05 '21 at 17:57

S K · Answer 2 · 2018-02-02T03:23:36.933

There were two scriptures mentioned by Jeeyar according to the poster and apparemtly jeeyar said both have it. have shown that at least padma samhita does not have it and in fact has the exact opposite of whqt the questioner says Jeeyar said.

The answer is no scriptures says what Jeeyear said.

https://archive.org/stream/PadmaSamhitaSeethaPadmanabhanSampathR.N.Vol1/Padma%20Samhita%20%20Seetha%20Padmanabhan%20Sampath%20R.N.%20Vol%202_djvu.txt

"Another peculiar characteristic of this Paficaratra text must be mentioned here. Though it is mainly Vaishnava in character, yet it includes general topics and ideas comprehensive of non- Vaishpava deities, as part of the architecture of the temples, and also in the main and ancillary worship. In chapter 29 of Carya, from si. 194 onwards it gives a vivid description of the various deities to be installed and worshipped in the various fivaranas in a CaturaSayata temple. In Ch. 30, along with Vtshpu Mantras, Mantras of Brahma, Kubera, Indra, Kama, Aswtns, Soma, ViguSSa, Sanmukha, Durga and others are given. The first ten slokas of Ch. 31, gives the Vignsfotpathi.

to the Kriya-Pada also, in ch. 22, while describing the form and colour of the various Parivara deities, along with Garuda and Hayagriva, the names of Soma, Kama, Gajanana, Sanmukha, Dhanadha, Rudra, Kshetrapala, Veerabhadra, Vinayaka, Ajamukha, ViSvedeva, Sapta-Rishis, Asvins are all given. Again in the Bahya-Yaga, in the Y5ga-peeta that is made, places are mentioned for Durga, Rudra, VigmSfa, the Dikpalas and others. In the centre of the Yoga-Peeta, Lord SadaSiva, is said to be medi- tated upon. [Ch. 3 rfl. 112.] Padma Carya,"

"Here while describing the daily devout routine of worship of the Vaishnavas, contemplstion of Sadasiva in the centre of Yoga- peeta is mentioned"

Its not clear where jeeyar got the degrading material from.

What scriptures describe Sadashiva carrying Vishnu in Vishnu's abode of Paramapadam?

2 Answers2

Linked