3

I read in an answer, that Shripaada Ramanujacharya and his disciples proved the Supremacy of Shri Vishnu using the Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis, Puraanas and other texts. Also, Shripaada Ramanujacharya says in his Brahma Sutra Bhaashya, that the Veda declares Naaraayana to be Brahman. My question is:

  • Does only the main Vedic literature (Veda Samhitas, Braahmanas and Upanishads) provide sufficient proof for Vishnu being the ultimate Eeshwara? Can this be done without the involvement of any other Shaastras, such as the Shaiva and Vaishnava aagamas, Ithihaasas or Puraanas?
  • How do Vaishnava Aachaaryas, like Shripaada Ramanujacharya or Shripaada Madhvacharya, prove the Supremacy of Vishnu, even when the Vedas say in certain places, that "there is no one mightier than Rudra"?
  • I have also heard of a grammatical trick used by Sri Vaishnavas, through which one can use certain names of Shiva to refer to Naaraayana. How is this done and is this interpretation valid as per other Shaastras, such as the Smritis?

Hope to get a proper answer.

Garudadhvaja Daasa
  • 379
  • 1
  • 12

1 Answers1

6

There are several words in the Vedas that are used to mean different things in different contexts. However if you look at the word "Narayana", it is always found to be consistently used to only refer to Sriyahpati and nothing else.

Even today (1000 years after Ramanujacharya) if you pick up a Sanskrit Dictionary and look at the size of the entry for the word "Narayana", you will find a very small number of entries when compared to other terms like Sat, Brahman, Shambhu, Agni, etc.

Therefore when interpreting Upanishad verses which follow this pattern:

  • A is X
  • B is X
  • C is X
  • D is X
  • Narayana is X

then one has to interpret that X is Narayana only (as Narayana is the most specific entity whereas A, B, C, D can refer to more than one thing). This principle of Mimamsa interpretation is called chAga-pashu nyAya.

Vedanta Desika establishes this in his Tattvamuktakalapa and SarvarthaSiddhi texts. I have given details about the relevant verse here.

The specific example given by Vedanta Desika in above link: Consider the following upanishad sentences:

  • In the beginning only Sat existed, one without a second.
  • In the beginning only Brahman existed.
  • In the beginning only Narayana existed, neither Brahma nor Isa.

Vedanta Desika says that in such places, one has no choice but to accept that Narayana existed at the beginning and Sat and Brahman are referring to Narayana.

Grammatical tricks are not necessary given the above.

hashable
  • 3,645
  • 18
  • 33
  • @SK - antaryami brahmanam resolves these contradictions of names. when I call "hey SK get over here", am i calling you (atma), who I can't see with my eyes, or your body (deha), which I can see with my eyes? it is implied that i'm calling both. but the visible deha is a conduit to call atma who then orders deha to move. so when I say SK-body, i mean SK-atma. similarly, when someone says A=B, it is in the atma-deha bhava. extending this to Chit, A=B is in the parmatma-jivatma bhava. – ram Apr 24 '22 at 15:13
  • Thanks for answering. Yes, I am well aware about the word 'Naaraayana' being a proper noun and specific name of Shri Vishnu, as well as Chaaga Pashu Nyaaya, as I had read parts of Shri Vedanta Deshika's works as well as Shripaada Vijayeendra Tirtha's works on the same. My question is: how do Vaishnavas interpret the sections of the Vedas, where it is said that "there is none greater than Rudra"? Is it applied to Vishnu, as 'Rudra' is not a proper noun and is one of the names of Vishnu, too? – Garudadhvaja Daasa May 08 '22 at 15:59
  • Looks like you have not read my answer or the linked answer deeply enough. I am not saying that the word "Narayana" is a proper noun. In fact, I explicitly say that "Grammatical tricks are not necessary" and the argument "Narayana is a proper noun" is a grammatical trick. I am saying (or rather Vedanta Desika says) that one can consistently find the word Narayana used only to refer to the Parabrahman whereas other words are applied in multiple senses. – hashable May 08 '22 at 17:23
  • Regarding interpretation of "there is none greater than Rudra", one has to see if there is some other Vedic verse directly or indirectly meaning "there is none greater than X". If (1) there exists such a verse and (2) X is more narrowly defining than what is defined by the term "Rudra", then one can take "Rudra" to mean X. It so happens that the term "Narayana" appears in such contexts and therefore Srivaishnavas could interpret "Rudra" in such contexts as "Narayana. – hashable May 08 '22 at 17:26
  • 1
    On the other hand, if there is a Puranic legend describing the story of Shiva-Parvati and the term "Rudra" appears there, then there would be no opportunity to interpret "Rudra" as Narayana there. – hashable May 08 '22 at 17:26
  • @hashable Svetasvatara upanishad can be "vishnuized' only through "all names are Vishnu's names" doctrine. late minor works like Mahopanishad are used paint the vast corpus of ancient scripture in Vishnuist monochrome. – S K Aug 17 '23 at 20:05
  • "All names are Vishnu names doctrine" is not used in above answer. @SK – hashable Aug 21 '23 at 10:40
  • The Naryani Sena in mahabharata is called "the narayanas". Kumbhakarna !!!!!!!! is likened to Narayana in Ramayana. Siva is called Narayana. In the Brahma Vivarta Purana Narayana is created by Krishna. "Narayana is always Brahman and Narayana is always Vishnu is simply false. You have to tie yourself into impenetrable logical knots to say Narayana = Viishnu = Brahman. Appropriating Svetasvatara Upanishad to Narayana makes absolutely no sense - since it ascribes some negative qualities traditionally ascribed to Rudra to the Rudra described in the Svetasvatara U. @hashable – S K Aug 21 '23 at 10:57
  • I repeat @SK "All names are Vishnu names doctrine" is not used in my answer. Even the word "Vishnu" is not used. – hashable Aug 22 '23 at 03:48
  • The srivaishnavite syllogism is completed by a late, minor Upanishad. When the same thing is said in Svetashvatara Upanishad for Siva, then it is claimed :siva,rudra etc. refer to Vishnu. Why not interpret mahopanishad as "in the beginning only Siva existed (narayana = siva in varaha purana) neither Vishnu (vishnu = rudra in Vishnu Sahasranama)? nor Brahma? A minor Upanishad cannot overturn scripture older by millenia. @hashable – S K Aug 22 '23 at 10:57
  • @SK Ignore the mahopaniShad for a moment. You have to interpret 'sat', 'brahma', 'rudra', 'jIva', 'para', 'Atma', 'puruSha', 'prANa', 'akShara' and other terms which independently occur as the sole primordial entity in different srutis. If each of them has a dozen meanings, what is your principle of interpretation going to be? How are you going to justify picking one interpretation as the correct one? – hashable Aug 22 '23 at 12:24
  • @hashable but there is no Srivaishnavite theology without Mahopanishad. You yourself cite Vedanta desikan "in the beginning only Sat existed, one without a second. In the beginning only Brahman existed. In the beginning only Narayana existed, neither Brahma nor Isa. the last line is mahopanishad - if you replace it by Svetashvatara upanishad Desikan has proved Siva is Brahman !!!!!! – S K Aug 22 '23 at 12:39
  • @hashable all this "logic" cannot overthrow the kathenotheism of Hinduism but instead these "superiority" arguments have led to centuries of hate and division. I find it hard to believe "my god can beat up your god" is important to people even in 2023. – S K Aug 22 '23 at 12:43

  • if you replace it by Svetashvatara upanishad Desikan has proved Siva is Brahman ------> Not quite. This is true only if you can apply chAga-pashu-nyAya here which you cannot since the term 'Siva' does not carry the specificity you think it does. Go open a dictionary (ancient or modern) and look into it. The term 'Siva' is as ambiguous as 'Sat' or 'Brahman'.

     – hashable Aug 22 '23 at 14:21
  • The Mahopanishad only makes it easy to solve a tough problem. If you don't accept the Mahopanishad as authority, that is completely fine. But you can't pretend that the tough problem of reconciling the different shrutis is solved. You are still left with a tough problem without a convincing solution. – hashable Aug 22 '23 at 14:22

  • these "superiority" arguments have led to centuries of hate and division. --------------> I agree that hate and division is a problem today and has been in the past. I disagree that these are "superiority" arguments though. We are already have a long way to go to understand the Atman who dwells within. Can't believe how people have time to fight about external deities.

     – hashable Aug 22 '23 at 14:23
  • Also, I don't believe the term kathenotheism can be applied to Ramanujan Vedanta. There is no recognition of multiple 'Gods' of which one is Supreme. There is Brahman and there is matter and jIvas. Some jIvas are considered 'Gods' by other schools of Hinduism. – hashable Aug 22 '23 at 14:31