nR^isimho.akhilA~jnAnamatadhvAntadivAkaraH |
jayatyamitasajj~nAnasukhashaktipayonidhiH ||
shrI laxmIhayagrIvAya namaH
shrImadAnandatIrthabhagavatpAdAchArya gurubhyo namaH
shrI jayatIrthagurubhyo namaH
shrI vyAsatIrthagurubhyo namaH
shrI vijayIndratIrthagurubhyo namaH
Vishnu-sarvottamatva is one of the primary tenets of our philosophy. It is well known that our doctrine came to be attacked by other schools, around the time of Sri Vadiraja tirtha, Sri Vijayindra tirtha. Dr.BNK Sharma writes highly of Sri Vijayindra tirtha's efforts in repelling those criticisms. Sri Vijayindra is said to have written 104 works, of which very few are available. His scholarship and the importance of such works can be estimated by the fact that the Raghavendra Vijaya enjoins that only he, who has studied all works of Sri Vijayindra, be considered a paNDita.
I am going to briefly present here, Sri Vijayindra's replies to certain charges on 'Vishnu sarvottamatva'. The standard disclaimer about my lack of complete understanding applies with full force. What follows is only a pointer and should not be taken as representative of the original. These replies are contained in a book called 'nyAyamauktikamAlA'; the section called 'shaiva-sarvasva-khaNDanaM'. This section was published in 1983 along with 'sarva-siddhAnta-sAra-asAra-vivechanaM' by 'Brindavanam Office, Mantralayam'. A Kannada translation by Dr.Parthasarathy R Panchamukhi is also available.
The book starts with mentioning 11 anecdotes from the purANAs and general mythology (i.e., general impression, unsupported by Puranas) that contradict the idea of Vishnu sarvottamatva. There will be a series of postings covering all the eleven. Hereby are presented 2 anecdotes (the book does not have them in the same order).
Q1. In a competition between Brahma and Vishnu, they take the forms of hamsa and varAha respectively, to find out the tip and bottom of the shiva linga; Vishnu's not finding it out is an indication of Shiva's supremacy.
[Ambhrani sukta and other R^iks establish Vishnu's supremacy over everybody else; with that perspective these purANic anecdotes can be rejected as a 'mohanArthaka'. With that idea, Sri Vijayindra considers them and says]
A1. That is false. That anecdote can be disregarded because it contradicts Vishnu's sarvottamatva, which is known from sAttvika purANas. In any case, this anecdote appears in kUrma and linga purANas. That these two are tAmasic is well known. It is also that it is contradicted by scriptures such as, 'uddhR^itAsi varAheNa kR^iShNena shatabAhunA' , 'Apo vA idamagre salilamAsIt.h tasminprajApatirvAyurbhUtvA imAM apashyat.h'. The first one refers to the support of the entire life, i.e., earth or prakR^iti as being lifted by Vishnu. It cannot be said that whatever was lifted by Vishnu is not the liN^ga; for, there is no pramANa that the shivalinga is aprAkrita (not made of prakriti elements), or that there is no limit to the shivaliN^ga. It cannot be objected that there might be limits to the shivalinga's dimensions, but Vishnu is not aware of it. Such a contention will contradict (in addition to the second pramANa quoted above) Vishnu's unparalled omniscience and powers established in this shruti: vichitrashaktiH puruShaH purANo na chAnyeShAM shaktyastAdR^ishAssyuH'.
Q2. Vishnu seeks Shiva's blessings to slay the demon, 'jalandhara'. With that purpose, he worships Shiva with thousand lotus petals every day. One day Shiva, to test Vishnu, hides a petal. To make up for that, Vishnu takes out an eye of his. Pleased with that, Shiva grants him the sudarshana chakra. This also explains the reason for Vishnu's name being 'puNDarIkAksha'.
A2. That Vishnu obtained sudarshana chakra from Shiva is contradicted by the shruti: charaNaM pavitraM (See P.S), that talks of Vishnu possessing the sudarshana always (charaNaM pavitraM vitataM _purANaM_). Even the idea of Vishnu getting the appellation of 'puNDarIkAxa' is contradicted by the Chandogya statement: tasya yathA kapyAsaM puNDarIkamevAxiNI tasyoditi nAma sa eva sarvebhyaH pApmabhya uditaH. Here, it is only the form of Lord (bhagavadvigraha) that is considered 'aprAkrita' and it being beginningless and endless is mentioned. Due to these contradictions, the purANa statements can be rejected. Such anti-vedic ideas, generally found in tAmasic purANas, are also found in sAttvika purANas like varAha purANa, pUrva-khaNDa. In case of purANAs like the padmapurANa, there are three parts: sAttvika, rAjasa and tAmasa. Likewise, here too, it must be understood that the pUrva-khaNDa of varAhapurANa is tAmasic and therefore, not to be taken seriously.
This is from Mahanarayana Upanishad. I was quite perplexed that the word 'charaNaM' denotes 'sudarshana'. Answer was in Sri Dhirendra tirtha's commentary on the Mahanarayana Upanishad. Under the pertinent verse of Mahanarayana Upanishad, he writes: snAnAntaraM mudrAdhAraNamAha | charaNaM iti | yatpavitraM pAvitryakAri vitataM bhakteShu dhAraNAdinA vyAptaM purANaM purAtanaM yachcharaNaM chakraM pavitram.h | 'charaNaM chakraM rathanemiH sudarshanaM cheti paryAyavAchakA hyete chakrasya paramAtmanaH' iti vedanighaNTau | Thus, he quotes the Vedanighantu to support the meaning of charaNaM as chakraM.
There is a sub-commentary by Satara Raghavendracharya. He quotes padma purANa, uttara-khaNDa and writes 'charaNaM pApabhakshakaM pApanAshakaM pavitraM chakram.h | padmottarakhaNDe tathokteH |
Q3. At the time of the churning of the ocean, unable to control and contain the the kAlakUTa poison that emerged, Vishnu and others ran away. Then, to save the worlds, Shiva drank the poison.
A3. Shiva was able to consume the kAlakUTa poison, not on his own powers but, on that obtained by chanting Vishnu-mantra
(viShNu-tan-mantra-japa-mahimnA-eva). There are pramANas to that effect.
The Brahmanda purANA says:
taM dR^iShTvA ghorasaN^kAshaM prAdurbhUtaM mahAviSham.h |
dhyAtvA nArAyaNaM devaM hR^idaye garuDadhvajam.h ||
(Seeing that terrible poison emerging, (Shiva) meditated on the Lord Vishnu, Garudadhvaja, residing in his heart).
Another purANa says:
yena jIrNaM cha garaLaM kaNThasthaM cha kapAlinaH |
antarAtmadhR^itaM tasya hR^idaye garuDadhvaja ||
It is only due to Shiva's meditating on Vishnu, that he was able to digest the terrible poison, right in his neck.
In Garuda purana, Shiva tells Parvati:
aprakAshamidaM devi guhyAdguhyataraM padam.h |
purAhamabdhimathane patagendraviShAvaham.h |
avadhyaM garalaM ghoramaJNbhujamamR^itaM yathA ||
O Devi, this is not a well known fact. At the time of samudra-mathana, before consuming poison, I meditated on the Lord. (It is due to his mercy that) I was able to drink it as easily as I had the nectar (amR^ita).
This one is well known in the mantra-shAstras:
achyutAnantagovindamantrato.apsu shubhaM param.h |
OM iti sampuTIkR^ityajapanviShadharo.aharat.h ||
Lord Shiva did 'abhimantraNa' of the poison with the most auspicious mantra: OM achyutAnantagovinda OM' and then consumed the poison.
Another purANa says:
nAmatrayaprabhAvAchcha viShNossarvagatasya vai |
viShaM tadabhavajjIrNaM lokasamhArakAraNam.h |
Due to the chanting of the 'nAmatraya' (three names) of that all-pervading Vishnu, that terrible poison, which could have destroyed the worlds, was digested ('jIrNam.h').
What more, the shruti : 'vAyurasmA upAmantha' talks of Vayu consuming most of the poison. (This sUkta, also called keshI sUkta, was covered in detail by Sri Keshava Rao in a recent posting at: http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_50/msg00033.html). Moreover, in sAttvika purANas such as Bhagavata, there is no mention of Vishnu running away at the time of emergence of Kalakuta poison.
PS. The Mokshadharma of Mahabharata lists a couple of reasons (different from the well known ones) as to why Rudra got the name of Nilakantha:
a. During the tripurAsuravadha, some asura born of Shukracharya strangles the arms of Rudra. From there, his throat became blue.
b. During the svAyambu manvantara, Lord Narayana holds Shiva's neck, so that the poison does not go down, because of which it becomes blue.
Q4. In the anecdote of killing of tripurAsurAs, Shiva makes use of Vishnu as his weapons.
A4. Even in the anecdote of Tripurasuravadha, it is not Rudra's excellence, that is conveyed. Though the shruti 'teShAM asurANAM tisraH puraH Asan.h ka imAM ashiShyatIti rudra abruvan.h' conveys that Rudra made use of Vishnu's tejas as a weapon, it should not be extended to conclude Vishnu's subordinacy. Shrutis such as 'ahaM vR^iNe ahameva pashUnAmadhipatirasAni' talk of Shiva seeking a boon that he be the 'pashupati'. And there are pramANas that Vishnu helped Shiva to kill the tripurAsuras.
In Kurma purana, Vishnu tells Shiva:
tato mAM sharaNaM gatvA prapade nirbhayo bhavAn.h |
ahaM devashuko bhUtvA tripurasthAnaghAtayaM ||
Therefore, having obtained my grace, be fearless. I shall become devashuka (?) and kill the tripurAsuras.
The Karnaparva of Mahabharata says:
viShNurAtmA bhagavato rudrasyAmitatejasaH |
tasmAddhanurjasaMsparshaM sa viShehe maheshvaraH ||
Due to the Vishnu being Rudra's antaryAmi, the extremely brilliant (tejas) Rudra was able to touch the bow.
A Smriti says:
"advitIyaM yathAmantraM tArakaM brahmanAmakam.h |
japitvA siddhimApnoti satyaM satyaM vadAmyaham.h |"
imameva japanmantraM tryamabakastripurAntakaH |
Chanting the peerless tArakamantra, which is 'brahmanAmaka', a man obtains 'siddhi'. This is truth. Chanting this mantra, Lord Shiva killed the tripurAsuras.
The Mokshadharma (in Shantiparva, Mahabharata) says:
tripuraM nAshakaH jagmuShaH pUrvaM brahmaNA viShNupaJNjaram.h |
shaN^karasya kurushreShTha raxaNAya nirUpitam.h |
Brahma arranged 'viShNupaJNjara' for the security of Shiva who had left for killing the tripurAsuras.
Moreover, in purANAs like Bhagavata, in the context of 'vR^iShabhAvatAra' it was prophesed that the liquid he had would be useful (give him powers) at the time of tripurAsuravadha.
Q5. At the time of Daksha's sacrifice, when Shiva's hordes create havoc, an afraid Vishnu starts running away in the form of a deer. Shiva's avatara Virabhadra catches him and defeats him.
A5. It cannot be the case that Vishnu was defeated at Daksha's sacrifice,
for, he was not present in the first place at Daksha's sacrifice. The
Bhagavata purana says,
upalabhya puraivetau bhagavAn.h abjasaMbhavaH |
nArAyaNashcha vishvAtmA na tamadhvaramIyituH ||
The venered Chaturmukha Brahma and the inner controller of All, Sri Narayana were both absent at the time of Daksha's yajna.
Though some tAmasa purANas do talk of Vishnu's presence at that sacrifice, since they contradict the sAttvika purANas, they are not worthy of respect in this regard.
This idea of sAttvika and tAmasa purANas is not a Mâdhva doctrine creation. The Puranic quotes are given by Sri Vijayindra at the end of the section 'shaiva-sarvasva-khaNDana'.
Q6. In the assembly of all Rishis, when Sri Vedavyasa tries to raise his hands proclaiming "I shall thereby declare the truth again and again. There is no greater shastra than the Vedas and no higher deity than the Lord Keshava", he is unable to raise his hands.
A6.
This incident where Sri Vedavyasa says:
satyaM satyaM punassatyaM bhujamuddhR^itya chochyate |
vedashAstrAtparaM nAsti na daivaM keshavAtparam.h ||
occurs in Kashi Khanda of skanda purana. It is well known the skAnda purANa is a tamasic purana due to its being avaidika. Kashikhanda is already denounced in these phrases:
avaidikatrayaM j~nAnaM vAsiShThaM sUtasamhitA |
kAshIkhaNDaM parityAjyaM vaidikasya virodhataH ||
And Sri Vedavyasa's words are known to be valid from the Taittariya aranyaka words 'sahovAcha vyAsaH pArAsharyaH'. There, Sri Vedavyasa establishes Sri Hari's superiority over everything else. That being shruti overrides and renders invalid the contradicting words in the Kashikhanda.
Q7. In a forest in Dvaraka, Shiva and Vishnu were seen in the form of a male and a female respectively.
A7. At the time of churning of the ocean, the Purushottama took the form of Mohini, to delude the demons and to protect the devas. Later, Rudra, having heard about the splendorous form of the Lord, prays to see the same form. When Vishnu displays that form, Rudra forgets his wife, Parvati and follows the attractive Mohini wherever she goes (All details not mentioned). Thus it is said in the Puranas. Just because the Purushottama took the form of a woman, there is no dimunition in his majesty. On the other hand, Rudra's getting deluded by it proves the contrary. The Lord's taking a stree-rUpa has the same purpose of deluding the demons and protecting the devas, as his other avataaras like matsya, kUrma, varAha have.
Q8. Lord Narasimha, who killed Hiranyakashyapa, was killed by Rudra, who was in the form of Sharabha.
A8.
The Skandapurana says:
hiraNyAsuraraktapAnena unmattena nR^isimhena lokeShu upadruteShu satsu devAH tanniyamanAya shivaM prArthayAmAsuH | tataH shivaprerito vIrabhadrashsharabho bhUtvA nR^isimhapAdau gR^ihItvA bhrAmayAmAsa | tato nR^isimhastAdraktanirgamanena prakR^itivashamApannaH vIrabhadraM tuShTAva | vIrabhadro.api kadA.apyevaMvidhaM kR^ityaM mA kurvIti viShNuM niyamya shivAntikaM prApa |
The Lord Narasimha, having killed Hiranyakasyapa and having drunk his blood, was creating havoc in the worlds. Terrified by that, the gods prayed Shiva to contain him. Ordered by Shiva, Virabhadra took the form of Sharabha and caught hold of Narasimha's feet and swirled him around. Due to that, Narasimha vomitted the Hiranyaasura's blood and regained his composure and pleased Virabhadra. The latter reprimanded Narasimha and asked him not to repeat such activities. Thus, having controlled Vishnu, Virabhadra went back to Shiva.
The Shiva purana says:
rudra eva sharabho bhUtvA nR^isimhaM jaghAna |
Rudra took the form of Sharabha and killed Narasimha. (See P.S).
It is not just the conflict between these puranas, but their being Tamasa puranas make such incidents unacceptable. Actually, in the Sattvika puranas, there is no mention of the Lord drinking Hiranyasura's blood. And in any case, there is no relation (asaN^gataM) between Lord Narasimha's drinking blood and becoming deluded. The shruti (Mahanarayana Upanishad) says: sarvabhUtasthamekaM nArAyaNaM kAraNarUpaM shokamohavinirmuktaM viShNuM dhyAyan.h | shrIdadhAti... and thus rules out the possibility of Vishnu ever getting deluded
(viShNormoha atyantAbhAvasya evAvedanAchcha).
Moreover, that all the worlds were terrified of Lord Narasimha is also not correct. It is well known from the Gita verse 'paritrANAya sAdhUnAM vinAshaya cha duShkR^itAM' that the purpose of Vishnu's avataras is to protect the good and punish the wicked. Also, that Lord Narasimha was killed by Sharabha is also incorrect.
The following lines in the nR^isimha-tApanIya Upanishad :
eSha dehAnte tamasaH paramaM dhAma prApnuyAt.h |
yatra virajo nR^isimho bhAsate tatra upAsate |
tasadR^ishA munayaH
talk of Lord Narasimha being located in 'paramaM dhAma' (= Moksha sthAna). At the beginning of tApanIya Upanishad, in the line "kevalaM jyotirekamanAdyanantaM", Lord Narasimha is said to be devoid of a beginning and an end. (Where then is the question of his getting killed by
Sharabha?)
What more, that the Lord Narasimha killed Sharabha is told in many puranas.
The Padma purana says:
tau yudhyamAnau cha chiraM vegena balavattamau |
na samaM jagmaturdevau nR^isiMhasharabhAkR^itI ||
tataH kR^iddho mahAkAyo nR^isiMho bhImavikramaH |
sahasrakarajAnatra tasya gAtre nyaveshayat.h ||
patitaM bhImamatyugraM nR^isiMhaH sharabhaM ruShA |
** jaghAna nishitaistIxNaiH nakhairnakhavarAyudhaH || **
sharabhe tasmin.h raudre madhuniShUdanam.h |
tuShTuvuH puNDarIkAxaM devA devarShayastathA ||
The highlighted lines convey that the Lord, using his nails, killed Sharabha.
Vamana purana:
nikR^itya bAhUrushirA vajrakalpamukhairnakhaiH |
merupR^iShThe nR^isiMhena sharabhashchAtha so.apatat.h ||
Kurma purana:
sa chaJNchupaJNchAnanamaShTapAdaM paxadvayADhyaM ghananIlagAtram.h |
sphuranmahAtIvrasahasrahastaM sahasrashastraM sharabhasvarUpam.h ||
karadAdaya pratyekaM mukhaM chaJNchupuTadvayam.h |
vidArya cha nR^isiMhastaM hiraNyakashipuM yathA ||
Agni purana:
tataH kshaNena sharabho nAdapUritadiN^.hmukhaH |
abhyAshamagamadviShNorvyanadadbhairavasvanam.h ||
sa tamabhyAgataM dR^iShTvA nR^isiMhaH sharabhaM ruShA |
nakhairvidArayAmAsa hiraNyakashipuM yathA ||
All of them compare the Lord's killing Sharabha (using his nails) to the act
of killing Hiranyakashyapa.
More so, in the shruti 'hariM harantamanuyanti devAH | vishvasyeshAnaM vR^iShabhaM matInAM', Rudra (conveyed by the word 'IshAna') is said to be killed by Hari. The shruti's interpretation is thus: The shaShThi-vibhakti in vishvasya should be taken in the prathamA-vibhakti. The Devas (vishvedevAH) follow that Hari, who destroys (harantaM) Rudra. It should not be said that the Devas follow that Rudra who destroys Hari. For, the Smriti:
brahmaNamindraM rudraM cha yamaM varuNameva cha |
nihatya harate yasmAttasmAddharirihochyate ||
(On the account of being the destroyer (nihatya harate yasmAt) of Brahma, Indra, Rudra, Yama and Varuna, he is called 'Hari')
clarifies that the very word, Hari, indicates His being the destroyer and not the destroyed.
A passage in the Taittariya Aranyaka starts with 'tasyendro vahmirUpeNa dhanurjyAmachChinatsvayam.h' (Indra in the form of Agni himself breaks the 'heart of his bow' into pieces) and concludes
'etadrudrasya dhanuH | rudrasyatveva dhanurArtniH shira utpipeSha | sa pravargyo.abhavat.h'
(That bow belonged to Rudra. Since that belonged to Rudra, his 3 heads broke into pieces) and thus conveys an incident where Indra, powered by his antaryAmi Vishnu, severes the head of Rudra (thus establishing Vishnu's supremacy over Rudra). It should not be said that this anecdote does not refer to the well-known Rudra because the singers of Samaveda consider the Rudra with 3 heads and a bow as some other Yaksha and not the well known Rudra. As the above shruti (hariM harantaM) says, it is indeed the destruction of well known Rudra that is referred here. Though Indra is not capable of severing Rudra's head on his own powers, he was able to do that with help from Vishnu's discus and Vishnu Himself. There are pramANas to that effect.
The latter portion of Kurma purana says
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.
These words are told by Shiva to Parvati praising Vishnu.
There is a upAkhyAna to this effect also (atredaM kilopAkhyAnam.h). In some kalpa, Indra without telling other gods, meditating upon Lord Narayana, started a sacrifice. Then the Gods sent Rudra to spoil that yajna. When Rudra created havoc there, Indra meditated upon the Lord. Then Vishnu's chakra beheaded Rudra. Later he was brought to life due to Parvati praying the Lord.
This can be seen in Matsya and Narasimha puranas also. Therefore there is all evidence to say that Sharabha was killed and Lord Narasimha was victorious.
P.S. http://www.escribe.com/religion/advaita/m12872.html gives one more
reference to Linga purana.
---
Q9. Lord Rama installs a Shivalinga at Rameshvaram to ward off the sin of brahmahatyA incurred by killing Ravana (a brAhmaNa).
A9. It is not possible that Lord Rama incurred a sin. Shrutis such as 'na karmaNA vardhate no kanIyAn.h | sa eSha sarvabhUtAntarAtmA.apahatapApmA divyo eka eva nArAyaNaH' and Smritis such as 'na mAM karmANi limpanti na me karmaphalA spR^ihA' (Gita 4.14) rule out the possibility of Lord getting affecting by any karmaphala. It should not be said that Rama is not same as Narayana. In the texts such as Ramopanishad and Ramayana, it is clearly mentioned that Rama is an incarnation of Narayana. Even in the Valmiki Ramayana, one can notice statements equating Rama and Narayana. In any case, it is not possible that Rama worshipped Shiva to ward off his sin of brahmahatyA, for, much prior to killing Ravana, the Lord tells Sita (in vAlmIki rAmAyaNa) that Mahadeva has graced him much before the act of killing itself (See P.S 1). Though it is mentioned in the Lingapurana that Sri Rama worshipped Shiva by establishing a linga with the help of hundred vAnaras, such a notion is to be rejected on the basis of the source being tAmasic. It is not that there can be any benefit for Sri Rama in doing such a pUja. Nor can it be argued that the such an (alleged) act can be construed as having its purport in establishing dharma, just like the Lord following his father's words. The hArItasmR^iti (See P.S 2) says:
yatra rudrArchanaM bhasmadhAraNaM prochyate budhaiH |
tadabrahmaNyaviShayaM viprANAM tu na karhichit.h ||
where Shivalingarchana and bhasmadhAraNA is prohibited for non-brahmin castes.
Also, the following smR^iti vAkya clarifies that Shiva is a kshatriya:
yAnyetAni devatrAkshAtrANi indro varuNassomo rudraH parjanyo yamo mR^ityorIshAna'. But the statement 'yo vai svAM devatAmatiyajete' enjoins that one worship a deity befitting one's nature; so can the Purushottama Rama worship anybody?
It cannot be said that shivArchana and shivalingArchana are allowed for Kshatriyas, just because Sri Rama worshipped Shiva. Such an argument would have been worthy only if it is not obstructed by other pramANAs. On the contrary, the Padma purana says:
ahamapyavatAreShu tvAM cha rudra mahAbala |
tAmasAnAM mohanArthaM pUjayAmi yuge yuge ||
in the 'tAraka-brahma-rAja-samhitA', Vishnu says that he would, for the sake of deluding the tAmasAs, worship Rudra in his avatArAs and people will be deluded by such an adhArmic act.
Moreover, the following statements:
Shiva seeks:
anyadevaM varaM dehi prasiddhaM sarvajantuShu |
martyo bhUtvA bhavAneva mama sAdhaya keshava ||
mAM bhajasva cha devesha varaM matto gR^ihANa cha |
yenA.ahaM sarvabhUtAnAM pUjyAtpUjyataro.abhavam.h ||
Vishnu says:
devakAryAvatAreShu mAnuShatvamupeyivAn.h |
tvAmevArAdhayiShyAmi mama tvaM varado bhava ||
in the Rudra-gItA section of the varAha purANa (and a similar incident in the kUrma purANa) narrate Shiva's obtaining the boon of being worshipped by the Lord in his incarnations. Thus, just like the Lord granted the boon of being the charioteer to Arjuna, here too, his bestowing such a boon should be seen as an indication of His easy accessibility to his devotees (Ashrita-saulabhya-pradarshAnarthatvena) and not as a hindrance to his being the parameshvara.
Thus the linga purANa's statements on Rama worshipping Shiva should be seen in the light of the boon granted to the latter by Vishnu. Also, just like Rama bowed to Vishvamitra, Bharadvaja, Agastya, so too, does Rama bowed to Shiva (with the above background kept in mind). Thus there is no obstruction to Lord Rama being the para-brahma!
----
Notes:
1. There is some possibility of a confusion here. Initially it seems like Sri Vijayindra is considering the very act of shivalinga pUja as aprAmANika (baseless). Later, the occurence of the incident is conceded to, but some history behind such an act is given. The confusion would be cleared if care is taken in the first half. Sri Vijayindra says that it is impossible that Rama worshipped Shiva _to ward off the sin of brahmahatyA_.
2. The phrase quoted is 'atra pUrvaM mahAdevaH prasAdamakaronmama'. I could not find this one in the online text of Ramayana. However, it is quite noticeable that the very mahAdeva praises Rama's act of killing Ravana in glorifying terms in yuddhakANDa 106:
idaM shubhataraM vAkyaM vyAjahAra maheshvaraH ||
puShkarAkSha mahAbAho mahAvakShaH parantapa |
diShTyA kR^itamidaM karma tvayA shastrabhR^itAM vara ||
diShTyA sarvasya lokasya pravR^iddha.n dAruNaM tamaH |
apAvR^ittaM tvayA sa~Nkhye rAma rAvaNajaM bhayam.h ||
It is unlikely that Mahadeva waited for a shivalinga sthApana and pUja to remove any sin incurred for an act that he himself glorified (diShTyA kR^itamidaM karma??).
3. hArIta smR^iti is considered a sAtvika-smR^iti. The section on Grihastha dharma has a remarkable resemblance with Srimad Acharya's sadAchAra-smR^iti. The laghu HS has some more heartening details.
Q10. Lord Krishna obtained progeny as a boon from Shiva.
A10. The incident of the Lord obtaining sons as a boon from Shiva after the former's visit to Kailasa is justifiable (samarthanIyaM) and there is no virodha to it. In the Harivamsha, the very words of Shiva, who is said to be doing upAsanA of Krishna indicate that the Krishna's penance to obtain sons is quite a drama.
Shiva says:
tato vR^iShadhvajo devashshUlI sAxAdumApatiH |
karaM kareNa saMspR^ishya viShNoshchakradharasya hi ||
provAcha bhagavAn.h rudraH keshavaM garuDadhvajam.h |
shR^iNvatAM sarvadevAnAM munInAM bhAvitAtmanAm.h |
Then Rudra held Vishnu's hands and told thus:
kimidaM devadevesha chakrapANe janArdana ||
tapashchAyAM kimarthaM te prArthanA tava kA vibho |
svayaM viShNurbhavAnnityaH tapasA vA tvayA hare ||
tvattassamabhavadvishvaM tvayi sarvaM pralIyate |
madvatvaM sarvago devatvamehAhaM janArdana ||
O Janardana, the Lord of Devas, What is this? What is purpose of this penance? Whom are you propitiating with your penance? You are none other than the Vishnu. This cosmos is created by you and destroyed by (in) you. You are present in every being and in me too. (For that reason,) I am none other than you (i.e., what you make me out to be!)
AvayorantaraM nAsti shabdairarthairjagatpate |
nAmAni tava govinda yAni loke mahAnti cha ||
tAnyeva mama nAmAni nAtra kAryA vichAraNA |
tvadupAsa jagannAtha sevAstu mama gopate ||
yashcha tvAM dveShTi devesha sa mAM dveShTi na saMshayaH |
na tadasti vinA deva yatte virahitaM kvachit.h ||
yadAsIdyachcha varteta yachcha bhAvi jagatpate |
sarvaM tvaM deva devesha vinA kiJNchitvayA na hi ||
There is no difference between us even in terms of words and their meanings(?). 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 (pervade) everything; there is nothing without you, O Lord of the Gods.
From these words, Shiva himself holds Vishnu-sarvottamatva. The phrase 'AvayorantaraM nAsti' (there is no difference between us) should be understood noting that (i) in earlier passage, Krishna says that 'He is Agni among the vasus, and Shankara among the Rudras' and (ii) in the subsequent passages, Shiva praises Vishnu as 'you are everything, O Lord of Lords'. Thus, the kind of identity that is spoken here is not same as absolute identity between Shiva and Vishnu. For that matter, even the counter-party does not hold absolute identity between Shiva and Vishnu. And when Shiva says 'ahaM tvaM', by the word 'ahaM', ahamkAra-tattva should be understood.
****
This incident can be better understood if the Harivamsha is referred to. It is narrated in Harivamsha, Bhavishya parva, 84th adhyAya (Gita Press edn). The 84th adhyAya describes Krishna doing 12 years of rigorous penance in Kailasa. The 85th and 86th narrate the surprise of other devatas, including Shiva, and their approaching Krishna. The 87th adhyAya has the assembly of devatas praising Shiva and Vishnu in the same verse and later Krishna praising Shiva. The 88th adhyAya is what Sri Vijayindra has referred to. Some interesting verses are not mentioned here. For eg., Shiva says "if you are doing this penance for the sake of progeny, I have given you a son long time back, upon the orders of Brahma. Pradymna is none other than Kama (Manmatha). Earlier I had reduced him to ashes. I wanted to shower my grace on him. That's why I 'sent him' as your son". An observation is that this passage makes the purpose of Vishnu's penance rather purposeless. No purpose is mentioned later either. It is not that Krishna could not have known the purpose. Shiva says:
putro datto mayA deva pUrvameva jagatpate |
shR^iNu tatrApi bhagavan.h kAraNaM kAraNAtmaka ||
(The point is that Shiva mentions the 'kAraNa' to a Being whom he addresses as 'kAraNAtmaka').
Then, it's a complete reversal of the scene. Shiva, declaring to tell the 'yAthAtmya' (as things actually stand), start praying Vishnu. Other devatas follow suit.
The subsequent stotra is very interesting, but some rather contradictory stuff can also be seen. For eg, the popular notion that Vishnu creates when situated in rajas, sustains when in sattva and destroys when tainted by the tamo guNa, finds a mention here. But that is contradicted when Shiva addresses the Lord as 'nirguNa'. Not to confuse this word like advaitins have, Shiva calls him as 'guNAtmane' in the same half (nama AdyAya bIjAya nirguNAya guNAtmane).
There are some verses that have been misinterpreted by the Gita Press folks. Shiva's words 'rudrANAM ahamevAsi vasUnAM pAvako bhavAn.h' have been interpreted in terms of absolute identity. However Shiva, by the later phrases 'namo agnaye agnipataye' (O Agni and O Lord of Agni!) clarifies that it is due to Vishnu's visheSha in these beings that they are special in their own class (thereby ruling out absolute identity).
The rest of the stotra is highly useful to us. The kind Umapati gives meanings to certain names of Vishnu: After a brief recount of Purushasukta in terms of Vishnu creating all this, Shiva says that the word
'Vishnu' has its root in his (Vishnu) being 'sarva-vyApi'. The words 'Apa' (water) and 'nArA' are synonyms. That Being, who resides on the Ocean since the 'beginning' is Narayana.
Since He takes away the lives of people (at the time of praLaya), He is called 'Hari'. (Sri Vijayindra uses this definition in the discussion on Narasimha avatara.)
Since He does auspicious deeds, He is called Shankara.
He is called Brahma because of His being infinite. (The actual verse is 'bR^ihatvAd.h bR^imhaNatvAchcha. Could not understand the complete definition here.)
The senses are called 'madhu'. Since he controls them (in his devotees), he is called Madhusudana.
Since He is the Lord of deities controlling the Indriyas (called 'hR^iShIka'), he is called 'hR^iShIkesha'.
"Ka means Brahma, Isha refers to 'me', the Lord of all Beings. Since we both are born of you, you are called 'Keshava'".
'mA' means 'knowledge about/of Vishnu'. Since He controls that, He is called 'mAdhava' (dhava means Lord).
Another point of interest is Shiva telling other Rishis: 'eSha vo moxadAta cha eSha mArga udAhR^itaH'. This Narayana indeed is the giver of Moksha and He indeed is the path. Doesn't that remind us of Aiteraya Upanishad's 'eSha panthA etatkarma'?
****
The point about Krishna going to Kailasa for the sake of getting sons is anyway dealt with, in a passage in Mokshadharma. More details can be seen at
http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_44/msg00112.html
shrI madhveshakR^iShNArpaNamastu,
KK