Narayanastra – Defending Vaishnavism as the supreme Vedic position

Adiyen Dasan. Thank you both for your answer.

2020-01-03T07:42:02.661+05:30

Adiyen Dasan. Thank you both for your answer.

Hi HBB and Aaryama, Its been a long while since I ...

2020-01-01T20:02:57.388+05:30

Hi HBB and Aaryama,
Its been a long while since I have commented on the blog, though I go through it daily.
I keep reading the comments (including the old ones), I was doing the same thing today when I came across this. I couldn't help but comment...
How did this guy even make up these sentences, I had to read thrice to get up to (I'd rather say down to) what he says. What a moron... can't get a single sentence to make sense.

But Aaryama,
I could not stop laughing at the way you addressed him...escapee from lunatic asylum, gibbering Gibbon, inbred retard, teeth-gnasher, left behind from the evolution train, bang on the head...
Man! the quantity of creative phrases you come up with... astounding.
This is one reason why I enjoy reading your comments.

Continue the creativity.

And as we have clarified before, this was never us...

2020-01-01T11:02:50.457+05:30

And as we have clarified before, this was never used as a proof by our Acharyas. It was originally proposed by Bhatta Bhaskara in passing and gained popularity among lesser scholars in the 18th century. So don't dwell on it overmuch.

// The Sutra "pUrvapadAt samj~nAyAmagaH"...

2020-01-01T10:34:03.116+05:30

//
The Sutra "pUrvapadAt samj~nAyAmagaH" is the one that sets the rule of changing na to Na//

Add clause "in compound words like nArAyaNa where samAsa is in play".
//aTkupva~NnumvyavAye.api// read as: "aTkupvA~NnumvyavAye.api"

Namaste. The Sutra "pUrvapadAt samj~nAyAmagaH...

2020-01-01T10:31:17.154+05:30

Namaste. The Sutra "pUrvapadAt samj~nAyAmagaH" is the one that sets the rule of changing na to Na. It applies only to compound words, where the notion of "pUrvapada" is possible. Your other examples are samAna pada, simple words. For those ones, the preceding sUtras set the rules: "raShaabhyaam no NaH samAna pads" and "aTkupva~NnumvyavAye.api" for words like rAmeNa.

Hello, I have a question about the Na-kara thing ...

2020-01-01T02:27:24.190+05:30

Hello,

I have a question about the Na-kara thing of Panini. They say that the final "Na" in NarayaNa proves that the word is a proper noun. But isn't the "Na" there simply because of rules of internal sandhi? The "ra" in Narayana changes the "na" to a "Na". For example, instrumental case of "Rama" is "RameNa" and not "Ramena."

If the final "Na" makes Narayana a proper noun, does this also mean that every word that has a final "Na" a proper noun also, like "RameNa".

Is this a flaw of the argument that you are referencing?

Names cannot denote nirguna brahman as it is an en...

2019-12-29T16:17:52.030+05:30

Names cannot denote nirguna brahman as it is an entity devoid of name, form, attributes etc. In the sahasranama, Shankara interprets certain names as referring to the essential (nirguna) nature of Vishnu (saguna). So when he says "Vishnu is beyond attrubutes", he means, "Vishn, the saguna brahman, is beyond attributes in his essential nature which is the nirguna brahman". The whole idea of upAsaNa in advaita is to realize nirguna Brahman through saguna.

Brahma is certainly saguna Brahman in the sense that he is brahman under rajo guna upAdhis. Shiva is Brahman under tamo guna upAdhis. Vishnu alone is the highest as he is saguna Brahman under sattva upAdhis. This is well-known.

It is in this sense that MS says Vishnu/Narayana refers to both saguna/nirguna brahman. Sridhara also says that amongst the trimurti, only Vishnu is wholly identical to Brahman since he is devoid of rajo/tamo guna upAdhIs.

The krama mukti and subsequent nirgunatva is achievable via upAsaNa on the highest saguna Brahman/Ishvara which is under sattva upAdhis, and that is Vishnu. It cannot be achieved by dhyAna on Brahma and Shiva who are under rajo and tamo guna upAdhIs, hence, they are not identical to Brahman in that sense.

Enough of this. Shankara's nd advaitic guru's positions have been well established many times as leaning towards Vaishnavism only.

Firstly, don't use terms like " freaking ...

2019-12-29T16:08:46.230+05:30

Firstly, don't use terms like " freaking baby level" (so your brain is "freaking advanced" I suppose?) and pass opinions without proof. The debate happened and the proof is in the pAsurams.

Secondly, just because one is defeated in debate doesn't mean one changes his belief. There are accounts of jains and Buddhists being defeated by vedāntins and still retaining their belief. Sambandhar was defeated in the argument but continued to stick to his convictions that Shiva is supreme, there is no contradiction in that.

Another reason why I think that debate is fake. Sa...

2019-12-29T00:24:23.105+05:30

Another reason why I think that debate is fake.
Sambhandar didn't change his belief and faith.He stil praise Shiva as the greatest.Also even state to be gain mukti.

I don't think That debate is real. That's ...

2019-12-29T00:22:14.249+05:30

I don't think That debate is real.
That's a freaking baby-level debate.

Some comments regarding the kAryAdhikaraNa section...

2019-12-28T22:23:29.113+05:30

Some comments regarding the kAryAdhikaraNa section bhAshya of Shankara.

It appears to me that -

1. brahmA (chaturmukha) is not Ishwara, but brahmA is lower brahman and also saguNa brahman. saguNa brahman is not used synonymously with Ishwara here.

2. Highest brahman refers to both Ishwara and nirguNa brahman, who are referred interchangeably. As Ishwara, He creates and is omnipresent. As nirguNa brahman, It is described using negatives.

3. Vishnu refers to both Ishwara and nirguNa brahman, but Vishnu does not refer to the lower brahman, who is brahmA/hiraNyagarbha. Madhusudhana Saraswati also says in his gItA bhAshya that Narayana refers to both saguNa brahman (Ishwara here!, not brahmA) and nirguNa brahman. Even in Vishnu sahasranAma, some names refer to Ishwara and others denote nirguNa brahman.

4. It does not look like Shankara is hinting at a vaikuNTha here.

5. It does not look like Shankara is completely consistent across all his bhAshyas.

It was written as it happened. Hence it is an ithi...

2019-12-26T10:32:11.943+05:30

It was written as it happened. Hence it is an ithihAsa.

Aditya Hridayam is considered an interpolation.

Was Ramayana written before or after its events oc...

2019-12-26T07:49:44.521+05:30

Was Ramayana written before or after its events occurred? Also, are there any interpolated chapters in it?

hi sir, so what is the view of kundalini yoga in v...

2019-12-13T16:15:40.600+05:30

hi sir, so what is the view of kundalini yoga in vaishavam is it similar to bhakti yoga/samadhi, because i read somewhere the the thiruman or namam represents nadis or enegrychannels and when u raise the prane to the third eye you will sriman naryana reclining on the mily ocean, are there any sastric proofs or from our acharyas?, the onky person i could think is thirumazhai alwar would be one of the high level yogis on our sampradeya who could have practiced it.

Cont'd from above... so ’yajad rājasūyena vij...

2019-12-03T11:38:46.839+05:30

Cont'd from above...

so ’yajad rājasūyena vijitya bhuvana-trayam patnīṁ bṛhaspater darpāt tārāṁ nāmāharad balāt (Bhagavatam 9.14.4)

This shloka says Soma performed a rAjasUya yAga and becoming proud, kidnapped the wife of Brihaspati.

The meaning is as follows - "Soma" refers to the jIva which is called "somarAja" in the Chandogya as it is the experiencer of objects. The "rAjasUya" can mean "manifestation of the sovereign (by contemplating on it's nature)" -- It means, the jIva has obtained the knowledge of the self.

"Brihaspati" refers to the Veda which is the possessor (Pati) of that which is "Brihat or Brahma" (the Supreme Brahman, or it's knowledge). The Veda prescribes works to be done and hence signifies karma yoga. His wife is called "tArA" which means "to cross over" -- it refers to sAdhana which is the meditation on the self to cross over prakrti, that constitutes jnAna-yoga. This meditation is always dependent on performance of nishkAma karmas, hence tArA is ever allied to Brihaspati.

The idea is that, Soma is the jIva which has knowledge of the self. Brihaspati is the Veda which signifies performance of works (karma yoga), since such works are only described in the Vedas. The meditation on the self (tArA, wife of Brihaspati) is in feminine as the sAdhana is always wedded to the performance of works prescribed by the Vedas.

If the jIva (soma) thinks that mere meditation on the self is enough and performance of works is not required, it is akin to stealing the meditation on the self (tArA) from the Vedas (Brihaspati) which prescribe such works.

However, when tArA (meditation on the self) was returned to Brihaspati (Vedas/performance of works), the illegitimate son of Soma, namely Budha, was born and allowed to live. Budha means "wise" and refers to knowledge of the form of samAdhi. Just as Budha was the son of Soma, but his mother tArA belonged to Brihaspati, samAdhi (Budha) arises only from the jIva which has knowledge of the self (Soma), by doing sAdhana in the form of meditation on the true nature of the self (tAra) while adhering to the Vedas which prescribe performance of works (brihaspati).

This is the inner meaning of the incident.

~Finis~

Cont'd from above... Firstly, why do our text...

2019-12-03T11:16:13.887+05:30

Cont'd from above...

Firstly, why do our texts contain such incidents and exploits of the devas? Why do we need to know these? Answer is threefold:

1) The first layer of meaning shows that these devas are born of karma and not fit for worship as Brahman.
2) The second layer of meaning shows the pitfalls of bhakti yoga -- it is a difficult path and thus the practitioners (the devas) are prone to flaws.
3) The third and superiormost layer of meaning illustrates tattvas of the shAstra.

I direct you to this statement of the Isavasya Upanishad:

andham tamah pravisanti ye'vidyamupasate
tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u vidyayam ratah (~Isavasya Upanishad 9)

Meaning: Those who meditate on karma (avidya) alone, enter into a blinding darkness. But those who are devoted to knowledge (vidya) alone enter into a greater darkness than the former.

The idea is that, mere performance of works without a knowledge of the self leads to darkness. But those who just meditate on the self because they have the knowledge, thinking such meditation does not require performance of any karmas, are worse off and will eventually succumb to lust etc. Then what is to be done? The Upanishad says that a combination of nishkAma karmas with meditation on the self leads to the goal.

Keep this in mind, let us now look at the bhAgavata incident of brihaspati/soma/tAra.

Cont'd...

Recently. while searching for something, I acciden...

2019-12-03T11:08:23.162+05:30

Recently. while searching for something, I accidentally came across this tawdry site:

https://www.bonobology.com/tara-and-chandra-if-a-dissatisfied-partner-has-an-affair-who-is-to-be-blamed/

Here, they reference the incident of Brihaspati's wife Tara being seduced by Soma to talk about idiotic modern day sexual relationships. It is quite sad to see Indians themselves reducing their heritage to such a joke. Recently, when I went to Rome, the Italian lady who was an acquaintance of mine was an atheist, but fervently in admiration of the 500 year old statues and paintings in places like the Vatican, etc. We have temples and monuments over 2000 years old, as well as innumerable works, but our people only seem to be ashamed of it or prefer to deride it.

Anyway, the real issue is that seeing Soma and Brihaspati referenced made me want to explain the inner meaning of the incident. If you look at the older comments above this, I have already explained the metaphysical meanings of Indra and Ahalya's tryst in the Ramayana in a similar manner.

Cont'd...

"all gods are equal is the "mature"...

2019-12-02T15:27:20.640+05:30

"all gods are equal is the "mature" idea"!?!?!?
Why doesn't mature Navinji worship the Angry God of the Christians then?

Balarama is counted among the avatArAs of the Lord...

2019-12-01T09:47:57.698+05:30

Balarama is counted among the avatArAs of the Lord in shAstra. It means he is an Avesha avatAra like ParashurAma.

Also, Lakshmana signifies the perfect prapanna and hence was an avatAra of Adi Sesha. BalarAma signifies the self-effort of upAsaNa and thus independence/ego was a part of his nature. Since Adi Sesha by nature has no independence, bhagavAn lent his powers to him to enable the tattva to be played out in practice.

Bhagavan doesn't care about "world nature". Everyone should be subservient to him as he is both the oldest and youngest as per shAstra. If someone is not subservient to him, it only means that someone is he himself in another form.

Lakshmana, the avatāra of Adi Sesha, was completel...

2019-11-30T11:26:20.127+05:30

Lakshmana, the avatāra of Adi Sesha, was completely obedient to the Lord, which is the nature of a prapanna. Balarāma, the avatāra of the Lord with the amsha of Adi Sesha, was sometimes obedient to and sometimes disobedient. Lakshmana also was the younger brother to Rāmā while Balarāma was the older brother. Likewise, Prapatti is conducive to the svarūpa of the Jīva (to be below the Lord’s feet), as opposed to Bhakti which requires self-effort and hence causes ego.
(Note that Adi Sesha being a nitya-sūri in full knowledge, can never be disobedient, or become older to the Lord. Hence, the Lord himself appeared as BalarAma, carrying only the amsha of Adi Sesha!)

I donot understand why you like this. Because,Balarama is elder to Krishna,no need he is obedient to Lord Krishna. Krishana only supposed to obedient to him . This is World nature at this juncture.
Hence , Balarama is avaathra of Adisesha.

I knew this Ajit Vadakayil . I gone thro his Web P...

2019-11-30T10:48:15.292+05:30

I knew this Ajit Vadakayil . I gone thro his Web Page. He is very much hostile towards Tamil Smaratha Brahmins because of jealous nature ie Tamil Smaratha Brahmins attained great heights in Govt Sectors.
Many rediclous claims he had. One of His claim that Lord Ayappa is incarnation of Vishnu totally rejected all Vaishanvas.

The Saiva texts are Veda bAhya and unlike Tamara p...

2019-11-29T10:57:43.039+05:30

The Saiva texts are Veda bAhya and unlike Tamara purANAs, they are authored by Saivas. They should be rejected completely other than those parts agreeable to the Vedas.

ThirumUlar sees Hari as a manifestation of Para-Siva (who appears as Brahma, Vishnu, Kalarudra, Maheshwara and Sadasiva. This praise he is giving Vishnu is not sAttvic and based on a wrong premise.

People might want to exercise caution while readin...

2019-11-28T14:57:53.758+05:30

People might want to exercise caution while reading this article since we have said here that Narayana is a proper noun . This is not correct and our Acharyas did not use Panini grammar, as we later found out. You can read the addendum addressing the mistakes in this article here - https://narayanastra.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_5.html.

thank you so much for clearing my doubt. i learne...

2019-11-28T14:20:17.082+05:30

thank you so much for clearing my doubt.

i learned so much from you.

In the thirumanthiram by thirumoolar, i read stuff about lord vishnu.
He puts him on a lower status by retalling the tamas stories from linga purana, BUT even then he says like somethimes (in thirumanthiram) :

368: The Lord Split Power of Chakra
He bestowed on Damodara the divine discus,
But potent far was it for him to hold
And so he prayed to the Lord in fervour
And the Lord split its power in twain.
89
369: The Lord Split Power of Chakra*
Splitting thus the power of goodly Chakra
One part He gave to Vishnu,
One part He gave to Sakti,
And that part He on His forehead assumed.

in this one he is sayin the chakra is too powerful, but he never dedicatede even one song about the trident of lord shiva.

but in some verses he accepts the greats supreme qualaties of our lord like this :

389:
With Hari who spat out the seven worlds

so my question is, are the saiva texts like the tamasa purans where they downgrade vishnu but have to sometimes say his great qualaties, which nobody can deny?

Additionally, Shiva himself prophesies the appeara...

2019-11-27T16:42:10.722+05:30

Additionally, Shiva himself prophesies the appearance of the nAyanmArs and reveals their true identities in the following shloka of the Rudra Gita from Varaha Purana (which we have translated on this site):

teShAM gautamashApAddhi bhaviShyantyanvaye dvijAH |teShAM madhye sadAchArA ye te machChAsane ratAH || svargaM chaivApavargaM cha iti vai saMshayAt purA |vaiDAlikA.adho yAsyanti mama saMtatidUShakAH ||prAg gautamAgninA dagdhAH punarmadvachanAd dvijAH |narakaM tu gamiShyanti nAtra kAryA vichAraNA || 71.(59-61)||

Meaning: In the future, those brahmaNas cursed by Gautama will be born in that clan. Among them, those who conduct themselves well, devoted to my commands (in the pAShupata shAstra) will attain svargaM and also get pardon (from the curse) indeed,there is no doubt. Those of my clan, opposed to the path of the Veda, who transgress (this pAShupata doctrine) go down. Burnt by the curse of Gautama previously, and now by my words, they will go to hell. We need not doubt this.

This is a pretty clear reference to the chief propagators of Shaivam in Kali Yuga, the nAyanmArs being very preeminent ones.

And Rudra also clarifies what he thinks of the bhakti he receives from such devotees of his here:

ye rudramupajIvanti kalau vaiDAlikA narAH |laulyArthinaH svashAstrANi kariShyanti kalau narAH |

uchChuShmarudrAste j~neyA nAhaM teShu vyavasthitaH || 71\.55||

Meaning: Those people who sustain themselves on desire which causes weeping or attachment (Rudram) in kali are enemies of the path of the Veda. These people create their own shAstras (derived from the niHshvAsa) for the purpose of rajas or passion in Kali. They of manifest passion (rajas),abide in Rudra (myself), but it should be known that I am not situated with them (in that path).

Though this shloka is more directed towards extreme forms like vAmachara/kApAlika etc (as nAyanmars were for the most part desirous of moksha as opposed to material pleasures), the second part of the shloka is applicable to the nAyanmArs -- Rudra says they consider him to be Supreme and worship him, but he does not think himself to be supreme on account of that and does not endorse their views.