Re: Some misconceptions - Answers from VA pov
The bAnAsura charithra as a whole has extremely powerful inner meanings and encapsulates the entirety of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta in our tradition. I am reluctant to post it here because such meanings are to be revealed only to those interested, as per the divAgnya of bhagavad rAmAnuja. Secondly, there are very few here who are interested in such things, as such, making a thread of it would be useless.
Originally Posted by philosoraptor
If you want, I will send it to you in private.
The same goes for Tripura SamhArA, but I believe you already have a rough gist of it?
Adi Shankara, as well as all the advaita acharyas till Madhusudhana Saraswati, was not an advocator of panchOpAsana. He rejects Surya as the supreme brahman and Pasupati (Rudra) as well in various places (Brahma Sutra bhAshya, BrihadAranyaka upanishad bhAshya). Only Vishnu, Vasudeva and Narayana nAmAs find place in his bhAshyas. He interprets Keshava nAmA in his vishnu sahasranAma bhAshya as 'Ruler of Brahma and Rudra'. He rejects the concept that worship of anya devatas can lead to moksha in his gita bhAshya (vide: avidhi pUrvakam and related slokas). He rejects the pAshupata matham wholly in his brahma sutra bhAshya, but in the section on pAncharAtrA, he states that the worship of nArAyaNa as Parabrahman and his worship in temples, etc is fully vedic and accepted by him, although he does not accept pAncharAtrA in its totality. Hardly a position for one who favored panchOpAsana.
That being said, doesn't Adi Shankara equate Shiva and Vishnu with his pancopasana doctrine? I have heard it said that pancopasana might have been a later development, but am not aware of any statements by Adi Shankara one way or another on this specific issue
His sishyas and later day advaitins like Sureshvara, Padmapada, Anandagiri, Amalananda, PrakashatmAn and Madhusudhana Saraswati have all accepted nArAyaNa only as parabrahman and rejected other devas. Take any famous polemical work of any of these gurus and you will first see a namaskAram to vishnu/vAsudevA/nArAyaNa only in the mangala sloka, as opposed to any other devata (credit goes to my friend for pointing this out more clearly).
This whole panchOpAsaNa concept came about in the 15th century after the period of appayya dikshita, when some stotras were composed and attributed to Shankaracharya.
The bolded line is all that matters. Tulasidas is neither shruti, nor does his work enjoy the same authority as Srimad vAlmiki rAmAyaNa, from which the former (Tulasidas) deviates drastically. That being said, nobody is insulting Tulasidas, whose work certainly is a masterpiece of poetry and devotion; it just isn't pramAna.
But aside from the fact that Tulasi Das is not shruti
, I have a friend initiated in the Ramanandi sampradaya who tells me that their view (including the view of Tulasi Das), is that Vishnu only is supreme, and that Shiva, though a highly-regarded deva, is not the same as Vishnu.
Last edited by Sri Vaishnava; 16 May 2013 at 12:49 PM.
[CENTER][COLOR="Black"][COLOR="Red"][COLOR="DarkRed"]No holiness rules over my freedom
No commands from above I obey
I seek the ruin, I shake the worlds
Behold! I am blackest ov the black
Ov khaos I am, the disobediant one
Depraved son who hath dwelt in nothingness
Upon the ninth I fell, from grace up above
To taste this life ov sin, to give birth to the "I"[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]
[B]~ "Blackest Ov the Black" - Behemoth.[/B]