I can understand this and i dare say most Hindus will see no difference in this two, but why are Sri Vaishnava in particular so adamant in their belief?
when i quote they have all ready have answers.
Mahanarayana Upanishad
ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .
iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirb rahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h
XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.
Vaishnva contend as follows,
There are 2 versions of Mahanarayana Upanishad available currently. The advaitins follow a version that mentions consecration of Shiva Linga, and has an interpolation in the Narayana Suktam, 'Sa Hari'.
How can we say that your version is spurious? Simple. 1) If you add 'Sa Hari' to the Narayana Suktam, the metre becomes incorrect and rhythm of the hymn falls, 2) Mantras for consecration on Shiva Lingam itself is bogus, as Veda NEVER talks about consecrating deities. Only Agamas are authorities on that.
The other version does not contain any verses glorifying Shiva. This version is the one which has been commentated by authoritative scholars like Sayana. Even Adi Sankara was following this version. Only after the 17th century, have Advaitins started to follow the spurious version.
Vaishnavas have researched everything, so they say Only Neovedantins follow such bogus versions of Upanishads, therby misleading everyone.
Dravida pata in earlier days('paramam prabhum'). the Andhra pata is comparatively very new and has not been quoted/cited by ancient Advaitins.
Jai Shree Krishna
Bookmarks