Here is a somewhat interesting Q I came across. So it looks like Shaivites may have even been willing to interpolate the works of their own Acharya.
Our partisans, who refuted the book by Dikshita, did not cite it." Some modern writers too have written that in the lexicons within the last ten years. "It is said that Appayya Dikshita quoted a statement from the Skanda Purana. Therefore, the usages you cited are not at all from the puranas. Even narrations of greatness of modern temples are presented as though they belong in the Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana, etc. are generally edited only by the Shaivites. Therefore, it is inevitable to suspect the existence of interpolations in the very Puranas, such as Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana, etc. Interpolations are seen in the texts of Mahabharata, etc. Our texts, which refute the above texts line by line, also do not cite those passages. However, these usages are not cited in the Shaivite texts such as Nilakantha Bhashya, Shivarkamanidipika, Shivastutisuktamalika, Shivatattvaviveka, and Shaivakarnamrita, etc., which are extremely insistent upon establishing that the term "narayana" refers to Shiva. "You cited usages of interpretations explaining the term "narayana" as referring to Shiva. And interestingly, it says that not are these verses interpolations in the Tamasa Puranas, but also the very citation of them in the works of Appayya Dikshitar are interpolations in the works of Appayya Dikshitar: Reply Deleteīy the way, the Sri Vaishnava rejoinder work nArAyaNasabdaniruktiH says that these Tamasa Puranas' statements calling Shiva as Narayana are interpolations. It is also an example of the poor scholarship of the vishNu-dhvEshi who authored this work. It is merely saying Shiva is in the form of the trimUrtIs, of whom Narayana (Vishnu) is one.Īn example of how even the tAmasa purANAs do not dare to attribute the name "nArAyaNa" to anyone other than the Lord, even when they are trying to belittle him in favor of other devatas. That is clear by the reference to sharva and brahma namas. It hails Shiva as one who is Vishnu (Narayana) and does not attribute the name "Narayana" directly to Shiva! This shloka is certainly hailing Shiva as Brahman and saying Vishnu is praising him, but look how carefully it attributes the name "Narayana" to only Vishnu. Meaning: Salutations to Maheshvara, to the effulgent god, to the Supreme Self, to Vishnu (nārāyaṇāya), to Shiva (śarvāya), to Brahma (brahmaṇe), to the one who has the Vedas as his body (brahmarūpiṇe). For that shloka does not say Shiva is nArAyaNa. Here is an excellent sample of the ignorance of later day shaivAdvaitin dveshis. The author believes that the term "nArAyaNa" there thus refers to Shiva.
This is a tAmasic section of the Linga Purana where Vishnu praises Shiva after the latter destroys the tripurAsurAs. Nārāyaṇāya śarvāya brahmaṇe brahmarūpiṇe / Maheśvarāya devāya namaste paramātmane // LiP_1,71.96 // The author tries to show Shiva is referred to as "Narayana" in the Puranas by quoting the following shlOka from Linga Purana: But neither the shaiva nor the vaishnava works are of great scholarship and thus serve no purpose for us.
Obviously, the shaivAdvaitins were attempting new things previously unheard of during this period.Ī vaishnava rejoinder to this work named "nArAyaNasabdaniruktiH" exists. This is a shaiva work of the 16-17th century that desperately tries to prove that the term "nArAyaNa" can be applied to brahma and shiva besides Bhagavan. Being bored, I was just reading the "nArAyaNasabdasAdhAraNyaM" of Govinda Nayaka.
0 kommentar(er)
