Where Are the Cattle

People tend to read less in general, and much less in correlating or analysing.

The recent discussion around the cautrāmnāyas has triggered lay smārtas a bit too much.

The veracity remains to be discussed and their own internal discord on timelines for śaṁkara still not resolved.

Amidst all this, I do see a repeated quotation.

śivāya viṣṇurūpāya...

Where does this come from anyway?

For some, since it is used by (some) smārtas during saṁdhyā prayoga, it is a vedamantra itself.

For some, it does not matter—my folks have told me, we believe in this hariharābheda, and there ends the matter.

For the discerning one though, there is some more work.

Digging things up, this and some variants of this occur in a few places.

1. A purported skandopaniṣat.
2. śāntiparvā
3. khila harivaṁśa
4. pādmottara
5. laiṅga
6. (a wild card entry) haribhaktivilāsa

To the ones in the knowing, the 108 canon and how they were codified and commented on, gives ample reason to at best take the first source with a some level of salt.

Moving to the latter. śāntiparvā’s usage.

rudro nārāyaṇaścaiva sattvamekaṃ dvidhākṛtam

While it might appear as a very decisive one, the achilles heel to the [nominal] abhedavādis is the prakaraṇa.

Where it speaks of brahmarudrau to be prasādakrodajau, and mere nimittas of nārāyaṇa, it only expounds the śarīrātmabhāva of viśiṣṭādvaita.

Or, if one were to use this in the classic advaita polemic of īśvara being a product of cidābhāsa, then they open it up to two inconvenient situations. The old polemic is very clear in the īśvaropāsana in a certain manner aiding in certain paths.

When śaṁkara himself opines vāsudevopāsana as the only way to kramamukti by nature of vaiṣṇava saumyatā and jñānotpatti for a janmāntara vividiṣā from rajobhūta raudrī, one is at odds. Second, in the context, one cannot counterfit the framework.

Because, if the commonplace view of one sattvaṁ becoming three creator-prserver-destroyer structure, one would find such an exposition in the text? One would be hard pressed to find it, unless the interpolation game is strong.

Moving on to harivaṁśa. Bhandarkar’s is the most critcally edited version that we have at hand. And it caps harivaṁśa’s viṣṇuparva to 113 adhyāyas. A second version from a certain rāmanārāyaṇadattaśāstri does run into 125 adhyāyas, where this verse is set, as mārkaṇḍeyavacana post the bāṇāsurayuddha.

The critical versions make note of vulgate variants alongside, which BORI, in this context does not. Which then, makes it an interpolation and not a valid source.

If one were to fight a losing battle, the same vulgate version has verses just around the same context making this a śarīrātamaprayoga and not the usual smārta way.

Next on to pādmottara and we see a similar thread.

Interpolated chapters appearing only in Northern recensions that carry this. ānandāshrama series does not and remarks.

With such prabalapramāṇas going this way, one can only take a laiṅga with similar notes.

Just before we wrap, giving the wild card a thought. haribhaktivilāsa is a patent gauḍīyavaiṣṇava work that is not taken at face value by anyone outside.

Be that as it may, what does it bring to the table? A new factor in all. As a compendium and a hand book for gauḍīyās, it collects verses from various sources towards each vrata, krama, and such. In the context of śivarātrivrata, it uses this verse as one from bahvṛcapariśiṣṭa.

Only qualm, as always, no corroboration anywhere outside the precincts. So, one has to leave this at that, and for those involved to handle.

Doing a siṁhāvalokana, where then does this entire abheda start?

Interpolations are marked as coming only from Northern recensions. One might take to the secular (read, of the times) need to bring all folds to a common space as the reason. Given geo-political woes of the yore in that geography, does add up. But that is a deeper rabbit hole of itself.

So leaving that for another analysis aside, one does with all honesty need to ask.

Where's the cattle if you claim this is milk?