Refutation of Uma Hari abheda

               Prayers

I bow down to My eternal mother, The Great Goddess of the universe who is the very cause of all Causes, The daughter of king Janka, Mother Sītā. I Prostrate before the Lord of The universe, the undisputed supreme being of the universe, whose lotus feet is worshipped by All the Gods, The Lord of the raghus, Sri Rama. I seek the blessings of my elder brother, The Greatest amongst warriors, The annihilator of Lanka, the one who defeated Rāvana and is the Greatest devotee of Lord Rāma, Lord Hanūmān. May the bless me always.

Introduction to the topic :

The Bogus concept of all names of Narayana being Applicable to Shiva has been refuted Here in this post already. There is yet another propoganda which Vishnu dweshis use to Steal the glories of Narayana is a verse which is allegedly from padma Puran :

अहमेव च सा गौरी गौर्यैवाहं महाफ़णिन्।
उमाया यान्ति मद्भक्ता उमाभक्ताश्च् मे पदं।।
उमया मे चाभेदेन धृतस्त्रीनरवेषयो:।
उभयोर्भेद मुक्त्वा तु प्राप्नुयान्नरकार्र्णवम्।।

Lord Vishnu said: Oh, the great serpent (Shesha), I am Gauri, and Gauri is me. The devotees of Uma are my own devotees, those who venerate Uma reaches to me only. We are one but have taken the appearances of male and female genders only. One who differentiates between me and Uma will drown in the ocean of Tartarus.

Now using this verse and a similar verse from an upanishad called "Rudra hridaya" having no antiquity at all, these guys claim that Lord narayana is "Male form" of Devi uma (I.e yogmaya) and then they make Make rubbish claims also. This post will refute this bogus concept entirely. 

Does the verse hold any significance ?

To understand this, let us look at the statement given by Lord Krishna, for arjuna in the mahabharata :

Having addressed Krishna thus, the illustrious Pandava, who was the soul of Krishna, became dumb, when Janardana (in reply addressed that son of Pritha) saying, "" *(Mahabharata, Van parva, section XII)*

Now here, Lord Krishna says that there is no difference between them by saying they both are from each other, so does that means that Lord Krishna and Arjuna are "one and same"? No it is not, this simply indicates the affection which The Lord has for his dear Devotee arjuna, who is none other than his own portion. Only people who actually believe things like Lord varah being avatar of Brahma deva can believe that Arjuna is equal to lord Krishna. Further, Even ths Dhyaan shloka of the Sri Vishnu sahasranam Mentions vyāsāya viṣṇu rūpāya vyāsa-rūpāya viṣṇave, and even Sri adi shankaracharya addresses Sri Vyās deva as "narayana" in the concluding verses of his Vishnu sahasranam bhasya, So should we equate Maharishi vyās with the almighty Narayana and start worshipping him? No! We all know he is a partial avatar of Lord Narayana. Also, Sri Narasimha Tapniye upanishad equates the Lord to Not only Goddess Mahalakshmi, but even to other Goddesses :

 "Oh power behind EEm who is the personification of the power of illusion, please protect us. Please bless us so that we are able to cross easily in a straight forward manner this sea of birth and death. People who know you, call you also as Sreedevi, Lakshmi, Parvathy, Bhoodevi (The Goddess of Earth), Sashti Devi, Sree Vidhya and Indra Sena. Requesting you to give me long life, I submit myself to you who is the mother of all Vedas"

Now as explained in the previous post, This can be well understood by the logic of Body-soul relationship and the all prevading nature of the Lord i.e he is the indwelling Soul of all These Devis and The beholder of all names. So, if Uma is Vishnu, Then all other Goddesses are also vishnu. The case of Sri devi and Bhu devi (Mahalakshmi) is different, because she is parāśaktī herself, She is the consort of the Lord, she is the source and end of all, just like the Lord, and so they are the actual female forms of bhagvān Nārāyaña. 

Even sri prahalad maharaja equated Himself to the almighty in the Vishnu puran, so does that make them equal? Obviously it's a no and Bhagwatpada Ramanujacharya has well explained this in the vedartha sangraha, that It referred to the all prevading nature of the Lord, who is the indweller of all beings, including prahalad maharaja. So the point of telling this is, equating one self to the Lord or the Lord equating one self to someone else should not be taken literally always. Another example is lord shiva equating arjuna to himself after their Fierce battle, but obviously that doesn't means Arjuna is literally equal to him. In valmiki Ramayana also, Lord Rama has been equated to Indra many times in prowess etc, so does that means Indra is literally equal to Lord Rama? Again it's a no. 

Similarly, the the lord equating himself to devi uma and calling themselves as male and female forms of each other doesn't literally makes the Lord, her male form, because of the affection shown towards her being his younger sister, just like he said for arjuna. Also, the Lord's female form is only his consort i.e Goddess mahalakshmi, no one else. The entire Male dominion is represented by Lord narayana whils female by Goddess mahalakshmi, so when The Great Goddess Expands as Devi uma, the Lord expands as Lord shiva. This is again evident from the following verse of the Mahabharata :

"O best of regenerate ones, I am Narayana, the Source of all things, the Eternal, the Unchangeable. I am the Creator of all things, and the Destroyer also of all. I am Vishnu, I am Brahma and I am Sakra, the chief of the gods. I am king Vaisravana, and I am Yama, the lord of the deceased spirits. I am Siva, I am Soma, and I am Kasyapa the lord of the created things. And, O best of regenerate ones, I am he called Dhatri, and he also that is called Vidhatri, and I am Sacrifice embodied. Fire is my mouth, the earth my feet, and the Sun and the Moon are my eyes; the Heaven is the crown of my head, the firmament and the cardinal points are my ears; the waters are born of my sweat." (Mahabharata, markandeya samasya parva)

Here, The Lord says he is Not only vishnu (of Trintiy, which he himself is) but also shiva, Brahma, Soma, kashyapa, indra, yama etc. This doesn't equates them to The Lord, This is simply tells the Lord is their indweller and their souls.

so as a conclusion, That verse equating Uma to narayana Doesn't holds any special significance, because He addressed arjuna in a similar way, who is his partial avatar and other points also need to be taken into consideration. It is simply a result of the affection the Lord has for her being his younger sister and her indweller. 

   Dubious authenticity

The authenticity of the afore spoken verse is also under a question mark, because Two major versions of padma puran i.e The Geeta press version and the Motilal banarasidas version (which is known to analyze various manuscripts) do not contain this verse and the alleged khanda called "devadaru mahatmaya" or "shankar mahatmaya". So this verse itself is under question mark and even if It's there in some version, then also it holds no special significnace. 

Vaishnav interpretation of Rudra hridaya mantra :

The Rudra hridaya upanishad is not an authentic Upanishad, no ancient Vaidika has quoted it, so it holds no significance. But still, let us Look at mantra that supposingly equates Goddess Uma with bhagvan :

vaamapaarshve umaa devii vishhNuH somo.api te trayaH yaa umaa saa svaya.n vishhNuryo vishhNuH sa hi chandramaaH

"On his right (auspicious) side, there is Lakshmi who possesses the fame (of quenching his anger), his all-pervasiveness (by which he appeared in the pillar instantly to save prahlAda) and the nectarine auspicious attributes (somA). The fame (of sousIlyam or granting brahmAnandam) is verily vishNu and this vishNu is verily lustrous (as a result of this)."

            Conclusion

Lord narayana is Different, Devi Uma is different. The Lord is the male form of Goddess mahalakshmi only, and if Goddess Uma is same as the Lord, then even Indra, Lord yama, Sri prahlad etc, they are also equal to Narayana.

                   ||Sri sitaRama||

                                    ||Jai Hanuman||