Tamasa Puranas: Additional Content Analysis

Dear all,

We have been reading the actual shlokas from shiva purANa, linga purANa, etc that describe the tAmasic incidents like lingOdbhava, Siva-pUja using vishNu's eye, etc. It is very amusing to see that if Shaivas were to claim these incidents as pramANa, then they have to accept the supremacy of Hari in some way. Because these purANAs, while trying to deny his supremacy, inadvertently reveal his supreme attributes here and there even in those incidents!

These purANAs are meant for people with aversion to the Supreme Lord nArAyaNa and thus contain stories contradictory to the Vedas. The stories are to be considered as “arthavAda” for glorification of a particular deity (like Shiva) for the sake of people inclined to such deities.

In that sense, these purANAs do have certain instances of sattva as follows:

1. They contain certain statements such as the following which are perfectly vaidika and prove vishNu alone is supreme:

vaikunthE pare lOkE sriyA sArdhaM jagatpatiH |

astE viSnur acintyAtmA bhaktair bhAgavataiH saha||~ Linga purANa

Which says that shrI vaikuntha is the supreme abode where vishNu, along with his consorts who are nitya sUrIs themselves (shrI, bhU and nIla –mentioned in the AgamAs as well) are surrounded by “bhaktAs” and “bhAgavatAs”.

2. General topics like etymology of names, etc is quite acceptable.

These two points were covered in the previous article. In this small write-up, we will show a third way  as to how these purANAs are useful.  This is something that has been mentioned by sri Vaishnava acharyas. We will address the tAmasic stories themselves.

The idea is that these purANAs, despite trying to elevate other deities over vishNu, nonetheless end up indicating the supremacy of Hari indirectly even in incidents which glorify Shiva and denigrate Hari. Thus, these episodes become indirect upabrahmaNAs for certain tattvas promoted by the shruti.

We will take up the two major stories of lingOdbhava and SivArAdhana for consideration.

LINGODBHAVA IN THE SHIVA PURANA

As we all know, this story undisputedly aims to promote the supremacy of shiva over brahma and vishNu. Let us however, look at certain shlOkas embedded in this incident as described by the shiva purANa.

The story starts as a dialogue/argument between Brahma and Vishnu as to who is superior. The purANa quotes vishNu as saying the following:

matsthaṃ jagadidaṃ vatsa manuṣe tvaṃ hi coravat //
mannābhikamalājjātaḥ putrastvaṃ bhāṣase vṛthā // (Shiva Purana 1.6.7)

Vishnu: O Dear One (Brahma), the whole Universe is situated within me but your way of thinking is like that of a thief. You are born of the lotus from my navel. You are my son. Your words are futile therefore. (Ch 6.7)

Note: Vishnu labels Brahma a thief, for those who seek that which belongs to the Lord, namely, themselves and the objects of the Universe, as their own, are thieves. But even so, bhagavAn is “akruraH” and never openly derides another person like this, even if said person had ego. Remember he massaged the feet of Bhrigu who kicked him. This alone shows that this story did not happen, but is entirely tAmasic. Nonetheless, we can take whatever tattva doesn’t contradict shruti.

In this shloka, vishNu claims to be the controller of the Universe as it is situated in his navel. Keep that in mind for now.

Then Vishnu and Brahma fight. Upon which Shiva manifests in the form of a fiery Linga. Brahma and Vishnu take the guise of a swan and a boar to measure the top and bottom respectively.

Brahma is unable to reach the top of the Linga, but he utters a falsity that he has seen the top of the Linga. Hari takes it to be true and eulogizes Brahma. Then Shiva appears and speaks to him. Among the things he says, one of the statements below:

vatsaprasanno 'smi hare yatastvamīśatvamicchannapi satyavākyam //
brūyāstataste bhavitā janeṣu sāmyaṃ mayā satkṛtirapyalapthāḥ // (Shiva Purana 1.7.31)

(Siva says:) O Hari, I am pleased with you because despite your desire to be “Isa” or a Ruler, you are of true words. Hence among the general public you shall have a footing equal to mine. You will be honored too likewise (ie, everyone will worship you also in temples, etc).

Let us forget the supremacy of Shiva being claimed here, as it is a tAmasa purANa and thus will not do anything else. However, one must notice here that Shiva admits that Vishnu has adhered to the truth. What does this imply?

It implies that bhagavAn vishNu is of true words. So, that in turn means that what Vishnu said about the whole Universe situated in him earlier, is true, for he is not prone to lies. Which again  makes him the Supreme Lord, as he had declared himself to be so.

Shiva does say “despite your desire to be a Lord”, implying that Vishnu is not the highest. But this is not surprising as it is the nature of the story –it is tAmasa and thus seeks to degrade Vishnu. The point to note is that inadvertently, it has admitted the kalyANa guNa of bhagavAn – that he is established in Truth. Thus, even his desire to be an “ISa” is to be taken as rooted in Truth no matter what Shiva thinks! For it is not possible that someone is hailed as truthful and yet untruthfully claims himself as a Lord!

Even this purANa does not dare to paint bhagavAn in a bad light as a liar, although it refers to Brahma as untruthful. The tAmasa purANa even denigrates vishNu in a vile manner by using terminologies like “eunuch” and so on, but it does not deny his auspicious qualities like being of truthful speech. And if bhagavAn is not a liar, and is of true speech, then whatever he says and does is true. Which makes his declaration as the One in whom the Universe is stationed, as well as his desire to be a Lord of all, are all true!

In which case, the words of Shiva become an indirect supporting proof of the following ithihAsa shlOka:

Satye pratisthitah Krishnah satyam asmin pratihthitam |

Sattasatte ca govindah tasmat Satyah satam matah ||(~mahAbhArata Udyoga Parva 69.12)

Meaning: Lord Krishna is rooted in Satya, and the Truth (Satya) is rooted in Lord Krishna. The sentients and insentients are both established in Lord Govinda. Hence He is called ‘Satya’ or ‘Truth’. (These are the words of Sanjaya to Dhridarashtra on why Krishna is called Satya).

Thus, Shiva saying vishNu is “satyavAkyaM” is a simple admission of the Lord being rooted in Truth always, which makes his desire to be an “ISa” true and appropriate to his nature. This is the absurd self-contradiction of Lingodbhava in the Shiva Purana!

LINGODBHAVA IN THE LINGA PURANA

In elaborating the tale of Lingodbhava, this purANa begins with a description of the Lord prior to creation as follows:

ekārṇave mahāghore tamobhūte samantataḥ /
suṣvāpāṃbhasi yogātmā nirmalo nirupaplavaḥ // LiP_1,17.10 //
sahasraśīrṣā viśvātmā sahasrākṣaḥ sahasrapāt /
sahasrabāhuḥ sarvajñaḥ sarvadevabhavodbhavaḥ // LiP_1,17.11 //
hiraṇyagarbho rajasā tamasā śaṅkaraḥ svayam /
sattvena sarvago viṣṇuḥ sarvātmatve maheśvaraḥ // LiP_1,17.12 //
kālātmā kālanābhastu śuklaḥ kṛṣṇastu nirguṇaḥ /
nārāyaṇo mahābāhuḥ sarvātmā sadasanmayaḥ // LiP_1,17.13 //
tathābhūtamahaṃ dṛṣṭvā śayānaṃ paṅkajekṣaṇam /
māyayā mohitastasya tamavocamamarṣitaḥ // LiP_1,17.14 //
kastvaṃ vadeti hastena samutthāpya sanātanam /
tadā hastaprahāreṇa tīvreṇa sa dṛḍhena tu // LiP_1,17.15 //
prabuddho 'hīyaśayanāt samāsīnaḥ kṣaṇaṃ vaśī /
dadarśa nidrāviklinna- nīrajāmalalocanaḥ // LiP_1,17.16 //
māmagre saṃsthitaṃ bhāsā- dhyāsito bhagavān hariḥ /
āha cotthāya bhagavān hasanmāṃ madhuraṃ sakṛt // LiP_1,17.17 //
svāgataṃsvāgataṃ vatsa pitāmaha mahādyute /
tasya tadvacanaṃ śrutvā smitapūrvaṃ surarṣabhāḥ // LiP_1,17.18 //
rajasā baddhavairaś ca tamavocaṃ janārdanam /
bhāṣase vatsa vatseti sargasaṃhārakāraṇam // LiP_1,17.19 //
mām ihāntaḥsmitaṃ kṛtvā guruḥ śiṣyamivānagha /
kartāraṃ jagatāṃ sākṣāt prakṛteś ca pravartakam // LiP_1,17.20 //
sanātanamajaṃ viṣṇuṃ viriñciṃ viśvasaṃbhavam /
viśvātmānaṃ vidhātāraṃ dhātāraṃ paṅkajekṣaṇam // LiP_1,17.21 //

Brahma says: (Prior to creation) it was terribly dark all around. Everything was a vast sheet of water. In that water, the Lord whose nature is of being the means (yOgAtma), devoid of impurities and one who is free of calamities had gone to sleep. He had a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet and a thousand arms. He, the Universal self, omniscient, the source and origin of all, was characterized by rajas, tamas and sattva in the forms of Brahma, Rudra and Vishnu. He was omnipresent and the great lord (Maheshvara) in view of being the self of all. He was the Self of time, with the Universe which is “death” (kAla) as it is the place of samsAra, in his lotus, Narayana, the one of great arms, the Self of all, who constitutes the sentients and insentients….(etc etc)

Note that even before the appearance of the Linga, this Purana has contradicted itself by eulogizing Vishnu in terms which can only denote the Supreme Deity who has no-one above him! And this description of vishNu is perfectly in tune with the vedAntic description of Parabrahman.

Also note that this tAmasa purANa, while describing Lingodbhava, has openly referred to nArAyaNa as “mahEshvara”, thus showing he alone is the referent of the name in shruti! So much for Shaiva claims that the name can only belong to their deity, even the linga purANa in the context of lingodbhava attributes the name to vishNu!

The Linga Purana continues by saying that this deity is the lotus-eyed one. Brahma also calls him eternal. Vishnu then says:

rajasā baddhavairaś ca tamavocaṃ janārdanam /
bhāṣase vatsa vatseti sargasaṃhārakāraṇam // LiP_1,17.19 //
mām ihāntaḥsmitaṃ kṛtvā guruḥ śiṣyamivānagha /
kartāraṃ jagatāṃ sākṣāt prakṛteś ca pravartakam // LiP_1,17.20 //
sanātanamajaṃ viṣṇuṃ viriñciṃ viśvasaṃbhavam /
viśvātmānaṃ vidhātāraṃ dhātāraṃ paṅkajekṣaṇam // LiP_1,17.21 //
kimarthaṃ bhāṣase mohād vaktumarhasi satvaram /
so 'pi māmāha jagatāṃ kartāhamiti lokaya // LiP_1,17.22 //
bhartā hartā bhavān aṅgād avatīrṇo mamāvyayāt /
vismṛto 'si jagannāthaṃ nārāyaṇamanāmayam // LiP_1,17.23 //
puruṣaṃ paramātmānaṃ puruhūtaṃ puruṣṭutam /
viṣṇumacyutamīśānaṃ viśvasya prabhavodbhavam // LiP_1,17.24 //
tavāparādho nāstyatra mama māyākṛtaṃ tvidam /
śṛṇu satyaṃ caturvaktra sarvadeveśvaro hyayam // LiP_1,17.25 //
kartā netā ca hartā ca na mayāsti samo vibhuḥ /
ahameva paraṃ brahma paraṃ tattvaṃ pitāmaha // LiP_1,17.26 //
ahameva paraṃ jyotiḥ paramātmā tvahaṃ vibhuḥ /
yadyaddṛṣṭaṃ śrutaṃ sarvaṃ jagatyasmiṃścarācaram // LiP_1,17.27 //
tattadviddhi caturvaktra sarvaṃ manmayamityatha /
mayā sṛṣṭaṃ purāvyaktaṃ caturviṃśatikaṃ svayam // LiP_1,17.28 //
nityāntā hyaṇavo baddhāḥ sṛṣṭāḥ krodhodbhavādayaḥ /
prasādāddhi bhavānaṇḍāny anekānīha līlayā // LiP_1,17.29 //
sṛṣṭā buddhirmayā tasyām ahaṅkārastridhā tataḥ /
tanmātrāpañcakaṃ tasmān manaḥ ṣaṣṭhendriyāṇi ca // LiP_1,17.30 //
ākāśādīni bhūtāni bhautikāni ca līlayā /

Gist of this is: “Know that I am the cause of the creation and annihilation of the Universe. O sinless one (Brahma), you address me as a preceptor would address a disciple. But I am the creator of the Universe, the prompter of prakrti, the eternal, unborn Supreme Brahman, the origin and self of the Universe. I am the lotus eyed Lord……..(etc etc)”

Vishnu continues by saying – “I am the creator, preserver and destroyer of the Universe” etc and describes his supremacy with adjectives like iShaNa, Achyuta, etc. It is more of the same, so we can skip it for brevity.

Then the Purana says that Vishnu and Brahma start fighting, upon which a fiery linga arises, and the usual story of how neither of them could find the beginning or end of it, and Shiva is hailed as the Supreme, with Vishnu singing praises of Shiva. There is a long stuti in which Vishnu addresses Shiva as the supreme. That is of course mandatory, as it is the nature of this purANa.

There is a point to note regarding the “stuti” of Hari to Shiva. While the adjectives used in the above shlOkas for Hari conform to vedAnta, the stuti of Shiva is very general. It of course describes him as creator, preserver and destroyer, infinite, etc…but there is no distinct vedAntic philosophy to glean out of it. No specific reference to sharIrAtma bhAva or anything else which is a staple of vedAnta. This is actually the character of these shiva-stutis everywhere in the tAmasa purANAs – they are general in proclaiming him as Parabrahman, but have no real substance in them. It is like a poet praising a King – just adjectives without a philosophy which are exaggerations or arthavAda.

Compare this to say, the dhruva stuti of vishNu in the vishNu purANa which is full of majestic vedAntArthAs.

Once the Shiva stuti was completed, Shiva addresses Vishnu thus:

pralayasthitisargāṇāṃ kartā tvaṃ dharaṇīpate /
vatsa vatsa hare viṣṇo pālayaitaccarācaram // LiP_1,19.11 //

“O Lord of Bhumi Devi (dharaNipatE), you are the doer of dissolution, preservation and creation. O Hari, protect this Earth with all its’ mobile and immobile beings.”

Shiva then declares himself to be supreme, who has divided himself into 3 forms of Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra. He then tells vishNu to free himself of delusion and protect the worlds and Brahma. That is obviously the object of the story, to denigrate Vishnu. However, it contradicts the very shloka above where Rudra called Vishnu is the creator, preserver and destroyer as well as the protector!

If vishNu is indeed the “karta” of creation, preservation and destruction as Rudra claims, then it makes him the Parabrahman, as “jagatkAraNatva” is the primary lakShaNa for paratva. Although Rudra says in the next shloka that he divided himself into brahma, vishNu and rudra, it does not make sense in the presence of this shloka.

The following contradictions occur:

1. If it is argued that vishNu being “kartA” means he is an “agent” or vibhUti who creates, preserves and destroys, then that means Brahman (Rudra) is pretty inactive, if he is using an agent for everything! While the Supreme Brahman can create and destroy through agents, he himself should be a protector, as it is not possible to ascribe all functions to vibhUtis.

2. If vishNu alone creates, preserves and destroys, what is the need for Rudra to then say “I divide myself as brahma, vishNu, rudra”? What are the functions of Brahma and Rudra, and what is the function of this “sadA-shiva” who has given away all functions of Parabrahman to a vibhUti.

3. Furthermore, a vibhUti of Brahman cannot be “sahasrasIrsha” or “sahasrAksha” as that signifies him being the sarvAntaryAmin.

4. If it is argued that Rudra=VishNu, that goes contradictory to the entire incident which claimed vishNu was deluded, which would then attribute delusion to Rudra as well. Brahman cannot suffer delusion.

For, if Rudra had said vishNu is only the protector, and not the creator or destroyer, that would be consistent with sada-shiva-tUriya-vAda denigrating vishNu (even there, a major contradiction arises as none other than the Supreme can be a protector/preserver, which is why bhagavAn does not allot that role to a jIva!) . However, vishNu cannot be a vibhUti of rudra, and yet be the creator, preserver and destroyer, all in one. That makes him Brahman. In that case, he is either superior to Rudra or equal to him.

If he is equal to Rudra, it raises a further contradiction as to what Rudra’s role in the Universe is. If vishNu is the creator, preserver and destroyer, as well as “sahasrasIrsha” etc, what is the need for Rudra’s form then, does vishNu’s delusion accrue to Rudra, etc? Basically it is a bundle of contradictions.

The important takeaway from this Purana is that Rudra has not contradicted what was said earlier. If Vishnu is indeed the thousand armed, thousand eyed, etc., it means he is the sarvAntaryAmin as the heads, eyes of all beings are his. And if he is both the sarvAntaryAmin and the protector, he is the Supreme Brahman. He is also hailed as the creator, preserver and destroyer. In addition, the Purana while describing Vishnu also hails him as free of impurities, which contradicts with Rudra saying he was deluded earlier. So, despite this story elevating Rudra above Vishnu, the declaration of Vishnu as “sahasrasIrsha” etc is a direct upabrahmaNa for the Purusha Sukta and other such portions!

It is not possible for a lesser being to be eulogized as sahasra-sIrsha, etc, and hailed as the creator, preserver and destroyer. For if Vishnu is a just an agent, he should not be entrusted with all the acts of creation, preservation and destruction. So if vishNu is lower to Rudra, then it implies someone other than the Supreme Brahman is doing all the acts of creating, preserving and destroying as well as protecting the Universe and Rudra has no role. If Rudra is verily Vishnu, there is no purpose of rudra-rUpa then, when Vishnu alone is doing everything and any delusion attributed to vishNu accrues to Rudra as well. Thus, the tAmasatva of this story is clearly established, and the Supremacy of Vishnu alone comes out of this in an indirect manner.

SIVA-PUJA WITH THE EYE AS A LOTUS

The story is seen in the Linga purANa as follows:

evaM nAmnAM sahasreNa tuShTAva vRRiShabhadhvajam||

snApayAmAsa cha vibhuH pUjayAmAsa paMkajaiH |

In this way Vishnu pleased Siva whose flag is the Bull. Vishnu did Abhisheka of Siva and worshipped with lotus flowers.

parIkShArthaM hareH pUjAkamaleShu maheshvaraH ||

gopayAmAsa kamalaM tadaikaM bhuvaneshvaraH |

Siva the Lord of the Worlds hid one lotus flower from the Puja lotus flowers to test Vishnu.

hRRitapuShpo haristatra kimidaM tvabhyachintayat ||

Vishnu was missing one lotus and thought 'How has it happened?'

j~nAtvA svanetramuddhRRitya sarvasattvAvalambanam |

pUjayAmAsa bhAvena nAmnA tena jagadgurum ||

Vishnu plucked out His own eye and offered it in the worship with devotion to the Jagadguru Siva.

tatastatra vibhurdRRiShTvA tathAbhUtaM haro harim |

tasmAdavatatArAshu maNDalAt pAvakasya cha ||

Siva saw Vishnu in that condition without the eye and immediately appeared in the Fire Altar.

j~nAtaM mayedamadhunA devakAryaM janArdana |

sudarshanAkhyaM chakraM cha dadAmi tava shobhanam ||

Siva said - I know You have to do the work of the gods. I will give You the Sudarshana Chakra.

netraM cha netA jagatAM prabhurvai padmasannibham |

tadAprabhRRiti taM prAhuH padmAkShamiti suvratam ||   

The Lord of the World also gave back the lotus like eye to Vishnu. From that time people call Vishnu padmAksha or kamalanayana.

Let us ignore this entire incident which as usual is tAmasa and is merely an arthavAda to glorify Shiva for the purpose of people with tamO guNa vAsanas .

The main takeaway is that this story admits that people call vishNu “padmAksha” or “kamalanayana”, ie, the lotus eyed one and that his eyes resemble a lotus. So, that means the Being described in the ChandOgya as “tasya yathA kapyAsam puNdareekamEvamakshiNI:” can only refer to the Lord who is lotus-eyed as per this incident!

In other words, this story seeking to denigrate vishNu becomes an upabrahmaNa for the ChAndogya Upanishad in identifying the lotus eyed Lord alone as Parabrahman, and not Shiva or any other deity who doesn’t have lotus eyes according to this story. This is the absurd contradiction of the purANa.

So what is the purpose of this write-up?

1. Besides the proof given in the “tAmasatva of purANAs” article, this is further proof of the tAmasatva of these stories. While seeking to denigrate vishNu, they inadvertently admit certain auspicious qualities of the Lord that are indicative of his supremacy.

2. As such, these self-contradictory stories are no more than “arthavAda” to promote worship of a particular deity for those who have tamo guNa.

3. All the purANAs were first narrated by Brahma. When Brahma is overcome by tamo guNa, he narrated the tAmasa purANAs.

4. The narration of Brahma in his tAmasic mood is such that he, while beginning the story in a manner that is almost truthful, diverts to glorifying another deity.

5. It is likely that the rishis like Suta, etc aided in the propagation of these stories as well for the sake of loka-kShema, so that even those with tAmasic inclinations can follow these stories.

6. None of the Vaidikas admit the historicity of these stories, but they recognize that these purANAs do inadvertently confirm certain truths of shruti and thus quote those parts occasionally, like Sridhara did in his vishNu purANa vyAkhyana. They recognize the little merit these stories have in this manner.

In conclusion, these purANAs perfectly embody the traits bhagavAn has described in the gIta:

adharmaM dharmamiti yA manyate tamasA.a.avRRitA|

sarvArthAnviparItAMshcha buddhiH sA pArtha tAmasI|| (~Gita 18.32)

That Buddhi is of the nature of Tamas which is 'enveloped in Tamas' and 'reverses every value.' The meaning is that it regards Adharma as Dharma and Dharma as Adharma, existent as non-existent, and non-existent as existent, and higher truth as the lower and the lower truth as the higher, and thus reverses every value.

These stories are a perfect example of the above.

A SHORT NOTE ON SHANKARA-NARAYANA AVATARA

A small observation on another topic. There is a pAsuram by peyazhwar in mUnrAm thiruvandhAdhi as follows:

thaazh sadaiyum neeN mudiyum ON mazhuvum sakkaramum

soozh aravum pon Naanum thONRumAl soozhum

thiraNdu aruvi pAyum thiru malai mEl enthaikku

irAndu uruvum ONRAy isainthu

Meaning: The matted hair that hang down to his neck, the tall crown, the beautiful weapon called mazhuvu (axe), the chakrayudha,  the nAgABaraNa worn as ornaments,  the golden waist band  -- these two forms opposed to one another are seen as one form in my swAmi who resides in tirumalai form where streams flow down on all sides.

This pAsuram is not saying Lord venkateshwara is half-vishNu, half-shiva as some dvEshIs think. The same azhwar declares Shiva is subservient to bhagavAn in many places.

Azhwar is simply saying, “the Lord who resides in Tirumala, is the same one who took an avatara as “Shankara-Narayana” once, as he exhibits the same sousIlya guNa”. Explanation as below.

The acharyas comment on this pAsuram by saying that among the avatArAs of the Lord, one is called “Harihara” or “Shankaranarayana”. Bhagavan wanted to enlighten a rishi once that those who worship Rudra, are worshipping him in reality, as he, being Rudra’s antaryAmin, is the true granter of boons. So, bhagavAn assumed a form that was half-vishNu, half-shiva and appeared before the rishi. The attributes of vishNu were on the right side, while the attributes normally seen in shiva were on his left side.

This is not some “fusion”. ShrI periyavAcchan pillai clarifies here – Just as Narasimha is a man-lion form that wholly the lord and not the fusion of some random lion with him, similarly this Harihara rupa is wholly his, and it does not involve Shiva at all.

The purpose of this was to demonstrate the “sAdhaka rUpa” and the “siddha rUpa”, as Rudra meditates on nArAyaNa. Thus, Hari has all the attributes and it is by his accessibility that people gain their desires even if they worship Rudra.

It does not mean ShrI venkatEshwara has this form at Tirumala. In the previous pAsuram, azhwar said the Lord in other temples was the same as Trivikrama, etc. It only means, the Lord who resides in that temple, is the same as Trivikrama in guNAs. Similarly, the Lord who resides in Tirumala, has the same guNa of accessibility that ShankaranArAyaNa avatAra exhibited.

The tAmasa purANAs contain descriptions of Hari-Hara as fusions of Shiva and Vishnu which is avaidika and are not the same as this ShankaranArAyaNa avatAra.  

Just a small note on the issue.