The Beheading of a Devata and the Pravargya Rite

In the brAhmaNAs, the pravargya ceremony is described. And in the context of that rite, it is also mentioned that some devata got beheaded. The incident is here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44117.htm

This story is repeated in several other places, but the name of the devata always changes. In the Taittiriya Aranyaka, the devata that lost his head is referred to as “Makha Vaishnava” as follows:

“tesham makham vaishnavam yashaH Arcchat” (~ TA 1.7.1-2)

And the devata who lost his head is also referred to as “Makha” here in the Panchavimsa Brahmana:

“teshAm makham yAshah Arcchat…yajno vai makhah…yat pravargyam pravrinjati yajnyasya eva tach chhirah pratidadhati” - Glory came to Makha – The sacrifice is Makha –When men offer the pravargya, they replace the head of Makha.

The Taittiriya Aranyaka says it was Rudra who was beheaded:

etadrudrasya dhanuH | rudrasyatveva dhanurArtniH shira utpipeSha | sa pravargyo.abhavat.h' - That bow belonged to Rudra. Since that belonged to Rudra, his 3 heads broke into pieces. That became the Pravargya.

Now, who is the deity who gets beheaded here? In order to answer this question, we need to understand why the Pravargya rite is associated with stories of devatas getting beheaded as well as the story of the rishi Dadhyangatharvana getting his head cut off and a horse’s head in its’ place.

Some Comments about Us on Twitter

We recently saw that several people on twitter, for some reason, seemed to take a swipe at our blog when discussing this incident. Please see the following threads:

https://twitter.com/GhorAngirasa/status/1181022757540098048

https://twitter.com/shardula23/status/1181079632663257090

Some of the choice comments include:

//Anyway, it is ironic & a bit funny for me because they frequently employ the logic that whenever another name is praised as supreme, it is referring to विष्णु but now they let the name, विष्णु itself refer to रुद्र. Anyway, whatever floats their boat.//

// I will examine each passage to see what inner meaning (rahasyārtha) one can give or simply hold it as an arthavāda, although the latter can be a boring solution at times.//

//The authors of that blog seem to be overtly passionate kids @Ravilochanan86 would perhaps have better idea of them); who feel the need to ‘defend’ everything: Losing head here is some deep symbolism that is not fully clear; not a sign of inferiority//

//Wrong claim. If anyone has done it, it is a later lazy attempt.//

//They said that Vishnu there refers to the yajamana who *pervades* the yajna in that case Rudra who had been called by that name for this particular reason.//

All such claims have been made by people:

1. Who claim to be interested in “inner meanings” but are actually yet to understand any inner meaning of the incident.
2. Who claim that literal interpretations are wrong, but again, are not competent themselves to give a proper inner meaning to the incident yet, not noticing we have done that.
3. Who claim certain things like “Bloggers interpret “Vishnu” as a name of Rudra” without understanding that is not our position.
4. Who seem to have assumed we have a “Vaishnava bias” and thus want to “hide the fact Vishnu was beheaded”. FYI, our acharyas are quite open in accepting Vishnu ran away when Veerabhadra came in the Daksha yajna, so why would they hesitate to accept it if Vishnu was indeed beheaded? Also, no acharya has used this incident of Rudra being beheaded as an example that he is a jIva, for beheading by itself does not constitute proof. 

So many false claims and assumptions, all sprinkled with a sense of superiority that they go for “lofty inner meanings”. The reality is, none of them have even understood the inner meaning of the incident. They ignore the fact that we give both literal and inner meanings, and claim we are being “childish”.

So what we will do is, we will explain this entire incident. Let us see whether they will be magnanimous enough to accept their own shortcomings. We are going to provide the inner meanings as well as literal meanings.

The Issue of the Pravargya Rite – Introduction

In the brAhmaNAs, the pravargya ceremony is described. And in the context of that rite, it is also mentioned that some devata got beheaded. The incident is here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44117.htm

This story is repeated in several other places, but the name of the devata always changes. In the Taittiriya Aranyaka, the devata that lost his head is referred to as “Makha Vaishnava” as follows:

“tesham makham vaishnavam yashaH Arcchat” (~ TA 1.7.1-2)

And the devata who lost his head is also referred to as “Makha” here in the Panchavimsa Brahmana:

“teshAm makham yAshah Arcchat…yajno vai makhah…yat pravargyam pravrinjati yajnyasya eva tach chhirah pratidadhati” - Glory came to Makha – The sacrifice is Makha –When men offer the pravargya, they replace the head of Makha.

The Taittiriya Aranyaka says it was Rudra who was beheaded:

etadrudrasya dhanuH | rudrasyatveva dhanurArtniH shira utpipeSha | sa pravargyo.abhavat.h' – 

That bow belonged to Rudra. Since that belonged to Rudra, his 3 heads broke into pieces. That became the Pravargya.

Now, who is the deity who gets beheaded here? What do the different names signify? What is the inner meaning? In order to answer this question, we need to understand why the Pravargya rite is associated with stories of devatas getting beheaded as well as the story of the rishi Dadhyangatharvana getting his head cut off and a horse’s head in its’ place.

The Pravargya Rite and Connection with Beheading

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that the opening part of the ceremonial pravargya is called “tvashtra” as it is connected with the sun god. Shri Ranga Ramanuja Muni opines that the description of the pravargya rite is followed by the story of Dadhyangatharvana because of the similarity of fixing the head.

As the pravargya is replaced in the place of the yajna shira (Sacrificial head), it is called “tvAshtra”. Similarly, on account of the horse’s head being fixed on Dadhyangatharvana, he is referred to as pravargya.

Thus, what is clear is that the story of the devata getting beheaded and the story of Dadhyangatharvana is not related to the pravargya ceremony in any manner, but is mentioned on account of the similarity of the fixing of the head. Meaning, this devata lost his head and was revived again and knowing this would foster a remembrance of the meaning of the pravargya. It is simply a rememberance technique

Who is this devata? Sayana says it is Vishnu and represents the Yajamana. This is wrong because the name “Vishnu” on account of connection to the Narayana and Vasudeva namas in the Vishnu Gayatri, can only denote the supreme being despite etymologically amenable to other interpretations and cannot denote the yajamANa. Even in the shiva sahasranAmAs that occur in the tAmasa purANAs, the name “Vishnu” should only be interpreted as referring to the God Vishnu on this account (can say Shiva in the form of Vishnu, but not Shiva is named Vishnu).

“Vishnu” in the Pravargya

Then, is it Vishnu who is referred to here? The answer is no. How can we say that it is not Vishnu, when the Satapatha clearly says “tad visnoh prathamah prApa”?

Because, the Satapatha also says this - “Sa yah sa vishnur yajnah sa | sa yah sa yajno sau sa AdityaH|” – He who is this Vishnu (as the innerself of the deity who got beheaded) is verily Sacrifice. He who is this sacrifice is the (innerself of) that Aditya (who is the opening part of Pravargya).

This mantra clearly talks of the antaryAmin principle after saying things like “Vishnu attained excellence among the devas”. Thus, it follows that the devata named “Vishnu” is not the Lord, but some other devata who is called Vishnu on account of having Vishnu as his antaryAmin. This devata was the one who got proud and was beheaded. This devata is called “Vishnu” here to highlight that the excellence he attained was because he was a vibhUti of Vishnu and due to the indwelling Lord’s grace.

Note that the Satapatha uses the name "Purusho vai Narayana" to denote Brahma, who has Narayana as his antaryAmin, in the Purushamedha. On account of sharIrAtma bhAva, it is possible to label other devatas as "Vishnu" who is their antaryAmin.

Similarly, the name “Makha” used in the Taittiriya Aranyaka denotes “Sacrifice” which again means Vishnu. The idea is, the devata who got beheaded is called “Makha” as his antaryAmin is Vishnu, who is verily the Makha (Sacrifice).

Then, the Panchavimsa Brahmana clearly says the devata is “Makha Vaishnava”. By using the term “Vaishnava”, the idea that it refers to the Lord Vishnu is ruled out, for it means “belonging to Vishnu”, ie, the devata is a vibhUti of the Lord. Thus, “Makha Vaishnava” means “One who has Makha (yajna-svarUpi vishNu) as his innerself, who is (endowed with power) belongs to Vishnu (as his vibhUti and AvEsha avatAra). On account of this devata attaining unsurpassed excellence, the antaryAmitvam of the Lord is specially mentioned for him for it is his grace.

Which means, the true identity of the devata who was beheaded is revealed by the Taittiriya Aranyaka as below:

etadrudrasya dhanuH | rudrasyatveva dhanurArtniH shira utpipeSha | sa pravargyo.abhavat.h'

That bow belonged to Rudra. Since that belonged to Rudra, his 3 heads broke into pieces. That became the Pravargya.

It is Rudra, who by the grace of his antaryAmin, became unsurpassed among the gods and hence proud. Then the same indweller, who is also the indweller of Indra, impelled the latter to gnaw the bowstring and cut of the head of Rudra.

The entire story of Rudra's beheading is mentioned in the Taittiriya Aranyaka Nampillai summarizes this incident here beautifully:

http://eeduanubavam.blogspot.com/2012/08/indra-dhanus.html

Note Svami Nampillai's words – he says that the same antaryAmin who powered Rudra’s bow against tripurAsurAs can also cause that bow to cut off Rudra’s own head, showing that only the sankalpa of bhagavAn allows devas like Rudra to perform such acts.

As a finality, the dvaitins quote a pramANa from the kUrma purANa to justify this as follows:

raxitaM naiva shaknoShi svAtmAnamapi shaN^kara | yuddhe kiM jeShyasi tvaM mAM pUrvavR^ittaM mayochyate || yadA madbhaktashakrasya yaj~nadhvamsaH kR^itastvayA | tadA.ahaM te shirashChitvA tatkratU raxito mayA | tato mAM prArthayAmAsa manobhIShTAya pArvatI | tadA vai matprasAdena prANAn.h lebhe bhavAn.h shiva ||

Meaning: (Vishnu says:) Hey Shankara, you are not capable of protecting even yourself. How can you win over me in a war? I shall recount an old account (pUrvavR^ittaM). You came to ruin the yajna performed by my devotee, Indra. Then, I protected that Yajna, having got your head severed. Then, to obtain you back, Parvati prayed to me; after which, you got your life due to my grace.

Because Rudra lost his head and it was reattached (when he was revived), the incident is mentioned in the context of the similarity to the pravargya is replaced in the place of the yajna shira (Sacrificial head), and so the Taittiriya Aranyaka says the head of Rudra became Pravargya – “sa pravargyo.abhavat.h”

The Yajna is referred to as the sacrifice of Indra in the Kurma Purana shloka on account of the fact that glory was meant for Indra. Thus even the Satapatha says “sa u eva makhah sa vishnuH | tataH indro makhavAn abhavat” – That Vishnu (the indweller of Rudra who was beheaded) is verily sacrifice. Therefore (by his grace), Indra became “Makhavat” – the possessor of sacrifice (can even mean, possessor of Vishnu's shakti, as an Avesha-avatAra).

Full Commentary on the Pravargya Rite – Literal and Inner Meanings

We are going to give both the literal explanation and the inner meaning. Let us look at the explanation from the Satapatha:

(Rough translation here as a reference - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44117.htm)

1. Om devā́ ha vaí sattraṃ níṣeduḥ agniríndraḥ sómo makho víṣṇurvíśve devā́ anyátraivā̀śvíbhyām. téṣām kurukṣetrám devayájanamāsa tásmādāhuḥ kurukṣetrám devā́nāṃ devayájanamíti tásmādyátra kvá ca kurukṣetrásya nigáchati tádevá manyata idám devayájanamíti taddʰí devā́nāṃ devayájanam

Meaning: The gods, namely Agni, Indra, Soma, Makha (Vishnu), Rudra whose innerself is Vishnu, Visvedevas and all except the 2 Asvins performed a Satra. Their place of the “deva yajna” was Kurukshetra. Therefore, it is said that Kurukshetra is the place of “deva yajna” for the devas. Hence, whenever one settles down (nigacchati) in Kurukshetra, one should consider this as the place for “deva yajna”, for it is the place of “deva yajna” for the gods.

1. The taittiriya Aranyaka says, “etadrudrasya dhanuH”. Thus, “Vishnu” here denotes Vishnu in the form of Rudra – rudra-sharIraka-paramAtma. Rudra is later described as attaining glory and it is to highlight that his glory is due to Vishnu that he is called by his antarymin.

2. Similar example is seen in the Purushamedha where Chaturmukha Brahma is called “Purusho vai Narayana” – brahma-sharIraka-paramAtma.

3. “Makha” is mentioned separately. From “yajno vai vishNuh” it is well known that Makha is Vishnu himself. Hence, the name “Vishnu” does not denote the Lord again directly – it denotes the Lord indirectly as the innerself of another devata, which is Rudra as per other shrutis and smritis.

Now, for the inner meaning:

Inner Meaning: Those that shine out external objects, namely, 

• The senses that lead one to sense objects (Agni)
• The foremost sense organ or vAk (Indra)
• The qualities of sama and dama which are cool like the moon (Soma)
• The indwelling Lord Vishnu who enables the sAdhana symbolised by sacrifice (Makha)
• The mind engaged in meditation on Vishnu
• The various qualities representing sattva guNa like equanimity etc (visvedevas) --- they all except the 2 Asvins who represent rAga and dvesha, which are like horses to be tamed.

(“ā̀śvíbhyām” relates to horses. Raga and Dvesha are tamed by Sama and Dama, and hence refer to this. Vishnu is the means for all sAdhana and hence is referred to as the sacrifice (sAdhana) itself.)

They performed a sacrifice (Sattra). Their place of Bhakti Yoga or Upasana, called “Worship of the Supreme Being (Deva)” was the body called Kurukshetra. Therefore, it is said that the body (Kurukshetra) is the place of Upasana (deva yajna) for the devas, ie, the Sattvikas who are inclined towards bhakti (or) the self-luminous jivas (devas). Hence, whenever one acquires (nigacchati) the body (Kurukshetra), one should consider this as the place for Upasana (deva yajna), for it is the place of Upasana (deva yajna) for the Sattvikas or Jivas.

The body is a kshetra. “Kurukshetra” means that which troubles – the body troubles us by the effect of the indrIyas. However, those who are “Devas” or sattvikas consider this body as fit for upAsaNa, meaning, they do not use this body for worldly pursuits, but engage in sAdhana.

2. tá āsata śríyaṃ gachema yáśaḥ syāmānnādā́ḥ syāméti tátho evèmé sattrámāsate śríyaṃ gacʰema yáśaḥ syāmānnādā́ḥ syāméti

Meaning: They were present (for the sacrifice) thinking, may we attain wealth, may we attain glory, may we become eaters of food. And thus, in this manner, those who are present for the sacrifice think, “may we attain wealth, may we attain glory, may we become eaters of food”.

Inner Meaning: They were all present, (ie, of a disposition favouring commencement) for the sacrifice of bhakti yoga, thinking, “May we attain wealth in the form of knowledge of our true nature (sriyam), may we become agreeable to Brahman (yashas), may we become experiencers of the auspicious attributes of Brahman denoted as food. And thus, in this manner, those (upAsakAs) who are present for the sacrifice think, “may we attain wealth, may we attain glory, may we become eaters of food”.

In reality, the indrIyas etc are insentient and only the jIva is conducting the sAdhana. But to signify all the indrIyas, mind, jIva and paramAtma are conducive to undertake sAdhana, “they” is used.

3. té hocuḥ yó naḥ śrámeṇa tápasā śraddháyā yaiñenā́hutibhiryajñásyodŕ̥cam pū́rvo'vagáchātsá naḥ śréṣṭho'sattádu naḥ sárveṣāṃ sahéti tathéti

Meaning: They said, “Whoever among us through effort, austerity, conviction, sacrifice and oblation shall first get to the conclusion of the sacrifice, he shall be the most excellent (sreShTa) among us and together with us all, ie, of a friendly disposition to everyone.

Who among the devas is sreShTa? That we shall see.

Inner Meaning: Who amongst us through effort in the form of contemplation (śrámeṇa), knowledge of the Self and Brahman (tápasā), conviction in the means that is bhakti yoga (śraddhá), worship of Brahman (yajna) and oblation of the Atman in the form of self-surrender (ahuti), shall get to the conclusion of the sacrifice which is the perception of bhagavad-kalyANa-guNAs, , he shall be the most excellent (sreStha) among us and together with us all, ie, of a friendly disposition to everyone.

What is the most crucial component required for bhakti yoga, that facilitates all these qualities? Again, we shall see next.

4.   tadvíṣṇuḥ pratʰamaḥ prā́pasá devā́nāṃ śreṣṭho'bhavattásmādāhurvíṣṇurdevā́nāṃ śréṣṭha íti 

Meaning: Vishnu, in the form of Rudra, first attained it among the gods. Thus he became the most excellent of the gods, and thus they say, “Rudra, whose innerself is Vishnu, is the most excellent of the gods””.

There are multiple pramANAs to show this refers to Rudra-sharIraka-paramAtma, and hence Rudra:

1. “etadrudrasya dhanuH” – Taittiriya Aranyaka identifies the bow as belonging to Rudra.
2. “visnor cAtma bhagavato bhavaH amita tejasa:” – The mahAbhArata identifies Vishnu as the self of Rudra, thus allowing for sAmAnAdhikaraNyam whereby Rudra is referred to by his indwelling Lord.
3. “brahmaNa putrAya jyEsthAya srESthAya ca” – Shruti identifies Rudra as “srEStha” amongst the gods, this is reteirated by the mahAbhArata.
4. “vaishnavAnAm yatha shambhu:” is a well-known pramANa.
5. “MahAdEva: sarvamEdhE MahAthmA huthvaa-aathmAnam dEva dEvO BhabhUva visvAn lOkAn vyApya vishtabhya keerthyA virAjathE dhyuthimAn KrutthivAsa:” – This mahAbhArata shloka identifies Rudra as becoming the chief of the devas (devadeva) by the performance of the sarvamedha.

In the light of all these pramANAs, is it “knee-jerk emotional crybaby Vaishnavism” to say that Rudra is being referred to here? Rudra is referred to as “Vishnu” because he required the latter’s grace to surpass all other gods.

Inner Meaning: The mind, which has Vishnu as its’ support and hence is called “Vishnu”, first attained the conclusion of bhakti yoga (perception of bhagavad guNAs) among those that shine out external objects. Thus the mind became the most excellent of those that shine out sense objects, and thus they say, “The mind, supported by Vishnu, is the most excellent of the perceivers”.

Hence, the mind is hailed as the most significant tool for upAsaNa here. Since the fixation of the mind in upAsaNa requires the grace of Vishnu (dadAmi buddhi yogam tam – Gita 10.10), It is referred to by sAmAnAdhikaraNyam, as being the body of Vishnu. 

Note that Rudra is connected to the mind which reinforces that it is him who is being referred to in the literal meaning.

5. sa yaḥ sa víṣṇuryajñaḥ sa sa yaḥ sá yajñò'sau sá ādityastáddʰedaṃ yáśo víṣnurná śaśāka sáṃyantu tádidamápyetárhi naìva sárva-iva yáśaḥ śaknoti sáṃyantum

Meaning: Now, he who is the innerself of Rudra (Vishnu), is the innerself of sacrifice (Yajna). He who is the innerself of this sacrifice (Yajnah), is the innerself of that Solar Orb (Aditya). But Rudra, who has Vishnu as his innerself, was not able to control his glory in the form of ego (yasas) and in that manner everyone (who is celebrated) cannot control that glory in the form of ego.

Rudra become arrogant on account of his prowess through Yoga. Bhakti Yoga results in ahamkara or pride over one’s self-effort. 

Kindly note that nowhere we have mentioned, “Vishnu is a name of Rudra” here as our opponents claim. Rather, Vishnu everyone refers only to Lord Vishnu, except as the indweller of Rudra, the mind etc. 

It is to highlight that Rudra’s arrogance is misplaced and his glory is solely due to his indweller, that he is referred to as “Vishnu” here.

Inner Meaning: Now, Vishnu who is the innerself of the mind (Vishnu), is the verily the sAdhana or means (Yajna). He who is the means (Yajnah), is the One who is realized by the “Akara” in praNava (Aditya). But the mind, who has Vishnu as its’ innerself, was not able to control glory in the form of ego (yasas) and in that manner everyone (who undertake upAsaNa) cannot control that glory acquired by upAsaNa.

It is explained that the Lord Vishnu who is the support of the mind, is the actual means to sAdhana, as well as the end to be attained – “Aditya” means akAra vAchyan and thus signifies the one to be attained. But the mind gains ego on account of self-effort and thus all who undertake upAsaNa are plagued by this ego.

6. sá tisr̥dhanvámādāyā́pacakrāma sá dhanurārtnyā śíra upastábhya tasthau tám devā ánabhidhr̥ṣṇuvantaḥ samantam pariṇyáviśanta

Meaning: He (Rudra), taking the bow with three arrows, striding forth, rested his head on the bow. Not daring to attack him, the devas sat around him.

Rudra, swollen with pride, wanted to prevent Indra from partaking of the sacrifice. The pramANa “etadrudrasya dhanuH” – Taittiriya Aranyaka should be enough to identify who it was.

Inner Meaning: The mind, taking the threefold bow signifying knowledge, rested its’ ego on such knowledge. The senses remained obedient to the mind, incapable of resisting.

This should be self-explanatory. The bow either signifies knowledge of the 3 Vedas, knowledge of the 3 tattvas (cit, acit and Ishvara) or knowledge of the 3 yogas (karma, jnana and bhakti) enshrined in the Upanishads. The head of the mind is the ego on account of such knowledge.

7. tā́ ha vamryá ūcuḥ imā vaí vamryò yádupadī́kā yò'sya jyā́mapyadyātkímasmai práyachetétyannā́dyamasmai práyachemā́pi dhánvannapó'dhigachettáthāsmai sárvamannā́dyam práyacheméti tathéti

Meaning: Then the ants, which were of the type called “Upadika”, said, “What would you give to him who would gnaw the bowstring? – “We would give him the enjoyment of food and water in the desert, even so, we would give him every enjoyment of food. Let it be so, they said.”

It is to be understood that the perplexed devas had assumed the form of ants at this juncture. The reference to food and water is the idea that the person who nullifies Rudra will get whatever he desires and whatever is usually hard to attain.

Inner Meaning: Then the senses referred to as “Upadika vamri” as they go in search, asked, “What would you give to him who would remove the self-effort undertaken via the mind? – “We would give him the enjoyment of Brahman called “food” and relief from samsAra which is akin to finding water in a desert, even so, we would give him every enjoyment of bhagavad kalyANa guNAs signified by food. Let it be so, they said.”

The ants of the type signified above go deep under the Earth in search of water. Similarly, the senses extend everywhere in samsAra, seeking sense-objects that cause delight.

tásyopaparāsŕ̥tya jyāmápijakṣustásyāṃ chinnā́yāṃ dhanurārtnyaù viṣphurántyau víṣṇoḥ śíraḥ prácichidatuḥ

Meaning: Going near to Rudra, they gnawed his bowstring. When it was cut, the ends of the bow, cleaving apart, cut off the head of Vishnu, in the form of Rudra.

It is said in some places that it was Indra alone who did this act. That is not a contradiction, as Indra did it on behalf of all the other devas.

Why is Rudra called Vishnu here? Swami Nampillai explains in Eedu – It was by the sankalpa of Vishnu that Rudra was able to wield his bow to defeat Tripurasuras (visnor cAtma bhagavato bhavaH) Similarly, that very bow turned against Rudra and severed his head, only because Vishnu willed it to be so. The idea here is that, everything occurs by the Lord’s sankalpa and in the absence of that sankalpa, nothing can be achieved.

The Kurma Purana makes the identity of Rudra explicitly clear:

raxitaM naiva shaknoShi svAtmAnamapi shaN^kara | yuddhe kiM jeShyasi tvaM mAM pUrvavR^ittaM mayochyate || yadA madbhaktashakrasya yaj~nadhvamsaH kR^itastvayA | tadA.ahaM te shirashChitvA tatkratU raxito mayA | tato mAM prArthayAmAsa manobhIShTAya pArvatI | tadA vai matprasAdena prANAn.h lebhe bhavAn.h shiva ||

Meaning: (Vishnu says:) Hey Shankara, you are not capable of protecting even yourself. How can you win over me in a war? I shall recount an old account (pUrvavR^ittaM). You came to ruin the yajna performed by my devotee, Indra. Then, I protected that Yajna, having got your head severed. Then, to obtain you back, Parvati prayed to me; after which, you got your life due to my grace.

Inner Meaning: The senses approached the mind (ie, they sought out the locus of ego in the mind). They gnawed the bowstring which represents self-effort. When it was cut, the ends of the bow signifying knowledge, cleaving apart, cut off the ego (head) of the mind, which has Vishnu as its’ support.

The mind is called “Vishnu” here since the removal of ego requires self-surrender to him via the mind itself.

When self-effort is removed, the same knowledge (bow) which caused accumulation of ego, now results in destruction of that ego. Knowledge gains its’ true purpose when ego is removed.

Conclusion of the Story

This concludes the Akhyana. 

The next part which says “The head of Vishnu fell with the sound “ghrin” etc refers to the yajna shira of the pravargya sacrifice, where “Vishnu” signifies the actual sacrifice. The shruti seamlessly transitions from a description of Rudra getting beheaded to the Pravargya rite, so that one who meditates on Rudra getting beheaded, will gain a rememberance of Pravargya. In reality, the 2 incidents have no commonality or connection apart from both involving removal of heads from Rudra and the Yajna Shira.

Additional Notes

When we look at the various descriptions of this event in other parts of shruti, we can now explain them easily:

“tesham makham vaishnavam yashaH Arcchat…yajno vai makhah…yat pravargyam pravrinjati yajnyasya eva tach chhirah pratidadhati” - Glory c” (~ TA 1.7.1-2)

Meaning: Yashas accrued to Rudra, who has Vishnu as his innerself and empowered by his indweller (Makha Vaishnava). The innerself of the sacrifice is Vishnu, who is the innerself of Rudra. Those who offer the pravargya, they replace the head of Rudra who has Vishnu as his innerself.

Where, 

Makha Vaishnavam - “Makha” refers to Vishnu, the sacrifice or means (sAdhana), as Rudra-SharIraka-ParamAtma and hence it is Rudra who is the actual referent. “Vaishnava” signifies he is related to (possesses) the power of Vishnu – which is called “Vishnu” itself since the Sakti-s of the Lord are inseparable from himself.

yajno vai makhah – Unless you take the antaryAmin principle, this would make no sense since Makha and Yajna are literally synonyms. What is meant is that Sacrifice (Yajna) has as its’ innerself the same Brahman (Makha) who is the means (makha – sacrifice – sAdhana) for Rudra (as his indweller).  

The last line simply says that one should remember the pravargya via the incident of beheading of Rudra. 

Here, we draw attention to a comment on twitter.

this person makes the following comment:

//Anyway, it is ironic & a bit funny for me because they frequently employ the logic that whenever another name is praised as supreme, it is referring to विष्णु but now they let the name, विष्णु itself refer to रुद्र. Anyway, whatever floats their boat.//

This sort of rudimentary thinking greatly promotes a false perception of Vaishnavism. Firstly, if these people had taken the time to read the explanation of the rite in the above comment, I had clearly clarified the following:

"Vishnu" there indeed refers to Lord Vishnu. We have already proven that the name is unique to the Lord everywhere in shAstra and does not connote other things. Unlike "Rudra" which is used for multiple entities. In the Pravargya incident, "Vishnu" does not directly refer to Rudra. Rather, it refers to Lord Vishnu as the innerself of Rudra. Hence, Rudra is called Vishnu on account of having Vishnu as his innerself. It is Rudra-sharIraka-paramAtma.

The same Satapatha itself clearly clarifies why Rudra is called "Vishnu" by saying "Sa yah sa vishnur yajnah sa | sa yah sa yajno sau sa AdityaH|” – He who is this Vishnu (as the innerself of the deity who got beheaded) is verily Sacrifice. He who is this sacrifice is the (innerself of) that Aditya (who is the opening part of Pravargya).

How else would you interpret this then? "He who got beheaded, is Vishnu is Sacrifice, he who is Sacrifice is that Aditya? It cannot be argued that since Vishnu is one among the Adityas, it refers to him directly, since the term "asou" indicates the Sun yonder. Also, by saying "Vishnu is Sacrifice", the antaryAmin principle is clearly established since otherwise, he cannot literally be the sacrifice.

Here is a puzzler. "Makha Vaishnava" is not a separate deity. "Makha" refers to Vishnu only everywhere since he is sacrifice. But if that is the case, how can Vishnu be called "Vaishnava"? So it makes sense only to say it refers to Rudra as he is "Makha" -- "whose innerself is Vishnu, the “Makha" and "Vaishnava" - Who possesses the power (Avesha) belonging to Vishnu.

Otherwise, "Makha Vaishnava" itself is a contradictory name and cannot be reconciled.

Final Thoughts

Overwhelmingly, on social media, we see people who have elevated themselves into a false space where they consider themselves a cut above the rest on account of supposedly understanding “inner meanings”. Which is well and good, but for a small problem – either they rarely ever understand the actual inner meanings, or whenever they provide an “inner meaning”, it is mostly erroneous. 

The other issue with these people here is that they seem to look down on those who accept literal meanings. It can be pointed out that besides the fact there is literally no reason to reject the literal meaning when it does not clash with the inner meaning. Also, unless you approach the text in the manner it is meant to be approached, viz., determining whether the literal meaning is required to be accepted rather than rejecting it wholesale, you will never be able to understand the inner meaning.

As an example in this pravargya incident, Rudra is the presiding deity of the mind, and thus all meanings have literal – rudra devata and inner – mind, which shows how both literal and inner meanings are connected. If our shAstrAs abhorred literalism, then there is no purpose dividing IthihAsa (histories that were written as they happened), Puranas (histories that were written long time after they happened) and Akhyana (stories/metaphors). Everything can be just “Akhyana” then.

A final tendency of these people is to classify diligent research by Vaishnavas as “sentimentalism” and “mindless passion”. Case in point here, this person makes the following comment:

//The authors of that blog seem to be overtly passionate kids @Ravilochanan86 would perhaps have better idea of them); who feel the need to ‘defend’ everything: Losing head here is some deep symbolism that is not fully clear; not a sign of inferiority://

We are still waiting to see what “deep inner meanings” this person can give. Unable to properly even extract the inner meaning, he still chooses to stereotype Vaishnavas as “blind bhaktas” despite us providing both literal and inner meaning in a cogent manner.

And this comment here in this thread - https://twitter.com/shardula23/status/1181079162242490368  seems to cast aspersions:

//That blog comes out with some outlandish views to counter outlandish views of another blog. Both should be kept at an arms length unless u can verify the source of their interpretations//

The only lazy comparison is here is our diligent research with that layperson running the Mahapashupatastra. Whatever we provide is based on the works of Sri Vaishnava Acharyas. And how do you know you are “competent” to verify the source of our interpretations? For this same person writes here - https://twitter.com/Shivkrisa/status/1181109956545777664, regarding the beheading incident:

//Not in this case. Most traf scholars (including SV) interpret it as other devas gaining their strength from 'The One'. Now how u identify the One is based on tradition. Purusha sacrificed in yajna is not sign of inferiority either. Mere tweets can't explain it fully.//

What relation does the Pravargya have to the Purusha Sukta? Who actually said Rudra beheaded is pramANa for his jIvatva? While that may be so, it is not something we use to prove he is a jIva. We use pramANAs from the Upanishads. So this mistaken theory that “we want to prove Rudra was beheaded to show he is jIva” is just that…mistaken.

Also, Sri Kurattazhwan himself says Vishnu took the form of a crow and ran away when Veerabhadra attacked Daksha Yajna. So how can you cast aspersions on Sri Vaishnavas that we want to desperately avoid referring to Vishnu as beheaded etc? If anything, this shows the integrity we possess, that we take the incidents as they happen.

Which “Sri Vaishnava” scholars interpret it as other devas gaining their strength from “The One” whoever that is? All I have seen some ignorant laypeople offering that as an explanation on Hindu Dharma Forums and the like. For one thing, Svami Nampillai, a Sri Vaishnava Acharya, clearly says it was Rudra who got beheaded in the Eedu. Here is the reference:

http://eeduanubavam.blogspot.com/2012/08/indra-dhanus.html

Secondly, who is this “The One” this person speaks of?. Anyway, here is another gem written by this person here - https://twitter.com/Ravilochanan86/status/1181075877230039040:

//Rather I consider it as an example of early sampradaya fights - brahmanas have such stories - rudra being given the same status. It doesn't matter if my God's head is cut but he should be seen as supreme :). After all, that deity is seen as supremely powerful compared to others.//

So, he will say our interpretations are “outlandish” when we base it on our Acharyas’ works, whereas according to his “traditional” opinion, the shruti, which is considered untampered and in pristine form by all vidvAns, apparently contains interpolations by zealots fighting over their gods.

These are the type of persons who try to deride our articles. Well, what can we say about that. Let the readers decide.