Note: This
page is a contribution of the Srivaishnava sampradAya follower who represented
the side of Vaishnavism with me against the author of the mahapashupatastra
blog page. My own comments are added in italics like this, preceded by three %
signs.
This is a short article regarding the status of the tAmasa purAnAs in vedAntA.
As is well known, the 18 purAnAs are classified into three groups – sattva, rajas and tamas. This classification comes from the purAnAs itself and is accepted by all advaitins, vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins. Yet, some people, frustrated at the fact that all the purAnAs classified as sattva praise Vishnu-nArAyaNa only, have attempted to dismiss this classification using much abused arguments like ‘interpolations’ and ‘vaishnava conspiracy’.
One must note that the classification is accepted by vaidika acharyas not only based on the slokas that suggest such a classification, but also only on the strength of pramAnAs. Here are some justifications that pretty much seal the classification:
1) The tAmasa purAnAs contradict Shruti
A simple rule of vedAntA is that whatever contradicts shruti is rejected and whatever conforms to shruti is accepted. The knowledgeable rishis have stated that the first authority is apAurushEya shruti, followed by the pAurushEya granthas like IthihAsA and purAnA. Among these two, ithihAsA enjoys a greater authority since it is a documented history at the very time of its occurrence, as opposed to purAnAs which speak of histories that happened long time ago.
The shruti identifies the parabrahman as nArAyaNa only by using the chAga paShu nyAyA and the logic of the word ‘nArAyaNa’ being a proper noun. The mahOpanishad statement‘Eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma, nEshana’ differentiates nArAyaNa from Brahma and Rudra (Eeshana), who are mentioned to be absent during pralaya. The nArAyaNopanishad declares that Brahma and Rudra are born of nArAyaNa vide ‘nArAyaNa brahma jAyatE, nArAyaNa rudrO jAyatE’. The satapatha brahmaNa declares that Rudra is born of karma as he refers to himself as ‘anapahatapApmA’. Again, the nArAyaNa suktam declares Brahma and Rudra as vibhUtIs of nArAyaNa vide ‘sa brahma sa siva sEndra’.
The same nArAyaNa suktam also calls nArAyaNa as ‘Shambhu’ (vishwashambhuvam), ‘Siva’ (sivamachyutam), etc. This shows that terms like Shambhu, Siva, Rudra, etc are common nouns that denote nArAyaNa only. Hence, statements like ‘PurushO vai RudrO’ or ‘Siva eva kevalam’ denote nArAyaNa. The husband of pArvati is not denoted by these statements as his birth owing to karma is conclusively establuished by the vedA.
For a detailed proof, refer the section on Shri Rudram in this website.
The tAmasa purAnAs contradict the shruti completely. The story of Brahma and Vishnu unable to find the beginning or end of a flaming Linga as seen in the shiva purAnA and others is not only illogical, but finds no mention in shruti. On the other hand, the sAttvika purAnAs uphold that Brahma was born of nArAyaNa and Rudra was born to Brahma (and hence, born of nArAyaNa, the antaryAmin of Brahma) as well.
To this, shaivas like Appayya Dikshitar have a unique argument which has now come to be known as the sadA shiva brahma vAdA. They state that the shruti vAkyAs ascribing a birth to Rudra are actually denoting the Rudra who is the samhAra karta, ie, the destroyer. There is a being known as ‘sadA shivA’ or ‘Rudra’ or ‘ParamEshwara’ who is above this Rudra, and also above Brahma and Vishnu. Hence, Brahma, Vishnu and the ‘samhAra rudra’ are born of this sadA shivA.
The above theory has zero basis in shAstrA. There is nothing indicating the existence of two different rudrAs in shruti and smriti. In shruti, nArAyaNa is identified as parabrahman and since this is a proper noun, it is impossible to postulate a ‘sadA shivA/ParamEshwara’ (which is a common noun) and ascribe the name of nArAyaNa to this being. Secondly, the smritis identify only one rudra, who is the husband of pArvati, who is blue necked and the dweller of kailAsA, and who was born of Brahma and who bears the Ganga flowing from the lotus feet of sriman nArAyaNa. There is no pramAnA for existence of two blue necked, pArvati patIs or two kailAsAs, one being born and the other being unborn.
Also, this division of ‘sadA shiva’ and ‘samhAra rudra’ involves 1) assuming the existence of two such rudrAs in the first place without any basis, 2) randomly ascribing vAkyas describing a birth to ‘samhAra rudra’ and statements glorifying parabrahman by the name of ‘rudra’ to ‘turIya shiva’, 3) Being unable to equate ‘sadA shivA’ to nArAyaNa, an assumption is made that nArAyaNa is lower to ‘sadA shivA’, which is quite baseless and contradicts shruti, 4) Failure to acknowledge shAstra attributing names like ‘rudra’, ‘shiva’, etc to nArAyaNa only. Thus, this theory is discarded.
Hence, it is established that the tAmasa purAnAs contradict shruti. Since wrong knowledge is a form of tAmas, these purAnAs are classified as ‘tAmasa purAnAs’.
2) The tAmasa purAnAs contradict smriti
We restrict ourselves to Gita, rAmAyaNa and mahAbhAratA by the name of ‘smriti’.
The gita clearly has vAsudeva krishNa declaring himself to be parabrahman. And we can also see that terms like ‘MahEshwara’ and ‘ParamEshwara’ are addressed to KrishNa only in the Gita. The tAmasa purAnAs which refer to Vishnu as a servant of Rudra, which belittle Vishnu’s sarvaj~natvam, sarvasaktitvam, etc contradict the Gita in many ways.
Next comes rAmAyaNa. The shiva purAnA has various stories of rAmA worshipping shiva to cure himself of a brahmahatya dosham he incurred by killing rAvana. The vAlmiki rAmAyaNa does not contain a single instance of rAmA worshipping shiva. Rather, the following two pramAnAs are found:
HanumAn tells rAvana thus:
brahmaa vaa svayambhuuH chaturaananaH rudraa vaa triNetraH tripuraantakaHmahendraH vaa indraH suranaayakah na shaktaaH traatum raamavadhyamyudhi (~sundara khAnda – 51.45)
Neither Brahma the self-existing god with four faces or Rudra with three eyes and the destroyer of Tripura or Mahendra the god of atmosphere and sky as also the lord of celestials would not be able to protect the one to be killed by Rama in battle."
When neither Brahma, Rudra nor Indra can defeat rAmA, why should rAmA worship any of them?
When the dharma sAstras say that the killing of a brahmaNa is not a sin in battle, why would rAmA incur brahma hatya dosha by killing rAvana? We see that KrishNa himself ordered the killing of DronAchAryA. But neither the pAndavas, who lied that Ashwattama was dead, nor Drshtadyumna, who killed DronAchAryA, nor KrishNa paramAtmA, who ordered the killing, incurred brahma hatya dosha even though DronAchAryA was a brahmaNa. So, why would such a dosha occur in the case of rAvana?
Thus, the shiva purAnA and other tAmasa purAnAs claiming rAmA to have incurred brahma hatya dosha and worshipping Shiva contradicts vAlmiki rAmAyaNa.
The story of rAmA worshipping shiva is also found in some works like tulasidas rAmacharitmanas. However, vAlmiki rAmAyaNa is utmost pramAnA. No other rAmAyaNa is considered authentic if it deviates from vAlmiki maharishi’s observations. These other rAmAyaNas merely followed the tAmasa purAnAs in their storytelling.
The mahAbhArata also supports that Brahma and Rudra were born of nArAyaNa, vide shanti parva (12.328.5 onwards; refer section on shri rudram). pArvati pati is nowhere declared to be parabrahman. Epithets like Mahadeva, Devadeva etc are applied to pArvati pati on account of his greatness among the devas only.
An example of the deviation that the tAmasa purAnAs show from mahAbhArata can be seen in the instance of Tripura samhArA. We have already seen the inner meaning of Tripura samhArA in the section on shri rudram in this website.
The shiva purAnA while describing the destruction of tripurA, states that Vishnu became the arrow, misled the asurAs and positioned the earth in the form of an ox because of his subservience to Rudra. However, this theory is completely contradicted by the mahAbhAratA, which states the following while describing the destruction of Tripura:
The universe is similarly said to consist of Vishnu. Vishnu is, again, the Soul of the holy Bhava (Rudra) of immeasurable energy. For this the touch of that bow-string became unbearable to the Asuras.
….
In consequence, however, of the pressure caused by the weight of Soma, Agni, and Vishnu that were in that shaft, as also of the pressure caused by the weight of Brahman and Rudra and the latter's bow, that car seemed to sink. Then Narayana, issuing out of the point of that shaft, assumed the form of a bull and raised that large car.
(MahAbHArata, Karna Parva, Chapter 34)
The relevant verses are given below:
viṣṇuś cātmā bhagavato bhavasyāmita tejasaḥ
tasmād dhanurjyā saṃsparśaṃ na viṣehur
harasya te
from the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata, and
tato madhye divyashabdaH prAdurAsInmahIpate |
R^iShINAM brahmaputrANAM mahatAmapi bhArata ||3-133-62
sa eSha sha~NkarasyAgre ratho bhUmiM pratiShThitaH |
ajeyo jayyatAM prAptaH sarvalokasya pashyataH ||3-133-63
atha viShNurmahAyogI sarvatodR^ishya tattvataH |
vR^iSharUpaM samAsthAya projjahAra rathottamam||3-133-70
in the Tripuravadha Vrittanta chapter of the Bhavishya parva of Harivamsa (appendix to the Mahabharata).
Thus, the mahAbHArata clearly states that Vishnu was the Self, ie, the antaryAmin of Rudra and that was the reason why his bow had incomparable tejas. The various assistances such as nArAyaNa assuming the form of a bull etc are related to the parabrahman aiding the chEtana by his anugraham during bhakti yOgA, as explained in the section on Shri Rudram.
The shiva purAnA which states that Vishnu was subservient to Rudra during Tripura samhArA, clearly is against the mahAbHArata which states that Rudra accomplished the destruction of Tripura because Vishnu was his inner self, ie, antaryAmin.
Thus, the tAmasa purAnAs contradict mahAbhArata as well.
The Gita, rAmAyaNa and mahAbHArata were composed by krishNa, vAlmiki and vyAsa respectively. The tAmasa purAnAs thus contradict the words of krishNa, vAlmiki and vyAsa.
Since knowledge that contradicts whatever is taught by great authorities in authentic works is a form of tAmas, these purAnAs are classified as ‘tAmasa purAnAs’.
3) The tAmasa purAnAs do not recommend proper brahma-jignyAsa
The Sattvik Puranas always begin with a neutral question. For example, consider the Bhagavata Purana:
Please, therefore, being blessed with many years, explain to us, in an easily understandable way, what you have ascertained to be the absolute and ultimate good for the people in general. (Bhagavata Purana)
But now, consider the Skanda Purana:
Please narrate to us the greatness of Lord Shiva, who carries a trident in his hand. We would like to hear about the merit achieved by worshiping him and meditating upon his pastimes. (Skanda Purana)
As you can see, the Bhagavata begins with a question that is quite general, ie, what is the greatest good for all and then only goes on to talk about vAsudevA, the son of devaki. But in the Skanda Purana, the rishis asked a specific question, rather than a general one, and had a biased opinion about Shiva already in their mind, so they started with a question asking the greatness of Shiva rather than an unbiased enquiry of the ultimate truth.
See the introduction to Shiva Purana, where the sages pose the question to Romaharshana:
You have taught us a lot, but we are still not satisfied. You have had the fortune of studying under Vedavyasa and there is nothing that you do not know, past, present or future. Tell us about Shiva, we do not know very much about Shiva. (Shiva Purana)
The same biased inquiry again. This proves that the nature of brahma jignyAsa in the tAmasa purAnAs is kuTarka and tAmasic as opposed to the sAttvika purAnAs.
Since knowledge gained by a biased question is obviously biased and hence a form of tAmas, these purAnAs are classified as ‘tAmasa purAnAs’.
4) The confusion of the tAmasa purAnAs
The same tAmasa purAnAs that belittle Vishnu also contain statements like ‘In Sri Vaikunta, the supreme abode, the liberated serve the Lord and his devotees’ (shiva purAnA)’. Similar statements like ‘Achyuta is superior to Brahma and Rudra’ occur in other tAmasa purAnAs.
This shows that these purAnAs are confused with respect to the knowledge they advocate. They mix the right meanings of ShAstra (such as the above quotes) now and then with the largely tAmasic portions. In contrast, the sAttvika purAnAs like Vishnu and Bhagavata PurAnAs are consistent with respect to the supremacy of Vishnu.
Since confusion arises from and is a form of tAmas, these purAnAs are classified as ‘tAmasa purAnAs’.
%%% Note: In this context, I would like to point out the following extract from Madhva's Brahma Sutra Bhashya (Translation by Prof. Pandurangi) first adhyaya, first pada, first sutra (1.1.1) :
"Also in the Skanda Purana celebrating the supremacy of Siva, this is said:
'O, Undecaying One, the moment thou shouldst, in wrath, turn thy face away from them, Brahma, Isana, and other gods would be doomed to miseries worse than those inflicted upon the basest of the base';
and in the Brahma Vaivarta Purana which seeks to extol Brahma, it is said:
'Neither I nor Siva nor others can lay claim to even a small fraction of his power. As a child sports with its toys, so does Achyuta with us.'
And no such statement is to be found in the works declaring the supremacy of Vishnu,...
5) Following the path of the wise with respect to the purAnAs
The Bhagavad Gita states that it is not enough if the shAstra states something. One must first look to see if great personalities accept this and follow it in practice. Then, one must emulate such mahAtmAs.
No
vedAntin with the exception of Appayya Dikshitar (whose theories were soundly
refuted) have ever given weight to the absurd stories contained in the tAmasa
purAnAs nor given them authority. And nobody has opposed their decision to do
so as well, which shows that such a practice was well accepted at that time as
traditional.
But this does not mean we must reject the tAmasa purAns wholly. They are authoritative so long as they do not contradict shruti.
6) The position of the purAnAs and their validity
This is a short article regarding the status of the tAmasa purAnAs in vedAntA.
As is well known, the 18 purAnAs are classified into three groups – sattva, rajas and tamas. This classification comes from the purAnAs itself and is accepted by all advaitins, vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins. Yet, some people, frustrated at the fact that all the purAnAs classified as sattva praise Vishnu-nArAyaNa only, have attempted to dismiss this classification using much abused arguments like ‘interpolations’ and ‘vaishnava conspiracy’.
One must note that the classification is accepted by vaidika acharyas not only based on the slokas that suggest such a classification, but also only on the strength of pramAnAs. Here are some justifications that pretty much seal the classification:
1) The tAmasa purAnAs contradict Shruti
A simple rule of vedAntA is that whatever contradicts shruti is rejected and whatever conforms to shruti is accepted. The knowledgeable rishis have stated that the first authority is apAurushEya shruti, followed by the pAurushEya granthas like IthihAsA and purAnA. Among these two, ithihAsA enjoys a greater authority since it is a documented history at the very time of its occurrence, as opposed to purAnAs which speak of histories that happened long time ago.
The shruti identifies the parabrahman as nArAyaNa only by using the chAga paShu nyAyA and the logic of the word ‘nArAyaNa’ being a proper noun. The mahOpanishad statement‘Eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma, nEshana’ differentiates nArAyaNa from Brahma and Rudra (Eeshana), who are mentioned to be absent during pralaya. The nArAyaNopanishad declares that Brahma and Rudra are born of nArAyaNa vide ‘nArAyaNa brahma jAyatE, nArAyaNa rudrO jAyatE’. The satapatha brahmaNa declares that Rudra is born of karma as he refers to himself as ‘anapahatapApmA’. Again, the nArAyaNa suktam declares Brahma and Rudra as vibhUtIs of nArAyaNa vide ‘sa brahma sa siva sEndra’.
The same nArAyaNa suktam also calls nArAyaNa as ‘Shambhu’ (vishwashambhuvam), ‘Siva’ (sivamachyutam), etc. This shows that terms like Shambhu, Siva, Rudra, etc are common nouns that denote nArAyaNa only. Hence, statements like ‘PurushO vai RudrO’ or ‘Siva eva kevalam’ denote nArAyaNa. The husband of pArvati is not denoted by these statements as his birth owing to karma is conclusively establuished by the vedA.
For a detailed proof, refer the section on Shri Rudram in this website.
The tAmasa purAnAs contradict the shruti completely. The story of Brahma and Vishnu unable to find the beginning or end of a flaming Linga as seen in the shiva purAnA and others is not only illogical, but finds no mention in shruti. On the other hand, the sAttvika purAnAs uphold that Brahma was born of nArAyaNa and Rudra was born to Brahma (and hence, born of nArAyaNa, the antaryAmin of Brahma) as well.
To this, shaivas like Appayya Dikshitar have a unique argument which has now come to be known as the sadA shiva brahma vAdA. They state that the shruti vAkyAs ascribing a birth to Rudra are actually denoting the Rudra who is the samhAra karta, ie, the destroyer. There is a being known as ‘sadA shivA’ or ‘Rudra’ or ‘ParamEshwara’ who is above this Rudra, and also above Brahma and Vishnu. Hence, Brahma, Vishnu and the ‘samhAra rudra’ are born of this sadA shivA.
The above theory has zero basis in shAstrA. There is nothing indicating the existence of two different rudrAs in shruti and smriti. In shruti, nArAyaNa is identified as parabrahman and since this is a proper noun, it is impossible to postulate a ‘sadA shivA/ParamEshwara’ (which is a common noun) and ascribe the name of nArAyaNa to this being. Secondly, the smritis identify only one rudra, who is the husband of pArvati, who is blue necked and the dweller of kailAsA, and who was born of Brahma and who bears the Ganga flowing from the lotus feet of sriman nArAyaNa. There is no pramAnA for existence of two blue necked, pArvati patIs or two kailAsAs, one being born and the other being unborn.
Also, this division of ‘sadA shiva’ and ‘samhAra rudra’ involves 1) assuming the existence of two such rudrAs in the first place without any basis, 2) randomly ascribing vAkyas describing a birth to ‘samhAra rudra’ and statements glorifying parabrahman by the name of ‘rudra’ to ‘turIya shiva’, 3) Being unable to equate ‘sadA shivA’ to nArAyaNa, an assumption is made that nArAyaNa is lower to ‘sadA shivA’, which is quite baseless and contradicts shruti, 4) Failure to acknowledge shAstra attributing names like ‘rudra’, ‘shiva’, etc to nArAyaNa only. Thus, this theory is discarded.
Hence, it is established that the tAmasa purAnAs contradict shruti. Since wrong knowledge is a form of tAmas, these purAnAs are classified as ‘tAmasa purAnAs’.
2) The tAmasa purAnAs contradict smriti
We restrict ourselves to Gita, rAmAyaNa and mahAbhAratA by the name of ‘smriti’.
The gita clearly has vAsudeva krishNa declaring himself to be parabrahman. And we can also see that terms like ‘MahEshwara’ and ‘ParamEshwara’ are addressed to KrishNa only in the Gita. The tAmasa purAnAs which refer to Vishnu as a servant of Rudra, which belittle Vishnu’s sarvaj~natvam, sarvasaktitvam, etc contradict the Gita in many ways.
Next comes rAmAyaNa. The shiva purAnA has various stories of rAmA worshipping shiva to cure himself of a brahmahatya dosham he incurred by killing rAvana. The vAlmiki rAmAyaNa does not contain a single instance of rAmA worshipping shiva. Rather, the following two pramAnAs are found:
HanumAn tells rAvana thus:
brahmaa vaa svayambhuuH chaturaananaH rudraa vaa triNetraH tripuraantakaHmahendraH vaa indraH suranaayakah na shaktaaH traatum raamavadhyamyudhi (~sundara khAnda – 51.45)
Neither Brahma the self-existing god with four faces or Rudra with three eyes and the destroyer of Tripura or Mahendra the god of atmosphere and sky as also the lord of celestials would not be able to protect the one to be killed by Rama in battle."
When neither Brahma, Rudra nor Indra can defeat rAmA, why should rAmA worship any of them?
When the dharma sAstras say that the killing of a brahmaNa is not a sin in battle, why would rAmA incur brahma hatya dosha by killing rAvana? We see that KrishNa himself ordered the killing of DronAchAryA. But neither the pAndavas, who lied that Ashwattama was dead, nor Drshtadyumna, who killed DronAchAryA, nor KrishNa paramAtmA, who ordered the killing, incurred brahma hatya dosha even though DronAchAryA was a brahmaNa. So, why would such a dosha occur in the case of rAvana?
Thus, the shiva purAnA and other tAmasa purAnAs claiming rAmA to have incurred brahma hatya dosha and worshipping Shiva contradicts vAlmiki rAmAyaNa.
The story of rAmA worshipping shiva is also found in some works like tulasidas rAmacharitmanas. However, vAlmiki rAmAyaNa is utmost pramAnA. No other rAmAyaNa is considered authentic if it deviates from vAlmiki maharishi’s observations. These other rAmAyaNas merely followed the tAmasa purAnAs in their storytelling.
The mahAbhArata also supports that Brahma and Rudra were born of nArAyaNa, vide shanti parva (12.328.5 onwards; refer section on shri rudram). pArvati pati is nowhere declared to be parabrahman. Epithets like Mahadeva, Devadeva etc are applied to pArvati pati on account of his greatness among the devas only.
An example of the deviation that the tAmasa purAnAs show from mahAbhArata can be seen in the instance of Tripura samhArA. We have already seen the inner meaning of Tripura samhArA in the section on shri rudram in this website.
The shiva purAnA while describing the destruction of tripurA, states that Vishnu became the arrow, misled the asurAs and positioned the earth in the form of an ox because of his subservience to Rudra. However, this theory is completely contradicted by the mahAbhAratA, which states the following while describing the destruction of Tripura:
The universe is similarly said to consist of Vishnu. Vishnu is, again, the Soul of the holy Bhava (Rudra) of immeasurable energy. For this the touch of that bow-string became unbearable to the Asuras.
….
In consequence, however, of the pressure caused by the weight of Soma, Agni, and Vishnu that were in that shaft, as also of the pressure caused by the weight of Brahman and Rudra and the latter's bow, that car seemed to sink. Then Narayana, issuing out of the point of that shaft, assumed the form of a bull and raised that large car.
(MahAbHArata, Karna Parva, Chapter 34)
The relevant verses are given below:
viṣṇuś cātmā bhagavato bhavasyāmita tejasaḥ
from the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata, and
tato madhye divyashabdaH prAdurAsInmahIpate |
R^iShINAM brahmaputrANAM mahatAmapi bhArata ||3-133-62
sa eSha sha~NkarasyAgre ratho bhUmiM pratiShThitaH |
ajeyo jayyatAM prAptaH sarvalokasya pashyataH ||3-133-63
atha viShNurmahAyogI sarvatodR^ishya tattvataH |
vR^iSharUpaM samAsthAya projjahAra rathottamam||3-133-70
in the Tripuravadha Vrittanta chapter of the Bhavishya parva of Harivamsa (appendix to the Mahabharata).
Thus, the mahAbHArata clearly states that Vishnu was the Self, ie, the antaryAmin of Rudra and that was the reason why his bow had incomparable tejas. The various assistances such as nArAyaNa assuming the form of a bull etc are related to the parabrahman aiding the chEtana by his anugraham during bhakti yOgA, as explained in the section on Shri Rudram.
The shiva purAnA which states that Vishnu was subservient to Rudra during Tripura samhArA, clearly is against the mahAbHArata which states that Rudra accomplished the destruction of Tripura because Vishnu was his inner self, ie, antaryAmin.
Thus, the tAmasa purAnAs contradict mahAbhArata as well.
The Gita, rAmAyaNa and mahAbHArata were composed by krishNa, vAlmiki and vyAsa respectively. The tAmasa purAnAs thus contradict the words of krishNa, vAlmiki and vyAsa.
Since knowledge that contradicts whatever is taught by great authorities in authentic works is a form of tAmas, these purAnAs are classified as ‘tAmasa purAnAs’.
3) The tAmasa purAnAs do not recommend proper brahma-jignyAsa
The Sattvik Puranas always begin with a neutral question. For example, consider the Bhagavata Purana:
Please, therefore, being blessed with many years, explain to us, in an easily understandable way, what you have ascertained to be the absolute and ultimate good for the people in general. (Bhagavata Purana)
But now, consider the Skanda Purana:
Please narrate to us the greatness of Lord Shiva, who carries a trident in his hand. We would like to hear about the merit achieved by worshiping him and meditating upon his pastimes. (Skanda Purana)
As you can see, the Bhagavata begins with a question that is quite general, ie, what is the greatest good for all and then only goes on to talk about vAsudevA, the son of devaki. But in the Skanda Purana, the rishis asked a specific question, rather than a general one, and had a biased opinion about Shiva already in their mind, so they started with a question asking the greatness of Shiva rather than an unbiased enquiry of the ultimate truth.
See the introduction to Shiva Purana, where the sages pose the question to Romaharshana:
You have taught us a lot, but we are still not satisfied. You have had the fortune of studying under Vedavyasa and there is nothing that you do not know, past, present or future. Tell us about Shiva, we do not know very much about Shiva. (Shiva Purana)
The same biased inquiry again. This proves that the nature of brahma jignyAsa in the tAmasa purAnAs is kuTarka and tAmasic as opposed to the sAttvika purAnAs.
Since knowledge gained by a biased question is obviously biased and hence a form of tAmas, these purAnAs are classified as ‘tAmasa purAnAs’.
4) The confusion of the tAmasa purAnAs
The same tAmasa purAnAs that belittle Vishnu also contain statements like ‘In Sri Vaikunta, the supreme abode, the liberated serve the Lord and his devotees’ (shiva purAnA)’. Similar statements like ‘Achyuta is superior to Brahma and Rudra’ occur in other tAmasa purAnAs.
This shows that these purAnAs are confused with respect to the knowledge they advocate. They mix the right meanings of ShAstra (such as the above quotes) now and then with the largely tAmasic portions. In contrast, the sAttvika purAnAs like Vishnu and Bhagavata PurAnAs are consistent with respect to the supremacy of Vishnu.
Since confusion arises from and is a form of tAmas, these purAnAs are classified as ‘tAmasa purAnAs’.
%%% Note: In this context, I would like to point out the following extract from Madhva's Brahma Sutra Bhashya (Translation by Prof. Pandurangi) first adhyaya, first pada, first sutra (1.1.1) :
"Also in the Skanda Purana celebrating the supremacy of Siva, this is said:
'O, Undecaying One, the moment thou shouldst, in wrath, turn thy face away from them, Brahma, Isana, and other gods would be doomed to miseries worse than those inflicted upon the basest of the base';
and in the Brahma Vaivarta Purana which seeks to extol Brahma, it is said:
'Neither I nor Siva nor others can lay claim to even a small fraction of his power. As a child sports with its toys, so does Achyuta with us.'
And no such statement is to be found in the works declaring the supremacy of Vishnu,...
5) Following the path of the wise with respect to the purAnAs
The Bhagavad Gita states that it is not enough if the shAstra states something. One must first look to see if great personalities accept this and follow it in practice. Then, one must emulate such mahAtmAs.
In
accordance to this, one can clearly see that Sri Adi Shankara has never used
the tAmasa purAnAs in his bhAshyas as authority.
%%% Note: By this, we mean that Adi Shankara, in his
prasthAna traya bhAShyas where any discussion of the nature of Brahman is taken
up, never uses the sections in Tamasa Puranas that celebrate the supremacy of
Siva and others, such as Shankara Samhita, Suta Samhita, Shiva Gita, Shiva
Sahasranama, Devi Mahatmya, etc.
But this does not mean we must reject the tAmasa purAns wholly. They are authoritative so long as they do not contradict shruti.
Puranas
are classified into Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. The Rajas and Tamas puranas are
not authentic because they are veda virodha. But this does not mean they are
entirely to be rejected. There are often sattvik portions in rajasa and tamasa
puranas which are accepted. Examples include the ones stated in point 4) of
this article, such as praise of Vishnu as parabrahman as well as some portions
such as Sri VenkatAchala mAhAtmyam and BrindAranya Kshetra mAhAtmyam in
BrahmAnda purAna and others. Indeed, sri rAmAnuja, sri parAshara bhattar as
well as srI mAdhva have quoted these sAttvic portions from the tAmasa purAnAs.
Similarly,
the sAttvik puranas are not of the form of pure sattva, but only mishra sattva
(sattva mixed with rajas and tamas). So, even the sAttvik puranas may contain a
little amount of Rajas and Tamas. For instance, some chapters of Padma Purana
are veda virodha. But for the greater part, that purana is sattvik. Since the
tamasic and rAjasic portion of this purAnA are minimal, and sAttvik portion is
greater, the purAnA is classified as ‘sAttvik’ overall.
This
is also why Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas are praised as the greatest of even
the Sattvik puranas, because they are the most sattvik of all. The
tAmasic/rAjasic content in them is almost nil.
6) The position of the purAnAs and their validity
The
purAnAs have a lower position than the IthihAsA and Shruti. But they are accepted so long as they do
not contradict the Veda and IthihAsA.
The
classification and the slokas that describe such a classification are not
interpolations. They are genuine as can be seen from this article.
The
reason for such tAmasa purAnas to exist is very simple. Our tradition is not
like a school or college where everything is spoon-fed and force-fed to learners.
Rather, the rishis acknowledge that there are different classes of people who
adhere to certain convictions based on vAsaNa-s and karma-s. The vedA
prescribes the syEna yaga for killing one’s enemies and bhagavan himself has
misled asurAs as buddha. The Brahma SutrAs are not immediately crystal clear to
all because they purposely hide the truths from unqualified people, thereby
demanding a commentary tradition. Since people with certain inclinations would
be unwilling to accept the ultimate truth straightaway, the venerable teachers
have propagated even wrong knowledge such as anya devata arAdhana to ensure
that these people do not fall into atheism and other worse paths, but atleast
retain conviction in these anya devata and the wrong stories in the tAmasa
purAnAs. Eventually, by the favour of these very devatas and mainly by the
grace of Achyuta, they will come to a birth where they realise “vAsudeva sarvam idam”.
Therefore,
the authority of the trifold classification of purAnAs is established.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteI am very impressed the way you have replied to Mahapashupat astra blog. The author of that blog is very rigid & need a blog like yours to
counter wrong propaganda spread by him.
I replied to him that Gita was spoken by lord vishnu through krishna & not lord shiva.
To support my claim i gave him evidence from Gita. Here are four verses from Gita spoken by Arjun while seeing the universal form of lord krishna . But he deleted my comments:-
Verse-1 :
rudrädityäh vasavo ye ca sädhyä
visve ’svinau marutas cosmapäs ca
gandharva-yaksäsura-siddha-sanghä
viksante tväm vismitäs caiva sarve
Transaltion is : All the various manifestations of Lord Siva i.e Rudra , the Ädityas, the Vasus, the Sädhyas, the Viçvedevas, the two Açvés, the Maruts, the forefathers, the Gandharvas, the Yakñas, the Asuras and the perfected demigods are beholding You in wonder.
Verse-2 :
nabhah-sprsam diptam aneka-varnam
vyättä ananam dipta-visäla-netram
drstva hi tväm pravyathita antah -ätmä
dhrtim na vindämi Sanam ca visno
Translation is :
O all-pervading Visnu, seeing You with Your many radiant colors touching the sky, Your gaping mouths, and Your great glowing eyes, my mind is
perturbed by fear. I can no longer maintain my steadiness or equilibrium of mind.
Verse 3 :
yadä yadä hi dharmasya
glänir bhavati bhärata
abhyutthänam adharmasya
tadätmänaà såjämy aham
Translation :
Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion—at that time I
descend Myself.
Verse-4
kiréöinaà gadinaà cakra-hastam
icchämi tväà drañöum ahaà tathaiva
tenaiva rüpeëa catur-bhujena
sahasra-bäho bhava viçva-mürte
Translation :
O universal form, O thousand-armed Lord, I wish to see You in Your four-armed form, with helmeted head and with club, wheel, conch and lotus flower in Your hands. I long to see You in that form.
Analysis : - It was lord vishnu who spoke Gita through lord krishna & not lord shiva.
Evidence :
In verse -2 , Arjuna addresses the universal form as " O lord Vishnu " . Therefore, it is not lord Shiva But Lord Vishnu who spoke Gita through Lord Krishna.
In Verse-1 , Arjuna said to supreme lord that All the various manifestations of Lord Shiva i.e all Rudras are are beholding You in wonder.
In Verse-3 : It is lord vishnu who takes incarnation & not lord shiva, is is known to everybody that lord shiva does not takes incarnation in all yugas
In verse 4 : It is evident that Arjuna is talking to lord vishnu as in verse-5 he is asking universal form to show his 4 armed Vishnu form with club, wheel, conch and lotus flower in hands because he has lost his composure after seeing the universal form
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteJai Sri Krishna.
Following is another blog which i wrote on Maha pashupatastra blog which the author deleted without replying.
Lord Shiva is although great but he is not Ishvara in true sense. Ishvara will never take side of demoniac thoughts & give boons to demons so as to trouble innocent people. You mentioned that Shiva wanted to protect his devotee 'Mandara' (another son of Hiranyakashyap),who was a demon. Will Ishvara ever try to defend wrong doers or miscreants ? Rather, Ishvara will punish them like lord vishnu did.
Ravan abducted Sita, the chaste wife of Lord Rama. Ravan was a devotee of lord shiva. Lord Shiva gave him boon & therefore Ravan committed sins such as abducting a chaste wife like Sita & vedvati. Lord Shiva neither came to save sita & punish Ravan for his wrong doing nor he came to fight Lord Rama to save his devotee (Ravana) from death, since he knew that it was not possible to fight lord Rama.
Ashvatthama ( as per Mahabharat) did penance of lord shiva , took boon from him & destroyed 5 sons of Pandavas who were sleeping at night. Did
lord shiva protected the Dharma ? It was lord krishna who protected dharma throughout.
Above two examples suggest that lord shiva is although great but he is not a protector of Dharma. Whereas lord vishnu has always taken side of Dharma. Lord Krishna righteously said " Whenever sin increases & dharma falls, i descend on this earth , to save innocent people & to annihilate the miscreants ". Lord shiva gives priority to his devotee but this is at the expense of dharma.
Lord Rama or Lord vishnu in this sense is truely Ishvara as he never gave boon to any wrong doer for misuse. Every time Brahma or Shiva will give to boon to demons & everytime Lord vishnu had to take Avatar to cleanse the earth from Sins.
Ashvatthama was given a curse by lord krishna to stay on the earth with wound on forehead,in invisible form, till many kalpas as he had attacked Parikshit who was in Womb with his brahmastra. Ashvatthama was lord shiva's devotee but even lord shiva could not protect him from lord krishna's wrath.
Ghantakarna did tremendous penance of lord shiva to seek salvation. He had so much hate for lord vishnu that he tied a bell in his ear to prevent lord vishnu's name entering his ear & hence the name "Ghanta Karna ". Lod shiva was helpless & adviced him to approach Lord krishna who only could liberate him & give him salvation.Finally lord krishna gave him salvation. As per all the stories , mostly shiva was worshipped to fulfill materialistic desires but not for salvation ( there may be very few examples ) but mostly people worshipped lord vishnu to attain salvation.
Bhrigu tested all three gods & amongst all three only lord vishnu had no arrogance. This is the symbol of being God. So he was declared Yajnapati i.e sacrifice of all Yagya goes to lord vishnu.
I respect lord shiva as well but i was forced to remind you above examples because you are spreading wrong propoganda about adorable lord vishnu. So, please do not mislead devotees against lord vishnu. You will not be able to answer certain things.
NOTE TO READERS:
DeleteThis comment (everything starting from "Lord Shiva is although great...") is directed at Santosh, the author of the "Mahapashupatastra" blog (http://mahapashupatastra.blogspot.com).
Dear Anonymous,
Delete//Ishvara will never take side of demoniac thoughts & give boons to demons so as to trouble innocent people//
Yes Ji, these were my thoughts exactly when I had in the past read of certain incidents in the puranas like banasura yuddham where Shiva sides with an asura just on the excuse of having given him his word. And Brahma giving boons to Hiranyakashipu, Ravana etc just because he was pleased with their presence.
The devatas, though are higher beings than humans in terms of power, they too can be overwhelmed by the tamo and rajo gunas. And when this happens they act against dharma.
I such instances (and you can find many in our scriptires) Bhagavan takes it upon himself to correct their mistakes and set them back in the right track for the welfare of the universe.
God is not neutral towards dharma and adharma. nArAyaNa is always with dharma, he is dharma....'rAmo vigrahavAn dharma:'.
Jai Sri Rama
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteJai Shri Krishna.
I some few doubts. Pls clarify it.
1. Was Shiva sahasranam inserted later into Mahabharat ? Was it an attempt by shaivites to reduce the importance of lord krishna ?
2. Secondly, how can Bhishma declare lord vishnu & shiva as supreme at the same time ? Means, there is some interpolation in Mahabharat also.
3.Thirdly, story that lord krishna did taapas & obtained boon from lord shiva in harivamsa.. I feel that this may also have been interpolated into Mahabharat.
Kindly clarify.
Regards,
A staunch vishnu devotee
Respected Sir,
DeleteThank you for the enlightening comments. I have suggested the author of Maha Pashupatastra to not delete comments unless they are indecent/threatening. I have told him that deleting comments is not in the spirit of freedom of thought and freedom of expression which are honored in Sanatana Dharma traditions. This has fallen into deaf ears.
Of course, he has only shown his lack of courage to accept well-established facts. He has built a whole illusory empire with figments of his own imagination stemming from Vaishnava hatred. When he is unable to answer formidable opposition to his views, he resorts to deleting/silencing the comments.
इस प्रकार,
आप जैसे वैष्णव जनों का चरण कमल की धूलि ग्राही
जय द्वाराकादीश!
=======================================================
TO ALL READERS, especially those who support Santosh @Maha Pashupatastra
In blogging etiquette, the author of a comment owns that comment as it is a work of his/her creativity. It is fair to expect that any comment that was written in good spirit (as opposed to threatening comments or comments making indecent personal attacks) especially after investing a fair amount of time is published, even if the author may disagree with the opinion/facts.
This is especially important as long as blogger/other platforms do not have an option to automatically email a copy of the posted comment to the email address of the author of the comment immediately after hitting the "go" button (before moderation), nor is browser technology smart enough to save the text posted in comment forms in the browser's history/cache.
In the manner mentioned above, posting a comment is unlike sending out a "Letter to the editor" of a newspaper, since it is normally expected that such letters are automatically saved in the "sent messages" folder of the inbox (in the case where the letter is emailed) or the author of the letter normally taxes a carbon/photocopy of the original letter before posting it out (in case the letter is posted through a postal service in physical form). I say this as a person who experienced a whole lot of pain due to disappointment and a feeling of being cheated in the past when authors/site owners refused to publish my comments written with diligency.
Deliberately refusing to publish comments from a certain person/group (or) deleting them after publishing, while other readers are treated favorably, is utterly unfair and goes against the principle of free speech.
While I accept that it may be PERFECTLY WELL WITHIN THE LEGAL RIGHTS of the author to not publish/delete previously published comments of a certain nature, I hope readers and supporters of the Maha Pashupatastra blog see, due to the above reasons, that it is ETHICALLY WRONG.
I hope the good-spirited Saivite readers of that blog see this and pressurize Santosh to not treat comments in this way, at least in future. It is in the spirit of free inquiry and questioning honored in Sanatana Dharma to give the opponent a fair hearing. After all, if one believes that there is good substance in what they write, they should be afraid of nothing that their opponent says.
Respected Sir,
DeleteThank you for your questions. Here is my answer, based on my knowledge:
//
1. Was Shiva sahasranam inserted later into Mahabharat ? Was it an attempt by shaivites to reduce the importance of lord krishna ?
//
There are concrete evidences to believe that Shiva Sahasranam was interpolated later into Mahabharat (probably Neelakanta Dikshit, the 16th/17th century commentator). I have heard that ancient manuscripts of anushAsana parvA do not contain the Shiva Sahasranama section.
Here is why...
The nAyanmArs of Tamil Nadu and other prominent Shiva devotees elsewhere in India before the 12th century do refer to sage upamanyu and vyAghrapAda as teachers of the Shaivite way (probably this understanding is based on pAshupata tantra texts/tAmasa purANas). However, they do not associate these sages with Shri Krishna or Bhishma pitAmaha or dharmaputra yudiShTra. However, in the interpolated shiva sahasranAma chapter, we find the claim that upamanyu gave Shiva Diksha to Krishna and that is why Krishna expounded the Sahasranama of Shiva. If this were the case, the nAyanmArs and other prominent Shaiva authors before the 12th century would have mentioned this in their works while talking about sage upamanyu/vyAghrapAda.
//
2. Secondly, how can Bhishma declare lord vishnu & shiva as supreme at the same time ? Means, there is some interpolation in Mahabharat also.
//
That is true. To me personally, it looks like a feeble childish attempt to show Shiva's supremacy from Mahabharata. However, Shri Adi Shankar Acharya, Shri Madhvacharya have quoted the following authentic verses from the Mahabharata:
"vede rAmAyaNe puNye bhArate ca bharataRShabhaH, Adau madhye tathA ca ante viShNuH sarvatra gIyate" -- Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata! (Harivamsa, 3.132.95).
"AlODya sarva shAstrANi vicArya ca punaH punaH idam ekam suniShpannam dhyeyon nArAyaNaH sadA"" -- After having analyzed all the shastras critically many times, I can say for sure this one rule -- that nArAyaNa is always to be meditated upon
//
3.Thirdly, story that lord krishna did taapas & obtained boon from lord shiva in harivamsa.. I feel that this may also have been interpolated into Mahabharat.
//
This story is authentic. However, the explanation is that Lord Vishnu once asked Lord Shiva to request a boon. Lord Shiva requested that he wishes Lord Vishnu to accept a boon from him, so that he will be highly respected by humans. Lord Vishnu granted this, and as per this boon, told Lord Siva that he will do tapas and ask for a boon later in one of his avatArs.
In that story itself, after Lord Vishnu asks Lord Siva for a boon, Lord Siva becomes astonished at the sausheelya guNa (characteristic of generously mingling with subordinates, out of grace) of Lord Hari and praises Him as supreme thus:
(Bhavishya parva of Harivamsa, Chapter 89):
ityuktvA devadeveshaM munInAha punaH shivaH |
evaM jAnIta he viprA ye bhaktA draShTumAgatAH ||3-89-1
etadeva paraM vastu naitasmAtparamasti vaH |
etadeva vijAnIdhvametadvaH paramaM tapaH ||3-89-2
etadeva sadA viprA dhyeyaM satatamAnasaiH |
etadvaH paramaM shreya etadvaH paramaM dhanam ||3-89-3
etadvo janmanaH kR^ityametadvastapasaH phalam |
eSha vaH puNyanilaya eSha dharmaH sanAtanaH ||3-89-4
eSha vo mokShadAtA cha eSha mArga udAhR^itaH |
eSha puNyapradaH sAkShAdetadvaH karmaNAM phalam ||3-89-5
etadeva prashaMsanti vidvAMso brahmavAdinaH |
eSha tryayIgatirviprAH prArthyo brahmavidAM sadA ||3-89-6
etadeva prashaMsanti sA~NkhyayogasamAshritAH |
eSha brahmavidAM mArgaH kathito vedavAdibhiH ||3-89-7
evameSha vijANIta nAtra kAryA vichAraNA |
harirekaH sadA dhyeyo bhavadbhiH sattvamAsthitaiH ||3-89-8
nAnyo jagati devo.asti viShNornArAyaNAtparaH |
omityevaM sadA viprA paThata dhyAta keshavam ||3-89-9
tato niHshreyasaprAptirbhavishyati na saMshayaH |
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteJai Sri Krishna.
Thanks for your reply. I have few more doubts. I am a staunch vishnu devotee but I feel bewildered after reading so many texts from shaivite authors . I will be highly obliged if you can clarify my doubts. These doubts are quoted by shaivites to delude the readers while refuting the supremacy of lord vishnu.
My doubts are :
1. Padma Puran which is considered as a Satvik Purana consists of Shiv Gita which mentions Lord shiva to be supreme. In shiv Gita, lord shiva claims his supremacy on lord Rama. How is it possible that one purana can declare two Gods as supreme ?
2. Why did lord krishna asked Arjun to pray upon lord shiva to get weapons & pray to shakti before starting kaurav-pandav war ?
3. We have heard about the pre vedic images of lord shiva found during excavation & phallus worship. But we have not found any thing of such period in excavations on lord vishnu.
4. On mahapshupat astra blog, i found written that lord krishna had forgotten gita when Arjun asked him to repeat again later and when he spoke Gita during war , lord krishna was in connection with supreme brahman. So, is not lord krishna or vishnu supreme brahman but someone else?
5. Secondly,on mahapshupat astra blog, i found that lord krishna preached Anu Gita to uddhav but there are many differences in that compared to Bhagwat Gita & it is not in synch with BHagwat Gita.
6. Some renowned people in kailyuga do not beleive on bhagwat Gita & claim that such large text could not be spoken in such a small time during war. It will take many hours to speak it. Therefore, gita might have been just an imagination of vyas.
Thank you sir. Awaiting your kind reply.
Hari Om
There is no reason to get confused by Shaivite authors. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the main page of the blog thoroughly line by line and analyze. Everything will be clear. AcAryas reputed to be neutral such as Shri Adi Shankara Bhagavatpada have accepted Vishnu alone as supreme wholeheartedly in their Brahma Sutra/Gita/Upanishad/Vishnu Sahasranam Bhashyas.
DeleteKindly bear with me today. I will reply to your comments in detail in 24 hours.
PS: Do you belong to Pushtimarg? I guessed so, but I am not sure if I am right. Pardon if it is wrong to ask this.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteHere is my another blog which Mahapashupat Astra blog did not published & replied to me hatefully.
Dear Mr santosh,
There is no proof that some parts of Harivamsa may not have been inserted later in Mahabharat by authors.I already quoted that puranas,texts, mahabharat, harivamsa have been interpolated. There is no witness alive now.
As per mahabharat, Bheeshma gave vishnu sahasranam to Yudhishtir & declared Vishnu as supreme ( you did not mentioned this so that you can delude the readers & use texts from Mahabharat as per your convenience) It is not possible that same Bheeshma will declare shiva & vishnu to be supreme at the same time. This confirms that there is interpolation in Mahabharat also. You will say that vishnu being supreme is the interpolation & i will say just opposite. Endless..
Since the ages, not lord shiva but lord vishnu has been ridiculed. Southern region is a best example of this. Hundreds of years back, Chola King Koluthunga-I damaged the eyes & had beaten Ramanuja followers to death who were vishnu devotees. Such an extent was hatred towards Lord vishnu.
This barbarism is still continued (may be only in thoughts) as i can see in your blogs. So , all this was not initiated by vaishnavites as per historical evidences, as opposite to what you claim. Let us take the example of Tulsidas as evidence. He fostered vaishnavism without uttering poisonous thoughts on lord shiva. In fact he wrote Rudrashtakam to glorify Lord shiva. This is the best example i have seen in kaliyug.
If you believe in democracy then you must not be desperate & listen to other's views too.
Thank You.
Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula June 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM
My blog is as open to exit as open the entry is! I have not flashed my blog in your territory and invited you right? You should curse that entity who pointed you here, be it person or search engine, how can I be the reason behind your disappointment?
Therefore, if you land on my blog thru searches, kindly click on the browser close (X) button simple! And yes, request you all not to come again here with these Fake profiles. I can understand what politics you guys are trying to play. :-)
Thanks!
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteHare Krishna.
I am very impressed the way you have put effort to counter on negative propaganda spread on vaishnavism. I would advice you to use search engine optimization so that your blog comes comes early into google search engine. All this i am advising is because it is very necessary to nullify the negative propaganda spread by people like mahapashupat astra blog who are against & hate lord vishnu . Nowadays, there is lot of material available on internet which is malicious & bewilders the devotees. We need to spread truth & evidence to enlighten the bewildered minds of devotees. I am not against great lord shiva & i respect him a lot like my Guru but the way some people are suppressing vaishnavism through delusion & hate campaign is not acceptable to me.I adore lord shiva so that he can guide me way to lord krishna's feet.
Thank you. Hari om
Thank you for the information.
DeleteI am interested in finding out how to use search engine optimization? Kindly advise and pardon my lack of knowledge in technology.
Can you send the url of this blog to friends who you know that are interested in truth seeking/jij~nAsa?
If possible, kindly let me know more about your background/gurus as I would like to learn more about the Vaishnava Paramparas outside the four southern states in India.
Dear Bandhu,
DeleteUnfortunately i do not have any Guru & i pray lord vishnu\ krishna himself to become my Guru. I have a engineering background .Unfortunately i do not have colleagues who are really interested in propounding Vaishnavism.
But there is a website http://www.iskcondesiretree.net/. You can join this site & find many devotees there. You can also find questions of your answers & chat online with other devotees.
If you type search engine optimization on google, you can find some organizations which will professionally do this for you.
Hari Om!!
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteI have followed my own Marg of devotion which has been guided by my inner self (don't know it is right or wrong) . When i was 4 yrs old, i already knew that lord vishnu is bhagawan ( it was already in my memory). No body told me this nor somebody discussed in front of me. I believe it has something to do with my past life.
I believe that life is an exam ,lord vishnu \ krishna is the examiner & we are the examinees. Those who pass get salvation, those who do not deserve come to this world again. I also chant lord shiva's name to ask for his forgiveness & to eliminate the bad effects of feelings which get created on reading delusive texts created by Anti- Vaishnavites. This is because i want to be in good books of lord krishna \ vishnu who likes devotees without Raag & Dwesh. When i think of lord shiva, i feel as if lord vishnu is his soul & acting through him.
Since childhood, i have observed lord vishnu has been ridiculed & i am deeply hurt. I can not forget the haughtiness & arrogance of Anti vaishnavites who brutally attempted to portray lord vishnu as a helpless & a inferior diety. I have seen very few ancient temples in india dedicated to lord vishnu compared to ancient shiva temples.I feel that this may be due to the effect of shaivite puranas & the other reason being that lord vishnu is not accessible to everyone & manifested to only those who are trying hard to achieve salvation through renunciation. I appreciate your work & would request you to bring more evidences to spread the reality & enlighten the people about lord vishnu or krishna.
Hari Om !!
dear brother same thing happened with me from my childhood. i didt not know anything about lord hari bt always my soul feels that only lord vishnu is my soul god. i also felt some magical experience in childhood some time i saw divine place where many rishis were present at ashram and declare that only Bhagvan Ram is God of All. since that time i always thought we all souls came from ram Dham.. i saw many tv serial based on shiva shakti ,ganesh bt my heart did'nt satisfied with creation story in those tv serial because in my subcouscious mind i always felt we all soul came from some viraat god in wast sea of ocean .. when i statred to read puran like bhgvat padam and vishnu then i got shocked I saw same creation of soul by viraat god called mahavishnu in purans in wast sea of ocean i dont know how i saw these events without reading any vishnu related scripture.. any one can tell me please ... jai shree ram
DeleteThank you for your comments. We are happy to see Vaishnavas from different backgrounds commenting on the blog.
DeleteOn this site, we do not focus on personal divine experiences, dreams and such matters. In saying that, we are not trivialising or ridiculing your experiences. According to our shAstras, these experiences are a product of one's sa~ncita/prArabdha karmas and vAsanas earned through various births. As a result, they differ from person to person and cannot be pramANa. The only proper pramANa to know the Supreme is through shAstra, which is amply clear about Sriman Narayana.
Also, jIvas are not created by Sriman Narayana. They exist eternally in time. saMsAra is anAdi. The process of creation only assigns new bodies to souls.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the information. Pardon me if I committed any offense by my inquisitiveness.
It is very enlightening to learn about your background.
The number of temples does not matter at all. It is the quality, not the quantity that matters.
Having said that, there are many ancient Vishnu temples in the south. Tirupati (Balaji), Srirangam, Azhagar Kovil (near Madurai), Koodal azhagar kovil (in Madurai), and Padmanabhaswamy temples are mentioned in Tamil classical secular literature (called 'paripADal') more than 2000 years old in very high terms. No Shiva temple is mentioned in such terms. Also in other classical secular literature of similar period, Shiva is mentioned as serving Lord Vishnu, and Lord Vishnu alone is praised as supreme and no other deity. However, the situation flipped over about 1000 years ago when Shaivism started getting material patronage of kings. Now, the south has more anti-Vaishnavites than the North!
In another non-religious work, called "Surya Siddhanta", AryabhaTa the great ancient astronomer wrote that Lord vAsudeva is the Supreme:
"vAsudeva paraM brahmA tanmUrtiH puruShaH paraH
avyakto nirguNaH shAntaH pancavimshAt paro avyayaH"
and then on continues to show that the whole Purusha Sukta in Rig Veda is directed at the worship of Lord Vishnu alone.
Ayurveda charaka samhita recommends Vishnu Sahasranama as a medicine, and not any other sahasranamas such as Shiva/Lalita Sahasranama.
There are many books in the Tamil language (authors belonging to Sri Ramanuja's Srivaishnava Sampradaya) which establish Vishnu's supremacy from the Vedas, Itihasas, Sattvika Puranas, and other non-religious ancient Indian literature. I will try to explain them in English in this page.
I will be bringing more and more evidences in the coming weeks. Kindly let me know if I would like you to notify you.
My background is in engineering too and I too do not have any formal initiation under any guru.
You said Lord Shiva is not mentioned in Tamil classical literature. Then what are these given here: http://www.shaivam.org/tamil/sanga.htm.
DeleteBesides Shaivam is not just 1000 years old. It was well established even before alwars.
I never said Lord Shiva is not mentioned in Tamil classical literature.
DeleteI have seen the link on shaivam.org ages ago and have read it. Whoever has compiled this is outright dishonest. The first quote actually refers to Vishnu as "veda mudalvan". The explanation for paripADal song regarding the birth of Murugan is also not as per the lines of the song, but interlaced with the translator's own likings.
The rest of the references in Ettu thogai and Pathu pATTu are merely descriptive of Shiva.
Shiva is mentioned, but as a subordinate to Vishnu's supremacy. Please read "sanga kaala thamizhar samaiyame kambanin samaiyam" book here: http://www.tamilheritage.org/old/text/ebook/kamban.pdf : Especially pages 15 to 22.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThank you. I will keep frequently visit your blog in future as well. I would also like to provide you additional evidences as per my information & knowledge if any, in future, if you permit me.
Hariom!!
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteOf course, you are most welcome to contribute with additional evidences.
Looking forward to fruitful discussions like these.
Dear Bandhu,
ReplyDeleteApart from your answer to my doubts ( which i posted earlier) which you are about to reply , kindly also shed some light on Nar- Narayan concept. Shaivites claim that Krishna & Arjun were Nar & Narayan sages in their previous lives & did penance to please lord shiva. They claim that Agni Astra could not destroy Krishna & Arjun as they had boon from lord shiva for protection on them from Astras when they were Nar & Narayan sages.
Hari Om !!
Dear Bandhu,
ReplyDeleteMy another blog which was not published in Mahapashupat astra blog-
Shri Shankaracharya on lord vishnu\ krishna's supremacy :
In text-2 shown below, Sri shankaracharya confirms that Gita emenated from the mouth of lord vishnu & hence it did not emanated from lord shiva. In Text-4 , shankaracharya declares lord krishna as supreme.
Apart from this ,i have already sent you verses from Gita which confirm that it was lord vishnu who spoke gita through krishna & not shiva which you did not published:
TEXT 1
gita-shastram idam punyam, yah pathet prayatah puman
vishnoh padam avapnoti, bhaya-shokadi-varjitah.
TRANSLATION
One who, with a regulated mind, recites with devotion this Bhagavad-gita scripture which is the bestower of all virtue, will attain to a holy abode such as Vaikuntha, the residence of Lord Vishnu, which is always free from the mundane qualities based on fear and lamentation.
TEXT 2
bharatamrita-sarvasvam, vishnu-vaktrad vinihsritam
gita-gangodakam pitva, punar janma na vidyate
TRANSLATION
By drinking the Ganges waters of the Gita, the divine quintessence of the Mahabharat emanating from the holy lotus mouth of Lord Vishnu, one will never take rebirth in the material world again. In other words, by devotionally reciting the Gita, the cycle of birth and death is terminated.
TEXT 3
sarvopanishado gavo, dogdha gopala-nandanah
partho vatsah su-dhir bhokta, dugdham gitamritam mahat
TRANSLATION
All the Upanisads are like a cow, and the milker of the cow is Shri Krishna, the son of Nanda. Arjuna is the calf, the beautiful nectar of the Gita is the milk, and the fortunate devotees of fine theistic intellect are the drinkers and enjoyers of that milk.
TEXT 4
ekam shastram devaki-putra-gitam
eko devo devaki-putra eva
eko mantras tasya namani yani
karmapy ekam tasya devasya seva
TRANSLATION
There need be only one holy scripture—the divine Gita sung by Lord Shri Krishna: only one worshipable Lord—Lord Shri Krishna: only one mantra—His holy names: and only one duty—devotional service unto that Supreme Worshipable Lord, Shri Krishna.
Dear Vishnu Bhakta friend,
DeleteThe authorship of these verses is under doubt. Even though they are beautiful in meaning and depth, it is not clear if Shri Adi Shankara Acharya has authored these. We can clearly establish that Shankara has held Narayana alone as the Supreme by restricting ourselves to this Acharya's Brahma Sutra, Upanishad, Gita, and Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashyas. Because only these works have been accepted universally as Shankara's.
In fact, there are Stotras on Vishnu, attributed to Shankara, which establish the Supremacy of Vishnu. For example:
1) The Lakshmi Nrsimha Karavalamba Stotra:
Brahmendra rudra-marud arka-kirita-koti
sanghattitangri-kamalamala-kanti-kanta
lakshmi lasat-kucha saroruha-raja-hamsa
lakshmi-nrisimha mama dehi karavalambam
Lord Brahma, Lord Indra, Lord Shiva, the Maruts and the sun-god all fall down with their tens and millions of helmets at Your lotus feet, which are most dear to the goddess of fortune, Lakshmi, who appears as beautiful as a royal swan enjoying the lotus flower of Your chest. O Lakshmi-Nrisimha, please bless me with the touch of Your lotus hands.
2)Rama Bhujanga Stotra:
Yada varnayal karnamoole anthakale,
Shivo rama ramethi ramethi kasyam,
Thadekam param tharaka brahma roopam,
Bhajeham, Bhajeham, Bhajeham, Bhajeham. 3
Salutations, Salutations, Salutations, Salutations,
To that great eternal form of tharaka Brahma,
Which makes lord Shiva whisper in the ear,
At the time of death in Kasi, “Rama, rama, rama.”
... and of course we have the Bhaja Govindam also.
But I have not relied on these stotras on my blog, due to the fact that there is no evidence that the author is Shankaracharya.
Santosh Kumar AyalasomayajulaJune 27, 2013 at 6:59 AM
ReplyDeleteDear HKHR,
[You wrote]: I already quoted that all puranas , texts, mahabharat have been interpolated.This interpolation include Vaishnav & Shaiv texts & Mahabhart \ Harivamsa, vedic texts as well.There is no witness alive now.
[End Quote]
[My Response]:
This is your understanding of Hinduism? These are illogical points what didn't make me publish your comments. And further you were flooding other msgs also. If as per you Vedic texts are also interpolated, then there arises no reason to have any further discussions/debates.
I don't know which school of Vaishnavism you belong to, but as far as I know, all Vaisshnavism treat Vedas as apurusheya and uncorrupted. Even Advaitins, Shaivas and Shaktas, in fact entire Hinduism treats them so. If you say Vedas are interpolated to staunch Vaishnavas, believe me you would get bashed for that. The one thing i admire vaishanavas is they try very hard to support shruti as 'apourusheya'.
Of course if i go by your way of questioning texts because there are no witness alive, then i can even question if Veda Vyasa existed? if yes, whatever he wrote were real or just he was a great fiction-genre author? Can you prove God's existence is that case? Therefore there has to be a baseline. There should be some "belief" in the system for us to proceed ahead.
I've published your current comment to show how illogical your arguments are. I came to know that you have complained to "Humble Bhagavata Bandhu" who is my worthy opponent, about your comments not getting published. He sent me a message and it is solely with whatever min respect I have for him, I've published one of your post here. But understand that complaining about me and my actions somewhere else is childish.
I still say, i have no interest in "wasting" my time in debates, I have to gain time to pend down further works. Would you kindly allow me to pursue my work ahead without being hindrance? For all anti-me activities you already have HBB's blog to contribute from your side :-) When his blog is there in existence, i don't see any need for your counter posts to be here. Kindly leave me alone.
Dear Bandhu,
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Mahapashupat Astra, i wrote blog mentioned below which was not allowed to be published by the author.
Hare Krishna Hare Rama June 27, 2013 at 7:55 AM
You skipped my question & did not answered. See, i am not a professional Guru or a professional scholar, nor all the readers of your blog are !! But as a bhakta & as a part of democracy, every reader has a right to put his questions in front of everyone.I am not saying that i am always right & you are always wrong. If you have logic why don't you answer ?? If you are able to prove things logically , this will only strengthen faith of readers in your blog so , why to fear? Do you want your blog to be only one sided & hide things??????
How can you prove that People like you who are trying to insert their own philosophy & force their own interpretation did not existed in ancient times ? Even no shaivite acharya of ancient times ever said that lord shiva spoke gita through krishna & krishna was just like a ROBOT following his instructions. I am trying to give evidences that this is wrong & you are not publishing my blogs so that you can befool the readers & think that only you are right.I never said that ved vyas did not existed, you are exaggerating.If you have logic to refute you should publish my all blogs & have a healthy discussion without hatred. Out of many blogs, You only select those " Weaker " blog on which have something to refute.
An example of how things look suspicious -
Quote { As per mahabharat, Bheeshma gave vishnu sahasranam to Yudhishtir & declared Vishnu as supreme ( you did not mentioned this so that you can delude the readers) It is not possible that same Bheeshma will declare shiva & vishnu to be supreme at the same time.This confirms that there is interpolation in Mahabharat also. You will say that vishnu being supreme is the interpolation & i will say just opposite. Endless.. }
By the way i forgot to mention that Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya is a work done by Sri Madhav Acharya.
This work was initiated by Madhav Acharya in relation to interpolation in Mahabharat.
In the second chapter "vAkyoddhAraH" Acharya mentions his reasons for writing this work.In some places (of the Mahabharatha) verses have been interpolated and in others verses have been omitted in some places, the verses have been transposed and in others, different readings have been given out of ignorance or otherwise.
For more details you may visit :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata_Tatparya_Nirnaya
Dear Bandhu,
ReplyDeleteHave you go the answers of the doubts i asked ? I have also put the same questions on other sites but the reply is awaited. I tried to find the ways to contact vaishnav acharyas through internet but could not succeed.
Hariom , Jai Sri Krishna.
Dear Vishnu Bhakta friend,
DeleteI will definitely respond to your queries gradually, but it is hard to find time now due to my work commitments. You can subscribe to the comments in this article by email, by clicking the "Subscribe by email" link below. It will notify you once I reply to any of your comments.
Is Bhaj Govindam also not a work of Shankaracharya ? Do we have no evidence on it ?
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Hariom
There is no evidence to support Shankara's authorship of Bhaja Govindam, as far as I know.
DeleteDear Hare Krishna Hare Rama,
ReplyDeleteI am starting to answer your queries:
>> 1. Padma Puran which is considered as a Satvik Purana consists of Shiv Gita which mentions Lord shiva to be supreme. In shiv Gita, lord shiva claims his supremacy on lord Rama. How is it possible that one purana can declare two Gods as supreme ?
The answer to this question is in the article above. Even the sattvik puranas has a little bit of Tamas content. This is called Mishra Sattva, where Sattva is mixed with a little bit of Rajas and Tamas. Mishra Sattva is the form of Sattva that occurs in the normally in the material universe.
We have to see the portions of Padma Purana which proclaim Shiva's supremacy in this light.
The only two Puranas that have negligible Rajas/Tamas content is Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas. That is why ancient commentators sought to write commentaries on primarily these two Puranas. Vishnu Purana is called "Purana Ratna" and Srimad Bhagavata is renowned to be the essence of all Vedas.
>> 2. Why did lord krishna asked Arjun to pray upon lord shiva to get weapons & pray to shakti before starting kaurav-pandav war ?
I do not know where the incident of Arjuna praying to Shakti occurs. In either case, it does not diminish Lord Vishnu's supremacy.
>> 3. We have heard about the pre vedic images of lord shiva found during excavation & phallus worship. But we have not found any thing of such period in excavations on lord vishnu.
This is a needless distraction for any student of Sanatana Dharma. Vedantins do not believe in a "pre-Vedic" time. As per the followers of Vedanta, the Vedas are eternal and apauruSheya (do not have an author). And it is as per the Vedas that Vishnu is supreme.
The popularity of the Shiva-linga worship by numerous groups at any particular yug does not say anything about the supremacy of Shiva.
>> 4. On mahapshupat astra blog, i found written that lord krishna had forgotten gita when Arjun asked him to repeat again later and when he spoke Gita during war , lord krishna was in connection with supreme brahman. So, is not lord krishna or vishnu supreme brahman but someone else?
The corresponding verse is
na śakyaṃ tan mayā bhūyas tathā vaktum aśeṣataḥ |11
paraṃ hi brahma kathitaṃ yogayuktena tan mayā |12
Here Krishna says "I can not recite to you the Gita completely again in the same form". Here Lord Krishna is admonishing and Arjuna and that is why he says he can not do it. It is like a father telling a son "I have given you 500 rupees last week only. Now you have wasted all the money and coming back to me to ask for another 500. I can not give you that (because you will waste it again, not that I do not have the money)".
This is the only logical explanation, since in the Bhagavad Gita it is Krishna who is spoken of as Supreme, and not Siva, and this is accepted by all renowned Acharyas. Furthermore, all the Acharyas accept the Anu Gita as genuine.
The English translation taken from KM Ganguli's book is not accurate.
(to be continued)
Dear Friend,
ReplyDeleteHare Krishna!!
My further post to Mahapashupat Astra Blog ( Reply unexpected) -
Hare Krishna Santosh,
Some questions to you -
1) Lord Rama worshipped Samudra to give the way to Lanka. So is Samudra powerful than lord Rama ?
2) Lord Krishna became the charioteer to Arjun, so is Arjun greater to him ?
3) Lord Rama recited Aditya Hridyam , so is lord surya greater than lord Rama ?
4) Lord krishna asked Villagers to pray to Goverdhan hill . So, is Govardhan greater than lord krishna ?
Was Lord shiva also prayed by lord Rama or krishna ?
Mahabharata, Shanti Parva (12.328.5 onwards, dialogue between Lord Krishna and Arjuna):
brAhme rAtrikShaye prApte tasya hy amitatejasaH prasAdAtprAdurabhavatpadmaM padmanibhekShaNa tatra brahmA samabhavatsa tasyaiva prasAdajaH
In the brahma muhurta, at the end of the night, due to the mercy of the extremely brilliant Lord, a lotus emerged from His navel and in that lotus, Brahma was born, ofcourse, due to His grace.
ahnaH kShaye lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH saMhAra kArakaH etau dvau vibudhashreShThau prasAdakrodhajau smR^itau
At the end of the day, the Lord [present as antaryAmi of Brahma *] created Rudra out of krodha-guna, to enable him to be the 'samhara-karta'. Thus, these two 'fine-among-wise', Brahma and Rudra, are known to have been born out of grace and anger respectively.
tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTi saMhAra kArakau nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprAni varapradau
Thus, they carry out the instructed tasks of creation and destruction. However, they, the givers of boons to all the creatures, are just the agents.
nArAyaNAtmako GYeyaH pANDaveya yuge yuge
O Arjuna, know that in every yuga, Rudra is 'nArAyaNAtmaka'. (This phrase can mean: one whose indweller is Narayana, one who is always immersed in Narayana.)
tasmin hi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH
It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana *IN* Maheshvara (the worshipable, the lord of the devas), who is actually worshiped.
ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH
O son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e., worshiping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship Me, the indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.
mayA pramANaM hi kR^itaM lokaH samanuvartate pramAnAni hi pUjyAni tatastaM pUjayAmyaham
Whatever I follow and give due worth as a pramaNa, the world follows that. Such pramanas have to be duly followed; therefore I follow them.
yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu
Whoever knows him, knows Me. Whoever follows him, follows Me. (Though) the world, in all its actions, worships two gods, Rudra and Narayana, it is actually one only who is worshiped.
na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA
O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant Me boons. Knowing that well, I worhip Myself, Who am the beginningless and universal power, known as Sarveshvara, for the sake of getting sons.
na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham
Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself], for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore, it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.
""With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Visnu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Asvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands."" (Rig Veda 7.40.5)
Dear Hare Krishna Hare Rama,
ReplyDeleteMy answers, continued...
>> 5. Secondly,on mahapshupat astra blog, i found that lord krishna preached Anu Gita to uddhav but there are many differences in that compared to Bhagwat Gita & it is not in synch with BHagwat Gita.
If you read that part again on Mahapashupatastra, you will see that the objection to the Vibhooti Yoga narrated to Uddhava are frivolous (those are silly/trivial/childish/sundry objections). I wouldn't even bother responding to these.
>> 6. Some renowned people in kailyuga do not beleive on bhagwat Gita & claim that such large text could not be spoken in such a small time during war. It will take many hours to speak it. Therefore, gita might have been just an imagination of vyas.
This is silly. When we can upload/download 100's of megabytes in 2 minutes using today's technology which is fabricated entirely using achit tattvas, there should be no problem in accepting the possibility that the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna (including the Viswaroopa Darshana) happened within seconds, through the Yogic power of Lord Krishna and His ability to bestow a similar power to Arjuna temporarily.
(contd. in the next post)
ReplyDelete>> Apart from your answer to my doubts ( which i posted earlier) which you are about to reply , kindly also shed some light on Nar- Narayan concept. Shaivites claim that Krishna & Arjun were Nar & Narayan sages in their previous lives & did penance to please lord shiva. They claim that Agni Astra could not destroy Krishna & Arjun as they had boon from lord shiva for protection on them from Astras when they were Nar & Narayan sages.
Where is this story from? The Nara-Narayana episode is narrated thus in the Mahabharata:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12c042.htm
"That dart, having consumed all the preparations of Daksha's sacrifice, came with great force towards us (Nara and Narayana) at the retreat of Vadari."
...
...
"Arjuna said, 'In that battle capable of bringing about the destruction of the three worlds, who obtained the victory, O Janarddana, do thou tell me this!'"
"The blessed and holy one said, 'When Rudra and Narayana became thus engaged in battle, all the universe became suddenly filled with anxiety. The deity of fire ceased to accept libations of even the purest clarified butter duly poured in sacrifices with the aid of Vedic Mantras. The Vedas no longer shone by inward light in the minds of the Rishis of cleansed souls. The attributes of Rajas and Tamas possessed the deities. The Earth trembled. The vault of the firmament seemed to divide in twain. All the luminaries became deprived of their splendour. The Creator, Brahma, himself fell from his seat. The Ocean itself became dry. The mountains of Himavat became riven.
When such dire omens appeared everywhere, O son of Pandu, Brahma surrounded by all the deities and the high-souled Rishis, soon arrived at that spot where the battle was raging. The four-faced Brahma, capable of being understood with the aid of only the Niruktas, joined his hands and addressing Rudra, said,--
Let good happen to the three worlds. Throw down thy weapons, O lord of the universe, from desire of benefiting the universe. That which is unmanifest, indestructible, immutable, supreme, the origin of the universe, uniform, and the supreme actor, that which transcends all pairs of opposites, and is inactive, has, choosing to be manifested, been pleased to assume this one blessed form, (for though double, the two but represent the same form). This Nara and Narayana (the displayed forms of Supreme Brahman) have taken birth in the race of Dharma. The foremost of all deities, these two are observers of the highest vows and endued with the severest penances. Through some reason best known to Him, I myself have sprung from the attribute of His Grace. Eternal as thou art, for thou hast ever existed since all the past creations, thou too hast sprung from His Wrath. With myself then, these deities, and all the great Rishis, do thou adore this displayed form of Brahman, and let peace be unto all the worlds without any delay.
--Thus addressed by Brahma, Rudra forthwith cast off the fire of his wrath, and set himself to gratify the illustrious and puissant God Narayana. Indeed, he soon placed himself at the disposal of the adorable boon-giving and puissant God Narayana. That boon-giving God Narayana, who hath his wrath and the senses under control, soon became gratified and reconciled with Rudra."
Have I answered all your questions? Kindly let me know if there are any further questions which I have not answered.
Dear friend,
DeleteThanks for the reply. On Most answers i am satisfied.
Some doubts still need to be cleared.
1. Why did lord krishna asked Arjun to pray upon lord shiva to get Pashupat Astra before starting kaurav-pandav war ?
2. I read somehwere that Krishna & Arjun could not be destroyed by Kauravas in army since they were incarnations of Nar - Narayan & Nar - Narayan had boon from lord shiva that they can't be destroyed by any weapon ? Is this (Nar-Narayan )theory mentioned in Mahabharat ?
3. Did lord vishnu prayed to lord shiva & gave one of his eye to lord shiva in penance & lord shiva gave sudarshan chakra to lord vishnu with boon that he will be known as " Lotus Eyed " ? Is this anywhere mentioned in Mahabharat or is only mentioned in Shiva Purana.
4. Did lord vishnu's head severed off in his Haygriv incarnation ? Was severing off his head his lila ? Did he retained his original form later after severing off his head ?
Pls pardon me for my inquisitiveness, i have a habit of going into deep roots.
Regards,
Hariom
Dear friend,
Delete// 1. Why did lord krishna asked Arjun to pray upon lord shiva to get Pashupat Astra before starting kaurav-pandav war ? //
I do not know the answer to this. I am wondering why you are worried about this question? In what way does it affect Vishnu's supremacy? In any case, can you first let me know where this reference is?
// 2. I read somehwere that Krishna & Arjun could not be destroyed by Kauravas in army since they were incarnations of Nar - Narayan & Nar - Narayan had boon from lord shiva that they can't be destroyed by any weapon ? Is this (Nar-Narayan )theory mentioned in Mahabharat ? //
As far as I know, such stories are not in the Mahabharata.
I would suggest that you do not be bothered with things that you 'read somewhere', unless the person who posted the challenge gives the specific reference.
//
3. Did lord vishnu prayed to lord shiva & gave one of his eye to lord shiva in penance & lord shiva gave sudarshan chakra to lord vishnu with boon that he will be known as " Lotus Eyed " ? Is this anywhere mentioned in Mahabharat or is only mentioned in Shiva Purana.
4. Did lord vishnu's head severed off in his Haygriv incarnation ? Was severing off his head his lila ? Did he retained his original form later after severing off his head ? //
These are stories that have been inserted later into Tamasa portions of Shaiva Puranas.
Even Kalidasa, who was a devotee of Shiva, was unaware of such stories that seek to hold Shiva higher than Vishnu by belittling the latter.
// 4. Did lord vishnu's head severed off in his Haygriv incarnation ? Was severing off his head his lila ? Did he retained his original form later after severing off his head ? //
ReplyDeleteVishnu does not cause his body to undergo any form of dismemberment/harm as a "form of lila". He always maintains His auspicious form as a resolve, since these forms are the object of meditation of Yogis and Bhaktas.
This bogus Hayagriva head severing story was inserted into the Brahmanda Purana as a justification of the Lalita Sahasranama (a Shakta cult work that got inserted later into Brahmanda Purana).
Dear Friend,
ReplyDeleteHare Krishna
Thanks for the reply. If you found Verses mentioned by me in blog to be useful, please incorporate them into the main body of your blog so that readers come across it.
This is the reply which Mahapashupat Astra blog Author gave to all the readers who try to give some logic to refute his wrong preachings -
Santosh Kumar AyalasomayajulaJuly 1, 2013 at 1:15 AM
ADDENDUM:
What plans i have, how do I want to ANSWER to queries, my strategies etc., I need not disclose to anyone. RTI wouldn't work here, mind it! Eventually, time would tell the reasons behind my actions. Don't panic, don't ask questions, don't brand me as "scared/afraid..etc". Whatever I'm doing has valid reason and it's for the betterment of everyone, I'll reveal many things in times to come. Don't disturb and do your work (Chant "hare krishna" maha mantra). I am NOT answerable to any tom dick and harry here. None of you opponents are my Boss, therefore I need not do status-reporting of my work, if i am looking rigid, that's not fear of anything, but some good which is planned for future. Hence as I have said many a times, "My blog is as open for exit as open for entry it is!". You are the best decision maker!
Following is My reply ( NOT PUBLISHED BY MAHAPASHUPAT ASTRA BLOG)
Hare Krishna Hare Rama July 1, 2013
Hare Krishna Brother,
No body is trying to boss anybody nor any body is entitled to do so. Best wishes to you from all readers including me.
Friend, as a author, you are answerable to all readers as well as the Sanatan Dharm since the subject you have raised on your blog is not a private subject ( not related to anyone's personal life). The subject you have raised is related to deities of hindu religion ( religion followed by > 100 crores of people). Hence, it is a public subject. No hindu deities can be in any body's private ownership.
Yes i agree that RTI can not be applicable to anybody's personal life but
since the subject you raised is a public subject, therefore the readers have a fundamental right to express thoughts ( without offensive manner). "Freedom of speech, do you know ?" YOU ONLY HAVE RAISED THIS SUBJECT ON INTERNET MEDIA SO THAT PUBLIC CAN HAVE ACCESS TO IT ( SO THIS BECOMES A PUBLIC SUBJECT NOW).
Thirdly, what the author of blog is writing, is for betterment or for degradation of devotees cannot be decided by the author of blog alone, since the author of blog is not open to the feedback of public visiting those blogs.
Fourthly,if you are not hesitant,then you should allow the posts of other people like those whom you earlier declared as " Worthy Opponents ". Pls try to counter their arguments with logic. http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/
Regards & Hariom .
Best wishes to you to write "FLAWLESS" articles.
Dear friend,
DeleteI will incorporate your references in to my write up soon.
Thank you for your responses so far, and for bringing in to attention the fact that Maha Pashupatastra does not like to present a level ground for all audiences to share their opinions. This is the same thing that I experienced myself on that blog.
Having said that, I think the above is now clear to the readers, and hence it is unnecessary to post your comments from Maha Pashupatastra here any more. It also deviates from the main subject of this thread. I hope you will understand.
You can always use the contact form (see the links on the top right of this page) if you wish to send me messages privately.
Sarvam Shri Krishnarpanam
Dear friend,
DeleteThank you for contacting me personally. Sorry if I did not come across clearly in my earlier comment.
I did not mean to imply that you should stop writing here. All your posts have been good so far and I am not deleting them.
I just felt that what we have posted till now is sufficient, and we do not need any more proof of the fact that Maha Pashupatastra does not give a free forum for comments from Vaishnavas.
I look forward to further comments/contributions about this site as a whole and about specific pages.
Shri Krishnarpanam
Dear Friend,
ReplyDeleteJai Sri Krishna
What is the basis of atheists claiming that Shanti Parva of Mahabharat & Vishnusahasranam is an interpolation ?
Regards,
Hariom
The basis is very flimsy... not even worth considering and countering here, in my opinion.
DeleteDear Friend,
ReplyDeleteHariom !
I am very perplexed after reading the contradictory sections of Mahabharat. In Shanti parva lord krishna says to Arjuna that when he is worshipping lord shiva , actually he is worshipping self ( since common people also follow him what he does) . Whereas in Drona Parva section CCI, we see that lord krishna and arjuna are hit by brahmastra, but nothing happens to them . The striker of brahmastra, ashwathama becomes baffled why nothing has happened to krisna and arjuna, even after being struck with such weapon as brahmastra, he then asks ved vyasa :
Drona Parva section CCI, Page no. 3092- 3094 URL - http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/MahabharataOfVyasa-EnglishTranslationByKMGanguli.pdf ) -
"Vyasa replied -
Narayana performed strenuous Tapa when the Highest God of the world,
the origin of the Universe and the parent of the worlds, visualized himself before Narayana. That God is Known as shiva, Sambhu, Hara or Rudra. He is smaller than Paramanu and greater than anything greatest. He is the cause of vitality in all the living things. Every thing or non-living originates from him. He can never be seen by ordinary people. He has engulfed the whole world. He is the limit of the Time. He has no birth, no death. He is invisible, unmanifest. He is the soul of the soul. When by those austerities, Narayana became like Brahma he then beheld the Master, Origin, and Guardian of the Universe, the Lord of all the gods, the Supreme Deity, who is exceedingly difficult of being gazed at, who is minuter than the minutest and larger than, the largest, who is called Rudra,
"Vyasa continued, 'The blue-throated God, of inconceivable soul, that wielder of Pinaka, that divine Lord ever praised by the Rishis, then gave boons unto Vasudeva who deserved them all. The great God said,
'O Narayana, through my grace, amongst men, gods, and Gandharvas, thou shalt be of immeasurable might and soul. Neither gods, nor Asuras, nor great Uragas, nor Pisachas, nor Gandharvas, nor men, nor Rakshasas, nor birds, nor Nagas, nor any creatures in the Universe, shall ever be able to bear thy prowess.' "
Section LXXXI, Drona Parva, Page No. 2740 of MBH (URL - http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/MahabharataOfVyasa-EnglishTranslationByKMGanguli.pdf ) -) states that all offerings Arjun made to lord krishna went to lord shiva -
"Sanjaya said, 'Then Partha, with a cheerful soul and joined hands and eyes expanded (in wonder), gazed
at the god having the bull for his mark and who was the receptacle of every energy. And he beheld the
offerings he made every night to Vasudeva lying by the side of the Three-eyed deity."
So , friend, which section is to be believed ? Some atheists say that Vishu Sahasranam & shanti Parva is an interpolation. I am very much confused. Can you throw some light on this ? A detailed reply will be appreciated.
Regards,
Jai Sri Ram
This chapter is very much a spurious interpolation. If this was genuine and existed in ancient version, the ancient poet-devotees of Siva such as Bana and Kalidasa would have mentioned it. Also, the medieval devotees of Siva such as the Nayanmars would have also mentioned. None of them have done so. This is similar to the Upamanyu Upakhyana-Siva Sahasranama episodes inserted into the Anushasana Parva.
DeleteVishnu Sahasranama is highly regarded in ancient texts. Charaka Samhita of Ayurveda praises Vishnu Sahasranama, and even the Siva devotee poet Bana extols Vishnu Sahasranama.
DeleteKumarila Bhatta, a Purva Mimamsaka who lived before the time of Sankara, quotes from Mokshadharma Parva (part of Shanti Parva which is replete with Vishnu's supremacy) and other prominent portions from the Mahabharata. None of the verses he quotes have any Saivite bias.
Ref: Buhler and Kirst, "Contributions to the history of the Mahabharata", London, 1892.
I have checked the section on the Drona Parva. It appears to be a massive saivite interpolation which seems to draw from some genuine sources. The verses appear as follows: Ashwattama was angered by the fact that his astra did not affect Krishna and Arjuna and inquires veda vyAsa as to what is the reason for this. Vyasa (or rather, the interpolator speaking from the viewpoint of vyAsa) makes the claim that nara-nArAyaNa worshipped Rudra in their avatArA, who gave them a boon that they would not be affected by it and goes on to praise Shiva as a supreme deity of sorts.
DeleteThe second interpolation immediately occurs after this section, in which the unfortunate srI veda vyAsa is again made the scapegoat and is asked to provide a commentary on sata-rudriyam for Arjuna from a saivite perspective.
Contd...
DeleteThe proof that these are interpolations are manifold -
1) Nowhere is it said that nara-nArAyaNa avataras, whose purpose was to reveal the glories of the nArAyaNa sukta, worshipped Rudra.
2) mAdhvA's mahAbhArata tAtparya nirnaya clearly says the following about this incident - that Ashwattama was furious about the ineffectiveness of his astra on Krishna and Arjuna. Veda Vyasa consoled Ashwattama and asked him to resume fighting. Sri Madhva does not refer to Rudra anywhere, whereas he does not hesitate to include some other incidents involving Shiva, such as Krishna showing Rudra to Arjuna for obtaining Pashupata astra, etc. and takes the time to interpret it in a vaishnava light.
3) The spurious passage seems to draw from certain genuine sections like HarivamSha, where Rudra says that Krishna will become more valiant than him!
The second major interpolation occurs after this, when Arjuna inquires about Rudra going in front and killing everybody which prompts our poor rishi veda vyAsa, a parama vaishnava to give an account of the satarudriyam as a glorification of Shiva!!
DeleteNote, this section need not be considered as an interpolation if we concede that Rudra is the devata for this prashnam and hence, the meanings can be given superficial value at the most. But even so, the context is not right. For one thing, Arjuna already asks Krishna elsewhere about the deity who is going in front and killing everyone, upon which Krishna replies, "That is Mahadeva, Maheswara, who is born of my wrath and worthy of your respect". This incident is quoted by Saivites as well (who conveniently turn a blind eye to the fact that Krishna says Rudra was born of his wrath). If so, what was the need to ask Vyasa again?
---
So much for these sections. But to completely satisfy the doubts of everyone (which is the purpose of this blog), we will do further research and perhaps post more about this in future.
Dear Friend,
ReplyDeleteThe Anushasan Parva SECTION CXLVII page 5383 of Krishna Mohan Ganuguly's english translation of Mahabharat also consists of praises of Lord Hari by lord Shiva
Available to refer at -
http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/MahabharataOfVyasa-EnglishTranslationByKMGanguli.pdf
Hariom
Dear Friend,
ReplyDeleteDoes KM Ganguli's MBH English translation book not has accurate translation ? For example, In Shanti Parva , as per KM Ganguli's book , Page No 4766, lord krishna spoke :
" He who follows Rudra follows me, Rudra is Narayana. Both are one; and one is displayed in two different forms. Rudra and Narayana, forming one person,pervade all displayed things and cause them to act. No one else than Rudra is competent to grant me a boon."
Whereas, the translation of same which i came across on sites on internet :
yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu
Translation - Whoever knows him ( Rudra) , knows Me. Whoever follows him (Rudra), follows Me. (Though) the world, in all its actions, worships two gods, Rudra and Narayana, it is actually one only who is worshiped.
na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA
Translation -O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant Me boons. Knowing that well, I worhip Myself, Who am the beginningless and universal power, known as Sarveshvara, for the sake of getting sons.
As per KM ganguli's translation krishna says " there is no one else than Rudra is competent to grant me a boon." Whereas in the mentioned verses, translation available says "O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant Me boons ".
Kindly share your information & experience on the same.
Regards,
Hariom
References : 1) Krishna Mohan Ganguly's Mahabharat english translation - http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/MahabharataOfVyasa-EnglishTranslationByKMGanguli.pdf
2) Verses Qouted above with translation - http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/siva.htm
The translations given by K M Ganguli are illogical and contradictory. Just in the previous lines, the translation says that Rudra is but an instrument of Narayana and acts according to His will.
DeleteSorry for the rather short replies, as spare time is hard to come by for me at this time.
Kindly post any further questions you have.
Sir i praise great work of your to find the true vedic dharm which declare ram/narayan/krishna is supreme vedic god.. but as you say lord rudra is mukt aatma or jeevatma in which lord vasudev reside as antaryami like brahma and other.. but some other vaishnav said that rudra is not jeev tatva but unique tatva which exist between jeev and supreme vishnu tatva... as sadashiva in shivlok.. sir as you say that only valmiki ramayan is authentic and tulsi ramayan is not.. it hurts me because i m biggest fan of lord ram and ramcharitmanas..in rcm lord ram is also declared as supreme to not only shiva but also to vishnu who is gunaavtar or ansh of shriman narayan.. i found more peace in RCM as compare to all purans and even bhagvat... in RCM kakbhushandi was aarogant follower of lord shiva but finaly he realize that the fruit of worship to shiv is Ram Bhakti.... plz clear this doubt that lord rudra is jeev tatva or not?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
DeleteThank you for your comments. Lord Rudra's status differs slightly between different traditions of Vaishnavism (whose founders are Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, and Vallabhacharya). If you wish, you can analyze all of them and come to a conclusion as to which one is right regarding Shiva's position. I myself am highly convinced that Sri Ramanujacharya's system is perfect and flawless, and hence his position that Shiva is a baddha (amukta) Jiva subject to Karma is correct. This is also evidenced by charitas such as (i) Shiva's birth as narrated in the Veda, in which Shiva says he is subject to Karma (anapahata-pApmA), (ii) Brahma-kapAla incident, in which Shiva had to wander with Brahma's skull stuck to his hand as an atonement for severing Brahma's fifth head, (iii) Shiva-Vishnu battle after Tripura Samhara, narrated in the Ramayana, (iv) Banasura Yuddha in which Shiva is bewildered by Vishnu's JRmbaNAstra. I hope this is clear.
We did not intend to belittle RCM in this article. While RCM is a work of Bhakti, it is not considered as Itihasa, to the best of my knowledge. Correct me if I am wrong.
// in rcm lord ram is also declared as supreme to not only shiva but also to vishnu who is gunaavtar or ansh of shriman narayan //
This is not widely accepted, as you may know. Ramanuja, as well as Madhva consider Vishnu, Narayana, Krishna, and Rama as the same with different forms.
Shrimad Bhagavat is an authentic Purana, and this is accepted by all traditionalists. In my opinion, enquiry into pramANas should be intellectual to begin with, emotions find place only later at the anubhava level.
thank you for your answer...one more question is in one of your article i have seen that you said that lord ram and lord krishna are just vibhav avtar of lord shreeman narayan..it hurts me because both are purn avtar or purn parbrahma ...in fact narayan,vishnu, krishna and ram is equal parbrahm. in padam puran it is stated that ram , krishna and narsimha bhagvan are purn parbrahma...how anyone call them just vibhav.. ..?
DeleteDear Anonymous,
DeleteThere is no need to feel hurt. I think you have misunderstood "vibhava avatAra" as "partial incarnation". This is probably due to the influence of some other traditions which use terms such as "partial incarnation" etc.
All vibhavAvatAras are equal and complete manifestations of Lord Vishnu/Sriman Narayana. This is to distinguish from the other type of pUrNa avatAra in Sri Vaishnavism, which is the deity form in temples. For the followers of Ramanujacharya, Shri Balaji of Tirupati, Shri Ranganatha of Shrirangam, Badrinath, Muktinath, Dwarakanath, etc. are all avatAras -- but the term used is "arcAvatAra" (arcA as in Archana). To distinguish from these only we use the term "vibhavAvatAra".
The term for partial avatAra is "shaktyAvesha/Avesha" avatAra. Hope this clarifies.
as i know supreme lord narayan is his form lord ram called parbrahm in all vedic scripture.. as you earlier mention that ayyappa dikshit an ex-shaiv when he consile all vedic scripture declare that lord ram is supreme parbrahm.. as muktiko upnishnad and ram tapaniya also said that lord ram is supreme form of god(narayan)... in padam puran and ved it is stated that ayodhya is supreme abode of god where brahm reside.. in fact lord narayan in his para avastha is called ram ..not only ayyapa dikshit or other scholar.. but also in ths all famous saint like kabirdas,tulsidas,tyagraja,guru nanak sahib,guru govind, raheem ,raskhan etc unlimited saint declare that we acn called by all names and different forms like hari, om, narayan,niranjan,sahib, krishna,ram,vasudev,vishnu etc but supereme one is ram nam and ram form...ram nam hi param satya hai... in mahabharat lord ram himself shows his virat vishwa rup to sage parsuram... RCM is last meassage of God.. God is not limited to only three yug..he also sent his messanger in this kaliyug..who alone said that lord ram is supreme....(narayan)... the same in the case of krishna... as you mentoned that bhagavat is supreme puran .in same bhagvat it said that krishnastu bhagvan swyam means himself lord narayan(ram)... in padam puran said that supreme reside in many form and many lok but the supreme form of god are shreeman narayan in mahavaikuntham, govind in his Golok which is also part of vaikunth and most supreme form reside in ayodhya..in the center of vaikuntham..... in common way we can call ram and krishna to be vishnu avatar but these have different meaning.. becuse of three reason 1) due to kalpbhed... all are same and vishnu tatva and so called vishnu's avtar 2) in one kalp vishnu takes form of ram or shree narayan himself come as ram.and in one kalp lord ram himself come in his orignal form.. 3) ram tatva is hidden from common people just like as ramavtar in which he hmself hide his identity as bhagvan... but krishna tatva and vishnu tatva is shown for all in all puran,upnishad and other vedic sect...just like krishna show all his godly attribute in his avtar... ram nam is supreme among all name of god because ram form is supreme form among all forms of god... so ram nam is most popular among comon men and womens over all world... om hari
DeleteDear Sir,
DeleteLord Ram is indeed Supreme Lord. There is no second opinion on this:
veda vedye pare puMsi jAte dasharathAtmaje
vedaH prAcetasAdAsIt sAkShAt rAmAyaNAtmanA
is a popular Puranic Shloka recited in the Pravachanas of Ramayana. It means "when the Supreme Purusha known by the Vedas took avatAr as Lord Rama on the earth, the Vedas also took avatAra as Ramayana in the tongue of Valmiki".
Ayodhya is indeed Vaikuntha. This is also accepted by all authorities. Another name of Vaikuntham (viShNoH paramaM padam) is aparAjitA. This is mentioned in Upanishads. aparAjitA means "one that can not be conquered". The name ayodhyA also implies the same meaning.
Rama nAma is supreme, agreed. Parvati-devi asks Mahadeva "by what simple means do the learned reap the effect of reciting the thousand names of Lord Vishnu (recited by Bhishma Pitamaha to Yudhisthira)?" Lord Mahadeva replies "by chanting the Rama nAma three times, it is equivalent to chanting Lord Vishnu's thousand names".
Having said that,
Muktika Upanishad is fake, it was fabricated within 300-400 years to justify the "108 Upanishads" idea. All ancient texts talk about 4 Vedas, 6 Vedangas, 2 Itihasas, and 18 Puranas. There is no mention of "108 Upanishads". Further, Muktika Upanishad gives justification for fake "Upanishads" such as Sarabha Upanishad, which hold Lord Shiva as supreme at the expense of Lord Vishnu.
RCM is a great work of Bhakti, no doubt. However, our AcAryas do not mention RCM. Interpretations may vary.
All of your other points are agreed. Your messages are highly enlightening.
yes sir according to my opinion God vishnu reside in every one, evry atom but in invisible form ..but in mahavaikuntham...God vishnu reside in many abodes like lord shriman narayan in vaikuntham with mahalakshmi, lord shree krishna in Golok abode with his associates. lord sadashiva in shivlok (sadashiv is vishnu tatva), Goddess Durga in manidweep, and Finaly lord RAM who is first vishnu or First form of God in Saket or Ayodhya vaikuntha... so our sages know this truth and to glorify all these form of supreme god vishnu different scriptures were written by our sages... we should all thses forms are eternal but we should reject all those scripture in which lord vishnu is shown as second to anyone so sage vedvyas after wriien all scripture to glorify all these form himself said that some purans are rajsik for common men/women to gain material benifit... some puran are tamsik which are only for those who are rakshas,daitya, tantrik,or common villlagers... but the purans which are satvik are true knowlege of ved.. which should be acceptable by all sages,saints,devta etc. after written all scriptures vedvyas himself write shreemadbhagvat but we know that shreemad bhagvad is already provide by lord vishnu to lord brahma at the begning of creation.... so it is only compiled by sage vedvyas.... but vedvyas himself write two scriptures..one is mahabharat and second is Adhyatm Ramayan in both scripture he glorified lord hari in detail and also said that lord ram is orignal and first eternal form of god.. actually god with two armed lord ram is called parbrahm in many scriptures in hidden way.. just like in padam puran king subahu said that once asitang muni tell me this truth that lord ram is beyond all forms of god.he is beyond karya and karan braham.. he is first eternal mahavishnu who is source of all vishnu vigrah.. but due t ignorance i did'nt beleive this truth and laugh at him that he glorify a man as God then he give me shap that when you caught horse of ashwamegh then hanuman ji show you all truth which is beyond imagine..... not only satvik puran but even in tamsik puran lord shiv himself tells to devi parvati that lord ram and his nam is original source of all avtar...in skand puran it is stated that lord ram is supreme god his prabha or brahma jyoti is glorified as brahm and he is parbrahma... in fact lord vishnu's original form and orignal name is RAM nam...
ReplyDeleteDear friend,
ReplyDeleteI came through articles on ancient history books & wikipedia. I found mentioned that both lord shiva & vishnu were minor dieties. But as per puranas & religious texts like mahabharat & puaranas, these were popular & supreme dieties. What is true ????
Below is an extract from site -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu
Although their names were mentioned in the Vedas, both Vishnu and Shiva played relatively minor roles, but by the time of the Brahmanas,(the commentaries on the four Vedas), both were gaining ascendance.[40] By the Puranic period, both deities had major sects of devotees, creating a schism.[41]
This sort of misunderstanding by the western scholars is due to their lack of in-depth knowledge. 'Linguistics; alone does not help one in understanding the Veda. There are many statements in the Vedas that show the supremacy of Vishnu:
Delete(1) Vishnu sukta
(2) Purusha sukta
(3) Uttara Narayana anuvaka
(4) Narayana Sukta
(5) Innumerable statements in Upanishads
These portions assign to Vishnu all the characteristics of The Supreme, as listed below:
(1) Omnipotence
(2) Quality of being the creator of the entire universe
(3) Omniscience
(4) Lordliness over all beings
(5) Eternity
(6) Transcendence with respect to the material universe
(7) Ability to grant anything, in particular liberation
(8) Ability to manifest in the form of avatAras out of His own will
All these characteristics are mentioned for Vishnu in the Rig Veda itself. No deity in the Rig Veda is sung with all these characteristics. If Indra, Varuna, and Agni are mentioned several times more, it does not mean a thing. Quality rules over quantity.
In addition, Hiranyagarbha/Prajapati (Brahma), Rudra, Indra, Varuna, Agni, Vayu etc. are mentioned in the Vedas as created beings, and their creation is also discussed in detail. Nowhere it is mentioned that Vishnu was created.
Respected Hari Das,
ReplyDeleteYou used the contact form to send me the following message. I am posting it and responding in public, since you did not provide me an email address in the contact form and there is no other way for me to respond. If you wish to make your comments private and want me to respond to it, kindly provide an email address when you use the contact form. Otherwise, if you wish to have your comment displayed to the public, please post the comment directly at the bottom of the relevant page.
Your comment-
================
Jai Shree Krishna Prabhuji. I simply love your blogs. Please enlighten me over the subjects regarding the battle between Lord Narasimha and Lord Sarabeshwara. Is that account mentioned in Sattvic Puranas? Also there are incidents like Rishi Dhadichi insulting Hari and Vrishabh avatar of Lord Shiva to battle Prabhu after Samudra Manthan from Shiva Purana. It says that Lord Vishnu was indulged in sexual adventures with the apsaras created during Samudra Manthan and had lots of children and created havoc. But according to Srimad Bhagavatam, it was Lord Shiva who was bewildered by Shri Mohini Murti? Please enlighten me, these interpolations in tamasic puranas are a great bashing towards Lord Narayana, and i fell sad as these people degrade the place of our Lord Hari.
==================
Response-
I am humbled by your response. All glories to the Lord of Dwaraka alone; I don't take any credit since I am only an instrument.
The story of Sarabeshwara defeating Lord Nrsimha, Siva defeating Kurma, Vishnu searching for Shiva lingam's end etc. are all later concoctions, started by a few South Indian Saivites around/after the time of Shri Adi Shankara. They are not found in Sattvika Puranas such as Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas. Moreover, Shiva-devotees such as Kalidasa and Bana Kavi would have mentioned these stories if they were in vogue during their times.
One of Ramanujacharya's students, Shrivatsanka Misra (affectionately known as 'kUrattAzhvAn' in Tamil) has written that in Sattvika Puranas such as Padma Purana, it is mentioned that it was in fact Lord Narasimha who defeated Shiva in the form of Sarabha.
False concocted stories such as can do no harm to Lord Hari and his glory, which is very well revealed in the shAstras and the works of sadAchAryas.
What do you all feel about the Shivaite groups accusations that Bhagavatam is a bogus scripture? They take various verses from the MBH and the Bhagavatam and claim that the Bhagavatam is bogus and ofcourse Shiva is Supreme. Please answer if you can. Can you refute it point by point or direct me to the refutation? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. I will do so when time permits. Keep visiting this page or subscribe to the RSS feed.
DeleteBhagavatam has been accepted by all vaidika acharyas in all traditions, so such claims really are very amateurish to even consider. The episode of the churning of the ocean and the devas worshipping Shiva is explained as follows (as I do not have the official commentary by srI vIrarAghavAchAriar, I have to guess the two most logical explanations:
DeleteThe Bhagavatam section where the devas appear to praise shiva before the swallowing of the poison is explained in two ways. In the first way, we assume that the devas are jnAnIs. In which case, they are simply praising that parabrahman, who is the antaryAmin of shiva, by the logic of sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. Since Brahman is the antaryAmin of chith and achith and everything is its body as per the upanishadic vAkya 'yasya AtmA sharIram' and all devata-s are his limbs as per 'anganyAnya devata', just as the body and the self are referred to by one name, the body comprising the jiva or prakrti and the self that is nArAyaNa, parabrahman, is referred to by one name.
If we say Jack, the name goes beyond Jack's body and designates the self that is inseparably attached with the body identified as Jack. So, if we say any deva's name, it means the self of that deva, ie parabrahman.
The same logic is used by Prahlada in Vishnu Purana as follows:
"I am all things: all things are in me, who am everlasting. I am undecayable, ever enduring, the receptacle of the spirit of the supreme. Brahma is my name; the supreme soul, that is before all things, that is after the end of all."
(quote from sacred texts, vishnu purAna. I am too lazy to dig out the exact sanskrit verses).
Does this mean Prahlada is Parabrahman? Not unless you give weight to advaita's nirguna brahma-vAda. That vAkyA shows that the 'I' that prahlada refers to himself indicates his AtmA, ie, Parabrahman designated as 'Prahlada' on account of having Prahlada as his body.
Similarly, the devas called Shiva as Brahman.
Same goes for rishi vAmadeva, who says, 'I am Manu, the Sun', Shiva in the atharvasikhA and Indra who says he is the supreme object of worship in the pratardana vidyA.
The next way to interpret is that the devas are not perfect jnAni-s as evidenced by kenOpanishad as well as vAlmiki rAmAyaNa (contest of shiva and vishnu bows as told by ParashurAmA' and the incident where Bhrigu visits the Trimurti, where they were confused between who was supreme between the three. So, considering all this, even if they address shiva as supreme, it is not an issue. The purAna is simply recording their statements and this is not the opinion of the purAna karta. Shiva himself worships Vishnu as supreme in that section after this dialogue, so it shows he is a jnAni, as compared to the devas.
Either way (jnAni or ajnAni), the same meaning is arrived.
As per Shaivites, Lord krishna defeated lord shiva during battle with Banasur because lord shiva gave him boon of invincibility when lord krishna did tapas to beget a son as per harivamsha puran. Are all 8 boons granted by lord shiva an interpolation and only boon to beget lord shiv like son is true ?
ReplyDeleteHare Krishna !!
There are innumerable authentic quotes given by Adi Shankara from Harivamsa proving Vishnu's supremacy. Because of this incontrovertible evidence, such alleged incidents of boon-granting by Shiva must be later interpolations.
DeleteThere is an instance where Shiva grants a boon to Krishna that the latter will become more invincible than the former. We have already covered it in the blog. Please refer this article:http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/prayers-of-sri-krishna-to-shiva.html
DeleteIf the bAnAsura charitra occured after this incident, then indeed, the boon giving is explained. Krishna defeats Shiva and his parivara comprehensively in the bAnAsura yuddha, so there is no ambiguity here.
Hare Krishna friend,
ReplyDeleteNeed your comments on following verse which a found on a shaiv site claiming Vishnu's inferiority :
“sá yád dhruvā́ṃ díśam ánu vyácalad víṣṇur bhūtvā́nuvyàcalad virā́jam annādī́ṃ kr̥tvā́ |” (Atharva Veda XV:14:5)
“He (Vratya or Rudra ), when he went away to the steadfast region, went away having become Vishnu and having made Virāj an eater of food”.
Hari Om !
I have the below questions:
ReplyDelete1) We have 18 puranas.... First and Foremost question, Are the versions we are reading today are original texts compiled by Veda Vyasa? What is the guarantee, I believe during the course of thousands of years, many people had amended them... What is your say?
2) You mentioned that stories in Tamas puranas are contradicting Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharatha...? That means, there are two possibilties either 1) the Purnas are amended/edited or 2) Veda Vyasa himself wrongly written them... If we agree that Tamas Puranas were amended, then what is the guarantee that Satvic Puranas were not edited? First of all what is the guarantee that even Valmiki Ramayana or Mahabharatha were not edited? If I say Vishnavas edited Valmiki Ramayana by removing the sloka that Rama worshipped Siva and added some other sloka to match that 24000 slokas of Ramayana, then what is your say?
3) Padma Purna classifies all Purnanas as Satvic, Rajas and Tamsic... If I say Vishnavas edited Padma Purna in this way, what is your say on that?
4)If you say Purans were never amended, then why Veda Vyasa complied Tamas purnas in contradictory fashion? Please don't tell that Tamsic puranas are meant only for unqualified people and hence gave wrong stories, that explanation is far from convincing.... Truth is truth even for unqualified people truth should be taught in a truthful way and not by wrongful way... Even If I were to agree with you, I will say that even that satvic purnas along with Tamas puranas, are also complied in a way to give some wrongful stories....
Dear all,
ReplyDeleteIn reply to a new comment from some person who seems to have merely skimmed the blog without reading anything.
COMMENT: We have 18 puranas.... First and Foremost question, Are the versions we are reading today are original texts compiled by Veda Vyasa? What is the guarantee, I believe during the course of thousands of years, many people had amended them... What is your say?
ANSWER: As repeated a thousand times already on the blog, those smriti texts which have been quoted by Vedantins prior to the 15th century are all accepted as genuine works of Veda Vyasa. Read the article on interpolations and the FAQ before adopting a smug tone.
COMMENT: 2) You mentioned that stories in Tamas puranas are contradicting Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharatha...? That means, there are two possibilties either 1) the Purnas are amended/edited or 2) Veda Vyasa himself wrongly written them...---
ANSWER: Or maybe, if you had cared to read the article on “tAmasatva of purAnAs” and the “Rudra Gita”, you would understand that there is also a THIRD possibility, ie, that veda vyasa propagated these puranas which are basically discourses by Brahma during rajasa and tamasa kalpas and purposely meant to delude people.
And don’t come back asking why Vyasa wants to purposely mislead people by propagating such puranas. That has already been answered ad nauseum in the articles I mentioned.
Contd...
ReplyDeleteCOMMENT:---- If we agree that Tamas Puranas were amended, then what is the guarantee that Satvic Puranas were not edited? First of all what is the guarantee that even Valmiki Ramayana or Mahabharatha were not edited? If I say Vishnavas edited Valmiki Ramayana by removing the sloka that Rama worshipped Siva and added some other sloka to match that 24000 slokas of Ramayana, then what is your say?---
ANSWER: All this nonsense is easily answered by saying that firstly, only those shastras which are quoted by vedantins are accepted as genuine. Unquoted shastras are not accepted as authentic unless they show a coherence to the ones quoted already. Secondly, we have lengthy commentaries of Valmiki Ramayana and Sattvika Puranas by such Vedantins prior to 15th century which show that there are no slokas on Rama worshipping Siva, etc.
It is very imbecilic of you to even think of saying Vaishnavas could fabricate shastras, when all of the voluminous texts which seem to be later day interpolations are explicitly Shaiva or Shakta.
COMMENT:---3) Padma Purna classifies all Purnanas as Satvic, Rajas and Tamsic... If I say Vishnavas edited Padma Purna in this way, what is your say on that?---
ANSWER:Well, that “Purna” (sic) sloka has been quoted by Yamunacharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya along with a whole host of other Vedantins. If it were inauthentic, they would never quote it in 12th century debates.
I think your IQ hardly measures up to these acharyas, so we have nothing to say on the subject, really.
COMMENT:-----4)If you say Purans were never amended, then why Veda Vyasa complied Tamas purnas in contradictory fashion? Please don't tell that Tamsic puranas are meant only for unqualified people and hence gave wrong stories, that explanation is far from convincing....----
ANSWER: And why should that explanation be unconvincing when it is already in the shastras and explained even by Rudra himself in a logical fashion?
As an example If a kid wants sweets which make him sick and the doctor believes bitter medicine is better for the kid, what do they do? They wrap the medicine inside a no good sweet and give it to the kid. This way the medicine goes in gradually. Then the doctors reveal to the sick kid that the medicine was hidden in the sweet, which was able to make him feel better and that the sweet only is preventing a complete recovery. So, the kid will understand and discard the sweet, taking the medicine from now on.
The doctor is the acharya. The medicine is Narayana. The sweet is the deva. Here too, do not think Narayana as medicine means he is bitter and the devas are somehow more pleasant. In reality, what krishna says in the gita is that which seems sweet in the beginning is like poison and that which is like poison in the beginning is sweet.
You cannot go to a person who believes in eating meat and animal killing and tell him “don’t do this, worship Narayana” and expect him to stop. However, you can tell him, “Make a compromise. You continue eating meat and killing animals, but dedicate it to xyz deity”. Narayana obviously is the antaryAmin of that deity and hence, it leads to some good in the end. And since Narayana never accepts animal sacrifices or meat directly, other deities are there for that.
COMMENT:---Truth is truth even for unqualified people truth should be taught in a truthful way and not by wrongful way...---
ANSWER:No grammar, no punctuation, no meaning whatsoever in this sentence. Utter nonsense.
COMMENT:--- Even If I were to agree with you, I will say that even that satvic purnas along with Tamas puranas, are also complied in a way to give some wrongful stories....---
ANSWER: You can spout whatever you want. Just do it outside of the blog instead of coming up with tawdry questions already answered in the blog. Heck, the last paragraph of the article above itself contains all the answers to your asinine objections and yet you apparently didn't notice it.
Some people say that the conception of threefold nature of puranas is a vaishnava concoction.And the verses so quoted from some puranas supporting this fact is a later interpolation. However,if one closely looks on the commentaries of Adi Sankaracharya,he also accepted the supremacy of sattvik puranas. While I was reading the philosophical work of Adi sankaracharya named "sarva vedanta siddhanta sara sangraha", I came across a following verse 371, which explicitly says about sattvik puranas as follows:
ReplyDeletesrutya sattva purananam sevaya sattva vastunah
anivrttya ca sadhunam sattva vruttih prajayate
"By listening to the sattvik puranas,eating the sattvik food,carrying out the service of sadhus(a devotees of lord ),one can increase one's sattva guna."
Thus by stating the verse "shrutya sattva purananam" Adi sankaracharya also confirmed the supremacy of sattvik puranas.
Thank you. You are correct that the aforementioned work attributed to Sri Shankara talks about Sattvika purANas.
DeleteHowever, the attribution of the work to Sri Shankara may not be genuine and it has to be tested.
Even advaitins have accepted this book as genuine.There is no evidence contrary to this,as far as I know.It it known to be philosophical work rather than the stotras glorifying various deities like saundarya lahari,bhaja govindam and others.So in that sense,it is bonafide. advaitins also have commented on it and accepted it as bonafide work of Adi sankararcharya. Unless,there is some evidence contrary to this,It would be unjustice to consider any such books as unauthentic.
DeleteThe work also says that without Shiva moksha is impossible.
DeleteWhich advaitic commentator in what century has commented and referenced the work?
We can agree to disagree on this minor point if you do not think my response is fair.
hare krishna
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to focus on the verse stating about the sattvik puranas.I agree,the book is definitely not a vaisnava book It has lot of advaitic points as well. But what i have understood from that book is that there is no such specific focus of particular deity like lord shiva in this book. the terms like shiva,atma,brahma have been used interchangeably by sankaracharya not to refer to particular deity Lord Shiva,but to a brahman. Since adi sankaracharya is known to be a vaishnava in garb,i guess that brahman would be lord vishnu. I have not read that in entirety,but simply wanted to emphasise the point of sattvika puranas,that's it. This book also mentions about the jiva and isvara aikya bhava,but that was not the point of quoting the above verse(about sattvik puranas) from this book. As far as advaitin commenting on this book,there were few, like swami jnananda saraswati in malayalam and swami paramarthananda and Sri Mudigonda Nagalinga Sastry's commentary. My point was just to emphasise the aspect of sattvika puranas in that book and nothing else. Further, you decide whether it is authentic or not. I just didn't found any evidence to state it was not written by adi sankaracharya.The problem is that, it is very difficult to say which book was authored by sankaracharya and which was not,because different parties will say different thing. some vaishnavas will quote the narsimha tapani upanishad commentary of sankaracharya to establish some vaishnava points, but then some other advaitins may say its authorship is doubtful just like bhaja govindam. I just gave the example, point is that unless there is a strong evidence contrary to his authorship,we will not be able to make any final judgement about authorship. Rest you decide, I,am not a expert, I may be wrong,so please excuse me.
Namashkars. Kindly enlighten names and classification of puranas completely by Sri Madhwacharya.
ReplyDeleteDear Shri Sridharan,
DeleteNamaskaram to you. I am not sure what exact information you requested, nor do I believe I have such information available to me. I am not an expert in mAdhva sampradAya literature.
Having said that, please go through the article fully if you have not. Whatever we could find in shrI mAdhva's brahma sUtra bhAShya, we have quoted it here.
We have desperate Shaivas trying to claim that the padma purANa validates the tAmasa purANas by quoting:
ReplyDeleteएकं पुराण रुप वै तत्र पाद्मं परं महत् । ब्रह्मं मूर्धा हरेरेव ह्रदयं पद्मसंज्ञक- म्॥
वैष्णव- दक्षिणो बाहुः शैव वामो महेशितुः । उरु भागवतं प्रोक्तं नाभिः स्यान्नारद- ीयकम्॥ मार- कण्डेयं च दक्षांग्रि- र्वामो ह्याग्रेयम- ुच्यते । भविष्यं दक्षिणो जानुर्विष्- णोरेव महात्मन: ॥ ब्रह्मवै- र्तसंज्ञं तु वामज्जानुस- ्नदाहृतः । लैऽगैं तु गुल्फकं दर्क्ष वाराहं वामगुल्फकम- ् ॥ स्कान्दं पुराण लोमानित्वग- स्य वामनं स्मृतम् । कौर्म पृष्ठं समाख्यातं मात्स्यं मेदः प्रकी्र्ति- तम् ॥ मज्जा तु गारुडं प्रोक्तं ब्रह्माण्ड- मस्थि गीयते । एवमेवाभवद्- विष्णुः पुराणाव्यव- ो हरिः ॥
पद्म पुराण, स्वर्ग खण्ड (६२।२-७)
Brahma Purana is said to be the 'forehead' of Sri Hari,Padma Purana is said to be the 'heart' of Sri Hari,Vishnu Purana is said to be the 'right arm' of Sri Hari.Shiva Purana is said to be the 'left arm' of Sri Hari.Srimad Bhagawat is said to be his 'thigh',Narada Purana is said to be his 'navel',
Markendeya Purana is said to be his 'right-foot'.
Agni Purana is said to be his 'left foot',
Bhavishya Purana is said to be his 'right-knee',
Brahma Vaivrata Purana is said to be his 'left-knee'.Linga Purana is said to be his 'right ankle',
Varaha Purana is said to be his 'left ankle',
Skanda Purana is said to be the hair on the body of 'Sri Hari'.Vamana Purana is said to be his 'skin'.
Kurma Purana is said to be his 'back'.Matsya Purana is said to be his 'stomach'.Garuda Purana is said to be his 'bone-marrow'.Brahmanda Purana is said to be his 'bone'~ Padma Purana, svarga khaNDa (62.2-7)
Not only this, but there is another statement in the mahAbhAratA:
aṣhṭādaśapurāṇānāṃ śravaṇādyatphalaṃ bhavet. Tatphalaṃ samavāpnoti vaiṣhṇavo nātra saṃśayaḥ |”(MBH 18:06:97 – Kumbhakonam edition)
“One devoted to Vishnu acquires (through this) that merit which is acquired by listening to the eighteen Puranas. There is no doubt in this”.
What our adversaries have failed to note is that these quotes all address Sri Hari alone (as opposed to Shiva, Skanda, etc) as paramAtma and say that he is to be attained through the 18 purANas. A very sekf defeating argument to quote these!
The very fact that the shAstras say that Sri Hari is the one to be attained through even the shiva and linga purANas attest his supremacy.
The significance of these quotes is simple: While Hari is attained directly by the sAttvika purANas, he is attained indirectly by the tAmasika purANas. Because the tAmasika purANAs are for those not eligible for the truth due to karmas. But by adhering to these purANas, they will eventually attain Hari through the grace of those very deities (shiva, Skanda, etc) whom they regard as supreme.
Cont'd...
Cont'd...
ReplyDeleteThe significance of these quotes is simple: While Hari is attained directly by the sAttvika purANas, he is attained indirectly by the tAmasika purANas. Because the tAmasika purANAs are for those not eligible for the truth due to karmas. But by adhering to these purANas, they will eventually attain Hari through the grace of those very deities (shiva, Skanda, etc) whom they regard as supreme.
As Hari is the antaryAmin of these deities, even the worship offered to those deities reach him only and thus it can be said he is the subject of the tAmasa purANas. As the intent of the tAmasa purANas is to eventually elevate the unqualified ones to Hari bhakti, it can be said they are also the limbs of Hari along with the other purANas, as they have a valid function.
The vishNu and bhAgavata are the peak of sattva, with sattva decreasing in the other purANas. The Shiva and Linga purANas are the peak of tAmas, but even they cannot help but indulge in vishNu stuti now and then. Vide the linga purANa quoted by yAmunAchArya:
प्रत्येकमश्वमेधस्य यज्ञस्य सममुच्यते ।
य एकः पुरुषः श्रेष्ठ: परमात्मा जनार्दन ।।
यस्माद्ब्रह्मा ततः सर्वं समाश्रित्यैव मुच्यते ।
His rememberance are equal to Aswamedha. Janardana is the only Purusha, excellent being and highest soul (Paramatma). Brahma and all other are born from him.
योगनिद्रासमारुढं शेषपर्यंकशायिनम् ।
नारायणं महात्मानं ब्रह्माण्डकमलोद्भवम् ।।
तमसा कालरुद्राख्यं रजसा कनकांडजम् ।
सत्त्वेन सर्वगं विष्णुं सर्वदेवनमस्कृतम् ।।
Narayana the great Atman who is in Yoga Nidra sleeping in couch of Sesha. He is the source of origin of cosmic egg. He takes the form of KalaRudra through Tamasa, Brahma through Rajas and Vishnu through Satwa. He is saluted by all Devas.
Is it not beautiful how Hari alone is saluted even by the very purANas that want to belittle him?
shAstra says "upAsaNa leads to moksha" and "Hari nAma leads to moksha" - we should take this as "hari nAma leads to upAsaNa which leads to moksha". Similarly, saying 18 purANas lead to moksha imply that the tAmasa purANas lead to the understanding of the knowledge imparted by the sAttvika purANas, which lead to moksha.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteIn a recent discussion with HBB, we were talking about how some Shaivas, such as Veerashaiva whom we have thoroughly refuted, are desperately trying to prove Hari-Hara aikya vAda by claiming that the Rudra Prashnam, SvetasvatAra etc talk about pArvati pati when referring to Parabrahman by the word "Rudra".
Their argument for hari-hara aikya vAda is this - For instance, take the following statement,
nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu
(Though) the world, in all its actions, worships two gods, Rudra and Narayana, it is actually one only who is worshipped.
It is clear in this statement that shrI krishNa is implying, "Rudra and Narayana are of the same essence, ie, Rudra's essence (antaryAmin) is Narayana as he is "nArAyaNAtmaka" and nArAyaNa is thus non-different to the essence of Rudra. So, while the world worships the two as different, in reality only one god (nArAyaNa) who is worshipped, who has Rudra as his body, and who has his own divine form as his body".
According to the likes of Veerashaiva however, one should consider this statement as professing equality of two gods because of the "laghava-gaurava nyAya" according to which which the less cumbersome view must be adopted. According to our vishNu-dvEshIs, considering this statement as professing identity is "less cumbersome" and hence, similarly, considering "Rudra" in the upanishads as pArvati pati is more straight-forward than considering it as nArAyaNa. Basically, they are using Occam's Razor to say that our interpretation uses more assumptions and so must be discarded.
Well, this proves that these geniuses have absolutely no knowledge of vedAnta. Here are a few simple points:
1) Firstly, these fools are forgetting "shAstrayonitvAt". Brahman cannot be known by logic, or assumptions, etc. He can only be known by shAstra. No vaidika worth his salt makes interpretations regarding Parabrahman based on logical inferences of assumptions.
2) Thus, when they claim "We assume these vAkyAs to be talking about identity", it is not valid as one cannot arrive at the nature of Brahman through assumptions or inference. There has to be shabda pramANa to support every interpretation. Shabda alone is used to prove who is Brahman, not nyAyAs.
3) In any case, by saying we violate the laghava gaurava nyAya, they are actually in violation of it. For firstly, they assume that our interpretation is assuming something, when it is not. Secondly, they assume that their assumption is more straight-forward. Then, they assume their assumption is reflecting shruti when it is actually shruti-virodha. They also ignore shruti vAkyAs that are against their interpretation as they assume their view can be forced on the shAstra. They also assume that our interpretation is more "cumbersome" without knowing that it is the straightforward one according to the nyAyAs themselves due to sAmAnAdhikaraNya! That's 5 more assumptions already than whatever they accuse us of making. So much for claiming that theirs is the more straightforward assumption!
Cont'd...
Cont'd from above,
ReplyDeleteNow, having established that shabda pramANa alone is used to identify Brahman, how can we say our interpretation is the right one?
1) In the vaiSvAnara-adhikaraNam of the brahma sUtra, Jaimini affirms that whenever names like agni, etc occur with attributes of supremacy, it should refer to the Supreme Brahman only --> Thus, we know that terms like "Rudra" in the svEtAsvatAra refer to Brahman.
2) We know from shAstra that the Brahman of Vedanta is nArAyaNa. And he is the saguNa brahman for advaitins as well. So blabber like "nArAyaNa is nirguNa brahman" comes from senile minds ravaged by dvEsha only, and are shared by no advaitin.
3) We know that Rudra is different from nArAyaNa and a jIva susceptible to pralaya --> Eko ha vai nArAyaNa Aseet, na brahma, nEshAna, nArAyaNAt rudrO jAyatE, etc prove it. The same section quoted by Veershaiva also says the following, which he obviously ignores:
ahnaH kShaye lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH saMhAra kArakaH etau dvau vibudhashreShThau prasAdakrodhajau smR^itau
At the end of the day, the Lord [present as antaryAmi of Brahma *] created Rudra out of krodha-guna, to enable him to be the 'samhara-karta'. Thus, these two 'fine-among-wise', Brahma and Rudra, are known to have been born out of grace and anger respectively.
tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTi saMhAra kArakau nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprAni varapradau
Thus, they carry out the instructed tasks of creation and destruction. However, they, the givers of boons to all the creatures, are just the agents.
4) We know that nArAyaNa is the antaryAmin of Rudra. The very section quoted by Veerashaiva says nArAyaNAtmako GYeyaH pANDaveya yuge yuge - O Arjuna, know that in every yuga, Rudra is 'nArAyaNAtmaka'.
5) We know that on account of antaryAmitva, nArAyaNa is equated to the devas, the Universe, etc as everything is his body - "yasya Atma sharIra", "sarvaM khalvidaM brahma" -- by virtue of sAmAnAdhikaraNyaM. Thus, it is possible to refer to nArAyaNa by names of jIvAs and insentient objects.
6) We also know that Rudra is a name of nArAyaNa as per the sahasranAma, etc.
Thus, these shAstra vAkyAs adequately show that the "rudra" of the shvEtAshvatAra is nArAyaNa, whereas the above statement "nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam" refer to the antaryAmin of rudra and nArAyaNa being identical, or both being forms of the same god (with Rudra as nArAyaNa's body and nArAyaNa's own divine form being his own body).
Thus, we have assumed absolutely nothing. Neither aikya or bhEda can be proven by assumptions or logic as vaidikas do not consider that a tool for knowing Parabrahman. There are explicit shAstra vAkyAs which are providing this interpretation of ours.
nyAyAs are only used in interpretations after knowing who Parabrahman is - for example, if someone denigrates shiva while praising vishNu, we say that nahi ninda nyAya is employed to glorify vishNu, for we know already who vishNu and shiva are through shAstra, and that shiva is a respectable personality as per shAstra. We do not use nyAyAs itself to prove who vishNu and shiva are, as Brahman cannot be known by nyAyAs. If this basic concept is not even known by these vishNu dvEshIs, wonder how they even dare to come against us.
In any case, we are glad that Veerashaiva has good as admitted he is assuming things in his senile head rather than adhering to shAstra. It shows that what he is spouting is third degree garbage. The only next step in this evolution would be for him to claim he is hearing voices in his head which tell him what the shAstra vAkya means, and we can get the strait-jacket ready!
Additionally as a clarification, srI rAmAnuja uses chAga pashu nyAya only to explain how terms like sath, Atman, Brahman, etc refer to nArAyaNa. Note that again, the nyAya is not used to prove nArAyaNa is parabrahman, for the nature of nArAyaNa, his brahmatva, difference or identity with gods etc is known from shAstra vAkyas - it is already proven. The nyAya merely shows how these terms denoting the Cause of the Universe refer to nArAyaNa who is already well known as the Cause from shAstra (eko ha vai nArAyaNa Aseet...).
DeleteSimilarly, if one were to use nyAyAs like "laghava-gaurava" to claim their interpretation is less cumbersome, they first need to show shastra vAkyAs which prove that their interpretation is already well-established as less cumbersome by the shAstra before forcing their viewpoint on the shAstra. Its' a simple matter to knowing how to use pramANAs.
In addition to Sri Aryamaa's recent comments, we have the following fact about that chapter in mahAbhArata (containing the verse "rudro nArAyaNashcaiva sattvamekaM dvidhA kR^itam":
ReplyDeleteThe chapter is a dialogue between bhagavAn and arjuna. First, bhagavAn narrates that Brahma and Rudra were born from Aniruddha (Vishnu's vyUha mUrti, in kShIrAbdhi form). Note that He says Brahma and Rudra are just instruments carrying out the orders of Vishnu in creation and destruction, but have some limited powers in bestowing certain boons to beings ("tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTisaMhArakArakau | nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprANivarapradau ||")
After the verses discussed by Sri Aryamaa, bhagavAn proceeds to say that the devas, along with Brahma, Rudra and Indra worship Narayana, Hari the best deva:
12328027a sabrahmakAH sarudrAz ca sendrA devAH saharSibhiH
12328027c arcayanti surazreSThaM devaM nArAyaNaM harim
After saying that Arjuna should also worship Him, bhagavAn proceeds to extol the ekAntins:
12328030a caturvidhA mama janA bhaktA evaM hi te zrutam
12328030c teSAm ekAntinaH zreSThAs te caivAnanyadevatAH
12328030e aham eva gatis teSAM nirAzIHkarmakAriNAm
12328031a ye ca ziSTAs trayo bhaktAH phalakAmA hi te matAH
12328031c sarve cyavanadharmANaH pratibuddhas tu zreSThabhAk
(Gist: O Arjuna, there are four kinds of people who are my bhaktas. Among them, the ekAntins or those who worship Me with the exclusion of all else are indeed great. I alone am their refuge and their means, who act without attachment to the results. The other three who follow the proper dharma and are devoted to Me (in the form of other devatas) who however are desirous of the fruits of their works (as they are not ekAntins, in turn due to their karma vAsanas) follow the dharma that results in rebirth in samsAra (cyavana = mutation arising from the enjoyment of fruit and their exhaustion). Those of discerning mind (pratibuddhAH = the ekAntins here) however enjoy goodness (in the form of everlasting fruit of liberation).
Then comes the great declaration:
"brahmANaM shitikaNTha~nca yAshcAnyadevatAH smR^itAH |
pratibuddhA na sevante yasmAt parimitaM phalam ||"
Meaning: The wise ones (ekAntins) do not worship brahmA, rudra, and other devatAs, because the fruits that they give are limited.
Note: The above shloka is the version adopted by the pUrvAcAryas, even though the BORI critical edition has a different one; appayya dIkShita himself concedes this version, as does the veerashaiva in his article here: http://creative.sulekha.com/worship-of-shiva-or-vishnu-leads-to-the-same-result-mahabharata_631915_blog
bhagavAn does not mince words here. He is clearly condemning hari-hara aikyavAda and trimUrti uttIrNa vAda.
Hence, the verses appearing in-between should be interpreted in a way to fit the prakaraNa or context. Sri Aryamaa has done that correctly, by saying that bhagavAn is implying only sharIrAtma bhAva between Rudra (sharIra) and Vishnu (AtmA).
Note the convoluted stance taken by the mithyAcAra vIrashaiva:
1) The first part that talks about the birth of Brahma and Rudra have no purpose according to him
2) He conveniently interprets the second part "rudro nArAyaNashcaiva..." in some way literally, and says it is an endorsement of Hari-Hara aikyatva (which of course is fake, as we know he is a Vishnu hater and prefers Shiva paratva)
3) He then says that the verses saying "wise ones do not worship brahmA and rudra" in the third part of bhagavAn's answer that occurs in the same breath are not to be taken literally, but just to glorify Vishnu worship
As one can clearly see, there is no coherence in the Veerashaiva's stance. He simply plucks out a few verses here and there, copies and dumps irrelevant portions from Advaita Sharada, and bad-mouths at us as "bigots" etc. How pitiable! Discerning readers will know that interpreting shAstra correctly is not "bigotry". Only a veda-bAhya mithyAcAra veerashaiva can say so.
An interesting point I came across. Shri Ramanuja quotes Manu Bhagavan in his Vedartha Sangraha for showing that the Tamasa Puranas are to be discarded as follows:
ReplyDeleteyā vedabāhyāḥ smṛtayo yāśca kāśca kudṛṣṭayaḥ |
sarvāstā niṣphalāḥ pretya tamoniṣṭhā hi tāḥ smṛtāḥ || (~Manu Smriti - 12.95) ||
Meaning: Those ‘smritis’ that are outside the Veda, and the views that are perverse, are useless, even when carried to perfection; as they have been declared to be founded on ‘tamas.’
It cannot be argued that this refers to veda-bahya mathas like jaina, boudha, etc because of the usage of "smriti". Thus, according to Shri Ramanuja, it specifically refers to the Puranas like Siva, Linga and some of the Upapuranas which are clearly mentioned to be founded in Tamas according to the three-fold classification of the Puranas.
Note what Manu says. Even when someone dutifully follows the injunctions prescribed by those smritis to perfection (such as tripuNDra and rudrAksha dhAraNa that they often recommend), it is completely and utterly useless in terms of securing any fruit.
Shri Ramanuja says that this verse refers to people who consider themselves as followers of the Vedas (such as Appayya Dikshita) in so much as they accept the authority of the Vedas to varying degrees, but who have a distorted perception due to their acceptance of the Tamasa smritis. These people, according to Manu, are to be considered as equal with the non-Vedic teachers such as Carvaka, Sakya, Aulukya, Aksapada, Ksapanaka, Kapila and Patanjali (hence the usage of "veda-bahya").
Not that there was even a debate on this subject, but the classification of the purANAs was thus very well known and ancient, as it figures even in Manu Smriti, and not just the Puranas themselves.
I just wanted to bring one MahaBharat sloka regarding upasana prescribed for mumukshus :
ReplyDelete"BrahmANam sithi kanThascha yaschAnya
devatA smritAha prathi buddhA na upAsathe
yasmAth parimitam phalam"
Which says that learned people(whose only goal is moksha) don't do upasana of brahma,rudraadi devathas because the fruits that can be granted by them are limited in nature.
There maybe some mistakes in this sloka due to my poor memory, but I read this in ViShnu Sahasra Nama bhashya of Parasara Bhattar (its telugu bhashyam was written by great scholor RaghnadhAcharya where I found this Maha Bharatha sloka and told that it was given by Parasarabhattar himself in his VSB).
Adiyen
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShiva Gita is an interpolation in the Padma Purana. We have shown in comments under our Kaivalya Upanishad and Ishvara Gita articles as to how that Shiva Gita wrongly attributes mantras from Kaivalya Upanishad describing the Jivatma to Shiva, thus proving that the interpolator was not even aware of the fact that those mantras don't even describe Parabrahman in the first place! A genuine text would not contain such silly mistakes in basic philosophy.
DeleteIt is well known that Padma Purana is the most interpolated of all Puranas. Even Garuda, Varaha and Narada Puranas do have such minor interpolations. This is because these Puranas have not been commented in their entirety by Vedantins unlike Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas. Not just interpolations, but genuine sections are also missing in these puranas. For instance, the Kaisika Mahatmya section of Varaha Purana hailed by all Sri Vaishnava acharyas is completely missing from current version of the Purana!
There are 3 Gitas Shiva has given us- Rudra Gita of Varaha Purana, Ishvara Gita of Kurma Purana and Shankara Gita of Vishnu Dharmottara Purana. In all 3 Gitas, he has acknowledged that Hari is supreme and he himself is a bhakta. The Shiva Gita is thus inauthentic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear bhagwatas,I have a question on ashtang yog.You said ashtang yog darshan isn't vaidik.Dear sir so can sri vaishnav practise ashtang yog asapas for health benefits like mental peace,virility,effective digestive system n overall personal health.Does vaishnav acharyas beleive ashtang yog as valid and effective for various health benefits (I m talking aboout attainment of brahman).Does sri vaishnava support idea that ashtang yog of patanjali muni has various health benefits and ashtang yog is a vaidik science of healing and sound health.Last question can a srivaishnava practise ashtang yog for various health issues like overweight,blood pressure, indigestion,reproductive problems?? Do you believe yog can cure these and ashtang yog is divine exercise for superior health revealed through vedas.Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThe yama-niyamAdi angas are recommended in VedAnta for bhakti yoga and involve restraint of the senses, performance of vedic duties, proper posture, breath control etc for the meditation on Brahman. It has nothing to do with the gymnastics that go under the name of "ashtAnga yoga" in modern times (I assume you are referring to the yoga propagated by PM Modi and the like).
DeleteHowever, if they do have health benefits, nothing wrong in practicising them.
Sir I was referring to Patanjali ashtang you ,usually propagated by baba ramdev
DeleteDear humble bhsgwata bandhu,humble pranaam .I am aspiring srivaishnava.my ishta is lord Rama.I don't have guru .Brother I have read n heard at many places that sri is more merciful than narayan.Brother but my ishta is lord Ram.Whenever I am sad,in some crisis or I need something from God to whom should I pray Ram or sita ?? Second question for guru to whom should I pray Ram or sita ?? Brother as my ishta is lord Rama sita is more merciful than Rama this thought disturbs me like hell n I feel depressed that my lord doesn't listen to my pleadings .Plz help me
ReplyDeleteDear reader,
DeleteAs a request, please post questions in relevant pages. Your comment here is out of place for the main article's topic.
Coming to your question, Sriman Narayana as a divine couple is parabrahman, the goal to be attained. Sri is said to be more merciful that Narayana because Sri petitions to Narayana to forgive our sins. This is only to glorify Lakshmi's merciful nature and in no way diminishes Narayana. On the other hand, it only embellishes Narayana since Sri is ever present in his chest on Srivatsa mark. But you should never worship Sri alone (for wealth etc.) without the goal of attaining Narayana in mind. The highest paramaikAnta Srivaishnava petitions to the divine couple only for release from samsAra. But it may not be possible for all Sriaishnavas. Some may want to get wealth, children etc. in which case they should petition the same only to Sriman Narayana, and not to Lakshmi alone, or to any other devatas.
Adiyen ,I have one question ,what are your objections against Ramcharitmanas?? Swami in many sri vaishnava mutts studies starts with manas ,swami jeeyar of vrindavan and Buxar both consider Ramcharitmanas as authentic, karnatak mutts also take it as authentic.A srivaishnava mutt named sugreev kila at contemporary to his divine grace sri vedant desika .Swami could you please enumerate your objections against Ramcharitmanas n other works of tulsidas in detail.
ReplyDeleteWe have no objections towards Tulasidas. I like listening to renditions of Hanuman Chalisa and Ramcharitmanas myself. However, the following still hold true:
Delete1) These works are not to be considered as authoritative as valmiki rAmAyaNa as they deviate from the ithihAsA.
2) Tulsidas is not an authority on Vedanta nor are his works pramANa.
3) Tulsidas was a Rama Bhakta and his guru was influenced by Sri vaishnava sampradaya as he met Ponnadikal Jeeyar of Vanamamalai Mutt. But Tulsidas was not a Vaishnava, but merely a hari-hara aikya vAdi for whom Rama was his ishta.
4) In his Hanuman Chalisa, he claims Hanuman is an avatAra of Shiva (shankar suvan kesari nandan). In his Ramcharitmanas, he has included the episode of Rama worshipping Shiva from the tAmasa purANAs, thus contradicting vAlmiki. Even the usual refrain goes, "Jai Siya Ram Shankar Hari OM", equating the two gods. None of these views are palatable for vaidikas.
5) Besides being a hari-hara aikya vAdin (Which means he is not a true vedAntin), his philosophical leanings are also not in complete accordance with any traditional darshana of Vedanta.
Nothing wrong in listening to melodious renditions of his works, which definitely have some value, but he is not an authority on shAstra.
Adiyen humble pranaams to your feet.Swami tulsidas was not hari hara aikayaadin.He has himself written in ramcharitmanas that shiva and brahma are under influence of maya.He even wrote 'jo sampatti shiv ravan hi deeni hi diye das maat ,soi sampada vibhishan hi sakuchi denhi raghunath'(that wealth which was bestowed by shiva on ravan by accepting 10 heads as sacrifice ,same wealth was bestowed upon by vibhishan by rama without hesitation because of his sharangati).He even says even 1000 Shankaras can't protect whom laxamana is vowed to kill .So he even places laxman over shiva . Regarding philosophy he explicitly display visadvatic views.He was hari hara aikayavadin is fake propaganda by shaivas n he was advaitin is fake propaganda by advaitins because of his glory .He even records that when kak bhusandi went in rama navel he saw mutiuniverse each with its own brahma n mahesh .At one place he records shiva considers sight of hari as the only blessing .Many places he mentions shiva meditates on sri Ram.
ReplyDeleteAdiyen He even records shiva asking shranagati of lord shiva as : jay ram ramaramnam samman bhavtaap bhayakul paahi janam avadhesh suresh ramesh bibho ,sarnagat maangat paahi prabho, gun seel kripa parmaaytnam pranami nirantar sri ramanam.:these r words of shiva himself .Clearly he is asking shranagati I.e refuge to ram n asking him to save from fear of life and death.
ReplyDeleteAdiyen even Rama worshipping shiva proves nothing.It nowhere compromises with vishnu paramtatva, u yourself have written articles of shiva stuti by krishna explaining its real meanings.Krishna even washed feet of brahmins n worshipped them that doesn't make them god .Tulsidas himself records that shiv n brahma are under control n maya n hari is mayapati lord of maya.
ReplyDeleteThank you for those interesting insights. Might prompt me to study Ramcharitmanas a bit deeper.
DeleteThe worship of Shiva by Rama is nowhere mentioned in the rAmAyaNa, and while it is true that such an act, even if it happened, would not compromise Hari's supremacy, it is still problematic. Because such linga-prathistha is unvedic and it is not possible that vishNu, who always promotes dharma in his pUrNAvatArAs, would ever endorse it.
Description of linga-prathistha (I believe Tulsidas says Rama installed a Shiva-Linga which is counted among the jyotirlingas) would be against the Vedanta tradition. Because bAdarAyaNa has rejected the shaiva agamas, their practices are also rejected on the reason that the latter are founded on the philosophy rejected in the brama-sUtrAs. Consequently, Shiva temples where Shiva is consecrated as a linga independent of vishNu and as a supreme deity are unvedic, as they are founded on these Agamas.
Note that this does not invalidate Shiva-Linga as a medium of worship of Shiva; Shiva's attributive knowledge pervades these lingas by virtue of his tapas and so he can be worshipped in those temples by people with such inclinations. So Vaishnavas can respect Shiva temples without resorting to them. However, Shiva-Linga can only be installed within vishNu temples, signifying Shiva's devotion to vishNu, for them to be Vedic. One cannot go to a shiva temple run by a shaiva Agama and worship Shiva as a devotee of vishNu, for the vAsanas are not conducive for such worship there.
In this context, Tulsidas declaring rAma consecrated a jyotirlinga, are completely a-vaidika and the narrative resembles the descriptions in linga and shiva purANAs. I assume, he might have mistakenly considered it as a leela as you said, not understanding that it is impossible.
There are also problematic verses like these:
शड़्कर विमुख भगती चाह मोरी। सो नारकी मूढ मति थोरी ।।
Meaning “He who is opposed to Sankara and yet aspires for devotion to Me, is doomed to perdition, stupid and dull-witted as he is.”
While no vaishnava should disrespect Shiva, which can be argued to be the meaning of this verse, this isn't Vedic for one reason -- devotion to vishNu, even if it has faults (like disrespecting shiva or other devas unnecessarily, eating meat, etc) never goes in vain. Bhagavan would never say, "Those who disrespect other devas are doomed even if they worship me". Rather, he would say "Those who disrespect other devas, are still to be considered virtuous if they worship me, and eventually they will stop such disrespect, while still being focused on me by my grace". Gita says his devotees never perish, so how would deva ninda, even if wrong, stop them from progressing?
In contrast, it is Shiva who often says "My devotees should also worship vishNu, should not hate vishNu etc or they are doomed" -- because that applies to shiva devotees since they are worshipping a god who is not supreme, and who will eventually take them to vishNu -- thus, not having a hatred for vishNu while worshipping shiva is recommended. Never in the purANAs does bhagavAn say this, it is always shiva who would say it.
I am aware of certain places where Tulsidas declares that the Universe is only as real as Ram is, and that the cosmos is the body of Ram. There is no doubt that these, along with the declarations that you have provided regarding Shiva's servitude to Rama, that Tulsidas was influenced by Ramananda, who promoted the teachings of Vishishtadvaita to an extent, albeit in a modified form.
Either way, even if it were proven that Tulsidas was a Vaishnava, his works can be revered, but do not assume authority in the sense of being used as pramANa. Kamba rAmAyaNa is fully in accordance with the vedAnta, but nobody considers it as a pramANa equal to vAlmiki's work.
I am happy to admit I am wrong and Tulsidas is a vaishnava if I can find some explanation for such verses.
Respected adiyen ,pranaams to your holy feet.Adiyen o would first like to point out that Goswami tulsidas ji himself has admitted that his works aren't bound by any grammarian rules or other rules of vaidik sanskrit shahstras.His works are high class metaphors and he writes in totally informal way.Mere literal reading would impair to bring out the mood of his works.I will address ling sthapna episode later once i confirm it with other devotee .'Shiv drohi mum bhagat kahava ,so nar sapne hu mohi na paava,shankar bimukh bhagati chahe mori so naraki mudhmati tori'.Adiyen vaishnav acharyas here in North explains it that goswami tulsidas ji has written this to bring out the importance of acharya. They said lord shiva is guru for those who practice bhakti yogam.Acharya cheena jeeyar swamy says lord is like sun ,jeeva like lotus and guru like water ,when lotus(jeeva)is in water(with guru) same sun blossoms it n when it is outside water same sun withers it away.So acharyas say that here Tulsidas ji explaining importance of guru.Some acharyas say that here goswami ji is indirectly mocking bhakti yogam by in an intelligent metamorphical way by providing a cautionary warning :Shiv as being expert in bhakti yogam oeronifies perfect bhakti yogam ,so 'Shiv drohi mum bhagat kahava ' means trangressions of strict upanishadic ways laid for bhakti yog ,won't fetch u lord even in dreams .Shankar bimukh bhakti chahe mori means :non compliance with vaidik rules of bhakti yogam ,so naraki moodh mati tori : oh!You are such a fool to take indirect path of self efforts to achieve me .Here what goswamiji all wants to say is he for general populace wants to convey that upanishadic bhakti yogam is very very tough n has strict rules which unfollwed won't let us to lord.If we continue trying to achieve lord by self efforts we will fail this failure feeling is called naraki.See he uses 'naraki buddhi' it means extreme remorse .Lord Ram himself has mentioned this in valmiki Ramayan that saints who do tapas when they fail they often give up to anger and lust.This anger n lust feeling has been called 'naraki buddhi'.Tulsidas ji is called king of metaphors in hindi sahitya.This was point he was trying to make.The proof of this lies infact that he himself condemns bhakti marg specially for kaliyug .He says in kaliyug neither gyanam is possible nor shuddh bhakti hence he conclusively and explicitly recommends sarnagati to hari as only means to liberation.That episode was to highlight how tough is bhakti yogam marg and how it is practically impossible in kaliyiga.Adiyen one more thing I would like to tell you in ayodhya shiv linga tilkam isn't done like 3 horizontal parallel lines ,but shiv lingam tilakam is done with srivastva mark to highlight that shiva himself is vaishnava.
ReplyDeleteAs I said earlier, thank you for the insights. It certainly is something I'd like to read further and deliberate on.
DeleteYes, tulsi took some from tamas purans for samanvay as he preached from kashi.
DeleteLord Shiva himself approved manas in Vishwanaath temple. Thus, shaivas r unable to refute.
Also swamin, kindly share if Tulasidas met Jeeyar swami. Some recent Ramanadis have started claiming themselves independent of Ramanuj sampraday n that its older than ours. They include alvars and Bodhayan on their parampara (most funny part) but exclude Ramanuj.
However, Ramanand himself have said he belonged to Ramanuj's parampara. He deviated and took independent stand. But still philosophy is Vishistadvait
The worship of linga by Rama is similar to Krishna washing feets of Sudama. It doesn't mean he followed any agama.
DeleteIn VR too, there is verse where Sri Ram says that this land is given to me by Shiva out of his mercy.
For verses like, without Shankar bhajan one can't get multi, we take Shankar as adjective..auspicious.
Also, Tulsi is very clear that Ram is avtaar of Vishnu. I can very well quote those verses.
Regarding Jo sampada shiv ravanahi...
DeleteRam thinks that a wealth is even bestowed by Shiva I.e. Lanka...the same I m giving to Vibhishan, who is Sharnagata. What a mean am I.
Thus he felt shy
//The worship of linga by Rama is similar to Krishna washing feets of Sudama. It doesn't mean he followed any agama.//
DeleteYou didn't get what I explained in a previous post. As I pointed out earlier, the Lord cannot worship or consecrate a linga in his pUrNAvatArAs as linga-prathishta itself implies observance of rules in certain agamas. You cannot just place anything on the ground and claim it is a linga, consecration is to be observed. And such consecration or worship is not recommended for dhArmikas in Shastra. Meditation on rudrAntaryAmin is a brahma-vidya and so the Lord may do it to show the way to others, but there is no vidyA that recommends worship of a linga.
It is not similar to washing the feet of Sudhama or others. He can praise Shiva, as he did when he appeared as krishna, but would never worship a linga for the above reasons.
Other than above verses there are numerous dohas which establish Shiva as jeevatma, not Brahma.
ReplyDeleteJaasu prabal Maya bas Shiv viranchi bad chhot. (Yuddhkand.52)
Shiva and Brahma is deluded by his Maya.
Regarding Advait, kindly go.through Uttarkand where poet condemns mayavad.
Kakbhusundi-Garud samvaad.
Ishwar ansh jeev avinaashi, chetan amal sahaj sukh raasi.
Regarding birth of Ram:
Nij ichchha nirmit tanu, Maya gun gopar.
Chidanandmay deh tumhari, bing bikaar jaan Avinaasi.
Bhagwaan's body chit n aanad swaroop.its not formed by Maya but out of will of bhagwaan. Its devoid of gunas of Maya.
Regarding linga worship as antaryaami.. No. Its just his leela to give maryada to his bhakta.
Ram in VR too worships Surya by Aditya hridayam strot. Its mentioned by Govindraaj n Udari
As Aryamaa has pointed out, it is not that Rama cannot respect Shiva. It is the linga pratiShTa in the Shaiva Agama style that is tAmasic.
Delete"atra pUrvam mahAdevaH" in VR - the commentator says that mahAdeva refers to samudrarAja since mahat has water as one of the meabings. Fits the context too.
Govindarajar specifically says that Aditya Hridayam is suspected interpolation and says Udaris commentary does NOT have it. Anyway, that's besides the point.
Bottom line is even as Leela Rama would not do Shiva linga pratiShTa in a manner that conveys Shiva supremacy.
At this point, I might as well post a small series of comments on why Linga worship is considered unvedic by Sri Vaishnavas and why Tulsidas was wrong to include it in his work. As it is, that Mahapashupatastra author and Veerashaiva are screaming hoarse about us "bigots" for referring to Shiva temples as unvedic. Ignoring such loose elements, let us explain the philosophy underpinning such conclusions.
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of clarity, let me explain why it is impossible for Siva to be worshipped in the form of a Linga by Bhagavan with reference to the Brahma Sutras. This will allow a proper understanding of the Vedic injunctions regarding the worship of Siva, and what is prohibited as well.
The Brahma Sutras reject the philosophy of the Saivas on account of inappropriateness of their tenets as well as religious practices. Specifically, their claim that Ishvara is merely the efficient and not the material cause, the consideration of Siva as the highest Brahman which flies in the face of numerous pramANAs to the contrary, and their practices to attain the supreme (such as drinking from skulls, wearing rudraksha, ashes etc) are all discarded.
Here, Sudarshana Suri clarifies that a critique of the philosophy (namely, Ishvara not being the material cause) must necessarily be construed as a critique of the practices (such as assuming Siva as supreme) -- this is because these practices basically support the incorrect philosophy, and so it is not possible to separate one from the other. The same agamas which claim Ishvara is not the material cause enjoin worship of Siva Linga as a means for realizing this knowledge -- hence, such worship is also to be understood as being condemned by the Brahma Sutras.
Thus, the critique of the Saiva philosophy by Badarayana is a critique of the worship practices and the texts associated with the philosophy -- and thus extends to the Siva temples which are consecrated with such texts and philosophy as it's basis.
On account of this, Lingas in Siva Temples, which are consecrated based on the Agamas and the practices and philosophy enshrined in those Agamas, are also unvedic. It is not possible to worship Narayana as antaryamin of Siva in those temples, or Siva as a devotee of Narayana or as a Visva Guru - for those temples are consecrated by people with tamo guna, using agamas founded in tamas and on the tamasic assumption that Siva is supreme -- hence, the mood of the deity within those temples may also be tamasic and not conducive to Sattva, for it is well-known that Siva is prone to tamas at times despite being in sattvic mood at other times.
Sudarshana Suri points out that while Vedic texts do say that Siva, etc are names of Narayana, it is not possible to use those agamas as worship of Narayana with that logic, for such worship is incorrect, and one could then extend this logic to say that even Buddha etc can be worshipped in such a manner.
Cont'd...
Cont'd from above...
ReplyDeleteThus, it is not possible for Rama who is hailed as the embodiment of dharma, to do an act of adharma in installing a linga which would be contrary to Vedic practices. There are injunctions to worship Narayana as the innerself of Siva, Brahma, Indra and Surya -- with these devas regarded as devotees of Bhagavan-- but this meditation cannot be performed in temples or situations where these devas are considered independent or supreme.
In truth, there is a Siva temple wherever there is a Vishnu temple. Kedarnath for Badrinath, Kasi Vishvanath for Bindu Madhav, Ekambareshwarar for Kanchi Varadaraja, Sri Kalahasti for Tirumala, Jalakandeshwarar for Sri Ranganatha, Chidambaram Nataraja for Govindaraja, Kalabhairava for Sri Vaishnava Nambi at Thirukkurungudi, the linga under the hand of Sri Padmanabha at Thiruvananthapuram and so on. It is true that originally, Siva manifested as a Linga in these places to worship the form of Vishnu who is nearby -- in fact, the sthala-puranas for Ekambareshwarar, Jalakandeshwarar, Chidambaram Nataraja etc are actually sattvika and hint that Siva appeared here as a devotee of Vishnu. While the initial linga prathishta in these places which are puranic sthalas might have been by rishis who considered Siva as a devotee of the corresponding form of Vishnu in each place, the adoption of Shaiva agamas at these places due to the curse of Bhrigu, Gautama etc has resulted in a tamasic mode of worship, which means Siva in these temples cannot be worshipped as a devotee of Vishnu anymore.
Similarly, the episode of Rama establishing a linga for worship of Siva at Rameshwaram is impossible for the reason that the stories state Rama established the linga independently. It is not stated that Rama consecrated a linga in a Vishnu temple considering Siva as a devotee of Vishnu, which might have been acceptable even, but rather, the independent prathishta of Siva is described, which is against the shastras.
Cont'd...
Minor correction: Should be Jambukeshwarar, not Jalakandeswarar as the Siva temple near Srirangam in the above post
DeleteCont'd from above...
ReplyDeleteIn this context, I quote an anecdote from the life of Nampillai, a Sri Vaishnava Acharya. I have quoted it before on the blog, but it is particularly relevant to the discussion.
A certain person, on another occasion put a question to Sri Nampillai, "Swamin, all Srivaishnavas say in one voice that all devas other than Sriman Narayana are not to be worshipped. But all those gentlemen do worship them in their daily rituals (Nityakarma like Sandhyavandana, Amavasya tharpana etc., and on other occasions in their nimithika Karma (like Grahana (eclipse), tarpana (debatory rites)) prescribed by sastras. What is the taboo in the worship of these gods in their respective temples dedicated to them?"
Sri Nampillai answered, "Though the fire in Agnihotra (the daily fire worship ritual) and the fire used for cremating the corpse in the crematorium are one and the same, the former one is considered to be holy and the latter one unholy. Same is the case with the worship of the gods prescribed in the veda sastras and these gods consecrated in their respective temples. In the Nitya and Nimittika karmas, Srivaishnavas do worship the other gods like Indra, Varuna, Vayu, Agni etc. but there is a special rule stating that even though they worship those gods they do so not as separate entities, but as the body of Sriman Narayana. Hence it is permissible and it results in the worship of Sriman Narayana only who is their innerself. But in the respective temples of these gods, despite them being subordinate to Lord Sriman Narayana. Hence there is a change in the order (Paravaratatvavyatyayam). Moreover these gods are consecrated there by the people who are full of Tamo Guna and they have done so using the mantras and tantras (mode of performance) as found in Saiva Agamas which are opposed to vedic principles. To add to that, there is no special rule laid down in the Vedas that these gods in the temples should be worshipped as the body of Sriman Narayana as they are considered in the case of Nitya Nimittika rituals (ie, no injunction stating that one must go to such temples to meditate on these gods as the bodies of the Lord). In the group of these gods, especially Siva is to be abandoned by all means. This is because that Siva is filled with Tamo Guna which is at logger heads always with Sattva Guna and therefore in the temples dedicated to him, he should not be worshipped as the body of Sriman Narayana."
The gist of this is that Siva is one who was naturally born with Tamo Guna. He has conquered his innate disposition but when he is worshipped as Supreme, in an environment filled with practices of tamasic agamas, by people who are of tamasic disposition, he could be influenced by such tamas and as such might not be in a sattvic mood -- he might even be delighting in such worship of him as supreme. Note that the same Siva who worships Narasimha as Ahirbudhnya, who was bailed as the supreme Vaishnava by Suka Maharishi, who imparts knowledge of Brahman as Dakshinamurthy -- is also the one who attacked Nara-Narayana to show, who aimed arrows at Krishna during banasura Buddha, and who got arrogant after Tripura Samhara and cut the head of his own father. Hence, one cannot be sure that Siva in a temple based on tamas is in the mood of sattva.
Thus, unlike madhvas, advaitins and Gaudiyas who worship Siva as a Vishnu Bhakta in these temples, the followers of Sri Ramanuja avoid going to these temples. And it stands to reason that Sri Rama would not install a Linga either.
I hope this clarifies why Tulsidas was wrong to include this episode in his work.
~finis~
On the internet, I came across a couple of issues raised regarding the following shloka:
ReplyDelete//sattvikesu ca kalpesu mahatmyam adhikam hareh
rajasesu ca mahatmyam adhikam brahmano viduh
tadvad agnes ca mahatmyam tamasesu sivasya ca//
[The sattvika Puranas glorify Hari; the rajasika Puranas glorify Brahma, and the tamasika Puranas glorify Siva and Agni]
The two questions were, 1) Why isn't Brahma worship mentioned in the rAjasika purANAs then? and 2) Why isn't Agni worship mentioned in the tAmasika purANAs when this shloka says Agni is also glorified there?
For the first question, Brahma was indeed supposed to be worshipped. However, due to the curse of Bhrigu, his worship didn't come to pass.
Therefore, the rAjasika purANAs meant to glorify Brahma introduced a substitute -- the glorification of other devas on an equal level with Hari, which is the locus of rajo guNa presided over by Brahma. In these purANAs such as brahma, brahma-vaivarta, mArkandeya etc, Hari is not denigrated (unlike tAmasika purANa stories like Lingodbhava, Sharabeswara etc) but exalted in high terms as the supreme being -- but however, he is always equated with Siva to propose an aikyatva.
As an example, the mArkandeya purANa contains a glorious description of Hari seen by Rishi mArkandeya during the dissolution and describes Hari as the Supreme Being. Then, abruptly, Bhagavan tells mArkandeya, "Siva is not different to me. So remember this and after creation, consecrate a Linga". Note that Hari's status of supremacy is unaffected, these purANAs never consider him lesser to another devata and are always respectful of him, but he is equated with other devas in this manner.
To that effect, there is this gIta shloka:
यया धर्ममधर्मं च कार्यं चाकार्यमेव च।
अयथावत्प्रजानाति बुद्धिः सा पार्थ राजसी।।Gita 18.31।।
This defines rAjasika buddhi as that which doesn't know what must be done (worshipping Hari as the innerself of all devas) and what mustn't be done (considering other devas as equal to Hari). Since all the devas are bodies of the Lord, equating them to the Lord is like being unable to differentiate between body and self, and attributing bodily characteristics to the self --- which leads to attachments to sense objects that form rajo guNa. Similarly, such worship results in rajo guNa. And since rajo guNa is presided by Brahma, it is said that Brahma is glorified, though he isn’t directly worshipped due to the curse.
Cont'd...
Cont'd from above...
ReplyDelete2) Now, the tAmasika purANAs go a step further. PurANAs like the kUrma, linga, siva, skanda etc actively contain material that reverses the status of Vishnu and other devas. Siva and Skanda are often glorified at the expense of Vishnu by tales of Lingodbhava, Vishnu offering his eye as a lotus, Narasimha being killed by Sarabha, etc. Thus, the position of "Higher" and "Lower" have been reversed as per the gIta shloka:
अधर्मं धर्ममिति या मन्यते तमसाऽऽवृता।
सर्वार्थान्विपरीतांश्च बुद्धिः सा पार्थ तामसी।।18.32।।
This shloka says that tAmasika buddhi is the reversal of postions - perceiving dharma as adharma, higher as lower etc. Similarly, the position of worshipped (Vishnu) and worshipper (Shiva/Skanda) get interchanged in these purANAs. As these devas are bodies of Hari, the denial of Hari's status as Supreme and elevation of these devas as Supreme is like denying the presence of the self and exalting the body -- which is worse than attributing bodily characteristics to the self (rAjasika). Denial of the self is tamo guNa or ignorance of the true nature of the self. Similarly, denial of the status of supremacy to Hari is tamo guNa.
Thus, "Agni" worship refers to worship of Skanda in these purANAs, who is associated with fire by virtue of his birth. It doesn't refer to Agni devata. This is a clarification that appears acceptable in light of the content in these purANAs.
One more small note regarding the guNAs:
ReplyDeleteWhen it is said that the tAmasika/rAjasika purANAs are for people with tamo/rajo guNa, it does not mean these people are Asuric. We already have the abrahamic desert cults and similar religions for Asuras, so quite unfair to reduce them to that level!
Rather, these are people like the Nayanmars etc who are elevated to an extent, have certain noble practices due to some measure of sattva guNa and do have a desire to understand the Vedic truth, but due to their own karmas, they do not have the right mixture of guNAs to comprehend the Lord. Hence, they are instructed to follow these lesser purANAs which serve to lead one towards the truth eventually. It is by no means a condemnation of such people. It takes a lot of births to even achieve the status of being a worshipper of Shiva or Shakti or others which brings one close to the ultimate truth, so these people do have several good qualities.