BLOG STATUS: Suspended indefinitely starting 18 Jan 2020. See journal page for details.
Last new article published: 18 Jan 2020, "Ishvara Gita: Chapters 1-11": Read here

Subscribe to updates here.

Shiva Stuti in Karna Parvan

As we have already proven with the Shiva Sahasranama, any alleged instances in the mahAbhArata showing shiva as Brahman are but attempts at interpolations. However, there is a genuine stuti occurring in the karNa parva, just prior to the description of Tripura samhAra. Here, the devas, acting on the instructions of Brahma, seek refuge in Shiva for destroying the asurAs. There is nothing anomalous in this; as srI krishNa himself says, the devas beginning with Indra seek shelter of Shiva who in turn seeks refuge in Brahma, who in turn seeks vAsudevA as his refuge. Thus a simple hierarchy of IndrAdi devatA < shiva < brahma < nArAyaNa is established. Even the nArAyaNasUkta is in that descending order “sa brahma sa siva sEndra” and hanuman describes these three devas in the same descending order in the rAmAyaNa, also saying that srI rAma is superior to all 3 of them single or combined.  Brahma is of course, the most exalted jivAtma in the Universe.
In this genuine section of the mahAbhArata, the devas seek refuge of Shiva, who is extolled as a yOgin par excellence and a mahAtman, and recognising this, they compose a hymn that directly addresses the antaryAmin of shiva, ie, nArAyaNa, who is in his sankarshana-narasimh arUpa in the cave of rudra’s heart.  Thus, the stuti addressed to shiva is a direct praise of his antaryAmin and not a praise of shiva as anything other than a vibhUti.
We can easily prove this because the same section itself says:
“viShNurAtmA bhagavatO bhavasya amitatejasaH” – vishNu is also (besides being the arrow tip used to kill the tripurAsuras) the antaryAmin of the effulgent Bhava. Thus, the strength of Rudra comes from his antaryAmin. The devas, recognising that this act of defeating asurAs would be accomplished by paramAtma (sriman nArAyaNa) via the vibhUti of rudra, composed this stuti in praise of srI lakshmi narasimha.
Since this is a beautiful section that obviously is relevant to the blog, I have written short notes explaining it. The most popular English translation available on the internet, the one given in the Sacred Texts web site, are quite superficial and shallow translations. These translations that are often incorrect; Nevertheless, I have used it to give modified and correct explanations where necessary. I have also incorporated some verses from the Kumbhakonam edition which were omitted from the sacred texts website.
Let this endeavour also be a lesson to those who blindly copy and paste from Sacred Texts. Using that site as a superficial reference is okay, but relying on those wayward translations are not – they are seldom correct.
There are some Veerashaivas and others on the net who do not understand the pramAnAs and would assume this talks about Shiva, when the context clearly establishes nArAyaNa is the antaryAmin. Hence, this article will explain these things clearly.
iti tasya vacaḥ śrutvā devāḥ śakrapurogamāḥ brahmāṇam agrataḥ kṛtvā vṛṣāṅkaṃ śaraṇaṃ yayuḥ|| 36||
Meaning: Hearing these words of his (Brahma), The gods with Indra at their head, making Brahma their guide, sought the protection of Shiva, having the bull for his mark.
The devas made Brahma their guide in seeking the protection of Shiva since the latter always abides by the directions of the former (as we have explained in this article). The bull is a symbol for dharma and the idea is that Shiva abides by dharma, hence he will help them as is his duty.
tapaḥ paraṃ samātasthur gṛṇanto brahma śāśvatam ṛṣibhiḥ sahadharmajñā bhavaṃ sarvātmanā gatāḥ || 37||
Meaning: Those knowers of the eternal dharma (vishNu as the means) accompanied by rishis, devoted to the knowledge (meditation) of the supreme (paraH) and uttering the eternal words of the Vedas, fully sought Bhava.
“tapaH paraM” – Those who perform upAsaNa on the supreme – “nArAyaNa param brahma, tattvaM nArAyaNa para:”.
Note the usage of “dharma~jnAH” to describe the devas. It shows that they were well aware and knowledgeable of the eternal dharma. What is that dharma? The mahAbhArata describes it as “Krishnan dharma sanAtanam” and “sarva dharmAn parityajya mAm ekam saraNam vraja”. Thus, srI krishNa alone is the eternal dharma. The term “dharma” here refers to bhagavAn being the means to secure the end, ie, his upAyatva. It goes without saying the rishis knew it as well.
The name “dharma” occurs in the vishNu sahasranAma. Bhattar’s vyAkhyAna is - He sustains all beings by conferring prosperity and salvation on them.  In yuddha kANDa brahma says of Lord rAma - lokAnAm tvam paramo dharmah – You are the Supreme Dharma in all the worlds.  In mahAbhArata ~ sAkshAt devahpurANO'sau sa hi dharmah sanAtanah - He is primordial deva and also the eternal dharma".  
The mahAbhArata says this about krishNa as well -
ye ca vedavido viprAh ye ca adhyAtmavido janAh           |   te vadanti mahAtmAnam kr*shNam dharma sanAtanam  ||
"Those brAhmins who are well-versed in veda-s, and those who realized the Brahman, declare in one voice that the great SrI kr*shNa is the eternal dharma".
Therefore, the “dharmaj~na” devas are those who are aware that vishNu is the means. So, the devas sought Bhava with the knowledge – “this Shiva, is the vibhUti of nArAyaNa, and by surrendering to his antaryAmin, will act for the good of the world”.
The name “bhava” used here is also significant. It refers to production or the act of bringing forth. What does Shiva bring forth? It is the knowledge of vishNu. “jnAnam icchet iShvarAt”, “vaiShNavAnAM yathA shambhuH” are the pramAnAs. Thus, this also proves Shiva himself was aware of his own status as a vibhUti. He is a brahma jnAni.
The Kumbhakonam edition contains the following - tapaH paramamAjagmurgR^iNanto brahma shAshvatam. This doesn’t change the meaning.
After this, the Kumbhakonam edition contains one more sloka which does not occur in other recensions, which occurs prior to the succeeding sloka. I will translate this here:
devadevaM paraM sthANuM varadaM tryambakaM shivam sharvamIDyamajaM rudraM shashA~NkA~NkitamUrdhajam
Meaning: (The husband of Uma is) the Chief of Devas (devadeva), superior to or detached from material enjoyments (paraM), firm in yOga or meditation on vishNu (sthANuM), the bestower of boons (varadaM), the three-eyed as he is the knower of the 3 vedas (tryambakaM), agreeable to his true nature (shivaM), the remover of ignorance (SharvaM), the praise-worthy (IDyam), the mover or instigator of the mind towards paramAtma (ajaM), the one who wept as he knew he was not freed from karmas (rudraM), whose hair is marked by the moon (shashA~NkA~Nkita mUrdhajam).
This sloka elaborates the reason why the devas decided to go to Shiva. This speaks of the glories of Shiva. If we analyse this, each of the names sequentially indicate why Shiva would help the devas as follows:
  • He is the chief of devas who are sAttivkas in nature, therefore  he is most celebrated and hence is called “paraM” (paraM means utkRshtaM)

  • As he is the chief of sAttvikas and celebrated, therefore he is firm and unwavering in yOga or the meditation on vishNu, hence he is called sthAnu    

  • He is firm in meditation of vishNu, therefore by the grace of bhagavAn, he has the power to bestow boons to all, thus known as varada

  • He is able to bestow boons therefore, he knows the three Vedas, since only a person devoted to study of the Vedas can grant boons to others
  • He knows the three Vedas, therefore he is always agreeable to his own true nature which is seshatva or servitude to paramAtma sriman nArAyaNa. Meaning, he strives to act in accordance to the wishes of bhagavAn which is the fruit of the study of the veda and hence is known as “shiva”.

  • As he acts in accordance with his true nature, therefore he can also remove the ignorance of others by teaching them of their true nature which is subservience to vishNu. Thus, he is “Sharva” or the remover of ignorance.

  • As he removes ignorance, therefore, he moves the minds of others towards paramAtma (ajaM) and therefore, is praiseworthy. Here, the anvaya is changed. Also, “ajaM” is derived from the root “aj-“ signifying movement.

  • Since he is the praiseworthy one removes ignorance and provides knowledge of vishNu, therefore he wept on being born as he knew he had pApa karmas. The idea being, his knowledge and merits or puNya allowed him to recognise his nature upon birth itself. Only a jnAni can recognise his own faults due to puNya from previous births, during infancy itself.

  • As he wept on being born due to pApa karmas, therefore he is marked by the moon which symbolises that he was able to cleanse himself of the karmas/tamO guNa and become lustrous and cool or sheltered from the heat of samsAra by his austerities, which is symbolised by the cool moon.

  • As he is sheltered from the heat of samsAra by being cool and lustrous due to his penances, therefore he is always cheerful.

Thus, these are the reasons for calling shiva by these names. As noted earlier, this sloka occurs in the Kumbhakonam edition. Now, continuing onward.
tuṣṭuvur vāgbhir arthyābhir bhayeṣv abhayakṛttamam sarvātmānaṃ mahātmānaṃ yenāptaṃ sarvam ātmanā || 38||
Meaning: And they praised, O king, in the high words of the Vedas, that dispeller of fears in all situations of fear that (Rudra) whose intellect (jnAnA) pervades everywhere (sarvAtmA), who is a noble soul (mahAtma) due to his jnAna and thus is a friend to all others (yenAptaM sarvam Atmana).
Using choice epithets from the Vedas, in the vein of “gurur devO bhava” the gods praised Rudra who is a jnAni and hence, a guru. He dispels the fear of samsAra by giving knowledge of vishNu. His attributive knowledge (dharma bhUta jnAna) is expanded so that he can assume many bodies by virtue of his austerities. As karmas are cleansed, knowledge expands like light blossoming from a lamp. And the greater the expansion of the knowledge, the more powers one can have – such as ability to control several bodies and assume different forms by knowledge (as saubhari muni did and rudra does when he fights with Arjuna) and of course, perception of paramAtma tattva clearly. Rudra is such a jnAni that he does not see differences between gods, men, etc. He knows they, like himself, are the body of vishNu, who is the indweller of all. Thus, he does not like or dislike anyone and is a yOgi.
Such a mahatma or devotee is praised with the chanting of the vedic portions like puruSa sUkta and others as he is worthy of being respected on an equal footing with paramAtma.
It is similarly said in guru paramparA that sri vaishnavas used to praise swami manavAla mAmunigal with chanting of the puruSa sUKta and “vedAhamedaM puruSham mahAntam...”. Thus, a guru can be praised with such sUktas and this is bhAgavata dharma.
tapo viśeṣair bahubhir yogaṃ yo veda cātmanaḥ yaḥ sāṃkhyam ātmano veda yasya cātmā vaśe sadā || 39||
Meaning: The one (Rudra) who, by dint of austerities, knowing the natural or independent means, ie, bhagavAn nArAyaNa who is the upAya designated by the term “yOga” and also the (nature of the) AtmAn (as the servant of paramAtma), who know by reflection (via meditation) via the mind (sAnkhyAtmanO) (this truth), by which the mind is kept under control (cAtmavashesadA)
The vishNu sahasranAma says “yOgO yOgavidAm netA” – BhagavAn is called “yOga” because he is the natural and independent means to liberation. SrI bhattar comments that this means he does not need the help of anybody else to aid his devotees. They need to understand he ALONE accomplishes everything.
Rudra knew this tattva and also recognised the individual self as the natural servant (dAsabhUta) of the Lord. He knew this by constant reflection on the essential nature of the jivAtma (as the servant) and paramAtma sriman nArAyaNa (as the master).
By knowing these truths, Rudra kept his mind under control. Under control from what? From delusions like “I, Rudra, standing before the devas, is verily paramAtma” or “I, Rudra, am equal to vishNu”. Rudra, knowing the tattvas well, understood that the devas’ surrender to himself is a surrender to his own antaryAmin (nArAyaNa) with Rudra as the vibhUti. And he also knew that they, by their nature of seshatva or servitude, should not resort to anyone other than paramAtma, and also that nArAyaNa does not require any assistance from anyone; His acting through rudra is merely His will and because of the puNya karma earned by rudra.
This sets the precedent for the succeeding slokas. The devas are going to see the glories of Rudra, and then by virtue of their tapas, they would see nArAyaNa, the antaryAmin of rudra who is responsible for the latter’s glory.
te taṃ dadṛśur īśānaṃ tejorāśim umāpatim ananyasadṛśaṃ loke vratavantam akalmaṣam || 40||
Meaning: They beheld him - Ishana, the consort of Uma, who is resplendent due to knowledge, who has no equal in the world (among living beings), who is connected with vrata or the proper  performance of duties (karma yOga),the sinless.
With such knowledge of nArAyaNa as “yOga” or the means as mentioned before, the devas do two things – they first behold Rudra in all his glory. This is covered in this sloka. In the next sloka, they realise the paramAtman, sriman nArAyaNa, who is the cause of Rudra’s glory.
Here, they beheld Rudra as IshAna. He is known as “iSAnas sarvavidyAnAm” because he is an AvEsha avatArA of sriman nArAyaNa and is possessed of the knowledge of vishNu. He is the Lord of Uma, that pArvati who herself is revered as a teacher of the devas in the kenOpanishad. Rudra is tejasvi as he is a bhakti yOgI, meditating on vishNu. He has no equal in the sense that he is the most proficient at bhakti yOga (VaishnavanAm yatha shambhu – shambhu is blissful as he is the greatest meditator or knower of vishNu).
He performs karma yOga or the discharge of his duties with the knowledge – “I am not the doer, paramAtma sriman nArAyaNa, who is the self of all, is the doer and he alone enjoys the fruits”.  Thus he is vratavan as karma yOga is an ancillary to bhakti yOga.
In this way, Rudra is sinless or “akalmashaM”. This should not be taken as Rudra being completely devoid of karmas. All beings have prArabdha karma and the cancellation of all karmas happen only after death. However, very virtuous beings like the rishis and the devas like Brahma and Rudra are called sinless as they are knowledgeable and work only for the good of the Universe.
The sahasranAma begins with “vyAsam vasishta naptAram Sakteh pautram akalmasham”. Here, the term has been used to denote rishis. Hence, like the term “bhagavAn” is used to denote others besides nArAyaNa out of respect and does not literally mean they limitlessly possess the 6 attributes, similarly “akalmasham” is used to denote very virtuous souls. Here it means rudra has only cleansed himself of the karmas which are obstacles to bhakti yOga, by studious performance of karma yOga with the knowledge he is the servant and vishNu is the master.
The Kumbhakonam edition contains the following version of this sloka:
taM te dadR^ishurIshAnaM tejorAshimumApatim. `pareNa yatnena bhavaM tridashAH sharvamIshvaram'. ananyasadR^ishaM loke pratapantamakalmaSham
This simply means as follows:  They beheld Ishana, the consort of Uma, who is resplendent due to knowledge. By (virtue of) the Supreme Lord nArAyaNa denoted by “paraH”, by effort (of upAsaNa), he who brings forth intellect, ie Shiva (bhavaM), He is the possessor of wealth which is the knowledge of vishNu (iSvaram) who removes the ignorance of the devas (sharvam), who has no equal in the world (among living beings), who shines with the heat of tapas, the sinless.
Just an extra line added here. “parEna yatnEna” - this refers to the performance of bhakti yOga or upAsaNa by Rudra.
“parEna” shows that upAsaNa of Rudra is effected by the grace of paramAtma sriman nArAyaNa who is denoted by “para”, coupled with Rudra’s own efforts or physical and mental faculties (yatnEna) required for upAsaNa.
ekaṃ ca bhagavantaṃ te nānārūpam akalpayan ātmanaḥ pratirūpāṇi rūpāṇy atha mahātmani||
parasparasya cāpaśyan sarve paramavismitāḥ|| 41||
Meaning: They mentally conceived that One (in that he is the Self of all Beings), who is also bhagavAn (nArAyaNa as he has the 6 auspicious attributes) as having many forms, ie, is present in every form as the antaryAmin. They perceived every form of the Atman (i.e., Sriman Narayana their indweller) and subsequently perceived each others’ form in that great soul (mahAtman). They were thus highly amazed.
After describing Rudra, the next sloka talks about nArAyaNa. As mentioned before, first the devas, with perfected knowledge, beheld Rudra. Now, they meditate on nArAyaNa, the cause of Rudra.
Because, once the devas perceived the greatness of Rudra as a jnAni, accompanied by his wife Uma, etc., they now understand that the greatness of Rudra is nothing but a vibhUti of his antaryAmin, nArAyaNa. That sets the context of this sloka.
This sloka shows that the devas, after beholding Shiva, meditated on the status of Shiva as the vibhUti of Brahman in that he has nArAyaNa as his inner self. How so? Because this is a description taken straight from the katOpanishad which states:
Katopanishad (2-2-9):
agnir-yathaiko bhuvanam pratishTo rUpam rUpam pratirUpo babhUva / ekastathA sarva-bhUtAntarAtmA rUpam rUpam pratirUpo bahiSca //
Meaning: Just as fire, though one, having entered the world, has become such that its form is present in every form, similarly the One inner self of all entities has as its form (as antaryAmin) present in every form and outside too.
Just as the primordial fire which is part of the elements used in the tripartite combination is present in all material things, similarly the antaryAmin is present in every form and is outside in the sense it is independent of these forms. By saying “everything is the form of the antaryAmin”, it is meant everything is its body.
Who is this antaryAmin? The subalOpanishad says “eSha sarvabhUtAntarAtmA apahatapApma divyO deva ekO nArAyaNa:”
A pUrvapakSin may question why we cannot consider this slOka to say rudra is the paramAtma hailed as the “bhagavantaM”, the sarvAntarAtma? Well, firstly, in the sloka 39 – “tapo viśeṣair bahubhir yogaṃ yo veda...”- it is stated that Rudra himself had already realised nArAyaNa as paramAtma, the eternal means and the devas, including himself, as servants. That set the stage to first see Rudra, which they did in sloka 40 and then, to meditate on the antaryAmin, nArAyaNa, which they are doing now in sloka 41. Thus, this is a perfect continuity in saying nArAyaNa is the referent here.
Secondly, the same section says vishNu is the antaryAmin of rudra later on (viShNurAtma bhagavato bhavasya amitatejasaH) because of which Rudra accomplished the killing of asurAs. So, the context here is the physical presence of Rudra before the devas, his acting as a result of being impelled by his antaryAmin and hence any reference to all-pervasiveness would be out of context *unless* it is linked to the fact that Rudra’s glories and the acts that he is about to perform in this section are due to him being a vibhUti of nArAyaNa. And hence, the sarvAntaryAmitvam of nArAyaNa whereby he carries out acts for the good of the Universe via his vibhUtIs is lauded.
Thirdly, it is well known from shruti and smriti that rudra is born of nArAyaNa (eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsIt, na brahma, nEshAna; nArAyaNAt rudro jAyate). The same mahAbhArata (srI krishNa’s words) also calls Rudra as “nArAyaNatmaka” (having nArAyaNa for his inner Self). So, this clearly shows that Rudra is not the referent here.
Fourthly, even the Linga PurAna (Chapter 25) too states the following (spoken by Nandi, the Bull), identifying “bhagavAn” who pervades all as janArdhana:
sarvAtmAnam mahAtmAnam paramAtmAnam ISvaram ||te dRshTvA prAha vai brahmA bhagavantam janArdanam ||
Meaning: The indwelling self of all (sarvAtma), the great self as he as One pervades all these (mahAtma), that Self for whom there is no superior (paramAtma), is the Ruler as he can exercise his Will unimpeded (iSvara). They indeed perceive (that paramAtma) and speak of (him as) the Supreme Brahman (Brahma), BhagavAn (One with 6 auspicious attributes) and Janardhana.
The usage of “bhagavantaM” is thus a standard appellation to the all-pervasive self, nArAyaNa. It is to indicate that though nArAyaNa is the antaryAmin of various entities, he himself remains unchanged and undiminished with all 6 attributes of jnAna, bala, aishwarya, veerya, shakti and tejas. “neha nAnAsti kincana” – There is no diversity.
The Linga PurAna which addresses the antaryAMin as mahAtmA, bhagavAn and janArdhana thus shows that it is nArAyaNa alone and not Rudra being referred to here.
(Note that mahAtma, sarvAtma, etc when used for jivAs like rudra do not connote supremacy. The alternate meanings have already been explained. It is only when they are used to connote nArAyaNa that they denote supremacy).
Up till now, the devas had meditated on the essential nature of paramAtma as the inner self of all beings. Seeing Rudra, they meditated now on Rudra being the body of the indwelling paramAtma. Then they understood that all forms in the Universe, are the forms of paramAtma because he is their indweller. Thus, the tattva remains the same; the focus of meditation shifts to understand it clearly.
This Brahman, sriman nArAyaNa, is thus the great Self (mahAtmA) of all by virtue of itself (AtmanaH). In other words, he is not dependent on anyone and is the Atman of all by virtue of his own natural prowess; nobody is his antaryAmin.
What is the purpose of shifting meditation to focus on Rudra being a form of the antaryAmin nArAyaNa, as opposed to meditating on nArAyaNa as the indweller of Rudra? Because the act of destroying the asurAs is to be done by Rudra as the vibhUti of nArAyaNa; as paramAtmA acts through Rudra, the status of Rudra as the body of paramAtmA, who is dependent and acts according to the will of paramAtma, is to be known.
Having seen Rudra as the body of paramAtma sriman nArAyaNa and understanding EVERY entity in the Universe as the forms of paramAtma in that he is the Self of all, the devas saw each other's’ form in Him. In other words, they recognised that their nature was identical in that they were all the bodies of paramAtma, they all had the same paramAtma as their indweller and they all had the same nature of seshatva or servitude/dependence to that paramAtma, just like Rudra. Thus, they were not different from each other in their essential nature and in the nature of pervasiveness of paramAtma. This brahma dRshti was a cause for wonder.
sarvabhūtamayaṃ ceśaṃ tam ajaṃ jagataḥ patim devā brahmarṣayaś caiva śirobhir dharaṇīṃ gatāḥ|| 42||
Meaning: That entity (nArAyaNa) pervading all beings (is) also the Ruler of all (by virtue of pervasiveness), the Unborn (as he is disconnected from the effects of prakrti) is the Lord of the Universe. (Understanding this) the gods and the brahmarSis all touched the Earth with their heads.
Understanding the above truths very clearly, they worshipped Rudra. In other words, by the act of worship, they did not regard Rudra as paramAtma, but directed their obeisance to the antaryAmin of Rudra.
The presence of this slOka coupled with the non-diversity of all beings clearly shows that it is nArAyaNa who is being talked about as sarvAntarAtmA. This gives justification for the devas bowing before Rudra and hence, it stands proven that this is a reverence directed towards nArAyaNa only.
tān svasti vākyenābhyarcya samutthāpya ca śaṃkaraḥ brūta brūteti bhagavān smayamāno 'bhyabhāṣata 43||
Meaning: Shankara (he who causes happiness) venerated them with the word “svasti” and raising them from their bent postures. BhagavAn (Rudra) addressed them smilingly, saying, 'Tell us the object of your visit.'
Here, Shiva is called “Shankara”. “Sham sukham karOtiiti Shankara”. He causes happiness by doing good to the world and bestowing the knowledge of vishNu. It must be noted that the devas and rishis understood the tattvas when Rudra appeared before them; thus he acted as their guru. For his part, he considered the devas and rishis as jnAnIs as well, so he venerated them by saying “svasti” or “may you live long, may auspiciousness prevail upon you”. Because Brahma, his father and guru, was also among the devas assembled before him.
“BhagavAn” is a term used for respect as explained by parAshara maharShi in vishNu purAna. It only denotes the 6 attributes when used for sriman nArAyaNa, otherwise it just is the equivalent of “respected one” for devas like Shiva.
tryambakeNAbhyanuj~nAtA stataste.asvasthachetasaH |
namo namaste.astu vibhotataityabruvan bhavam || 44||
Meaning: Given assurance (of long life and auspiciousness) by the Three-eyed One, they whose minds were uneasy, now became confident of bhagavad anugraha and their fears were dispelled, then said these words unto him, 'Our repeated salutations to you, O nArAyaNa (the indweller of Rudra) known as “Bhava” (The cause of the Universe).
Shiva is called three eyed to signify that he possesses the knowledge of vishNu. The three eyes symbolise knowledge of the three vedas. Or, it can mean he has accomplished feats like the burning of kAma with his third eye, so he is very much detached from material attachments and hence is a jnAni.
Whenever a mahAtma, who has knowledge of Brahman, says words like “svasti” – “may you live long, may you be auspicious” – it implies that the favour of bhagavAn himself is upon them (as bhagavAn loves those whom his devotees love). The devas who until now were afraid of the asurAs, now became confident of bhagavad anugraha and their fears were dispelled.
The second part of the sloka begins the stuti proper. “bhava” refers to nArAyaNa here.
Here we come to the actual stuti. Having read all of the above, it must be clear that the stuti is only directed to sriman nArAyaNa, the antaryAmin of rudra. I will elaborate on it. I am not going to post lengthy explanations, but only translate the stuti since it is fairly straightforward. The source of my understanding comes from srI parAshara bhattar’s bhAshya on vishNu sahasranAma primarily and other sources secondarily. So, even if I haven’t mentioned it, many names in the stuti are explained as they occur in the sahasranAma by Bhattar.
Let us begin. It must also be noted that the stuti seems to address srI Lakshmi narasimha, who, as has been proven earlier, is sankarshaNa rUpi and the antaryAmi rUpam of rudra.
namo devAtidevAya dhanvine chAti manyave |
prajApatimakhaghnAya prajApatibhirIDyase || 45||

Meaning: Salutations to (sriman nArAyaNa, the antaryAmin of rudra) the possessor of auspicious attributes (devAtideva) unique and excelling all others, to the holder of the bow symbolizing the mind (dhanvine), to the One who is the sacrifice or the means to liberation (manyavE), to the destroyer of the actions of mind which rules the senses (prajApati makhagnAya), to the One who is adored (via meditation) by those who rule over their senses (prajapatibhrIDyase)

namaH stutAya stutyAya stUyamAnAya mRRityave |
vilohitAya rudrAya nIlagrIvAya shUline || 46||

Meaning: To the One who alone is worthy of praise as he alone has auspicious attributes (stutAya), to the One who is the form of that praise as he alone blesses us to praise him (stutyA), to the One who is being praised by everyone for the attainment of their desires, to One who is death to the deaths of his devotees, ie, he ends their cycle of births and deaths (mRityu). To (Lord Narasimha) who is reddish colored (vilohitAya), the Lord who drives away the misery of the cycle of births and deaths (rudrAya), the One whose throat is black, ie, his open mouth inspires fear (nIlagrIvAya), the One who is armed with Death against Hiranyakasipu, ie the enemies of devotees (shUline)

amoghAya mRRigAkShAya pravarAyudhayodhine |
durvAraNAya shukrAya brahmaNe brahmachAriNe || 47||

Meaning: To One who grants the fruits desired to those like PrahlAda who worship him (AmoghAya), the One with eyes of anger at Hiranyakasipu (mRgAkshA),the One who fights with the most excellent of weapons, ie, his nails(pravarAyudhayOdhine). To the irresistible One (durvAraNaya), the One of lucid mind that thinks of protecting his devotees (shukrAya), He who has as his body the individual selves and matter (brahmaNe), who lives (ie, is revealed) in the Vedas (brahmachAriNe)

IshAnAyAprameyAya niyantre charma vAsase |
taponityAya pi~NgAya vratine kRRittivAsase || 48||

Meaning: To One who is the controller of all (ishAnAya), One who is beyond the senses(apraymeyAya), One who is of the form of the restrained senses (niyantrine) who is the (self of) the individual self that resides in the hide, ie, the body(charmavAsa). To the One who is ever of the nature of knowledge to lead devotees out of the cycle of births and deaths (tapOnityAya), who has taken a vow to protect those who resort to him (vratine), the golden One (pingAya) as he is always associated with effulgence of Sri mahAlakshmi who is responsible for bringing these attributes of his to the surface, who abides with affection in the body covered with skin near the individual self (kRttivAsa).

kumArapitre tryakShAya pravarAyudhadhAriNe |
prapannArti vinAshAya brahmadviTsa~NghaghAtine || 49||

Meaning: The One who is the root cause (pitR) of that (knowledge) which destroys obstacles, ie, sins (kumAra), the Eye of the three vedas (tryakSHaYA), who bears the foremost of weapons, ie, the pAnchajanya which destroys ignorance (pravarAyudhadhArine). To the destroyer of the distress of those surrendered to him (prapannArti vinAshAya), to the destroyer of those opposed to dharma (brahmadviTsanghaghAtine)

Note 1: kumara = ku + mAra. That which destroys obstacles, ie, pApa karmas that hinder experience of Brahman, which is knowledge. “pitR” – refers to akAra, the root cause. “akArasyavisnoH” and hence it refers to bhagavAn as the root cause of such knowledge. If “kumara” occurs alone without pitrE, it also directly denotes bhagavAn as the destroyer of obstacles.

Note 2: He destroys the distress of devotees by appearing before them. Their distress is only that they cannot see him and enjoy him; so his mere appearance is enough. This is “paritrAnAya sAdhunAm”. Destroying those opposed to this dharma, ie, the experience of bhagavAn, is “vinAshAya ca duskRtam”. To allow his devotees to enjoy him properly, he needs to remove the weeds, namely the asurAs who try to obstruct the devotees from their experience. This is explained by srI rAmAnuja in the gitabhAshya.

vanaspatInAMpataye narANAM pataye namaH |
gavAM cha patayenityaM yaj~nAnAM patayenamaH || 50||

Meaning: To the master of those who possess desire or longing, ie, the devotees (vanaspatInAMpatayE), the master of auspicious attributes known as “naras” which are longed for by devotees (narAnAmpatayE), also To the lord of those who have been conquered by the beauty of his form and attributes (gayAm ca patayE), to one who is ever possessed of sacrifices, ie, always and ever performing acts for his devotees (yajnAnAmpatayE)

namo.astute sasainyAya tryambakAyogratejase |
mano vAk karmabhir deva tvAM prapannAn bhajasvanaH || 51||

Meaning: To One who is at the head of those devotees who are always associated with him (sasainyA), to the One who is the foundation of the three worlds (trayambaka), to One who has the most excellent power to overcome enemies (agratejasE). By thought, word and deed, you, who are associated with Sri Mahalakshmi and hence called “Deva”, are worshipped by those surrendered to you.

“shraddhAya devO devatvam asnute” – Sruti says he becomes a deva or one endowed with vAtsalyam (affection) and other attributes only due to association of srI mahAlakshmi. She precipitates his grace in our favour.

That concludes the stuti.
After this, some words of praise for Rudra occur after this section, spoken by Brahma in the spirit of “lokahitaM vacaH” (which is explained below). The Kumbhakona recension is a bit different, so I have explained the two versions separately:
pitRdevarSisaMghebhyo vare datte mahAtmanA satkṛtya SaMkaraM prAha brahmA lokahitaM vacaH
Meaning: After the fears of the devas, rishis and pitrs had been dispelled by the noble soul (Rudra), Brahma, offering obeisances to Shankara, spoke words (in a manner) agreeable to the Vedas.
Note the word “lokahitaM” – “loka” refers to shAstra, which is the veda. “lokahita” – in a manner agreeable to the shAstra.
This is because Brahma is currently bowing to his son Rudra and is going to praise the latter. The usage of “lokahita” shows that Brahma is doing all this in a manner conducive to the Veda, ie, he is saluting the antaryAmin of Rudra, namely, nArAyaNa and is not going against the Veda by worshipping Rudra as supreme. That is key here.
tavātisargād deveśa prājāpatyam idaṃ padam mayādhitiṣṭhatā datto dānavebhyo mahān varaḥ tān atikrānta maryādān nānyaḥ saṃhartum arhati  tvām ṛte bhūtabhavyeśa tvaṃ hy eṣāṃ praty arir vadhe sa tvaṃ deva prapannānāṃ yācatāṃ ca divaukasām   kuru prasādaṃ deveśa dānavāñ jahi śūlabhṛt
Meaning: Brahma says: O Ruler of the devas! By your consent, I have the position of Lordship over all beings. By virtue of this position, I have given boons to the Daityas. None else other than you can destroy these transgressors. you are the Lord of the past, present and future (as you have pervaded all entities as in the inner controller at all times and states).  You indeed are competent to destroy the enemies of those devas, who are residing in the celestial abodes, who have surrendered to you asking for protection.  Show your grace to them, O Ruler of the Devas, and kill the Asuras, O bearer of grief or death!
All this denotes the inner controller of Rudra, namely nArAyaNa. This was made clear by the use of “loka hita vacaH” mentioned earlier. Brahma is speaking in accordance to the shAstra, and directly addresses the indwelling nArAyaNa here. There are two ways to take it as referring to nArAyaNa:
  1. Mode of PratIkOpAsaNa or meditation of Rudra as the inseparable attribute of nArAyaNa - The names “dEvEsha”, “sUlabrt”, can be taken as “Rudra, is Devesha,  sUlabrt since that is the condition of nArAyaNa who has him as his body”. Since the body is the inseparable attribute of the self, Rudra is the inseparable attribute of nArAyaNa who is devesha, rtam and sUlabrt and thus it can be said Rudra is in this condition.
  2. Alternatively, the meditation is directly on nArAyaNa as the indweller of Rudra bypassing the need to meditate on Rudra. By both ways, it is bhagavAn who is the referent of this praise.
  3. “bhUtabhAvyESa” – This is a reference to the all-pervading nature. As he is “SarvAntaryAmin”, he is the Lord of the past, present and future. The reference to all-pervasiveness clearly also indicates this praise of Rudra refers to the antaryAmin. “RtaM satyaM param brahma” and “viShvashambhuvaM” according to the nArAyaNa sUkta reinforce this.
“sUlabrt” – Taken by using method 1), it refers to nArAyaNa, who has the trident bearing Rudra as his inseparable attribute. Alternatively, using method 2), It refers to nArAyaNa, who bears “sUla” that is death or grief for the asurAs. Either way, it only denotes bhagavAn.
A slight modification is seen in the Kumbhakonam recension where instead of “lokahita vacah”, we see “lokapitAmahah” – an adjective of Brahma. It does not change the meaning.
pitR^idevarShisa~Nghebhyo.abhaye datte mahAtmanA. satkR^itya shaMkaraM prAha brahmA lokapitAmahaH..imAnyasuradurgANi lokAMstrInAkramanti hi. kashcha prajApatirghorAMstAnsrarvA~njahi mA chiram..varAtisargAddevesha prAjApatyamidaM param. mayA.adhitiShThatA datto dAnavebhyo mahAnvaraH.. nAstyanyo yudhi teShAM vai nihantA iti naH shrutam. tAnatikrAntamaryAdAnnAnyaH saMhartumarhati.  tvAmR^ite sarvabhUtesha tvaM hyeShAM tvaM deva prapannAnAM yAchatAM cha divokasAm. kuru prasAdaM varada dAnavA~njahi saMyuge.. tvatprasAdAjjagatsarvaM sukhamaidhata mAnada. sharaNyastvaM hi devAnAM vayaM tvAM sharaNaM gatAH.. 8-25-(1-6)
Meaning: After the fears of the devas, rishis and pitrs had been dispelled by the noble soul (Rudra), Brahma, the Grandsire of the worlds, offering obeisances to Shankara, spoke  -O Ruler of the devas! By the foremost act of consent (by nArAyaNa), I have the highest position of Lordship over all beings. By virtue of this position, I have given boons to the Daityas. None else other than you can battle with and punish these asurAs, we have heard. None other than you can destroy these transgressors. You are the Controller of all beings (as you have pervaded all beings as the inner controller and you are pervading Rudra as well). You are competent to destroy the enemies of those devas, who are residing in the celestial abodes, who have surrendered to you asking for protection.  Show your grace to them, O Bestower of Boons, and kill the Asuras! By your grace the entire Universe attains bliss. You indeed are resorted to by the devas. We surrender to you.  
Note that despite the fact that “lokahita vacaH” has changed to “loka pitamahaH”, the meaning does not change, ie, all this is still addressed to nArAyaNa. This is because of the usage of “tvaM sarvabhUtEsha” – a reference of the Lord being the controller of all Beings, which in turn is because of his “sarvAntaryAmitva”. This is mentioned to indicate that the Supreme Brahman pervades all, and here he is pervading Rudra as his indweller, and hence is alone being referred to by these terms.
Therefore, whichever recension is taken, the meaning remains the same.
Then the incident of Tripura samhAra is described. Here, it clearly mentions that shiva, by the aid of nArAyaNa, as his antaryAmin, destroyed the tripurAsuras.
The above should clarify two things: 1) How genuine stutis differ from bogus interpolations like shiva sahasranAma in that the former is logical and fits in the context of mahAbhArata as opposed to the latter which have nonsensical meanings and seem out of place as well as clash with the other sections of mahAbhArata, 2) How even in the genuine stutis of devas like Indra, Shiva and Brahma, it is only vishNu who is extolled.


  1. Excellent one. Well explained.

  2. Explanation looks highly convoluted and contrived. And I am saying this as some one who worships Narayana alone. This is as good as those explanations that attribute the Narayana suktam to tripurasundari.

    1. And kindly tell me how a proper application of sAmAnAdhIkaraNyam and sharIrAtma bhAva, which is discussed in the vedArtha sangraha and other works, perfectly in line with the known rules, is equivalent to the nonsense spouted by those articles equating tripura sundarI to nArAyaNa, when the latter uses bogus upanishads and a complete lack of scholarship to write such things?

      And especially when the section itself admits this by the verse "viShNurAtmA bhagavatO bhavasya amitatejasaH"?

      Do not come here with bland statements without elaboration using proper proof. If you have any objections, raise it specifically and we will address it. Otherwise, you are free to parrot it elsewhere.

    2. Additionally, if you are "someone who worships nArAyaNa alone", you might as well answer a few questions, seeing as you come with idiotic comments that have no proof or introduction:

      1) Which vaishnava darshana you belong to? Since advaita is no longer vaishnava, there is only vishishtadvaita, dvaita, gaudiya that are possible.

      2) If you do not belong to any of these, are you some lone ranger who has accepted nArAyaNa paratva all by himself/herself? If so, based on what proof? Since you think "sharIrAtma bhAva" is convoluted, and you do not subscribe to madhva"s sarva sabda vAchyatva or the gaudiyas' achintya bhEda abhEda, then I am afraid you have to be clear where you stand.

      3) When you say you worship "nArAyaNa alone", does it mean you consider him as the supreme, or as your iShta? If its the latter, are you a modern day hari-hara aikya vAdi?

      4) If you "worship nArAyaNa alone", so far, why have your only 2 comments been the following - "this explanation looks convoluted" and "mahAbhArata says pasupata religion is agreeable to shruti".

      Seems quite telling to the contrary in my opinion, because we have seen several true vaishnavas introduce themselves. We have ourselves another one here, in my opinion. Now, either reveal your philosophy and provide proper backbone to your arguments, or stay quiet.

    3. You cannot call all comments that you do not agree with as idiotic. If you keep using such words, no matter how much you worship Narayana, rest assured, you will not make much progress in spiritual sadhana. I leave it to you to choose your language. Sorry if I hurt you, but that is the truth. Now, some of your questions, seem more like an interrogation, but I will answer them below.

      You ask me to tell my philosophy. Sri Venkateshwara is our family deity and I worshipped him alone from childhood, not due to any esoteric philosophical reasons but because I am naturally attracted to him. Though I cannot compare myself in anyway to Sri Goda devi, my case is like her devotion to Sri Ranganatha on a very very minute scale. Having said that, philosophically, I find Sri Adi Shankara to be most appealing, though I believe that Sri Ramanuja's commentary on Brahmasutra Bhashya is superior as it is more in tune with the spirit of the sutras. But Sri Adi Shankara is more faithful to the upanishads. You are free to disagree with me. I found it interesting to note that Sri Adi Shankara's Ishwara was also Narayana only, though he was an absolutist in and out. So, I stand with Sri Adi Shankara. I guess this answers your first question.

      No, I am not a hari-hara aikya-vAdin. I consider Narayana alone as supreme. But hari-hara aikya vAdins are not modern creations. They have been there from long back, and you can see them most notably in the Mahabharata and the Harivamsa. I guess this answers your third question. I will answer your other two questions in the next post.

    4. Your second question, I have already answered when I answered your first question. I stand with Sri Adi Shankara.

      Your fourth question is strange. There is no rule that one who accepts the supremacy of Narayana cannot post a particular sort of comments. Is Aryamaa now going to decide how worshippers of Narayana should behave or conduct themselves? I am sure even you wont say this.

      I call your explanations convoluted and contrived because there is nothing natural about them. The straightforward way to translate a text is to render their meaning directly into the translated language. When the meaning is not clear, you quote other texts to clarify the meaning. But when the meaning is clear, you might quote texts to reinforce the meaning. You don't quote texts to change the meaning to suit your convenience. I will give you a case study. In the Satapatha brahmana, it is mentioned that Purusha-Narayana desired to surpass all beings and he performed a sacrifice (purushamedha) to do so. Having done the purushamedha, he became supreme. And whoever performs the purushamedha also becomes one with everything like Narayana. I can quote this text to show that brahman was not brahman always and that brahman himself had to perform a sacrifice to become brahman. And what makes us so sure that Shiva did not perform this sacrifice? He could have already performed this sacrifice and attained the status of brahman. So could have many other jIvas.

    5. // If you keep using such words, no matter how much you worship Narayana, rest assured, you will not make much progress in spiritual sadhana. I leave it to you to choose your language. //

      This is simply "trash talk" and I completely condemn the above statement. Calling an argument as idiotic is not akin to making personal comments.

      // Having said that, philosophically, I find Sri Adi Shankara to be most appealing, though I believe that Sri Ramanuja's commentary on Brahmasutra Bhashya is superior as it is more in tune with the spirit of the sutras. But Sri Adi Shankara is more faithful to the upanishads. //

      So, you are saying that you find a dichotomy within the scriptures themselves. Typical nonsense influenced by European indologists/ignorant Indian "neo-vedanta" scholars. That is a disastrous position to take for your side. Be that as it may, but as Vedantins we hold (as do Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva) that there is no contradiction between the Brahma Sutras and the Shruti.

      // No, I am not a hari-hara aikya-vAdin. I consider Narayana alone as supreme. But hari-hara aikya vAdins are not modern creations. They have been there from long back, and you can see them most notably in the Mahabharata and the Harivamsa. //

      So you are now saying that shrI vedavyAsa is a Hari-hara aikya vAdin! Look at the contradiction you have created:

      1) You believe in Narayana's supremacy, and you are not Hari-hara aikya vAdin.
      2) Shankara holds vyAsa and mahAbhArata as high authorities.
      3) Shankara accepts Narayana's supremacy, and you are with him on that.
      4) vyAsa is a hari-hara aikya vAdin, and he says hari and hara are aikya in the Mahabharata/Harivamsa.
      5) Shankara says Brahma Sutras explain the Shruti to settle apparent contradictions.
      6) You say one Acharya is "more in line with the Brahma Sutras", while the other is "more faithful to the upanishads".
      7) You still stand with Shankara.

      Do you see where this is going? (A rhetorical question, actually. As I said, I will not approve any more comments from you if they are going to be all the same over and over again. Hence do not bother wasting your time to respond if you are again going to reply with comments that make zero sense).

  3. No more comments will be entertained from our guest Anonymous, who somehow has founded the most hilarious "darshana" by himself - a school of thought that considers the rishis to be hari-hara aikya vAdis, and accepts only Shankara bhAshya on upanishads and srI rAmAnuja's Sri bhAshya!!

    But I will conclude this with some points which are mot directed towards Anonoymous, but may interest the neutral readers.

    //The straightforward way to translate a text is to render their meaning directly into the translated language.//

    Which is what I did. Sanskrit to English. The straightforward meaning of this text is that vishNu is being praised as the antaryAmin of shiva.

    Any straightforward meaning involves sAmAnAdhikaraNya only. For instance, when you say "I am a boy, the straightforward meaning in vedAnta is that "I" should indicate the sentient self inseparably attached to the body of a boy.

    If you take "I" as merely qualifying the insentient body, it loses it's meaning. So you have no choice but to admit that a straightforward meaning of "I" extends right to the jivAtman, the inner self.

    Similarly when the rishis say "you rudra, are the paramAtma", it refers to the innemost self of rudra - sriman nArAyaNa qualified by the jivAtma shiva and his body. Just as the insentient body cannot be referred to without a reference to the sentient self that supports it, similarly the sentient self cannot be referred to without a reference to paramAtma that supports it.

    A question may be asked why this is not practiced in cases like "shiva is jivAtma". Reply is that even here it would be logical to say "paramAtma, qualified by shiva, is a jivAtma (in that state)". But since this attribute is not inherent to paramAtma and acquired by inseparable association with shiva the jivAtma, there is no need to refer to paramAtma here in common parlance.

    SrI rAmAnuja thus proves that sharIrAtma bhAva is the straightforward meaning and the actual convoluted meaning is attributing every sentence to the jivAtman. He clearly establishes this to refute Adi Shankara's so-called "direct" interpretation of aham brahmAsmi and shows that the advaitin's interpretation of this vakya is the consulted one.

    //When the meaning is not clear, you quote other texts to clarify the meaning. But when the meaning is clear, you might quote texts to reinforce the meaning. You don't quote texts to change the meaning to suit your convenience.//

    And how do you know the meaning is clear? Based on your own interpretation of what seems clear to you? Then, that too is an "interpretation".

    A section which the rishis supposedly praising shiva according to you, also in the same lines mention vishnu is the antaryAmi of shiva by which the latter is victorious and also hails brahma as senior to shiva. And your laughable "direct meaning" of all this is that Sri veda vyAsa was a hari-hara aikya vAdi! Hilarious!

    And I will comment on that "case study" shortly. As usual, you have misinterpreted that satapatha verse.

    If you spent half the time reading this blog as you have obviously spent perusing sacred texts and that useless Mahapashupatastra blog, you probably would have been wiser (not because of us, but because this blog contains works of great acharyas). But HBB and myself have had enough of your comments.

  4. //In the Satapatha brahmana, it is mentioned that Purusha-Narayana desired to surpass all beings and he performed a sacrifice (purushamedha) to do so. Having done the purushamedha, he became supreme. And whoever performs the purushamedha also becomes one with everything like Narayana. I can quote this text to show that brahman was not brahman always and that brahman himself had to perform a sacrifice to become brahman. And what makes us so sure that Shiva did not perform this sacrifice? He could have already performed this sacrifice and attained the status of brahman. So could have many other jIvas.//

    Another new darshana. Apparently Brahman is a post that anyone can attain. See how absurd you sound.

    Now coming to that mantra. Let us first see the sacred texts/Griffith/whomever interpretation and then analyse. It is this:

    puruṣo ha nārāyaṇo'kāmayata atitiṣṭheyaṃ sarvāṇi bhūtānyahamevedaṃ sarvaṃ syāmiti sa etam puruṣamedham pañcarātram yajñakratumapaśyattamāharattenāyajata teneṣṭvātyatiṣṭhatsarvāṇi bhūtānīdaṃ sarvamabhavadatitiṣṭhati sarvāṇi bhūtānīdaṃ sarvam bhavati ya evam vidvānpuruṣamedhena yajate yo vaitadevam veda" ( Sathapatha Brahmana 13:6:1:1)

    Meaning given by Sacred Texts/Indologists: "Purusha Narayana desired, 'Would that I overpassed all beings ! would that I alone were everything- here (this universe) !' He beheld this 'five days' sacrificial performance, the Purushamedha and took it and performed offering therewith ; and having performed offering therewith, he overpassed all beings, and became everything here. And, verily, he who, knowing this, performs the Purushamedha, or who even knows this, overpasses all beings, and becomes everything here."

    Obviously this alludes to the purusha of the purusha sUkta, so this meaning makes no sense. As the iSavasya upanishad says, Brahman overtakes all even while staying still etc. Furthermore, the puruSha of the purusha sUkta is verily Parabrahman; and Brahman is not a post that can be attained. Several other statements claim Brahman has lordship by nature; so why does he need to do a yajna to attain lordship? The texts also state no-one can attain the mahima of vishNu, thus ruling out the possibility of you or me doing a yajna to attain equality or identity with him.

    Cont'd. ..

  5. Correct Meaning of the mantra is given below:

    The puruSha, nArAyaNa, desired, “I want to govern all beings (ie, I want all to resort to me). I alone want to be everything (ie, I alone want to be propitiated as the indweller of all). He perceived (ie, saw as a rSi) the sacrifice (kratu) of self-surrender (yajna), the sacrifice of the jIvAtma which is self-surrender (puruShamedha) as the fruit of the knowledge of the 5 shAstras (pancharAtram). He (as the inner self of the jIvAtma) performed the (self-surrender) and having offered (the jIvAtma in self-surrender), he governed over all beings (as they resorted only to him) and became everything (ie, propitiated by all as the indweller). And indeed, he who performs this “puruShamedha” which is the sacrifice of the jivAtma in self-surrender, or he who merely knows, ie, meditates on the truth, rules over all beings (as he has no other master and all consider him as a jnAni) and becomes everything here (as he identifies himself as the body of nArAyaNa, who is also the indweller of all).

    Explanation will be given on the next comment.

    Cont'd. .

  6. Explanation cont'd from above:

    The meaning of the mantra is lucid. Narayana is identified clearly as the puruSha.This Narayana, who is paramAtma, wanted to rule all. Meaning, he wanted all to realize that he alone is the ruler and to resort to him, rather than resorting to other deities/petty rulers, etc. This is linked to the gita verses where krishNa condemns worship of other devatas as “avidhi pUrvakam”.

    Narayana wanted to be everything, meaning, he wanted everyone to realize he alone is the enjoyer of all offerings as he is the indweller of all. As he has everything as his body, collectively, “I am all” refers to body and self referred to as one entity by virtue of sAmAnAdhikaraNyam).

    What does he do to get all jIvAs to resort to him and worship him exclusively? He reveals the sacrifice (kratu) of prapatti or self-surrender, which is the sacrifice (yajna) of the jIvAtma. Since a jIva surrendering to paramAtma offers himself as a property of paramAtma, it is called a sacrifice. In the mahAnArAyaNa Upanishad, nyAsa vidyA or prapatti is metaphorically described as a sacrifice.

    This “yajnakratu” was seen by nArAyaNa as the “pancharAtra”. Meaning, nArAyaNa “saw” in the sense of propagating the shAstra which advocated the knowledge of prapatti as the ultimate fruit. The definition of “pancharAtra” is given in the pushkara samhita as follows:

    purANaM vedavedAntaM tathA.anyat sAMkhyayogajam | pa~nchaprakAraM vij~neyaM yatra rAtryAyate.abjaja |phalotkarShavashenaiva pA~ncharAtramiti smR^itam || [pauShkara saMhitA]

    The five shAstras are purAnAs, vedA, vedAnta, samkhyA and yOga. The knowledge which is the pre-eminent fruit of these shAstras is pancharAtra.

    Hence, the satapatha brahmaNa says that nArAyaNa saw “yajnakratu” or self-surrender is the fruit of these shAstras which he propagated.

    Once the Jivas surrendered to him, nArAyaNa indeed became their sole refuge and hence governed everything. They did not resort to other devatas or means. He also became everything, ie, the jIvAs realized he was the indweller of everyone and directed all their activities to his enjoyment.

    The surrendered jIvas also became rulers as they no longer served any other than nArAyaNa and they themselves were served by all others due to their status as jnAnIs. And these jIvas became everything, meaning, they saw themselves and all others as having nArAyaNa as their innerself, thus attaining “sama-dRshti”.

    “puruShamEdha” – means “sacrifice of the puruSha” – here, “puruSha” denotes the jIvAtma. pramAnAs for this will be given later. Hence, “puruShamEdha” denotes self-surrender. Alternatively, it can be interpreted as “knowledge of the puruSha or jIvAtman”, since prapatti is a mental act of realizing one’s true nature and does not require physical action. One more meaning is that “puruShamEdha” can mean “sacrifice of paramAtma” as he undertakes all efforts on behalf of the chEtanas. Or, it can mean “knowledge of paramAtma” which simply implies understanding his nature as the means.

    The mantra ends by saying that “he who performs this puruShamedha or who merely knows…”. This is because prapatti is chaitanya kRt. The realization of one’s true nature is itself prapatti. Everything that follows, like prostrations or “nama:”, is not a sAdhana, but an expression of that realization. Hence, it is not necessary to actually perform it, rather, mere knowledge is enough.

    That should do for now.

  7. On this adiyen have an interesting thought to add. Purusha sukta says purusha remains 75% in His native form and did a sacrifice on 25% of His divya rupam to create everything. Satapada brahmana and the like redact this 25% sacrifice. This sacrifice is pArAmArthica change as He is unchanging and eternal. This purusha is equated to nArAyAna and vishNu in 'adayasambhuta prithivyai rasAscha' sruthi. We can say purusha did purushamEda using 25% of his divya swarupam. In purushamEda the purusha is freed at the end - similarly Purusha at the end of purushsmEda is left free and does not undergo any real change. Such is the beauty of the purusha suktam and its redactions.

    1. With due respect, that is not the interpretation our acharyas give for the purusha sUkta. There are no divisions or distinctions in paramAtma.

    2. May I, adiyen, kindly request you to post srivaishnava version of purusha suktam translation? Thank you.

    3. We are actually working on an article on the Purusha Suktam. It will be posted in a couple of months.

  8. One more thought - adiyen has been wondering about the origin vishNu paratvam myself and have traced it atreya brahmana etc. as I indicated in some posts here. Purusha, vishNu and nArAyaNa and Lashmi pathi can be correlated easily when we read purusha suktam, uttara nArAyAnam and nArAyAnA suktam along with upanishads. Vaishnava agamas and puranas derive their energies from these sources and the related material and the nuggets of ancient satvic thoughts embedded in the vedas. Vaidikas cannot miss this sAtvic paratvam after adequate reflection.

    1. Dear Swamin,

      Again, I need to respectfully point out that this is not our position, since it is not our Purvacharyas'. Please do not think we are picking on you or personally attacking. These days, it is important to distance oneself from potentially harmful ideas. I request you to consider the following in this spirit alone.

      Saying that Vishnu Paratvam has an origin would amount to accepting that Vishnu Paratvam was a new idea introduced by someone or some text written at some point. The tone of the statement is not compatible with vEda apauruSheyatvam.

      Secondly, saying that you have "traced it to aitareya brAhmaNa etc." sounds like Vishnu Paratvam is found only in traces in the shruti. However, AzhvArs, AcAryas, and Rishis have shown that the purport of the entire body of the Veda is Vishnu-paratva only, from beginning to middle to end. Of course, it takes a lot to interpret the entire body of shruti correctly and it is not obvious to someone not knowledgeable in shAstra. But that is a different matter.

      And finally, "nuggets of ancient sAttvic thought embedded in Vedas" --> This sounds like the Veda is mostly a mixed bag and sattva is found only here and there.

      In summary, your sentences seem to give the uncomfortable position that Vaishnavism developed because of a special interest group and they grew by finding support in the shruti. All this is not acceptable as per our Rishis, AzhwArs and AcAryas, in my humble opinion.

  9. Right. Brahmam is one and the whole - there are no divisions. Yet the prAkriti can be explained only by the changeless change that the brahmam beautifully displays. We can say that all of this is Krishna Leela!

    1. Thank you for your comment. One should study and understand Brahma Sutra and Gita Bhashyas of Swami Ramanuja to get a clear understanding of this subject.

  10. Where can we find srivaishnava interpretation of Purusha suktam? Can you please kindly add it to this blog?

    1. See my answer above. Sri Rangaramanuja Muni has authored an entire commentary. Moreover, Sri Engalazhwan has explained the Purusha Suktam in the commentary on Vishnu Purana, where Dhruva worships Vishnu. This stuti itself is an upabR^iMhaNa on the Suktam.

  11. Adiyen is interested in srivaishnava vyakyanams for the following: Purusha Suktam ( mentioned above), IsavAsyopanisad ( include Sri Desikan's commentary also if available ), mahopanishad ( full commentary and verses ). Please add them to this site at your earliest convenience. Also gradually add rare granthas as you see fit.

    1. Kindly note that we are doing this blog in our leisure time. We may not have the time for all that. Furthermore, publishing Srivaishnava granthams exclusively is not the focus of this blog.

    2. Dear Anonymous,
      Isavasyopanishad commentary by Swami Vedanta Desikar, English Introduction, translation and notes by Dr. K.C.Varadachari and Dr.T.Tatacharya at the following link.

    3. I would recommend another translation. DT Tatacharya was a bit of a rebel in our sampradaya and his translations have been regarded as error prone by Sri vaishnava view and of the past.

      He also claimed that Sri vedAnta desikan's explanation of Sri bhAshya was "asamanjasam" when quoting the latter's tattva tika - not something that Vidwans of his time took kindly, he was lambasted for it. But people forget over a period of time.

      I should know, my grandparents knew him well as he was a distant relation. Ironic?

      KC Varadachari is also more of a "free thinker" than a Sri vaishnava Vidwan.

      If you want to study those translations, go ahead but do not draw conclusions from them about the sampradaya.

    4. Let me know if you find anything not compatible with sri sampradayam in it, as you may be better judge than me.
      Not sure where I find more authentic commentary yet. Of course it exists, but hard to locate. Sri Desikan's commentary and its translation in this book seem to largely scholarly.

    5. I am sorry, but we don't have the time to go through it. Just let you know the reputation of the translators for your sake.

      And this blog, as mentioned earlier, is not for general topics, so we shall close the subject now. New articles shall be uploaded soon.

  12. Dear all,

    I recently happened upon some blabberings of Veerashaiva where he attempts to “refute” this article by claiming that we are “bigots” who are “denying shiva” his stuti and ascribing it to Narasimha. Well, aside from the fact that Veerashaiva ignores that the same section declares that vishNu is the antaryAmin of shiva (viShNurAtmA bhagavatO bhavasya amitatejasaH), all he does to “refute” our interpretation is the following:

    1) Quote meaningless interpolated verses from the anuShasanika parva
    2) Quote tAmasa sections of the Padma purANa, Aditya purANa and linga purANa on sadA-shiva-tUriya-vAda. Note that the Padma purANa, despite being predominantly sAttvika, has rAjasika and tAmasika sections also.
    3) Try to claim shrI rAma has karma.

    It might be a bit late, but let me answer the most relevant objections Veerashaiva can come up with. We can ignore his quotations from the tAmasika purANAs, they have no meaning.

    //There is no way one can save Narayana from being referred to by the above ‘stuti’ since the blogger has admitted that Rudra is an ‘inseparable’ vibhūti/attribute of Narayana. There is no rule that the ‘negative’ aspects of Śiva cannot apply to Narayana.//

    This shows the Veerashaiva has not even understood what being an inseparable attribute or vibhUti means. “vibhUti” means “property under one’s control”. Thus, Rudra is a vibhUti of nArAyaNa.

    Secondly, he is the inseparable attribute of nArAyaNa on account of being his body. “yasya Atma sharIra:” – Anything that is a body, that is dependent on another for existence is also an inseparable attribute in the sense that it has no separate existence from the self.

    Of course the negative attributes of Rudra, such as his tamO guNa, him being devoid of karma, etc can be called as attributes of nArAyaNa, because that is the condition of nArAyaNa who has Rudra as his body. Who denied that? However, as these are attributes of nArAyaNa’s body (Rudra), acquired by nArAyaNa on association with the body (Rudra), it does not violate shruti passages which declare nArAyaNa is devoid of bad attributes.

    For example, we say “Jack is tall”. “Jack” refers to the Atma in Jack’s body. Can the Atma be tall or short, or is it affected by tallness or shortness? No. However, we can say it is tall because it is associated with a tall body. So while the attribute belongs to the body, it is ascribed to the Atma due to inseparable association.

    //This is because ‘inseparable’ means that which has not come to inhere in Narayana at a later time but inheres in him from anādi. If some attribute attaches to Narayana only anew, then Narayana will have to be held a ‘sāvayava dravyam’, an assemblage of parts, that will definitely be destroyed on disintegration of the parts and it will be jaḍa. If a vibhūti is a new arrival then there is the inevitable possibility of its leaving: ‘संयोगाः विप्रयोगान्ताः’ [all that conjoins will remain so only till they disjoin] is a rule that is cited by Shankaracharya in the BG 15.7. And if something is ‘inseparable’ it cannot be anything but the very svarūpam of that locus, like the heat of fire, Narayana, in this case. So, admitting Shiva as an ‘inseparable’ vibhūti’ of Narayana will make the former non-different from the latter. Hari-Hara abheda is what results from this.//

    Haha…what a complete and utter moron. Of course, Shiva is an inseparable attribute of nArAyaNa since AnAdi kAla. Because jIvAs are never created nor destroyed and have always existed as a body of nArAyaNa. So, there is no doubt about that.

    Funny, how does “inseparability” mean “identity”? For “inseparability” can only happen between two entities which are different. We cannot say “I am inseparable with myself”, for inseparability itself implies a connection between 2 different entities. Thus, it only indicates Shiva is different from and dependent on nArAyaNa.


    1. Correction: "Of course the negative attributes of Rudra, such as his tamO guNa, him being devoid of karma..."

      Should be "him being subject to karma" and not "devoid of karma".

  13. Cont'd from above...

    //The ‘śarīra-śarīri bhāva’ is not admitted by Advaitins since the Upanishads are clear that Brahman has no body, except a māyā-conjured one, for creation, upāsana purposes. ‘śarīram’ is kśetram, anātmā, jaḍa.//

    However, it is admitted by all advaitins (you are certainly no advaitin), that vishNu alone is saguNa ishvara. So let us focus on the relevant things. Still,

    //Even if pṛthvī, etc. entities are stated to be ‘śarīram’ of Brahman on the supposed strength of the ‘antaryāmi brāhmaṇam’ of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, they are only kṣetram, jaḍa, finite, produced. That relation of the created things being the ‘body’ of Brahman is solely for the purpose of showing the true nature, existence, etc. of Brahman. Therefore, the body is only taṭastha lakṣaṇa.//

    So, that’s exactly what we are implying. As Shiva is a body of Brahman, he is finite and produced. Both sentients and insentients are the body of Brahman. Glad that you accept it. Furthermore, that these entities are literally the body of Brahman is proven by the following facts:

    1) After stating these things are his bodies, the Subala claims “eSha sarvabhUtAntarAtmA apahatapApma divyO deva ekO nArAyaNa:” – Note “sarvabhUtAntarAtma” and “apahatapApma”-This clarifies that, on account of everything being his body, he is “sarvabhUtAntarAtma” – he dwells in them like an Atma in a body. However, despite indwelling thus, he is “apahatapApma” and thus is not affected by the doshas of the bodies like finiteness, being products of karma, etc

    2) Secondly, the smriti reinforces that everything is his body by using alternate terms as well:

    “tAni sarvAni tat vapu:” [vishNu purANa 1-22-86] --- Everything is his body (vapu)

    “tat sarvam vai harEs tanu: [vishNu purANa 1-22-38] – All this is the body (tanu) of Hari.

    “jagat sarvam sareeram tE” [vAlmiki ramAyaNa yuddha khANDa 20-26] – The entire Universe is his body.

    “yadambu vaiShnavaH kAyastato vipra vasundharA
    padmAkAra samudbhUtA parvatAbdhyAdisamyutA” [ vishNu purANa 2.17.37]

    From the waters which form the body of vishNu was produced the lotus shaped earth with its’ seas and mountains.

    [Note the usage of “kAya” in the above slOka. By “waters”, what is meant is the entire Universe which has arisen from “waters” or the subtle elements, which is the body of the Lord.]

    Usage of different terms like “sarIra”,”vapu”, “tanu” and “kAya” show that it is literal and not metaphorical.

    However, shrI Vedanta desikan has also stated this: Let us assume that shruti and smriti are being metaphorical. Then, the universe and jIvAs are not the body of Brahman, but are metaphorically described so. Then, it can be taken thus: Just as a body is dependent on, subservient to, and exists for the sake of the self, the Universe/jIvAs are dependent on, subservient to and exist for the sake of paramAtma. Just as the names and attributes of the body denote the self, the names and attributes of Universe/jIvAs denote paramAtma.
    So, even a metaphorical description implies the same meaning – that names and attributes denote paramAtma. However, shrI vedAnta desikan adds that the description is not metaphorical as per shruti – we have merely assumed it for the sake of destroying the pUrvapakSha, to show that even if assumed as metaphorical, the meaning does not change.

    //The ever-uncreated Brahman cannot be admitted in absolute terms to have a created, perishable, body!!//

    Why not? Brahman is not identical to his body. He is different from it. The infinite Brahman has every finite thing as his body, as he is smaller than the smallest and the greater than the greatest. He, being pure by nature, is not affected by the doshas of the body, unlike us, who have karmas and thus are afflicted by changes and doshas of our bodies.

    Simple concept.


  14. Cont'd from above..

    Now, Veerashaiva spews his hatred on shrI rAma as below:

    //If one insists that ‘Rudra’ indeed means ‘one who wept because of karma…’ then one cannot escape that meaning very explicitly given in the Valmiki Ramayana:
    Rāma cried, ‘rudan’, says Valmiki, using the ‘śatṛ’ suffix (indicating present continuous tense), acknowledging Rāma’s knowledge of his true nature. It is actually a praise of his ability to recognise the truth of his past sinful karma. While Rudra realized his true nature (of being a sinful person) soon upon birth, Rāma did that much later. See those verses here:
    Aranya Kandam sarga 63:
    स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः। उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।
    विपुलेशोके in intense grief, निमग्नः plunged, सः that, रामः Rama, सशोकम् with sorrow, रुदन् crying,शोकवशाभिपन्नम् who was caught in sorrow, लक्ष्मणम् Lakshmana, उष्णम् hot, विनिश्वस्य sighing, व्यसनानुरूपम् in his grief, वाक्यम् these words, उवाच said.
    Plunged in deep grief, Rama heaved hot sighs and said these words to grief-stricken Lakshmana, weeping:
    न मद्विधो दुष्कृतकर्मकारी मन्ये द्वितीयोऽस्ति वसुन्धरायाम्। शोकेन शोको हि परम्पराया मा मेति भिन्दन्हृदयं मनश्च।।3.63.3।।
    वसुन्धरायाम् on earth, मद्विधः like me, दुष्कृतकर्मकारी who undertakes forbidden acts, द्वितीयः second person, नास्ति not, मन्ये I think, शोकेन grief, शोकः grief, परम्परायाः continuously, हृदयम् heart, मनश्च mind also, भिन्दन् shattered, माम् my, एति हि is befalling.
    I think there is none on earth like me who has performed such forbidden acts. One grief after the other is successively piercing my heart and my mind.
    पूर्वं मया नूनमभीप्सितानि पापानि कर्माण्यसकृत्कृतानि। तत्रायमद्यापतितो विपाको दुःखेन दुःखं यदहं विशामि।।3.63.4।।
    मया by me, पूर्वम् in the past, नूनम् certainly, अभीप्सितानि dear to me, पापानि कर्माणि sinful deeds, असकृत् often, कृतानि done, तत्र there, अद्य now, विपाकः consequence of that, आपतितः has descended, यत् since, अहम् I, दुःखेन by sorrow, दुःखम् sorrow, विशामि I am entering.
    In the past I had certainly done some sinful deeds I often liked the consequences of which have descended on me now as I am experiencing one sorrow after another. [Here is where the ‘anapahatapāpmatvam’ (lack of freedom from sins) of Rāma is brought out by Himself. The blogger’s tirade on Shiva in the śatapathabrāhmaṇa is replayed, and returned with compliments by Vālmiki, with some changes though, in this episode of the Rāmāyaṇa.]
    राज्यप्रणाशस्स्वजनैर्वियोगः पितुर्विनाशो जननीवियोगः। सर्वाणि मे लक्ष्मण शोकवेगमापूरयन्ति प्रविचिन्तितानि।।3.63.5।।
    लक्ष्मण Lakshmana, राज्यप्रणाशः loss of kingdom, स्वजनैः kith and kin, वियोगः separation from, पितुः father, विनाशः death, जननीवियोगः separation from mother, सर्वाणि all, प्रविचिन्तितानि thinking over, मे I, शोकवेगम् fast increase sorrow, आपूरयन्ति greater measure.
    O Lakshmana, loss of kingdom, separation from kith and kin, death of father, separation from mother--all these thoughts augment my sorrow faster and in greater measure.//

    Haha... So Veerashaiva desperately tries to compare Rudra crying on birth, declaring himself to be full of karmas, to shrI rAma, who in his avatAra leela, was simply playacting.

    I will answer it below.


  15. Cont'd from above,

    In relation to the rAmAyaNa, veerashaiva is unaware of or has forgotten a few things –

    1) Firstly, Rudra’s birth is not mentioned anywhere as an “avatAra” like shrI rAma. Thus, Rudra’s “anapahatapApmatva” cannot be taken as a leela, but is literal. It is also corroborated by the shruti “eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsIt, na brahma, nEshAna...” Hence, there is no doubt that Rudra is a jIva born of karma.

    2) ShrI rAma is declared to be an avatAra of vishNu. That avatAra is not comparable to the birth of a deity, as even the shruti says “ajAyamAno bahudha vijAyatE”. Thus, shrI rAma’s statements are purely out of leela.

    3) Thirdly, the only way to determine which is leela and which is real, is by seeing which deity is equated to Parabrahman, nArAyaNa. For, nArAyaNa alone is Brahman, and if someone is identical to him, then that person is an avatAra of the Lord and thus is not bound by karmas.

    4) So, Rudra is mentioned as “anapahatapApma” and distinct from nArAyaNa who is mentioned as “apahatapApma” in the subala Upanishad. Thus, Rudra’s birth due to karmas is established and that he is different from nArAyaNa, the Parabrahman of the Veda.

    5) In contrast, shrI rAma is equated with nArAyaNa by the same rishi vAlmiki as follows:


  16. Cont'd from above...

    bhavannArAyaNO deva: shriimaan devaH chakraayudhaH prabhuH
    eka shR^iN^go varaahastvaM bhuuta bhavya sapatnajit (~ vAlmiki rAmAyaNa, 6-117-13)

    "You are the Lord Narayana himself the glorious god, who wields the discus. You are the Divine Boar with a single tusk, the conqueror of your past and future enemies."

    aham vedmi mahaatmaanam raamam satya paraakramam ||
    vashiShTho.api mahaatejaa ye ca ime tapasi sthitaaH | (~ vAlmiki rAmAyaNa, 1-19-14)

    Meaning: Oh DasarathA ! I fully comprehend Rama as the greatest of Souls and as the most valorous and righteous One . Sage VasishtA of great lustre due to his superior penance and others like him in Your court also understand these qualifications of Your young son, Rama .

    (This is an upabrahmaNa for “vedAhamEdam puruShaM mahAntaM…)

    vyaktameSha mahaayogii paramaatmaa sanaatanaH |
    anaadimadhyanidhano mahataH paramo mahaan || 6-111-14
    tamasaH paramo dhaataa shaN^khachakragadaadharaH |
    shriivatsavakShaa nityashriirajayyaH shaashvato dhruvaH || 6-111-15
    maanuShaM ruupamaasthaaya viShNuH satyaparaakramaH |
    sarvaiH parivR^ito devairvaanaratvamupaagataiH || 6-111-16
    sarvalokeshvaraH shriimaan lokaanaaM hitakaamyayaa |
    saraakShasa pariivaaram hatavaaMstvaaM mahaadyutiH || 6-111-17

    Meaning: This Rama is certainly a great ascetic (mahAyogI) , an eternal person, having no beginning middle or end, greater than distinguished universal spirit like Brahma, the one beyond the darkness of prakrti, the nourisher, wielding a conch, a disc and a mace, wearing the 'Srivatsa' mark on his chest, of lasting beauty, incapable of being conquered, a perpetual one, being the constant soul of the universe, truly mighty, the lord of all the worlds, the prosperous one having a great splendour and Vishnu, the lord of maintenance of the world with a wish to benefit the worlds, assuming a human form surrounded by all the gods in the form of monkeys, Rama killed you (rAvaNa), surrounded by demons.

    samayas te mahAbAho svarlokAn parirakSitum |
    saMkSipya ca purA lokAn mAyayA svayam eva hi ||
    mahArNave zayAno 'psu mAM tvaM pUrvam ajIjanaH |
    padme divyArkasaMkAze nAbhyAm utpAdya mAm api |
    prAjApatyaM tvayA karma sarvaM mayi nivezitam ||
    so 'haM saMnyastabhAro hi tvAm upAse jagatpatim |
    rakSAM vidhatsva bhUteSu mama tejaH karo bhavAn ||

    Meaning: (Brahma says) Oh! Lord (rAma), to protect the world, when You were sleeping in the great ocean after keeping the entire universe in Your stomach, You created me through Your navel, and instructed me to create the remaining world. You gave Your power to me to do that job without any interference.

    The same vAlmiki rishi also shows rAma is more powerful than Brahma, Rudra and Indra, through the words of Hanuman:

    brahmaa vaa svayambhuuH chaturaananaH rudraa vaa triNetraH tripuraantakaHmahendraH vaa indraH suranaayakah na shaktaaH traatum raamavadhyamyudhi (~sundara khAnda – 51.45)

    Meaning: 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."

    Thus, due to all these proofs, it is clear that rAma's words are simply said in leela, as part of his avatAra. Unlike Shiva, who is declared as different from nArAyaNa everywhere.

    Veerashaiva forgets one simple fact. We are not saying rAma is Parabrahman randomly because vAlmiki wrote the rAmAyaNa. We claim he is Parabrahman because he is said to be identical to nArAyaNa, who is Parabrahman. Whereas, Shiva is not equated to nArAyaNa. This is the yardstick for determining supremacy.


  17. Cont'd from above,

    Finally, let us take note of this particular instance of vishNu dvEshaM by Veerashaiva:

    //[Here is where the ‘anapahatapāpmatvam’ (lack of freedom from sins) of Rāma is brought out by Himself. The blogger’s tirade on Shiva in the śatapathabrāhmaṇa is replayed, and returned with compliments by Vālmiki, with some changes though, in this episode of the Rāmāyaṇa.]//

    In his haste to try to belittle vishNu to the same status of lesser deities like Shiva, Veerashaiva has betrayed his ignorance of what advaita gurus themselves have said. See SarvajnAtma's samkshepa shArIraka:

    svecchā vinirmita vapur bhajato'pi tasya
    nājñānitā'vagatirasti vaśitvahetoḥ ।
    vaśyatva hetukam idaṃ sphuraṇaṃ narāṇāṃ
    nāhaṃ vijāna iti nāsti tad īśvarasya ॥ (2.181)"

    Translation: Even when He takes up a form out of His own will/at the request of His devotees, the condition of omniscience is not compromised. For He is the controller of all. He does not possess the quality of ignorance/avidyA as seen in men who are in bondage.

    "saṅkalpapūrvakaṃ abhūdraghunandanasya
    nāhaṃ vijāna iti kaṃ cana kālametat ॥
    brahmopadeśam upalabhya nimittamātraṃ
    taccotsasarja sa kṛte sati devakārye॥" (2.182)

    Translation: Once, Raghunandana (descendant of the raghu dynasty i.e., Rama), did display the condition of “ignorance”, out of His own volition, resolve, and free will (unlike a jIva). Brahma’s advice to Him (that He was indeed Parabrahman Vishnu/Narayana) was just a mere instrument. Taking up and giving up that resolution were executed by none but Him, for the benefit of the devas (i.e., to take a human form to kill Ravana).

    In contrast, see what SarvajnAtma says about Shiva:

    padārtha paraspara saṅgatiṃ
    niramimīta tato na jagadguruḥ॥
    matimatāṃ pravaro vṛṣabhadhvajaḥ
    kaṇabhugādi munipravaraḥ prabhuḥ॥
    na tu (*) dharādijagadracanābalā-
    danumito'navakhaṇḍitaśaktikaḥ ॥263॥"

    "api tu vaidika vāṅmanasātigā
    (a)nudita lupta cidekarasāt prabhoḥ ॥
    abhavad ānakadundubhi nandanā(t)
    amatipūrvam idaṃ sakalaṃ jagat ॥264॥"

    Note the commentary of Nrsimhashrama to this,

    “The Lord of sages such as kaNAda and akShapAda, who is inferred as the Lord by virtue of creatorship of earth and the rest of the universe according to their philosophy, who bears the bull as his flag, who is called Shankara (i.e., Shiva/Rudra), is excellent in his knowledge compared to us and in our opinion. However, he does not possess unbounded prowess, rulership, or knowledge. Hence, he cannot have established the connection between the words of the Veda and the sense/object conveyed by the words. The Purvapakshin replies as follows: ‘Then, as per your siddhAnta, by what reasoon is the omniscient Lord proven, and how does the connection between names and forms come from Him?’ The answer is that we only conclude all these things from the statements of the shruti, such as ‘yaH sarvaj~naH sarvavit’ and ‘satyaM j~nAnaM anantaM’”

    Where he clearly declares Shiva does not possess unbounded prowess, rulership, or knowledge.

    The commentary for the next verse runs thus:

    “‘That which is unreachable by words or the mind, by virtue of the statement ‘yato vAco nivartante’, that which is devoid of origin and end, which is Pure Consciousness in essence, the Lord, who was doted upon as his own son by Anakadundubhi (vasudeva), Lord Krishna Himself. From this Lord Krishna, this universe proceeds effortlessly, as if it were his breath...

    Thus, Veerashaiva has shown that he is nothing more than a Shaiva with no links to the advaita tradition, by his own censure of shrI rAma.

    That's enough to refute this nonsense. Can't spend more time on such illogical rubbish passing off as some "refutation of bigoted vaishnavas".

    1. He might be an incorrigible fool.

      But my dear Aaryamaa,
      His comments have brought out a most beautiful explaination of Lord Rama through you. So as the wise say even vitanda-vadi agnanis (like veerashaiva, for instance), have their own uses in this grand play (jagannatakam) of our Lord nArAyaNa.

      Anyway thank you for the post. I have enjoyed reading the verses, as I always do with your articles.

      P.S : I have been reading your articles since 2016, even going through all the a silent spectator. Your blog has helped me in my sAdhana, by reinforcing my faith and natural inclination towards KamalAkSha.

      I think it is time, that I have thanked you and 'Humble Bhagavata Bandhu'.
      Keep posting more articles.

  18. Additionally, Veerashaivas like the serial liar we have refuted often ask the following question - "why is there a need to praise the antaryAmin and not nArAyaNa directly?" This is the logic of fools. JnAnIs who see the Lord everywhere and recognize him as the sole doer of all acts simply see all forms as his, and thus eulogize him. It makes sense that a dvEshi who claims rAsa-leela is immoral (he said this in his "refutation") would not understand this.

    It is simple. The supreme brahman, nArAyaNa, is responsible for all acts as everything is his vibhUti. He is praised as rAma for killing rAvaNa, as krishNa for killing kamsa, as narasimha for killing hiranyakasipu, as parashurAma for killing the deviant kshatriyAs, as vyAsa for compiling the vedas, as rudra for killing tripurAsurAs, etc.

    This is because the Lord has two types of forms - mukhya and gowna. Mukhya forms are when he descends directly to perform acts, viz., rAma, krishNa, narasimha. Gowna forms are when he descends indirectly (through jIvAs) to perform acts, viz., parashurAma, vyAsa, rudra. Thus, he is praised in whatever form he actually executes that act. He is also praised independently of the form for that act as well, for example - "purandaraH" in the sahasranAma refers to nArAyaNa as the destroyer of the tripurAs without a reference to shiva.


  19. Cont'd...

    jnAnIs recognize only the Lord in that form which is used by him and so praise him with the attributes of that form, which are his vibhUtIs. Thus, even in the shiva stuti of the bhAgavata, it is said:

    etat paraḿ prapaśyāmo
    na paraḿ te maheśvara
    mṛḍanāya hi lokasya
    vyaktis te 'vyakta-karmaṇaḥ

    Here, the devas are answering Shiva's objection - "I am just a jIva with puNya, why are you praising me as though I am paramAtma?" The answer is - "You are the manifestation (body) of the paramAtma who is going to execute the act of swallowing the poison. For this particular circumstance, there is no form of the Lord nArAyaNa that is greater than this form, for this form is going to save us."

    ShrI vIrarAghavAchAriar explains it eloquently thus - "Maheshwara! We do not know any truth higher or lower than You. All we know now is that manifestation of Yours, who acts in imperceptible ways, is intended for the benefit for the world. Indeed, whether you (in this specific manifestation) are supreme or not, the entire universe is His body, the reason for which is that He is the source of everything. Without this attribute, His svarUpa and svabhAva cannot be possible. In that manner, we are only praising Him as the all-encompassing Entity with such attributes."

    This is recognized by shrI bhIshma, who praises shrI krishNa thus:

    śūline tridaśeśāya tryambakāyamahātmane bhasma digdhordhva liṅgāya tasmairudrātmane namaḥ

    Meaning: You bear the shUla, are the lord of the gods beginning with Indra, who has 3 eyes, who is a great soul, who is smeared with ashes, whose inferential mark (linga) is “urdhva” or rising above desire, ie, detachment. Salutations to Krishna, who are the inner controller of Rudra (rudrAtma)!

    (~Santi parva)

    The idea being, as krishNa is "rudrAtma", the indweller of rudra who has rudra as his body, all these attributes are his, just as attributes of a body are ascribed to the soul indwelling in the body.

    Veerashaiva also asks, "are negative attributes his?" Answer is of course. The puruShamedha sacrifice of the satapatha says "nArAyaNa performed self-surrender" to indicate the jIva, having nArAyaNa as its indweller, who performed self-surrender. However, the Lord is free of karmas and hence not affected by negative attributes or doshas, which only belong to the body.

    Lastly, Veerashaiva also questions why we are not reinterpreting the shiva sahasranAma as referring to vishNu in this manner. The answer is, even if we could, we won't because we are not two-faced, lying dvEshis like him. That section is interpolated and so should not be interpreted in that manner, as the interpolator clearly meant to show shiva as supreme. Whereas, this genuine section clearly hails vishNu as the antaryAmin of shiva (viShNurAtmA bhagavatO bhavasya amitatejasaH) and thus is a genuine stuti of the indweller of shiva.

    That should do.


  20. ADDENDUM: I forgot to rebut this fully. All Veerashaiva does is copy and paste chunks of shankara bhAshyas and so I sometimes ignore them in passing:

    //This is because ‘inseparable’ means that which has not come to inhere in Narayana at a later time but inheres in him from anādi.//

    This is wrong. "Inseparability" exists only at the time of union, ie, when substance and attribute are in that state, due to circumstances. It does not have to be eternal, but only until the time that such union exists. In the case of Brahman and his body (jIvAs/Jagat), the inseparability is eternal/anAdi as circumstances (ie, the sankalpa of Brahman) allow it to be so. This is not because Brahman derives any benefit from it. It is because just as a body cannot exist without the self, we cannot exist separately without him as our Atma. Thus, we need this association and so, he gives us that existence.

    //If some attribute attaches to Narayana only anew, then Narayana will have to be held a ‘sāvayava dravyam’, an assemblage of parts, that will definitely be destroyed on disintegration of the parts and it will be jaḍa.//

    The Lord, in his natural condition, is characterized by auspicious attributes and is devoid of blemishes. His attributes such as jIvA etc, are acquired by associating with them as his bodies. This association is by sport and not due to karma, thus, he is not affected by the doshas of the body.
    So, any change in the attributes of the body does not mean "nArAyaNa becomes an assemblage of parts". Because nArAyaNa is different from his body. If a child grows into a man, does it mean the Atma of the child/man undergoes change? No. It is the changes in the body. However, the new attribute of "manliness" is acquired by the self because it is inseparably associated with the body.

    Similarly, the Universe may change from subtle to gross states by the will of Brahman who has it as his body. This does not affect him or make him an "assemblage of parts". Unlike the self bound by karma who is affected by changes to the body, the Lord who is devoid of karmas is not.


  21. Cont'd...

    //If a vibhūti is a new arrival then there is the inevitable possibility of its leaving: ‘संयोगाः विप्रयोगान्ताः’ [all that conjoins will remain so only till they disjoin] is a rule that is cited by Shankaracharya in the BG 15.7.//

    Quite true. But the catch is this - "Inseparability exists until the conditions for inseparability prevail". A pot is blue, and it remains blue in color until a painter dyes it red. In which case, the condition for inseparability between blue and pot is lost.

    However, in the case of Brahman and his vibhUti-s, the only condition that determines inseparability is his sankalpa. If Brahman wishes, he can end this inseparability. But if he does that, we won't exist, as we cannot have a separate existence from him. So, the conditions for inspearability are eternal as he has willed us to exist by his grace.

    As everything is his body, all glories of other deities are his, as it is the Atma that sustains the body. As he is by nature antagonistic to all evil, the doshas of those deities like karma, etc do not affect him. So, the good qualities of the devas are ascribed to him as he sustains them, and their bad qualities are not meditated as his, because he by nature is freed from karmas. But as the Upanishads do say "he entered the Universe" (meaning, he, as the indweller of the jIva who is his body, entered the Universe), bhagavAn can be referenced using the jIvAs and jagat which are his bodies.

    //And if something is ‘inseparable’ it cannot be anything but the very svarūpam of that locus, like the heat of fire, Narayana, in this case. So, admitting Shiva as an ‘inseparable’ vibhūti’ of Narayana will make the former non-different from the latter. Hari-Hara abheda is what results from this.//

    As mentioned earlier, inseparability cannot occur if there is only one entity, since the term itself suggests different entities who are inseparable (ie, connected or in union with each other). The example given is wrong, which is natural as Veerashaiva has little knowledge of any vedAntic philosophy whatsover.

    The fire (jvAla) and its' radiance (prabha) both have tejas as their essential natures. However, fire
    (jvAla) reveals/illumines itself, whereas radiance (prabha) illumines other objects. As they clearly have different functions in this manner and are also inseparably associated as substance-attribute, they are different to each other.

    So, one cannot say attributes are verily the svarUpa. The very nature of "attribute" is to exist inseparably from the substance, and as "inseparability" itself implies difference (since only 2 entities can be connected inseparably), it implies difference.

    I am not going to bother explaining this in detail, because we have covered in this in our article on "criticism of vishishtadvaita visleshana vivechanam". Readers can refer that document for understanding further, if they are interested. For now, one can be clear that Veerashaiva's garbage has no takers but himself.


Please click here and read the information in red carefully before posting comments

Kindly also check if we already have an answer to your question, in the FAQ section of this blog:

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.