Regarding the 'Keshi sUktam' of Rg Veda 10.136

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste.

While trying to understand the Keshi suktam of the Rg Veda 10.136 I consulted the Sayana Bhashya.  I have attached the portion of the bhashyam for the perusal of the learned scholars here.  I  also looked into the Griffith's translation which I have provided below:


[10-136] HYMN CXXXVI. Kesins.
1. HE with the long loose locks supports Agni, and moisture, heaven, and earth:
He is all sky to look upon: he with long hair is called this light.
2 The Munis, girdled with the wind, wear garments soiled of yellow hue.
They, following the wind's swift course go where the Gods have gone before.
3 Transported with our Munihood we have pressed on into the winds:
You therefore, mortal men. behold our natural bodies and no more.
4 The Muni, made associate in the holy work of every God,
Looking upon all varied forms flies through the region of the air.
5 The Steed of Vata, Vayu's friend, the Muni, by the Gods impelled,
In both the oceans hath his home, in eastern and in western sea.
6 Treading the path of sylvan beasts, Gandharvas, and Apsarases,
He with long locks, who knows the wish, is a sweet most delightful friend
7 Vayu hath churned for him: for him he poundeth things most hard to bend,
When he with long loose locks hath drunk, with Rudra, water from the cup.

I am unable to make out the context of this sUktam.  Who is the main Deity that is spoken of here - VAyu? There is a word 'Light'.  Does that indicate vAyu alone?  Also, there is a word 'viSham' in the sUktam occurring more than once.  Sayana translates it as 'water'.  The amara kosha too gives this meaning.  What is to be understood from the last verse quoted above?  What did vAyu do to the water and why?  Why is Rudra said to be drinking the water along with vAyu? Is Rudra the popular Deity Shiva? 

Has this sUkta any bearing on the 'amRta mathanam' episode of the srImadbhAgavatam where Shiva is said to have imbibed the kAlakOTa viSha? Does the bhAgavatam make a mention of the contents of the above sUktam in this episode?

The sAyaNa bhashya for this last verse contains a grammar explanation which I am unable to understand.  I humbly request the Scholars here to kindly explain the entire sUkta with reference to the questions I have enumerated above. 

The attachment contains the sAyana Bhashya.  One can increase the size of the images to get clarity.  ONLY The first four images are relevant to this sUkta.  The rest are about the next sUkta on which I have no questions. 

Scholars can feel free to give their reply in Sanskrit if they find that more convenient.

With humble pranams,
subrahmanian.v

[Rachuri Achar]

मान्याः,

 केशिसूक्ते अमृतमथनोत्थहालाहलविषभक्षणरूपवायुमहेश्वरमहिमा उपवर्णितः । 

श्रीजयतीर्थकृत ऋग्भाष्यटीकायां वायुरस्मा उपामन्थदित्यस्या ऋचः व्याख्यानमित्थं वर्तते -

कुत्सितान्नमयतीति कुनन्नामा केशी - प्रशस्तकेशवान् वायुः यदा रुद्रेण सह पात्रेण विषस्य -विषं अपिबत् । तदा अस्मै रुद्राय (तदनुजिघृक्षया इति यावत्) तद्विषमुपामन्थत् । तस्यैव विवरणं पिनष्टि स्म इति । 

भागवते 8.7.41 तमे श्लोके   एवमामन्त्र्य भगवान् भवानीं विश्वभावनः । तद् विषं जग्धुमारेभे प्रभावज्ञान्वमोदत इत्यत्र महारुद्रकृतविषपानलीला उपवर्णिता वर्तते ।

तथा महाभारततात्पर्यनिर्णये 10.13 तमे श्लोके मध्वाचार्यैः 

तथा जगद्ग्रासि विषं समुत्थितं त्वदाज्ञया वायुरधात् करे निजे ।

कलेः स्वरूपं तदीवदुःसहं वराद्विधातुः सकलैश्च दुःस्पृशम् ।

करे विमथ्यास्तबलं विधाय यदा स किञ्चिद्ददौ गिरिशाय वायुः । 

स तत्पिबत् .... 

इत्याद्युक्तम् ।

एतद्विषये पौराणिककथां च पद्मपुराणोत्तरखण्डगतां  उमामहेश्वरसंवादरूपां  सत्यधर्मतीर्थाः स्वकीये अष्टमस्कन्धसप्तमाध्यायभागवतव्याख्याने एवमुल्लिखन्ति -

महाविषं महाघोरं संवर्ताग्निसमप्रभम् ।

दृष्ट्वा प्रदुद्रुवुः सर्वे भयार्ता देवमानताः ।

ततस्तद्विद्रुतान्दृष्ट्वा ब्रह्मा लोकपितामहः ।

जगाद वायुं तरसा हरेराज्ञापुरःसरम् ।

निःशेषं कुरु वायो त्वं लोकसंहारकं विषम् ।

त्वदन्यो नास्ति मद् ग्रस्तुं सर्वजीवहितं कुरु ।

इति धातुर्वचः श्रुत्वा दशप्रमतिरब्रवीत् ।

भक्षयामि हरेराज्ञां पुरस्कृत्य विधेर्वचः ।

हरेर्नामोच्चारणेन तद्भक्त्या च विशेषतः ।

सर्वव्याधिविषं घोरं पात्रे न्यस्य करे दधत् ।

बिन्दुमात्रं पृथग्गृह्य तद्विषं मर्दयंस्ततः ।

परीक्षणार्थं चान्येषां देवादीनां च पार्वति ।

मम हस्ते ददौ किञ्चिद्भक्षस्वेति मारुतः । इति

मम विरच्यमाने वेदव्याख्याने मध्वाचार्याणां योगदानं इत्यस्मिन् शोधप्रबन्धे अयं विषयः मया   समुल्लिखितो वर्तते । 

हरये नमः

राचूरि आचार्य
मम स्वामी हरिर्नित्यं सर्वस्य पतिरेव च ।
त्वमस्माकं तवस्मसि

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

[V Subrahmanian]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Date: 2012/2/25
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Regarding the 'Keshi sUktam' of Rg Veda 10.136
To: Rachuri Achar <rrac...@gmail.com>

2012/2/24 Rachuri Achar <rrac...@gmail.com>

मान्याः,

 केशिसूक्ते अमृतमथनोत्थहालाहलविषभक्षणरूपवायुमहेश्वरमहिमा उपवर्णितः । 

श्रीजयतीर्थकृत ऋग्भाष्यटीकायां वायुरस्मा उपामन्थदित्यस्या ऋचः व्याख्यानमित्थं वर्तते -

कुत्सितान्नमयतीति कुनन्नामा केशी - प्रशस्तकेशवान् वायुः यदा रुद्रेण सह पात्रेण विषस्य -विषं अपिबत् । तदा अस्मै रुद्राय (तदनुजिघृक्षया इति यावत्) तद्विषमुपामन्थत् । तस्यैव विवरणं पिनष्टि स्म इति । 

भागवते 8.7.41 तमे श्लोके   एवमामन्त्र्य भगवान् भवानीं विश्वभावनः । तद् विषं जग्धुमारेभे प्रभावज्ञान्वमोदत इत्यत्र महारुद्रकृतविषपानलीला उपवर्णिता वर्तते ।

धन्यवादाः ।

श्रीमद्भागवते ८.७.४१ इत्यस्य पूर्वोत्तरश्लोकेषु कुत्रापि वायुविषयकोल्लिखो न दृश्यते । अत्रापि उमामहेश्वरसंवाद एव दृश्यते केषुचनश्लोकेषु ।  तदनन्तरश्लोकः एवं वर्तते -

http://srimad-bhagavatam.com/g=61975

ततः करतलीकृत्वा व्यापि हालाहलं विषं ।
अभक्षयन् महादेवः कृपया भूतभावनः ॥

 

tataḥ—thereafter; karatalī-kṛtya—taking in his hand; vyāpi—widespread; hālāhalam—called hālahala; viṣam—poison; abhakṣayat—drank; mahā-devaḥ—Lord Śiva; kṛpayā—out of compassion; bhūta-bhāvanaḥ—for the welfare of all living entities.

 

Thereafter, Lord Śiva, who is dedicated to auspicious, benevolent work for humanity, compassionately took the whole quantity of poison in his palm and drank it.

इति ।  अपि च  मन्त्रे ’ केशी (विषं) पात्रेण यद्रुद्रेणापिबत् सह’ इति वाक्यमस्ति । तत्र वायुरुद्रौ उभावपि विषपातृत्वेन उक्तौ इति दृश्यते ।  तेन कथं रुद्रस्य मात्रं नीलक्ण्ठत्वख्यातिः न वायोः ? वायुः पूर्वं पीत्वा अवशिष्टं रुद्राय ददत् इति वा ?  अपि च अस्तबलविषपानं कण्ठनैल्याय क्षमं वा ? उद्धृतपद्मपुराणवाक्यादपि वायुरपि अपिबदिति नावगम्यते । मन्त्रे तथा श्रीजयतीर्थव्याख्याने च  वायुरपि अपिबदिति  दृश्यते । एवं सर्वसामञ्जस्यं न लभते लब्धविषयेभ्यः ।

किञ्च विद्वांसः कृपया सायनभाष्यतात्पर्यं विवृण्वन्तु इति पुनः प्रार्थये यतोऽहं तत्रस्थविषयान् गृहीत्मसमर्थः इति ।

भवदीयः
सुब्रह्मण्यशर्मा   

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
> Date: 2012/2/25
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Regarding the 'Keshi sUktam' of Rg Veda
> 10.136
> To: Rachuri Achar <rrac...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
> 2012/2/24 Rachuri Achar <rrac...@gmail.com>
>
>> मान्याः,
>>
>> केशिसूक्ते अमृतमथनोत्थहालाहलविषभक्षणरूपवायुमहेश्वरमहिमा उपवर्णितः ।
>> श्रीजयतीर्थकृत ऋग्भाष्यटीकायां वायुरस्मा उपामन्थदित्यस्या ऋचः
>> व्याख्यानमित्थं वर्तते -
>>
>> कुत्सितान्नमयतीति कुनन्नामा केशी - प्रशस्तकेशवान् वायुः यदा रुद्रेण सह
>> पात्रेण विषस्य -विषं अपिबत् । तदा अस्मै रुद्राय (तदनुजिघृक्षया इति यावत्)
>> तद्विषमुपामन्थत् । तस्यैव विवरणं पिनष्टि स्म इति ।
>>
>> भागवते 8.7.41 तमे श्लोके एवमामन्त्र्य भगवान् भवानीं विश्वभावनः । तद्
>> विषं जग्धुमारेभे प्रभावज्ञान्वमोदत इत्यत्र महारुद्रकृतविषपानलीला उपवर्णिता
>> वर्तते ।
>>
>
> धन्यवादाः ।
>
> श्रीमद्भागवते ८.७.४१ इत्यस्य पूर्वोत्तरश्लोकेषु कुत्रापि वायुविषयकोल्लिखो न
> दृश्यते । अत्रापि उमामहेश्वरसंवाद एव दृश्यते केषुचनश्लोकेषु ।
> तदनन्तरश्लोकः एवं वर्तते -
>

> http://srimad-bhagavatam.com/g=61975 <http://srimad-bhagavatam.com/?g=61975>

>
>
>> ततः करतलीकृत्वा व्यापि हालाहलं विषं ।
> अभक्षयन् महादेवः कृपया भूतभावनः ॥
>
>>
>>
>> tataḥ—thereafter; karatalī-kṛtya—taking in his hand; vyāpi—widespread;
>> hālāhalam—called hālahala; viṣam—poison; abhakṣayat—drank; mahā-devaḥ—Lord
>> Śiva; kṛpayā—out of compassion; bhūta-bhāvanaḥ—for the welfare of all
>> living entities.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thereafter, Lord Śiva, who is dedicated to auspicious, benevolent work for

>> humanity, compassionately *took the whole quantity of poison in his palm
>> and drank it.*

वायुः विषमपिबत् इति वर्णनं उद्धृतर्चः क्लिष्टकल्पनैव भाति । यतो हि न कुत्रापि
एवंविधा कथा उपबृंहणग्रन्थेषु वा प्राचीनतमशिवमहिम्नस्तोत्रे वा श्रूयते ।
गणेशः

[Rachuri Achar]

2012/2/25 Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org>

>> एतद्विषये पौराणिककथां च पद्मपुराणोत्तरखण्डगतां  उमामहेश्वरसंवादरूपां
>>  सत्यधर्मतीर्थाः स्वकीये अष्टमस्कन्धसप्तमाध्यायभागवतव्याख्याने
>> एवमुल्लिखन्ति -
>>
>> महाविषं महाघोरं संवर्ताग्निसमप्रभम् ।
>> दृष्ट्वा प्रदुद्रुवुः सर्वे भयार्ता देवमानताः ।
>> ततस्तद्विद्रुतान्दृष्ट्वा ब्रह्मा लोकपितामहः ।
>> जगाद वायुं तरसा हरेराज्ञापुरःसरम् ।
>> निःशेषं कुरु वायो त्वं लोकसंहारकं विषम् ।
>> त्वदन्यो नास्ति मद् ग्रस्तुं सर्वजीवहितं कुरु ।
>> इति धातुर्वचः श्रुत्वा दशप्रमतिरब्रवीत् ।
>> भक्षयामि हरेराज्ञां पुरस्कृत्य विधेर्वचः ।
>> हरेर्नामोच्चारणेन तद्भक्त्या च विशेषतः ।
>> सर्वव्याधिविषं घोरं पात्रे न्यस्य करे दधत् ।
>> बिन्दुमात्रं पृथग्गृह्य तद्विषं मर्दयंस्ततः ।
>> परीक्षणार्थं चान्येषां देवादीनां च पार्वति ।
>> मम हस्ते ददौ किञ्चिद्भक्षस्वेति मारुतः । इति
>>
>>
>>

>> हरये नमः
>> राचूरि आचार्य
>> मम स्वामी हरिर्नित्यं सर्वस्य पतिरेव च ।
>> त्वमस्माकं तवस्मसि
>>
>>
>>
>>

वायुः विषमपिबत् इति वर्णनं उद्धृतर्चः क्लिष्टकल्पनैव भाति । यतो हि न कुत्रापि
एवंविधा कथा उपबृंहणग्रन्थेषु वा प्राचीनतमशिवमहिम्नस्तोत्रे वा श्रूयते ।
गणेशः

मया पूर्वोदाहृतपद्मपुराणस्योत्तरे भागे इत्थं स्फृटं वायुः विषं पपौ इति वाक्यमस्ति -

मम हस्ते ददौ किञ्चित् किञ्चिद्भक्षस्वेति मारुतः । 

इत्यतः परं रुद्रवचः इत्थमनुवर्तन्ते ....

नाममात्रेण सहितं मन्त्रानुग्रहमादिशन् ।

तद्विशप्राशनादेव मम दाहोभ्यवर्धत ।

जिह्वाग्रधारणादेव मम प्राणा विनिर्गताः ।

कृपया पवमानस्य तथा नामत्रयेण च ।

अच्युतानन्तगोविन्दनाममाहात्म्यतः शुभे ।

जीवितोस्मि तदा काले विष्णोर्नामत्रयादहो ।

पश्चात्तु तद्विषं सर्वमेकीकृत्य स पात्रके ।

अनायासात्पपौ वायुः सर्वेषां रक्षणाय  च ।

हरेश्च प्रीतये देवि ब्रह्मणो वचनात्तथा ।

ऋचोब्रुवंश्च देवस्य केशीति ब्रह्मवादिनः ।

इत्थं वायोर्महत्त्वं हि विष्णुभक्तस्य पार्वति । इति ।

अनेन वायुः पपौ इति विज्ञायते । ऋचोब्रुवन् देवस्य केशीति ब्रह्मवादिनः इत्यनेन केशीसुक्तस्य वायुपरत्वं च विज्ञायते ।

इति शम् ।

हरये नमः,

राचीरि आचार्यः (आत्मदासः)

[V Subrahmanian]

केशीसूक्तस्य रुद्रान्यपरत्वं सायनभाष्यादपि विज्ञायते । परन्तु तत्र अमृतमथनसन्दर्भीयविषपानविषयो न स्वीकृतः । 

अपि च पुराणान्तरविप्रतिपत्तिस्तु तथैव तिष्ठति ।

सुब्रह्मण्यशर्मा

2012/2/25 Rachuri Achar <rrac...@gmail.com>

[Anand Hudli]

स्वस्ति ।

अस्य सूक्तस्य अन्तिममन्त्रे सूर्याग्निवायूनां वृष्टिकारणत्वं
उपवर्णितं, न तु भगवतः रुद्रस्य विषभक्षणम्। विषशब्देन समुद्रादिजलाशयेषु
विद्यमानं उदकं विवक्षितम्।

सायणभाष्ये तु एतदुक्तम् - केशाः केशस्थानीया रश्मयः। तद्वन्तः
केशिनोऽग्निर्वायुः सूर्यश्च। एते त्रयः स्तूयन्ते।
भाष्यं स्पष्टीकरोति यत् सूर्यः रश्मिभिर्युक्तः रुद्रेण मरुद्गणेन सह
वैद्युताग्निना सह च विषं उदकं पात्रेण पानसाधनेन रश्मिजालेन यदा पिबति
तदा वायुः भूगतं सर्वं रसमुपमथ्नाति। मेघसमूहे वैद्युताग्निः आविर्भवति
वृष्टिकार्ये सहायको भवति च। कुनन्नमा माध्यमिका वाक् मेघोदकं
चूर्णीकरोति।

आनन्दः

On 25 Feb, 11:42, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahman...@gmail.com>
> Date: 2012/2/25
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Regarding the 'Keshi sUktam' of Rg Veda
> 10.136

> To: Rachuri Achar <rrach...@gmail.com>
>
> 2012/2/24 Rachuri Achar <rrach...@gmail.com>

>
> > मान्याः,
>
> >  केशिसूक्ते अमृतमथनोत्थहालाहलविषभक्षणरूपवायुमहेश्वरमहिमा उपवर्णितः ।
> > श्रीजयतीर्थकृत ऋग्भाष्यटीकायां वायुरस्मा उपामन्थदित्यस्या ऋचः
> > व्याख्यानमित्थं वर्तते -
>
> > कुत्सितान्नमयतीति कुनन्नामा केशी - प्रशस्तकेशवान् वायुः यदा रुद्रेण सह
> > पात्रेण विषस्य -विषं अपिबत् । तदा अस्मै रुद्राय (तदनुजिघृक्षया इति यावत्)
> > तद्विषमुपामन्थत् । तस्यैव विवरणं पिनष्टि स्म इति ।
>
> > भागवते 8.7.41 तमे श्लोके   एवमामन्त्र्य भगवान् भवानीं विश्वभावनः । तद्
> > विषं जग्धुमारेभे प्रभावज्ञान्वमोदत इत्यत्र महारुद्रकृतविषपानलीला उपवर्णिता
> > वर्तते ।
>
> धन्यवादाः ।
>
> श्रीमद्भागवते ८.७.४१ इत्यस्य पूर्वोत्तरश्लोकेषु कुत्रापि वायुविषयकोल्लिखो न
> दृश्यते । अत्रापि उमामहेश्वरसंवाद एव दृश्यते केषुचनश्लोकेषु ।
> तदनन्तरश्लोकः एवं वर्तते -
>

> http://srimad-bhagavatam.com/g=61975<http://srimad-bhagavatam.com/?g=61975>

>
> > ततः करतलीकृत्वा व्यापि हालाहलं विषं ।
> अभक्षयन् महादेवः कृपया भूतभावनः ॥
>
> > tataḥ—thereafter; karatalī-kṛtya—taking in his hand; vyāpi—widespread;
> > hālāhalam—called hālahala; viṣam—poison; abhakṣayat—drank; mahā-devaḥ—Lord
> > Śiva; kṛpayā—out of compassion; bhūta-bhāvanaḥ—for the welfare of all
> > living entities.
>
> > Thereafter, Lord Śiva, who is dedicated to auspicious, benevolent work for

> > humanity, compassionately *took the whole quantity of poison in his palm
> > and drank it.*

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

> *अनायासात्पपौ वायुः सर्वेषां रक्षणाय च ।*

> हरेश्च प्रीतये देवि ब्रह्मणो वचनात्तथा ।
> ऋचोब्रुवंश्च देवस्य केशीति ब्रह्मवादिनः ।
> इत्थं वायोर्महत्त्वं हि विष्णुभक्तस्य पार्वति । इति ।
>
> अनेन वायुः पपौ इति विज्ञायते । ऋचोब्रुवन् देवस्य केशीति ब्रह्मवादिनः
> इत्यनेन केशीसुक्तस्य वायुपरत्वं च विज्ञायते ।
>
> इति शम् ।
>
>

This leads to an important point: We have been seeing many such explanations
guised as commentaries written in Sanskrit. Many ACCEPTED, WELL-KNOWN AND
ANCIENT stories regarding Siva (Rudra)and applicable only to Siva, that are
scattered in the Veda-s, Brahmana-s and even Upanishads are twisted by such
"commentators" and explained mostly as pertaining to Vishnu or to other gods as
in the present case.
Some years back I have seen a PUBLISHED Sanskrit commentary on the well-known
mantra-s of the Taittiriiya aaraNyaka such as the ones that begin with ईशानः
सर्वविद्यानां, . . . सद्योजातं प्रपद्यामि . . . .The commentator (a svami
belonging to the Maadhva sampradaaya) completely changes the meaning of these
mantra-s and explains सद्योजातं in a weird and totally ridiculous way as
applying to Narasimha; SADYOJAATA= You, who have come out in an instant from the
pillar upon Prahlaada's prayer".

The instance of Svetasvataropanishad is a strong case in this point:
The entire Upanishad is permeated with supreme devotion to Siva (= Rudra)and
from the beginnig establishes Rudra as the highest Brahma; the last verse
यदा चर्मवदाकाशं वेष्टयिष्यन्ति मानवाः ।
तदा देवमविज्ञाय दुःखस्यान्तो भविष्यति ।
Here Srikantha accepts the reading "शिवमविज्ञाय" in place of देवमविज्ञाय. But
such a 'changing' of the text seems to have taken place earlier.
The previous verse is
यो ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्वं यो वै वेदांश्च प्रहिणोति तस्मै ।
तँ ह देवमात्मबुद्धिप्रकाशं मुमुक्षुर्वै शऱणमहं प्रपद्ये ।
Therefore , by context, Deva applies naturally to Siva in this text and
therefore, Brahma = Siva.
Here either the fact of applying to Siva alone is either not stressed or,
explained away as if not important. For corroboration one may cite the stry of
the Kenopanishad where Umaa, HaimavatI appears before Agni, Vaayu, Indra and
shows to them that the "unknown Yaksha' that appeared before them is the Highest
Brahma by whose power these Gods get their share of powers. Now, the Brahma
shown by Umaa-HaimavatI COULD AND NATURALLY BE SIVA alone and none else. One
should note the usage of names as Umaa, and to be without any doubt, HaimavatI.
Umaa-haimavatI cannot show any other reality as the Highest Brahma. I am very
much sure that an objective minded scholar will definitely agree. But,
interestingly beginning from Samkara none of them underlined this fundamental
point.
I am citing these instances to show that 'Brahma' can be applicable only to Siva.
The Smriti corroboration
अष्टादशानामेतासां भिन्नवर्त्मनाम् ।
आदिकर्ता कविः साक्षात् शूलपाणिरिति स्थितिः ।

clearly states that SuulapANi Siva is the author of all the 18 streams of
scriptures beginning from .Veda

My point is by having a complete look of the entire Vedic, (including the
Upanishadic) corpus , it is absolutely clear that Brahma = Siva and that is the
burden of the Svetasvataropanishad, etc.

In fact this has been going on since quite long as stated many times by
AppayadIkShita,
NiilakaNThadIkshita, in many of their texts.
Another instance is in the commentary called 'Tilaka' composed by Govindaraja
belonging to the 16th century. While commenting the story of Rama's breaking the
Sivadhanus, he writes that it is symbolic of Rama destroying the Saivadharma (
as Dhanus also means Dharma; sivadhanus = sivadharma)and establishing the
superiority of Vaishnava dharma. Such is the extent of antagonism,
text-torturing trend of many of these traditional commentators.

Mypoint is to state the points clear without offending anybody's sensibilities.

Ganesan

[Rachuri Achar]

Dear sir,

2012/2/26 Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org>

>
> इत्यतः परं रुद्रवचः इत्थमनुवर्तन्ते ....
>
> नाममात्रेण सहितं मन्त्रानुग्रहमादिशन् ।
> तद्विशप्राशनादेव मम दाहोभ्यवर्धत ।
> जिह्वाग्रधारणादेव मम प्राणा विनिर्गताः ।
> कृपया पवमानस्य तथा नामत्रयेण च ।
> अच्युतानन्तगोविन्दनाममाहात्म्यतः शुभे ।
> जीवितोस्मि तदा काले विष्णोर्नामत्रयादहो ।
> पश्चात्तु तद्विषं सर्वमेकीकृत्य स पात्रके ।

> *अनायासात्पपौ वायुः सर्वेषां रक्षणाय  च ।*

> हरेश्च प्रीतये देवि ब्रह्मणो वचनात्तथा ।
> ऋचोब्रुवंश्च देवस्य केशीति ब्रह्मवादिनः ।
> इत्थं वायोर्महत्त्वं हि विष्णुभक्तस्य पार्वति । इति ।
>
> अनेन वायुः पपौ इति विज्ञायते । ऋचोब्रुवन् देवस्य केशीति ब्रह्मवादिनः
> इत्यनेन केशीसुक्तस्य वायुपरत्वं च विज्ञायते ।
>
> इति शम् ।
>
>

 

 Many ACCEPTED, WELL-KNOWN AND

ANCIENT stories regarding Siva (Rudra)and applicable only to Siva, that are
scattered in the Veda-s, Brahmana-s and even Upanishads are twisted by such
"commentators" and explained mostly as pertaining to Vishnu or to other gods as
in the present case.

ACCEPTED, WELL-KNOWN AND ANCIENT all these terms are relative.  I earnestly request the elite scholars not to be offended when a largely accepted tenet is challenged by a school of thought using the sound canons of interpretation by quoting genuine texts. It is highly unbecoming of respected scholars to  immediately term that the revered Bhashyakaras have extrapolated the texts and twisted the facts to make their point. Appayya Dikshita is no exception here. Leaving aside the controversial texts which are challenged as being extrapolated, the said tenets can also be proven with mutually agreeable texts like Bhagvad Gita . This will prove that the in accordance with Gita and other canonical texts, the quoted versions are also genuine and the comments made by some that they are "extrapolated" and "twisted" are proven to be baseless. 

Also, in the case of Kesi sukta, if Sayana interprets it as "Water" then it is acceptable. If Madhwa, much earlier than Sayana,  interprets it as "Halahala Visha" then it is not. Why this bias? Just because some people think that the image of Shiva is degraded? When we approach with an open mind, Madhwa's interpretation is logical and also wins the support of genuine Smriti texts as quoted earlier.  

 

Some years back I have seen a PUBLISHED Sanskrit commentary on the well-known
mantra-s of the Taittiriiya aaraNyaka such as the ones that begin with ईशानः
सर्वविद्यानां, . . . सद्योजातं प्रपद्यामि . . . .The commentator (a svami
belonging to the Maadhva sampradaaya) completely changes the meaning of these
mantra-s and explains  सद्योजातं in a weird and totally ridiculous way as
applying to Narasimha; SADYOJAATA= You, who have come out in an instant from the
pillar upon Prahlaada's prayer".

What is wrong in such an interpretation?  Narasimha is praised as the indweller of Rudra.

 

The instance of Svetasvataropanishad is  a strong case in this point:
The entire Upanishad is permeated with supreme devotion to Siva (= Rudra)and
from the beginnig establishes Rudra as the highest Brahma; the last verse
   यदा चर्मवदाकाशं वेष्टयिष्यन्ति मानवाः ।
   तदा देवमविज्ञाय दुःखस्यान्तो भविष्यति ।
Here Srikantha accepts the reading "शिवमविज्ञाय"  in place of देवमविज्ञाय. But
such a 'changing' of the text seems to have taken place earlier.
The previous verse is
   यो ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्वं यो वै वेदांश्च प्रहिणोति तस्मै ।
   तँ ह देवमात्मबुद्धिप्रकाशं मुमुक्षुर्वै शऱणमहं प्रपद्ये ।
Therefore , by context, Deva applies naturally to Siva in this text and
therefore, Brahma = Siva.

BRAHMAN can be definitely called by the name SIVA. No objections whatsoever. That HE has several forms and names is very well known - यो देवानां नामधा एक एव । But it is very clear from the entire corpus of shruti and puranas that Parvati Pati Shiva is different. He is a soul (very high in stature) , himself a great devotee of the Supreme Brahman, but not the SUPREME BRAHMAN himself.

 

Now, the Brahma
shown by Umaa-HaimavatI COULD AND NATURALLY BE SIVA alone and none else. 

I don't understand why whomsoever Umaa points to COULD AND NATURALLY BE SIVA? Why not VISHNU?

My point is by having a complete look of the entire Vedic, (including the
Upanishadic) corpus , it is absolutely clear that Brahma = Siva and that is the
burden of the Svetasvataropanishad, etc.

I am not convinced by this as it is well known that the entire Vedic corpus is of the single opinion that VISHNU-NARAYANA-SIVA-BRAHMAN are the different names of the SUPREME BRAHMAN. HE is ONE. The other demi-gods like four-faced BRAHMAN, RUDRA, INDRA, AGNI are different and they themselves do not agree that they are the SUPREME BRAHMAN. See the statement of Brahma - ओं नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय धीमहि यन्मायया दुर्जयया मां वदन्ति जगद्गुरुम् । And also of Rudra श्रीराम राम रामेति रमे रामे मनोरमे सहस्रनामतत्तुल्यं राम नाम वरानने ।।

Also,

यस्मात् क्षरमतीतोहं अक्षरादपि चोत्तमः अतोस्मि लोके वेदे च प्रथितः पुरुषोत्तमः ।

मत्तः परतरं नान्यत् कि़ञ्चिदस्ति धनञ्जय 

अस्य देवस्य मीळ्हुषो वया विष्णोरेषस्य प्रभृते हविर्भिः ।

विदे हि रुद्रो रुद्रियं महित्वं यासिष्टं वर्तिरश्विनाविरावत् ।

एको नारायण आसीत् न ब्रह्मा न च शङ्करः ।

यं कामये तं तं मुग्रं कृणोमि तं ब्रह्माणं तं ऋषिं सुमेधां ।

अहं रूद्राय धनरुातनोमि ब्रह्मद्विषो शरवे हन्त वा उ ।

इत्यादि सर्वसम्मतबहुविधश्रुतिस्मृतिपुराणैश्च नारायणः एव ब्रह्म इत्यवगम्यते ।  

Mypoint is to state the points clear without offending anybody's sensibilities.

Same here. Hope this post will be taken in true spirit as well.

Ganesan

Rachuri Acharya (Atmadasa)

[V Subrahmanian]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Regarding the 'Keshi sUktam' of Rg Veda 10.136
To: Rachuri Achar <rrac...@gmail.com>

नमांसि श्री आनद महोदयाः। सायणभाष्यतात्पर्यं संयक्सङ्गृहीतं भवद्भिः ।

सुब्रह्मण्यशर्मा

2012/2/26 Rachuri Achar <rrac...@gmail.com>

Dear sir,

Also, in the case of Kesi sukta, if Sayana interprets it as "Water" then it is acceptable. If Madhwa, much earlier than Sayana,  interprets it as "Halahala Visha" then it is not. Why this bias? Just because some people think that the image of Shiva is degraded? When we approach with an open mind, Madhwa's interpretation is logical and also wins the support of genuine Smriti texts as quoted earlier.  

Namaste.

It is not a question of bias.  The interpretation as ’Halahala viSha' is fraught with many contradictions.  The Bhagavata purana does not speak anything about vAyu in that episode.  It fully portrays Shiva as the saviour of the day.  But the Padmapurana gives a different story altogether.  While Shiva is regarded as nIlakanTha after this episode, there is no such prasiddhi for vAyu for even he is said to have imbibed the poison. In fact from the 'truth' that vAyu alone drank the undiluted/unrefined poison, he should have been called nilakanTha. But we can always say that it was Vishnu's samkalpa that Shiva should get that praise!!

Apart from that the theory that vAyu destroyed its potential (asta-bala) and then gave it to Shiva smacks of simple defaming/trickery.  Someone who has read the Bhagavatam episode alone might develop genuine Bhakti for Shiva.  [For, Sri Madhwachaarya says 'even though Vishnu was Himself capable of destroying the poison He allowed Shiva to do it (through Vayu) to give Shiva the 'credit'.] Now what is the need to give Shiva the credit if only Vishnu's intention was to generate bhakti in a person who knows about this sAhasa of Shiva?  But then we have the Padmapurana giving a different turn to the episode by giving the credit to vAyu.  Now, the one who had read the Bhagavatam and developed genuine bhakti for Shiva is confused and now discredits Shiva of the sAhasa involved. For he comes to know that 'after all Shiva has only consumed the watered down version of the poison and what is so great about it?'.  And the Padmapurana dialogue between Shiva and Parvati says 'Shiva's  very life was saved by Vayu and Vishnu.'  A person who had to depend on others for saving his own life, is praised as the jagadrakShaka in the Bhagavatam !!  Now, we see the ulterior motive involved here.  The first 'giving credit to Shiva' by Vishnu is finally aimed at getting the credit for Himself and vAyu.  What is all this?   

 

Some years back I have seen a PUBLISHED Sanskrit commentary on the well-known
mantra-s of the Taittiriiya aaraNyaka such as the ones that begin with ईशानः
सर्वविद्यानां, . . . सद्योजातं प्रपद्यामि . . . .The commentator (a svami
belonging to the Maadhva sampradaaya) completely changes the meaning of these
mantra-s and explains  सद्योजातं in a weird and totally ridiculous way as
applying to Narasimha; SADYOJAATA= You, who have come out in an instant from the
pillar upon Prahlaada's prayer".

I have heard that there is a 'viShNupara' commentary of the Sri Rudra prashna of the Taittiriya samhitA by an Acharya of the Madhwa school.  No one should get praise/credit other than Vishnu.  That is the ultimate motive.   

BRAHMAN can be definitely called by the name SIVA. No objections whatsoever. That HE has several forms and names is very well known - यो देवानां नामधा एक एव । But it is very clear from the entire corpus of shruti and puranas that Parvati Pati Shiva is different. He is a soul (very high in stature) , himself a great devotee of the Supreme Brahman, but not the SUPREME BRAHMAN himself.

I am also reminded of another verse of the SrimadbhAgavatam in the context of Daksha yagna:

श्रीभगवानुवाच

अहं ब्रह्मा च शर्वश्च जगतः कारणं परम् ।

आत्मेश्वर उपद्रष्टा स्वयंदृगविशेषणः ॥५०॥

आत्ममायां समाविश्य सोऽहं गुणमयीं द्विज ।

सृजन् रक्षन् हरन् विश्वं दध्रे संज्ञां क्रियोचिताम् ॥५१॥

[Brahmaa - sRiShTi, VishNu - sthitiH, Shiva - samhAra]

तस्मिन् ब्रह्मण्यद्वितीये केवले परमात्मनि ।

ब्रह्मारुद्रौ च भूतानि भेदेनाज्ञोऽनुपश्यति ॥५२॥

यथा पुमान्न स्वाङ्गेषु शिरःपाण्यदिषु क्वचित् ।

पारक्यबुद्धिं कुरुते एवं भूतेषु मत्परः ॥५३॥

त्रयाणामेकभावानां यो न पश्यति वै भिदाम् ।

सर्वभूतात्मनां ब्रह्मन्  स शान्तिमधिगच्छति ॥५४॥

(IV.7.50 – 54)

(50) Lord Vishnu said: 'I, Brahmâ and Lord S'iva as well, do not differ in being the supreme cause and Supersoul, the witness and the self-sufficient one of the material manifestation. Him the Supreme Brahmân that is without a second, is as one Supersoul with both Brahmâ and S'iva, but the living ones who are not conversant with this, think of them as being separate. (53) The way a person sometimes does not make a difference between the head, hands and other parts of his own body, so does My devotee thus make no difference between living beings. (54) He who having the one nature of the Three, verily does, of the Supersoul in all beings, not see the separateness, o brahmin, realizes the peace.'

 

 

My point is by having a complete look of the entire Vedic, (including the
Upanishadic) corpus , it is absolutely clear that Brahma = Siva and that is the
burden of the Svetasvataropanishad, etc.

I am not convinced by this as it is well known that the entire Vedic corpus is of the single opinion that VISHNU-NARAYANA-SIVA-BRAHMAN are the different names of the SUPREME BRAHMAN. HE is ONE. The other demi-gods like four-faced BRAHMAN, RUDRA, INDRA, AGNI are different and they themselves do not agree that they are the SUPREME BRAHMAN. See the statement of Brahma - ओं नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय धीमहि यन्मायया दुर्जयया मां वदन्ति जगद्गुरुम् । And also of Rudra श्रीराम राम रामेति रमे रामे मनोरमे सहस्रनामतत्तुल्यं राम नाम वरानने ।।

Also,

यस्मात् क्षरमतीतोहं अक्षरादपि चोत्तमः अतोस्मि लोके वेदे च प्रथितः पुरुषोत्तमः ।

मत्तः परतरं नान्यत् कि़ञ्चिदस्ति धनञ्जय 

अस्य देवस्य मीळ्हुषो वया विष्णोरेषस्य प्रभृते हविर्भिः ।

विदे हि रुद्रो रुद्रियं महित्वं यासिष्टं वर्तिरश्विनाविरावत् ।

एको नारायण आसीत् न ब्रह्मा न च शङ्करः ।

यं कामये तं तं मुग्रं कृणोमि तं ब्रह्माणं तं ऋषिं सुमेधां ।

अहं रूद्राय धनरुातनोमि ब्रह्मद्विषो शरवे हन्त वा उ ।

इत्यादि सर्वसम्मतबहुविधश्रुतिस्मृतिपुराणैश्च नारायणः एव ब्रह्म इत्यवगम्यते ।  

But Vishnu Himself says:

अहं ब्रह्मा च शर्वश्च जगतः कारणं परम् ।

आत्मेश्वर उपद्रष्टा स्वयंदृगविशेषणः ॥५०॥

आत्ममायां समाविश्य सोऽहं गुणमयीं द्विज ।

सृजन् रक्षन् हरन् विश्वं दध्रे संज्ञां क्रियोचिताम् ॥५१॥

[Brahmaa - sRiShTi, VishNu - sthitiH, Shiva - samhAra]

Here is a  quote from the book: 'Sri Appayya Dikshita' (p.66,67) by Dr.N.Ramesan, IAS.  He has not mentioned the particular text where this verse appears.  It is quite possible that it was a stray verse of Appayya Dikshita. In many places Dr.Ramesan gives the source too while quoting a single verse or many verses of Dikshita in that book.   

The verse, in full, and its meaning:
// viShNurvA shankaro vA shruti-shikhara-girAmastu tAtparya-bhUmiH
 na-asmAkam tatra vAdaH prasarati kimapi spaShTam-advaita-bhAjAm |
kintu-Isha-dveSha-gADhAnala-kalita-hRRidAm durmatInAm duruktIH

bhanktum yatno mama-ayam nahi bhavatu tato viShNu-vidveSha-shankAm ||

The meaning of the above beautiful verse is:

'I have not the slightest objection, to anyone coming to any
conclusion, that the spirit of the Vedas and the Vedantas, declare
either Vishnu or Shiva as the First God. I am a follower of the
Advaita doctrine. I have no difference between Shiva and VishNu.
But if in order to establish Vishnu as the main God, if somebody
starts abusing Shiva or hates him, I cannot bear it. There are as
many proofs or pramanas in the Vedas, Vedantas, Puranas and Agamas to establish that Shiva is a mighty God, as there are to prove that Vishnu is a powerful one. However, I am propagating my religion and indulging in debate and disputation, only to persuade everyone not to hate Shiva. Let no one have the slightest doubt that I either hate or wish to denigrate Lord Vishnu simply because I praise the grace and greatness of Lord Shiva.'

The sublime devotion of Dikshita to Lord Vishnu is fully seen from
his great work 'Varadaraja stava' where he has sung in ecstatic
poetry about Lord Varadaraja of Kanchipuram. Vaishnavas declare that Vishnu is the supreme being and that Shiva has a lower status being mere jiva. Sri Dikshita however proves in his 'Ratna-traya- parIkShA' that Shiva, Vishnu, Ambika, all the three are the same, viz., the supreme reality, and proves it with the pramanas taken from the puranas, vedas and agamas. //

The above is quoted from the book: 'Sri Appayya Dikshita' (p.66,67) by Dr.N.Ramesan, IAS.

Let us leave this kind of 'who is greater/greatest' vAda in the spirit of:
शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय शिवरूपाय विष्णवे ।
शिवस्य हृदयं विष्णुर्विष्णोश्च हृदयं शिवः ॥

This shloka is recited by many people of  the smArta sampradaya in Karnataka during their sandhyavandana.

For endlessly we can keep showing instances of Vishnu/Rama/Krishna worshiping Shiva from Mahabharta and other works. Again all these episodes can be given a different meaning upholding the pAramya of Vishnu.  With the strength of tarka and vyAkaraNa  anyone can argue in one's favour.  There is no 'pratiShThA' for this (तर्कस्य अप्रतिष्ठानात्).   

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:21 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Shri Rachuri Achar said:

 

//BRAHMAN can be definitely called by the name SIVA. No objections whatsoever. That HE has several forms and names is very well known - यो देवानां नामधा एक एव । But it is very clear from the entire corpus of shruti and puranas that Parvati Pati Shiva is different. He is a soul (very high in stature) , himself a great devotee of the Supreme Brahman, but not the SUPREME BRAHMAN himself.//

Namaste.

Here this very episode, in the srImadbhAgavatam, has a whole section where the devatAs including Lord Hari Himself, acknowledging that Shiva is the Supreme Brahman:

SB 8.7: Lord Siva Saves the Universe by Drinking Poison

This verse and the explanation the Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharya gives, quoting Sri Madhwacharya, is of especial importance to show how to what extent one can go to establish Vishnu pAramya by distorting and twisting the Bhagavata verse:

TEXT 19

 

   

tad ugra-vegaṁ diśi diśy upary adho

 

visarpad utsarpad asahyam aprati

 

bhītāḥ prajā dudruvur aṅga seśvarā

 

arakṣyamāṇāḥ śaraṇaṁ sadāśivam

 

SYNONYMS

 

tat—that; ugra-vegam—very fierce and potent poison; diśi diśi—in all directions; upari—upward; adhaḥ—downward; visarpat—curling; utsarpat—going upward; asahyam—unbearable; aprati—uncontrollable; bhītāḥ—being very much afraid; prajāḥ—the residents of all the worlds; dudruvuḥ—moved here and there; aṅga—O Mahārāja Parīkṣit; sa-īśvarāḥ—with the Supreme Lord; arakṣyamāṇāḥ—not being protected; śaraṇam—shelter; sadāśivam—unto the lotus feet of Lord Śiva.

 

 

O King, when that uncontrollable poison was forcefully spreading up and down in all directions, all the demigods, along with the Lord Himself, approached Lord Śiva [Sadāśiva]. Feeling unsheltered and very much afraid, they sought shelter of him.

 

 (This is the explanation of the Gaudiya Acharya):

One may question that since the Supreme Personality of Godhead was personally present, why did He accompany all the demigods and people in general to take shelter of Lord Sadāśiva, instead of intervening Himself. In this connection Śrīla Madhvācārya warns:

 

rudrasya yaśaso ’rthāya
svayaṁ viṣṇur viṣaṁ vibhuḥ
na sañjahre samartho ’pi
vāyuṁ coce praśāntaye

 

Lord Viṣṇu was competent to rectify the situation, but in order to give credit to Lord Śiva, who later drank all the poison and kept it in his neck, Lord Viṣṇu did not take action.

[One can also see how this account contradicts the quoted Padma purana uttara khanda verses where it is said Vayu drank 'anAyaasena' and Shiva was given just a drop and how Shiva suffered the effects of the poison and was 'saved' by Vayu and Hari.  In order to uphold 'somehow' the Hari-vAyu paaramya poor Shiva is unceremoniously sacrificed!!]

 

TEXT 22

 

   

tvam ekaḥ sarva-jagata

 

īśvaro bandha-mokṣayoḥ

 

taṁ tvām arcanti kuśalāḥ

 

prapannārti-haraṁ gurum

 

SYNONYMS

 

tvam ekaḥ—Your Lordship is indeed; sarva-jagataḥ—of the three worlds; īśvaraḥ—the controller; bandha-mokṣayoḥ—of both bondage and liberation; tam—that controller; tvām arcanti—worship you; kuśalāḥ—persons who want good fortune; prapanna-ārti-haram—who can mitigate all the distresses of a sheltered devotee; gurum—you who act as a good advisor to all fallen souls.

 

 

O lord, you are the cause of bondage and liberation of the entire universe because you are its ruler. Those who are advanced in spiritual consciousness surrender unto you, and therefore you are the cause of mitigating their distresses, and you are also the cause of their liberation. We therefore worship Your Lordship.

 

 

TEXT 29

 

   

mukhāni pañcopaniṣadas taveśa

 

yais triṁśad-aṣṭottara-mantra-vargaḥ

 

yat tac chivākhyaṁ paramātma-tattvaṁ

 

deva svayaṁ-jyotir avasthitis te

 

SYNONYMS

 

mukhāni—faces; pañca—five; upaniṣadaḥ—Vedic literatures; tava—your; īśa—O lord; yaiḥ—by which; triṁśat-aṣṭa-uttara-mantra-vargaḥ—in the category of thirty-eight important Vedic mantras; yat—that; tat—as it is; śiva-ākhyam—celebrated by the name Śiva; paramātma-tattvam—which ascertain the truth about Paramātmā; deva—O lord; svayam-jyotiḥ—self-illuminated; avasthitiḥ—situation; te—of Your Lordship.

 

 

O lord, the five important Vedic mantras are represented by your five faces, from which the thirty-eight most celebrated Vedic mantras have been generated. Your Lordship, being celebrated as Lord Śiva, is self-illuminated. You are directly situated as the supreme truth, known as Paramātmā.

 

 

TEXT 31

   

na te giri-trākhila-loka-pāla-

 

viriñca-vaikuṇṭha-surendra-gamyam

 

jyotiḥ paraṁ yatra rajas tamaś ca

 

sattvaṁ na yad brahma nirasta-bhedam

 

SYNONYMS

 

na—not; te—of Your Lordship; giri-tra—O King of the mountains; akhila-loka-pāla—all the directors of departments of material activities; viriñca—Lord Brahmā; vaikuṇṭha—Lord Viṣṇu; sura-indra—the King of heaven; gamyam—they can understand; jyotiḥ—effulgence; param—transcendental; yatra—wherein; rajaḥ—the mode of passion; tamaḥ ca—and the mode of ignorance; sattvam—the mode of goodness; na—not; yat brahma—which is impersonal Brahman; nirasta-bhedam—without distinction between demigods and human beings.

 

 

O Lord Girīśa, since the impersonal Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahmā, Lord Viṣṇu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

The set of verses in the Bhagavatam are there in the section that describes the contents of the Purusha sUkta as applicable to Shiva.

I would also like to add that that there are some progressive thinking people who have realized that there is no validity in distinguishing Hari and Hara.  In a Kannada journal 'mukhyaprANa' an article has appeared titled: 'hari-hara bheda salladu'.  I did not read it as I could not at that time; I had gone there to that house to buy  a copy of Dr.A.V.Nagasampige's very popular Kannada book: mata traya sameekshA.

 

 

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

[Ganesan]

On 26-02-2012 20:52, Ram Sharma wrote:

Better we avoid such controversial issues in our ParisHad .NiilakaNTha has done his best to resolve such issues by bringing in SHYAALASHUNAKANYAAYA .But we  need not attach any importance to such partial issues that are prejudicial this way or that way.This goes agaist the  samanvaya principle represented in "EKAM SAd vipraa ."...or "NRNAAM eko gamyas tvam asi payasaam arNava iva" or "YO YO YAAM YAAM tanuM bhaktaH ".  iti savinayaM saagrahaM praarthayate       RamakaraNaH Sharmaa..        --- On Sun, 2/26/12, Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:

From: Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> Subject: Re: Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Regarding the 'Keshi sUktam' of Rg Veda 10.136

> इत्यतः परं रुद्रवचः इत्थमनुवर्तन्ते .... > > नाममात्रेण सहितं मन्त्रानुग्रहमादिशन् । > तद्विशप्राशनादेव मम दाहोभ्यवर्धत । > जिह्वाग्रधारणादेव मम प्राणा विनिर्गताः । > कृपया पवमानस्य तथा नामत्रयेण च । > अच्युतानन्तगोविन्दनाममाहात्म्यतः शुभे । > जीवितोस्मि तदा काले विष्णोर्नामत्रयादहो । > पश्चात्तु तद्विषं सर्वमेकीकृत्य स पात्रके । > *अनायासात्पपौ वायुः सर्वेषां रक्षणाय  च ।* > हरेश्च प्रीतये देवि ब्रह्मणो वचनात्तथा । > ऋचोब्रुवंश्च देवस्य केशीति ब्रह्मवादिनः । > इत्थं वायोर्महत्त्वं हि विष्णुभक्तस्य पार्वति । इति । > > अनेन वायुः पपौ इति विज्ञायते । ऋचोब्रुवन् देवस्य केशीति ब्रह्मवादिनः > इत्यनेन केशीसुक्तस्य वायुपरत्वं च विज्ञायते । > > इति शम् । > >

This leads to an important point: We have been seeing many such explanations

guised as commentaries written in Sanskrit. Many ACCEPTED, WELL-KNOWN AND

ANCIENT stories regarding Siva (Rudra)and applicable only to Siva, that are scattered in the Veda-s, Brahmana-s and even Upanishads are twisted by such "commentators" and explained mostly as pertaining to Vishnu or to other gods as in the present case.

Some years back I have seen a PUBLISHED Sanskrit commentary on the well-known mantra-s of the Taittiriiya aaraNyaka such as the ones that begin with ईशानः सर्वविद्यानां, . . . सद्योजातं प्रपद्यामि . . . .The commentator (a svami belonging to the Maadhva sampradaaya) completely changes the meaning of these mantra-s and explains  सद्योजातं in a weird and totally ridiculous way as applying to Narasimha; SADYOJAATA= You, who have come out in an instant from the pillar upon Prahlaada's prayer".

The instance of Svetasvataropanishad is  a strong case in this point: The entire Upanishad is permeated with supreme devotion to Siva (= Rudra)and from the beginnig establishes Rudra as the highest Brahma; the last verse     यदा चर्मवदाकाशं वेष्टयिष्यन्ति मानवाः ।     तदा देवमविज्ञाय दुःखस्यान्तो भविष्यति । Here Srikantha accepts the reading "शिवमविज्ञाय"  in place of देवमविज्ञाय. But such a 'changing' of the text seems to have taken place earlier. The previous verse is     यो ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्वं यो वै वेदांश्च प्रहिणोति तस्मै ।     तँ ह देवमात्मबुद्धिप्रकाशं मुमुक्षुर्वै शऱणमहं प्रपद्ये । Therefore , by context, Deva applies naturally to Siva in this text and therefore, Brahma = Siva.

Here either the fact of applying to Siva alone is either not stressed or, explained away as if not important. For corroboration one may cite the stry of the Kenopanishad where Umaa, HaimavatI appears before Agni, Vaayu, Indra and shows to them that the "unknown Yaksha' that appeared before them is the Highest Brahma by whose power these Gods get their share of powers. Now, the Brahma shown by Umaa-HaimavatI COULD AND NATURALLY BE SIVA alone and none else. One should note the usage of names as Umaa, and to be without any doubt, HaimavatI. Umaa-haimavatI cannot show any other reality as the Highest Brahma. I am very much sure that an objective minded scholar will definitely agree. But, interestingly beginning from Samkara none of them underlined this fundamental point. I am citing these instances to show that 'Brahma' can be applicable only to Siva. The Smriti corroboration     अष्टादशानामेतासां भिन्नवर्त्मनाम् ।   आदिकर्ता कविः साक्षात् शूलपाणिरिति स्थितिः । clearly states that SuulapANi Siva is the author of all the 18 streams of scriptures beginning from .Veda

My point is by having a complete look of the entire Vedic, (including the Upanishadic) corpus , it is absolutely clear that Brahma = Siva and that is the burden of the Svetasvataropanishad, etc.

In fact this has been going on since quite long as stated many times by AppayadIkShita, NiilakaNThadIkshita, in many of their texts. Another instance is in the commentary called 'Tilaka' composed by Govindaraja belonging to the 16th century. While commenting the story of Rama's breaking the Sivadhanus, he writes that it is symbolic of Rama destroying the Saivadharma ( as Dhanus also means Dharma; sivadhanus = sivadharma)and establishing the superiority of Vaishnava dharma. Such is the extent of antagonism, text-torturing trend of many of these traditional commentators.

Mypoint is to state the points clear without offending anybody's sensibilities.

Ganesan

-- निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.) to subscribe go to the link below and put a request https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

bvparishat+unsub...@googlegroups.com

It is true. But again, it looks so strange that one is 'advised' to avoid such discussions; but, when......??? Initially one starts such thread,,, and when there comes a reply with more support presenting the case for Siva,,,,, suddenly it is 'advised' to put an end to these discussions involving greatness of either Siva or Vishnu.
Either one discusses, puts forth arguments,, (of course objectively) and there ensues a lively discussion. Or, never start such a discussion at all !!!.
Whether one likes it or not, there are sizable quantity of texts on this vry important point.
Also, one has to have a historical view of developments of such ideas.
But to stop such discussions when matters from the Saiva view point are put forth, does not look objective or neutrality.
With the best wishes
Ganesan

Dr.T.Ganesan
Senior Researcher in Saivasiddhanta
French Institute of Pondicherry
UMIFRE 21 CNRS-MAEE
11, St. Louis Street
P.B. 33  PONDICHERRY-605001
INDIA
Tel: +91 - 413 - 233 4168 ext. 119
E mail: gan...@ifpindia.org
Web: www.ifpindia.org

[Ganesan]

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

I just want to know why this importance to Vaayu among all other gods ???!!!!
I think nowhere else do we find such a fantastic theory !!!
Any explanation for this ????
Ganesan

[Ganesan]

On 27-02-2012 00:21, V Subrahmanian wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Regarding the 'Keshi sUktam' of Rg Veda 10.136
To: Rachuri Achar <rrac...@gmail.com>


नमांसि श्री आनद महोदयाः। सायणभाष्यतात्पर्यं संयक्सङ्गृहीतं भवद्भिः ।

सुब्रह्मण्यशर्मा

2012/2/26 Rachuri Achar <rrac...@gmail.com>

Dear sir,

Also, in the case of Kesi sukta, if Sayana interprets it as "Water" then it is acceptable. If Madhwa, much earlier than Sayana,  interprets it as "Halahala Visha" then it is not. Why this bias? Just because some people think that the image of Shiva is degraded? When we approach with an open mind, Madhwa's interpretation is logical and also wins the support of genuine Smriti texts as quoted earlier.  

Namaste.

It is not a question of bias.  The interpretation as ’Halahala viSha' is fraught with many contradictions.  The Bhagavata purana does not speak anything about vAyu in that episode.  It fully portrays Shiva as the saviour of the day.  But the Padmapurana gives a different story altogether.  While Shiva is regarded as nIlakanTha after this episode, there is no such prasiddhi for vAyu for even he is said to have imbibed the poison. In fact from the 'truth' that vAyu alone drank the undiluted/unrefined poison, he should have been called nilakanTha. But we can always say that it was Vishnu's samkalpa that Shiva should get that praise!!

Apart from that the theory that vAyu destroyed its potential (asta-bala) and then gave it to Shiva smacks of simple defaming/trickery.  Someone who has read the Bhagavatam episode alone might develop genuine Bhakti for Shiva.  [For, Sri Madhwachaarya says 'even though Vishnu was Himself capable of destroying the poison He allowed Shiva to do it (through Vayu) to give Shiva the 'credit'.] Now what is the need to give Shiva the credit if only Vishnu's intention was to generate bhakti in a person who knows about this sAhasa of Shiva?  But then we have the Padmapurana giving a different turn to the episode by giving the credit to vAyu.  Now, the one who had read the Bhagavatam and developed genuine bhakti for Shiva is confused and now discredits Shiva of the sAhasa involved. For he comes to know that 'after all Shiva has only consumed the watered down version of the poison and what is so great about it?'.  And the Padmapurana dialogue between Shiva and Parvati says 'Shiva's  very life was saved by Vayu and Vishnu.'  A person who had to depend on others for saving his own life, is praised as the jagadrakShaka in the Bhagavatam !!  Now, we see the ulterior motive involved here.  The first 'giving credit to Shiva' by Vishnu is finally aimed at getting the credit for Himself and vAyu.  What is all this?   

 

Some years back I have seen a PUBLISHED Sanskrit commentary on the well-known
mantra-s of the Taittiriiya aaraNyaka such as the ones that begin with ईशानः
सर्वविद्यानां, . . . सद्योजातं प्रपद्यामि . . . .The commentator (a svami
belonging to the Maadhva sampradaaya) completely changes the meaning of these
mantra-s and explains  सद्योजातं in a weird and totally ridiculous way as
applying to Narasimha; SADYOJAATA= You, who have come out in an instant from the
pillar upon Prahlaada's prayer".

I have heard that there is a 'viShNupara' commentary of the Sri Rudra prashna of the Taittiriya samhitA by an Acharya of the Madhwa school.  No one should get praise/credit other than Vishnu.  That is the ultimate motive.   

My point is by having a complete look of the entire Vedic, (including the
Upanishadic) corpus , it is absolutely clear that Brahma = Siva and that is the
burden of the Svetasvataropanishad, etc.

A

Subrahmanyan Wrote:
"I have heard that there is a 'viShNupara' commentary of the Sri Rudra prashna of the Taittiriya samhitA by an Acharya of the Madhwa school.  No one should get praise/credit other than Vishnu.  That is the ultimate motive".

Very correct observation indeed on the motive of these commentators .

One finds in all these the logic and context of the text cited or commented are given a complete go by and text torturing to the best possibility is resorted to unhindered.

NiilakanTa diikshita very succinctly says in his introductory portion of his commentary Sivatattvaviveka on the SIVAASHTOTTARASATANAAMASTOTRA, after summarising the views of the opponents who condemn all the Saiva purana-s as Taamasa thus:
      न हि परेण भ्रान्तमिति स्वेनापि भ्रमितव्यम् ।
Ganesan

[V Subrahmanian]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Regarding the 'Keshi sUktam' of Rg Veda 10.136
To: Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org>

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:

 

I just want to know why this importance to Vaayu among all other gods ???!!!!

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad there is an episode aimed at bringing out the greatness of PrANa as against all other sense organs.  Here, there arises a conversation among the various organs as to who among them is the most important, indispensable, to the jiva where they are all residing. 

One can read this entire episode in Br.Up. VI.i.7 to 14. [In the Swami MadhvAnanda's English translation one can see this in pages 605 onwards in the Advaita Ashrama edition of the Ramakrishna Mutt. ]

  प्राणस्य इतरदेवतापेक्षया श्रैष्ठ्यम् ।

Regards,
subrahmanian.v   

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Just like the message sent by me earlier, without taking care to select the proper option, the message of Ram Karan Sharma was also directed to Sri Ganesh. Hence I am forwarding the same message for perusal by all the members of bvp.

I apologize for my inadvertance.

There is nothing to wonder if a शैव writer upholds शिव as the Supreme Deity or Parabrahma, and if a वैष्णव writer does the same honor to विष्णु against any offending comments defending him as the same position. Only it will be a wonder, if the reverse is the case. It has been the history of Indian Philosophy witnessed fact of such things whereby the controversy over dvaita and advaita writers in succession, produced a series of works on both sides in defense and offence of the other opponent view.

But as researchers, we should not get biased

with such things, such as being degraded or upgraded by the commentators or writers. पुराण-s are also classified according to the predominance of the three deities, ब्रह्म, विष्णु and शिव. By this classification, पद्मपुराण falls into the वैष्णव category and for the reading of the episode of विषमथन into the सूक्त, the change was made retaining the वायु mentioned in the sUkta, as acting upon the inspiration of विष्णु, which is only expected of it. Sri Acarya has reported it as it had been asked for by Sri Subrahmanyam, whether it could not be taken as such. केशिन् - could be conveniently interpreted as कपर्दिन् for the sake of reading the Puranic episode. This fact was reported by Jayatirtha, to support the interpretation of Madhvacarya. This is in reply to the question what वायु has to do in the episode which is not available in other पुराण-s and वायु has a special position as जीवोत्तम or मुख्यप्राण in माध्व system which may or ,may not be accepted by the non-madhva writer or commentator. 

 

It is the same with शाक्त पुराण-s, also, of which Sri Sankara, makes the supremacy of शक्ति over other deities. The purpose does not seem to degrade the other deity, but upholding his favorite deity praised at the cost of others. The same episode tis taken as the power of the ताटाङ्क of देवि, हरमहिषि. that he outlived in spite of drinking poison. This is also need not be interpreted as the derogation towards शिव, but only in praise of the शक्ति. 

We the scholars of the परिषत् better avoid engaging such disputes as the शिव and वैष्णव writers did in the past. This was meant by Ramkaran Sharma, and due to the recent change in  reply system, it was posted directly to Ganeshan, which was intended to all the scholars in the "parishat" as earlier. Hope this was not intended towards respected Ganesan only and was done without noticing the change in the reply button by Raam Karan Sarma.

Hope now we can stop continuing the discussion in this direction as the query raised in the original post was answered satisfactorily. 

This is not the only case, taking the words to suit our purpose. The popular Rik, गणानां त्वा गणपतिं is taken as the invocation आवाहनमत्र for गणपति a शैव or शाक्त deity, whereas in fact, the address itself ब्रह्मणस्पति the deity of the सुक्त according to देवतानुक्रमणी, has nothing to do with the गणपति the son of शिव, the elephant faced deity of the पुराण-s.

This is just to hint the convenient interpretation of the ऋक् mantra0s.

With regards

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Ganesan]

We the scholars of the परिषत् better avoid engaging such disputes as the शिव and वैष्णव writers did in the past. This was meant by Ramkaran Sharma, and due to the recent change in  reply system, it was posted directly to Ganeshan, which was intended to all the scholars in the "parishat" as earlier. Hope this was not intended towards respected Ganesan only and was done without noticing the change in the reply button by Raam Karan Sarma.

Hope now we can stop continuing the discussion in this direction as the query raised in the original post was answered satisfactorily. 

Dear scholars,
Of course it is agreed that there should be unbiased discussion on these points.
But why should one stop continuing the discussion in this direction ?????

But this "parishad" is the forum and this is the occasion for dicussing these 'important' points.
we need not shy away from putting forth one's views, understanding of views and the vast reference materials in this regard.
One thing we should bear in mind is that we are not "deciding" whether this God is superior over others; what we are doing is citing various views, the support or refutation of them by others so that scholarly world knows them.
For all said and done, none of us is a "naiyaayika" or a "miimaaMsaka" but we all identify with one system of religio-philosophy or the various schools of Vedanta or the other. That means, those who are intereted amongst us have studied and are studying many texts, commentaries by various authors in this regard. In this forum we share those views. It cannot be mere reporting the views and naturally it will involve discussions passing remarks for and against one or many views/comentators.
Now because of this discussion many of us come to know the episode of Vaayu drinking poison, etc. and how there ensued various view points in the tradition, how there are "different" commentaries ,some even very recent, on the Veda-s and Upanishads, and even we come to know the "text torturing ability" of some traditional commentators.

Just because somebody does not like this, or some will angrily remark, that one should desisit us from putting forth the views.
After all, discussions on these matters is directly involved with one's beliefs and knowledge.
So, I feel that instead of merely discussing "dry"  Naiyaayika topics such AnupaanapramANa, Vyaapti, Pakshadharmataa, Hetvaabhaasa, alone scholars in this forum should participate in these discussions. Of course those who do not want to openly state and take sides (but in their heart of hearts many cannot avoid taking sides,,,!!!!) may avoid participating. But it need be a rule for others who are interested, to stop continuing the discussion as opined by H. N. Bhatt.
That may not be a "scholarly" view.
Ganesan

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste. 

I wish to add one reference which I had not already stated in this discussion:

(27-28) S'rî Parîkshit said: 'To establish the dharma and to subdue the ones defiant, descended indeed He, the Supreme Lord, the Controller of the Universe with His plenary portion [Balarâma]; how could He, the original speaker, executor and protector of the codes of moral conduct, behave to the contrary o brahmin, touching the wives of others? (29) What did He, so self-satisfied, have in mind with this assuredly contemptible performance, o best of the vowed, please dispel our doubt about this.'

(30) S'rî S'uka said: 'The transgression of dharma and thoughtlessness, as can be seen with controllers of spiritual potency, does not, as with an all-consuming fire [staying the same], mean they are at fault.

(31) Someone not in control sure mustn't even think of ever doing a thing like this; such a one, acting out of foolishness, would be destroyed like one not being Rudra would be with [drinking] the poison from the ocean [see 8.7].

[The above conversation occurs in the Canto of the Bhagvatam where the Rasa Krida is described]

The references of the Bhagavatam are 10.33.29 and 10.33.30.

dharmavyatikramo dR^iShTa IshvarANAM cha sAhasam
tejIyasAM na doShAya vahneH sarvabhujo yathA

In this verse Sri ShukAchArya acknowledges that there is a 'dharma vyatikrama' in the cases where some sAhasam is displayed by Ishwara-s [Those of very high stature].  He also calls them 'tejIyasAm' very splendrous, highly accomplished, powerful beings.

naitatsamAcharejjAtu manasApi hyanIshvaraH
vinashyatyAcharanmauDhyAdyathA rudro.abdhijaM viSham

Here Sri Shuka acknowledges and confirms that Rudra consumed the poison.  The verse is significant for the additional reason that he gives Rudra's sAhasam to explain an act of Krishna in the Bhagavatam.  In Shuka's view Hari-Hara sAmyam is brought out in this comparison. The second line 'vinashyati.....' confirms that according to Veda VyAsa, the author, and ShukAcharya, the narrator, Rudra consumed the poison which was indeed potent.  Otherwise, if they too had believed that Rudra consumed only the impotent poison there is no 'svArasya' in saying that others will perish if they imitate Rudra.   

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

[Ganesan]

A very good reference and a reasonable argument indeed !

I would like to add that this need not be interpreted as an argument to show that Suka Maharshi is convinced of Hari-Hara sAmyam. He is just citing two instances involving Hari and Hara each, to teach Pariikshit (and through him to others) that any misadventure 'imitating' these peculiar acts by lesser mortals would lead them to destruction.
There is also this subtle difference in these two acts referred:
While there is 'dharmavyatikrama' in the act of "touching the wives of others" by Hari, there is absolutely no such transgression in the act of drinking the terrific poison by Hara. For, Siva accepts to drink the cruel poison to save the entire universe from destruction upon the prayers from the gods.
The ancient Sivamahimnastava clearly puts it s follows:
       अकाण्ड-ब्रह्माण्ड-क्षयचकित-देवासुरकृपा

    विधेयस्याऽऽसीद्‌यस्त्रिनयन विषं संहृतवतः।

    स कल्माषः कण्ठे तव न कुरुते न श्रियमहो

    विकारोऽपि श्लाघ्यो भुवन-भय- भङ्ग- व्यसनिनः॥

The above mentioned reference is only a sample. There are more such references in the PurANa-s.
Therefore the act of drinking poison is out of "bhuvana-bhaya-bhanga-vyasana" which stands altogether in a different level and due to which there is change of colour in Siva's throat. This very act has earned Him the immortal name tyaagaraaja.
Ganesan

-- 

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste. 

I wish to add yet another reference which I came across recently:

In the Valmiki Ramayana, araNya kANDa, we have this verse as coming from Mother Seetha to Ravana when he comes to abduct Her:

mandaraM parvataSreshTham pANinA hartum ichhasi |
kAlakUTaM vishaM pItvA svastimAn gantum icchasi || (araNya kANDa, 47.40)

"You wish to take away the mandara mountain by hand? You wish to walk away
unharmed after consuming poison?" The reference here is to the kUrmAvatAra
when Siva drank the kAlakUTa poison while vishNu supported mandara.

Here we see two extraordinary events - one where VishNu took an avatAra and the other where Shiva displayed a sAhasa - are alluded to which speaks of the intention of Valmiki to equate Vishnu and Shiva. 

None of the available commentaries elaborate on the above verse. 

Regards,
subrahmanian.v
 

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Scholars,

 

Much Ado is created about nothing.

THAT which existed Before the creation, is called in the Upanishats as Isha, Brahma or Parameshwara or parabrahma. And THAT alone tredhaa nidadhe padam [That took up the management of this universe in three ways. Rik.1-164 describes how THAT manifest himself in three ways.

"The Sukta:

AxrÉ uÉÉqÉxrÉ mÉÍsÉiÉxrÉ WûÉåiÉÑxiÉxrÉ pÉëÉiÉÉ qÉkrÉqÉÉå AxirÉzlÉÈ |

iÉÚiÉÏrÉÉå pÉëÉiÉÉ bÉ×iÉmÉ׸Éå AxrÉɧÉÉmÉzrÉÇ ÌuÉzmÉÌiÉÇ xÉmiÉmÉѧÉqÉç ||1

[I saw the master of this universe, (in the form of) the three Shining bodies, (placed above

one another), the top one creating the universe, the central one wielding everywhere,

protecting, and the third at the bottom, a veritable storehouse of highly condensed life-energy.

The master is known to have seven sons.]

It is clear from the above that the Master is one, but presents himself here as three bodies.

The word Bhratha is interpreted as brother. But it is a gerund from the root ‘tu bhrajru’

(deeptau).

Here, the Rishi explains the birth of the Universe. At the centre, the three (brothers / stars) are

seen one above the other; the one at the top as Hota, which word Sayana misinterprets as

Aadaata. Actually, hota is one who sacrifices, and therefore is the donor. How can he become

the receiver? Yet Sayana takes him to be the receiver. The middle one, who radiates to each

and every nook and corner of the universe, is again mistaken as one who devours everything.

The third is the storehouse of energy. But the Rishi declares that he saw in the three the

Master of the Universe. This is the importance of this Sukta.

It is patent from the puranas that it is this trinity that they refer to; as Vishnu, Brahman and

Maheshwara. Vishnu provides as donor, the rajas, the material for the formation of all the

bodies in the Universe; Brahman at the center, naabhi, is the light that radiates throughout and

empowers our intellect; and Maheshwara supplies the Life energy of which he is shown as

the storehouse. The puranas describe that the Brahman was born at the nabhi of Vishnu. I

have already shown in Adityahrudaya, how what we pray for, the bhargaH is actually a triad;

and that it is derived from the center of this Universe; the khachakra called the Sudarshana.

Further the Yajurveda 5-15 also confirms this: thredha nidadhe padam (see page 58). The

God occupied the position: how? In three ways. As supplier of the material, of the intellect

and of the life-energy. The puranas describe the universe as a sea, the axis of which is

constituted by an isle called Rathnadweepa. The axis is described as sumeru. So this mantra

describes the beginning of the Universe; which the God managed in three ways as above;

130

s.r.krishna murthy130

which are famous and need no further explanation. Aham apashyam signifies that the

Immanifest became Manifest to the Rishi."

These are the excerpts from my book. It is the Vedic exposition. Since Vedas override all Puranas; and commentaries thereon, and hold that HE himself manifested in three ways to manage the Universe and further all the THREE but constitute only One; there is point in our arguing whether Shiva is Superior or Vishnu; when the so-called three [including the third Brahma] are but ONE. The first one is called the Head [vamaH - vishnu acc.to Puranaas],  the middle one the AshnaH [Brahmaa acc.to puranaas] and third GhritaprishtaH [Mahadeva acc.to puraanaas]. The three together manage the Universe.  The very fact that the first is referred to as Shirshaa and the third as PrishTha is to show that they constitute one body. So when they are ONE acc.to Vedas; there is no question of anybody equating them; since that would amount to saying that they are two different entities; which is not correct; Vedas being the final authority.

 

Discussion per se is not bad and needs to be encouraged, in an assembly of scholars, who are not biassed and are open to Truth. Those who do not want to accept Truth, are free not to accpt the Truth. But if open debate is suppressed those who want to know the Truth will be deprived of the opportunity of knowing the Truth. Scholars can always verify the source quoted and ascertain the TRUTH.

 

s.r.krishna murthy.

 

 

 

 

[Ganesan]

On 03-03-2012 12:33, V Subrahmanian wrote:
>
>
> Here we see two extraordinary events - one where VishNu took an
> avatAra and the other where Shiva displayed a sAhasa - are alluded to
> which speaks of the intention of Valmiki to equate Vishnu and Shiva.

Namste
Two different 'great' events performed by two deities are referred here
by Vaalmiiki; but, what is that 'extra ordinary' logic which proves that
Vaalmiiki thereby intends that the two Gods are equal ? There may be
other passages where Vaalmiiki intends so, but definitely not the
passage referred above.
Moreover, 'saahasa' is mostly used in the sense of rashness, triviality,
unthought-of actions, etc. as explained in the Dictionary. Therefore,
drinking the kaalakuuTa poison does not definitely come undr any of
these meanings.
We also come across in the commentaries on ~saastra texts that when the
opponent's theory or argument is logically not sound or does not carry
any weight, it is dismissed as साहसमात्रम् .
Therefore, it is not at all logically correct or meaningful to refer to
the drinking of kAlakuuTa as 'saahasa' as explained by me in my earlier
response.
Ganesan

--

[Ganesan]

On 04-03-2012 20:06, S.R.Krishnamurthy wrote:

Dear Scholars,

 

Much Ado is created about nothing.

THAT which existed Before the creation, is called in the Upanishats as Isha, Brahma or Parameshwara or parabrahma. And THAT alone tredhaa nidadhe padam [That took up the management of this universe in three ways. Rik.1-164 describes how THAT manifest himself in three ways.

These are the excerpts from my book. It is the Vedic exposition. Since Vedas override all Puranas; and commentaries thereon, and hold that HE himself manifested in three ways to manage the Universe and further all the THREE but constitute only One;

       

Namaste.
There is discssion verily on this point. By the Veda-s the Upanishads are also naturally included, and there are many passages in them that teach one or the other form the supreme God as the highest reality, Brahma.
And the maxim "bhuuyasaa vyapade~saH" is naturally weighty and there are arguments to prove one particular Godhead as the Brahma.
One supreme reality manifesting as THREE is not so much found in many of the Upani.sad-s.
Thanks
Ganesan

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

My dear Sri Ganeshan, and other scholars,

 

The Great Valmiki wrote Ramayana, acc. to his own words, to explain the Vedas - vedopabruMhaNarthaM. The greatness of his poetry is that he does not indulge anywhere in exaggeration. About Shiva and Vishnu, the argument that is going on - whether Vishnu is great or Shiva - is not new; it is as old as Vedas themselves. See how subtlely he expounds the subject. Parashurama comes to Rama to hand over the Vaishnava Dhanu; with which alone the latter could kill Ravana. He had decimated all the haughty Kshatriyas only with that Dhanu. At that moment, he tells Rama a story that the Gods were once in a dilemma as to who was the greater - the VishNu or the Shiva. So they went to Prajapati with the question. The Prajapati, instead of giving an answer, engineered a combat between the two. The combat went on for long without there being any decision. Ultimately, Vishnu grunted at which the combat was stopped.

 

The 'Vaishnavites' claim that Vishnu's grunt made Shiva stop the combat; so he is the mightier of the two. Neither Prajapati nor Valmiki give their opinions at that moment [1-77]. But Valmiki depicts on the advent of Parashurama at the horizon that the entire RishiSangha led by Vasistha and Vamadeva began to chant 'Rama Rama Rama Rama'. Neither the poet nor the Rishis make any distinction between the two Ramas; but chant only 'Rama Rama'; the poet's and the Rishis' implication being the two Ramas were in fact only one; and thereby Shiva and Vishnu whom the Parashurama and the Dasharathirama signified, were not two entities but only one. A nod is enough for the Wise.

 

However Valmiki does not run away from his responsibility. He is not explicit in 1-77 because people; who are already biassed seldom change their opinion even on seeing the Truth. But Valmiki spelt out his opinion in the words of Rama in 3-64-55/56.

 

    कर्तारमपि लोकानां शूरं करुणवेदिनं ॥

   aj~जानादवमन्येरन्सर्व भूतानि लक्ष्मण ॥५५

   मृदुं लोकहिते युक्तं दान्तं करुणवेदिनं ॥

   निर्वीर्य इति मन्यन्ते नूनं मां त्रिदशेश्वराः ॥५६

{The Gods deem even the Creator himself as Nirveerya [impotent] if he is kind and composed.}. One should appreciate that the word nirveerya was used in 1-77 in respect of Parashurama, which Rama uses as applicable to himself. So the poet spells out the Truth through Ramas' mouth. Rama, as an embodiment of Vishnu, is the right person to express the Truth. By his words, it is quite clear that the opinion, assumed by the Gods in 1-77 is patently wrong.

 

Poetically, here, I am reminded of Shakespeare's words in his Merchant of Venice, wherein he says words to this effect: "Do not fish for the foolish grudgeon that is world opinion." [grudgeon {the word may be wrongly quoted - it is more than 60 years since I read it} is said to be an inedible fish]. Again I am reminded by the abovesaid depiction of Parashurama's arrival, a scene from the film 'LAWRENCE OF ARABIA' by the World's Best Director David Lean, wherein the arrival of Lawrence, a British Officer [played by Peter O'toole] strikes awe among the Beduines; who involuntarily begin to chant in whispers 'Lawrence Lawrence'.

 

As regards the KaalakUTa, it had to be dispensed with. Where was it before it became concentrated? It was in Him, the Parameshwara, the avyaktapurusha. So he alone could and had to hold it. It is not a saahasa, an adventure for Him, true.

 

YOurs fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

My dear Ganeshan,

 

Sorry I did not answer the point that One becoming three is not there in the Upanishads. Well, It is explicit in the VEDAs [Rik.1-164]. Where there is any ambuguity in the Vedas, they are explained the BraahmaNaas and Aranyakaas and Upanishads in that order. Where there is no ambiguity, no explanation is required. Besides in the Upanishads, the Godhead is referreed to as THAT only; not by any name. The names were given later to match the attributes. Therefore It is quite patent that God is only one. But for managing such a superstructure, the creator aptly created  agencies we call Gods [devathas]. And what Vedas say have been accepted by all the Seers as absolute Truth. So there is no doubt about it except in the minds of atheists.

 

Besides Upanishads do not negate what the Vedas have already said. So your statement that the Trinity is not mentioned in Upanishads is not a cogent argument. The point I wanted to bring forth is that while the Sukta shows that the One manifested in three parts, the three being ONE WHOLE, there is no cause at all as to queston who is greater of the two; or greatest of the Three. All the Upanishads are declaring that the Trinity is only one. The Upanishads by saying 'sa brahma sa shivassa harissendra ssokSharaH paramaswaraaT ' is endorsing the Trinity and emphasising that the Trinity is only Unity.

 

Yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy.

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

> My dear Sri Ganeshan, and other scholars,
>
> The Great Valmiki wrote Ramayana, acc. to his own words, to explain the
> Vedas - vedopabruMhaNarthaM.
>

> Neither the poet nor the Rishis make any distinction between the two Ramas;
but chant only 'Rama
> Rama'; the poet's and the Rishis' implication being the two Ramas were in
> fact only one; and thereby Shiva and Vishnu whom the Parashurama and the
> Dasharathirama signified, were not two entities but only one. A nod is
> enough for the Wise.
>

Dear Sri Krishnamurthy and friends,
Generally the vaalmiikiraamaayaNa is a kaavya mainly intended to portray and
highlight the human virtues and values. Its scope or the poet's intention is not
to decide upon the subtle and important philosophical points such as the who the
Brahma is.
The concept of trimuurti is not so much an important theme in the Upanishads.
Further, The views expressed in the saMhitaa-s are to be correlated and
explained mainly in the light of the upanishads.
Now coming to the Upanishad-s there are large number of references in them
especially in the Svetasvatara, Kena, Kaivalya, Atharvasikhaa, Atharvasiras, as
well as the Tvaritarudra, Niilarudra, etc. etc., on which basis it is being
established that brahma is Siva. These are definitely early Upanishad-s. These
are agin supported by the upabRMhaNa-s such as the majority of purANa-s.
I would like to suggest that it will be definitely useful and great learning if
SriikaNTha-s bhaashya on the Brahmasuutra is just gone through since generally
it is not much studied. It will also be useful to know what his textual corpus
are .

So the aacaarya-s arrive at any final decision on the basis of these textual
corpus.
Of course, if you still insist on the vaalmiikiraamaayaNa, the import of this
text also is shown to be the portrayal of greatness of Siva. You may very well
refer to the raamaayaNataatparyasaMgraha of Appayadiik.sita which may also be
contested which is another fact.

So citing raamaaya.na is not the answer for this matter.

Para~suraama is considered to be one of the ten avataara-s of Vi.s.nu. But how
do you say that according to vaalmiiki he represented Siva ? Any textual
reference for that ?

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Dr. Ganeshan,

 

Your perception of Ramayana is what the Western and West-oriented scholars have been propagating. All the traditional scholars have held to be a Darshana-kavya, Valmiki himself claims his objective to be 'vedopabRuMhaNarthaM' । Please read sargas 75-77 of Balakanda. In spite of the prakshepaas therein, you will be to discern the majesty of Valmikian philosophy.  Let that be.

 

Rik. 1-164 expounds the Cosmography. I, in my previous posting, told about the oneness of the two. Now let me expose the science that the Vedas demonstrate. The whole universe is maintained by a tripolar centre, the TRINITY. The top one is positive, the middle one is neutral and the bottom one is negative. The top one [+] reaches out to every living object by means of +ve rays called Ashwina through a brahmarandhra in the head, and the negative rays called Ashwini connects from the foot to the bottom pole. The three pole-stars pass on to the individuals the three energies - the material [potential and kinetic], the neuter - the psychic and the negative the life-energy. Rik. 1-164- 31 refers to these +ve and -ve rays as सध्रीचीः and विषूचीः ॥

 

If you want to know the Truth, you have go through the original texts and research from the scratch. if you want to go by commentaries, you are assuming that the commentators were the masters of the subject; which may not be correct in every case.

From the above Sukta, the Vishnu and Rudra are opposite poles; and must be equal to maintain the equilibrium; though there will be potential difference between the two for easy flow of the energies. This arrangement further amplifies how the top one can keep eternally supplying the Universe. It is the negative pole that collects [Samhara that you referred to in your posting is not destruction, but collection], purifies the same and internally passes on the same to the positive one; so that the circuit is complete.

 

Your concept that Gods Vishnu and Rudra, are men like us or supermen as puranas want us to believe; are not supported explicitly in the vedas; not even the Shankaracharya. All the references are only figurative. So there is no purushaartha in discussing whether vishnu is great or shiva; while the two toghther with Brahma; form the one tri-polar centre [naabhi] ; from which the whole universe is held intact at equilibrium.

 

These are detailed in my book 'the Science of Hinduism'. Scientists who look into vedas will be able to appreciate these truths. Those who had no exposure to science may feel that all this is bunkum. But TRUTH REMAINS TRUTH. Modern Science also confirms the Vedic exposition.

yours faithfully,

s.r.krishna murthy.

[Aditya B.S.A]

My Dear Krishnamurthy,

I just want to know what your take is on consciousness as a phenomenon, and if it does fit anywhere in the midst of this giant battery-thingamajig that you have extrapolated as being the TRUTH. 

Regards,

Aditya. 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

--

अभिनिवेशवशीकृतचेतसां बहुविदामपि सम्भवति भ्रमः।
तदिह भागवतं गतमत्सरा मतमिदं विमृशन्तु विपश्चितः॥

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

My dear Sri Aditya,

 

What i have posted are not my thoughts on Consciousness, but the Vedic pronouncements of Dheergatamaa Maharshi in Rik.1-164, which anybody can verify. The pity is that because the commentators were not conversant with the science subject; they relegated the Rik as a mere parjanya mantra; which is not what is depicted. If you are a student of science, study the Sukta, without recourse to the commentaries that mislead you. You will start wondering at the Cosmic revelations.

 

But it is a pity that those who claim to be the scientists and yet perpetuators of the Tradition; condemn without knowing Sanskrit and withuot reading the Vedas, that all the talk of Science in Vedas is a bunkum. And my exposition on the subject, I have freely distributed; without caliming any IPR's and Copyrights, among all the traditionalists and the so-called researchers, who are still struggling to grapple with the newly revealsed Truth from the Vedas. Besides whatever I have deduced is in line with Chandogya and Brihadaaranyaka, which deals with scientifc axioms; as expounded by the Great Shankara; whose science Compendium on Cosmos - Panchikaranam - is more telling than all his Upanishadic vyaakhyaas.

 

Even Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan did not accept Shankara's exposition of the Universe in Wakefulness; since he could not underestand the Advaita in its finesse; since he was not a scientist. I presume that he did not heed the Panchikaranam; else he would have spoken differently. 

 

Vedas do not discriminate and choose who should know the Truth and who should not. They simply dole out the Truths. But they declare in 1-164-45; that the Truths may not be understood by each and every person. Understanding is ordained by each man's accomplishments; and accordingly, each tries to give out from what he has understood. That is how there are divergences even among scholars; even about One and the Only One. 

 

Yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy. 

 

Yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy.

[Aditya B.S.A]

Sri Krishnamurthy,

I'm afraid I might not have been clear. I wanted to know your thoughts on consciousness in relation to your understanding of the truth. 

Regards,

Aditya. 

[Ganesan]

On 07-03-2012 09:10, S.R.Krishnamurthy wrote:

My dear Sri Aditya,

 

What i have posted are not my thoughts on Consciousness, but the Vedic pronouncements of Dheergatamaa Maharshi in Rik.1-164, which anybody can verify. The pity is that because the commentators were not conversant with the science subject; they relegated the Rik as a mere parjanya mantra; which is not what is depicted. If you are a student of science, study the Sukta, without recourse to the commentaries that mislead you. You will start wondering at the Cosmic revelations.

 

But it is a pity that those who claim to be the scientists and yet perpetuators of the Tradition; condemn without knowing Sanskrit and withuot reading the Vedas, that all the talk of Science in Vedas is a bunkum. And my exposition on the subject, I have freely distributed; without caliming any IPR's and Copyrights, among all the traditionalists and the so-called researchers, who are still struggling to grapple with the newly revealsed Truth from the Vedas. Besides whatever I have deduced is in line with Chandogya and Brihadaaranyaka, which deals with scientifc axioms; as expounded by the Great Shankara; whose science Compendium on Cosmos - Panchikaranam - is more telling than all his Upanishadic vyaakhyaas.

 

Even Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan did not accept Shankara's exposition of the Universe in Wakefulness; since he could not underestand the Advaita in its finesse; since he was not a scientist. I presume that he did not heed the Panchikaranam; else he would have spoken differently. 

 

Vedas do not discriminate and choose who should know the Truth and who should not. They simply dole out the Truths. But they declare in 1-164-45; that the Truths may not be understood by each and every person. Understanding is ordained by each man's accomplishments; and accordingly, each tries to give out from what he has understood. That is how there are divergences even among scholars; even about One and the Only One. 

 

Yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy. 

 

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:00 PM, S.R.Krishnamurthy <srkmu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Ganeshan,

 

Your perception of Ramayana is what the Western and West-oriented scholars have been propagating. All the traditional scholars have held to be a Darshana-kavya, Valmiki himself claims his objective to be 'vedopabRuMhaNarthaM' । Please read sargas 75-77 of Balakanda. In spite of the prakshepaas therein, you will be to discern the majesty of Valmikian philosophy.  Let that be.

 

Rik. 1-164 expounds the Cosmography. I, in my previous posting, told about the oneness of the two. Now let me expose the science that the Vedas demonstrate. The whole universe is maintained by a tripolar centre, the TRINITY. The top one is positive, the middle one is neutral and the bottom one is negative. The top one [+] reaches out to every living object by means of +ve rays called Ashwina through a brahmarandhra in the head, and the negative rays called Ashwini connects from the foot to the bottom pole. The three pole-stars pass on to the individuals the three energies - the material [potential and kinetic], the neuter - the psychic and the negative the life-energy. Rik. 1-164- 31 refers to these +ve and -ve rays as सध्रीचीः and विषूचीः ॥

 

If you want to know the Truth, you have go through the original texts and research from the scratch. if you want to go by commentaries, you are assuming that the commentators were the masters of the subject; which may not be correct in every case.

From the above Sukta, the Vishnu and Rudra are opposite poles; and must be equal to maintain the equilibrium; though there will be potential difference between the two for easy flow of the energies. This arrangement further amplifies how the top one can keep eternally supplying the Universe. It is the negative pole that collects [Samhara that you referred to in your posting is not destruction, but collection], purifies the same and internally passes on the same to the positive one; so that the circuit is complete.

 

Your concept that Gods Vishnu and Rudra, are men like us or supermen as puranas want us to believe; are not supported explicitly in the vedas; not even the Shankaracharya. All the references are only figurative. So there is no purushaartha in discussing whether vishnu is great or shiva; while the two toghther with Brahma; form the one tri-polar centre [naabhi] ; from which the whole universe is held intact at equilibrium.

 

These are detailed in my book 'the Science of Hinduism'. Scientists who look into vedas will be able to appreciate these truths. Those who had no exposure to science may feel that all this is bunkum. But TRUTH REMAINS TRUTH. Modern Science also confirms the Vedic exposition.

yours faithfully,

s.r.krishna murthy.

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:

> My dear Sri Ganeshan, and other scholars,
>
> The Great Valmiki wrote Ramayana, acc. to his own words, to explain the
> Vedas - vedopabruMhaNarthaM.
>

> Neither the poet nor the  Rishis make any distinction between the two Ramas;
but chant only 'Rama
> Rama'; the poet's and the Rishis' implication being the two Ramas were in
> fact only one; and thereby Shiva and Vishnu whom the Parashurama and the
> Dasharathirama signified, were not two entities but only one. A nod is
> enough for the Wise.
>

Dear Sri krishnamurthy,
I never mean or understand that Vishnu or Siva are some supermen as you say about my understanding.
Far from it !!!!
Even none of the Purana-s do not at all portary in that manner. Probably you have some basic misconceptions about the Purana-s.

Regarding your interpretation of the Rik. 1-164:
You write

"The pity is that because the commentators were not conversant with the science subject; they relegated the Rik as a mere parjanya mantra; which is not what is depicted. If you are a student of science, study the Sukta, without recourse to the commentaries that mislead you. You will start wondering at the Cosmic revelations".

But, you say in the same breath regarding the vaalmiikiraamaayaNa that
"All the traditional scholars have held to be a Darshana-kavya, ....."
I am sure that by 'traditionalists' you mean the commentators on the vaalmiikiraamayaNa.

So, you seem to contradict your own statement: For understanding the Rik mantra-s you suggest that it should be studied without recourse to commentaries (as according to you, they have not correctly explained it) while, you say that the vaalmiikiraamaayaNa should be taken as a 'darshanakAvya' as held by the commentators (the traditionalists) !!!!

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Sri Aditya and Sri Vineet,

 

Shankara expounds the whole Universe as explained in the Upanishads. The Whole visible universe is the body of the Brahman, and is composed of atoms constituted by the combination of the five primordial particles called panchamahabhootas; and is called virat. The five primordial particles, the panchamahabhoothas, in their free state, are pure energy [Thaijasam]. These subatomic particles [thaijasm - energy] are the product of the Karanashareera, the causative force, called Hiranyagarbha [literally meaning the womb of condensed energy]. All these dissolve ultimately in the Pure Brahman. This is the Vedic science.

 

As regards the Consciousnee, the modern authors apply the term to Athma. The realsation of the soul, as many authors try to explain, is not based on assuming the world is unreal. Shankara has never said so; since no upanishad says so. Indeed Brahma satyam Jaganmithya is the most misunderstood and misrepresented phrase in philosophy. The word mithya means only derivative, effect. Shankara, the Upanishads and the Vedas are very explicit that nothing asat can grow out of sat; and no sat can grow out of asat. Gita also endorses that view. That is the science.

There are people who maintain that the world is a myth, meaning unreal. It is false. becasue, if you say that this world is false, it amounts to saying that the Brahman is false; because the Vedas declare that all this is Brahma [Sarvam khalvidam Brahma]. There are scholars who misread the Upanishads; particularly the mandukya and mundaka. The Upanishat deals with the three states of deep sleep, dreamy sleep, and wakefullness; and draws a parallel. The upanishat speaks of Vaithathyam, which is different from thathyam, which means as it is. By using the term Vaithathyam, the appearance of the world is different from what it really is.

 

Just as a pot is in fact only mud; and just as an ornament like a necklace is nothing but gold, so also the universe is brahman [the pure energy from which it is constituted]. It is this realisation that is liberation of soul. This is sthe Science, the philosophy of the upanishads and the exposition of Shankara. As far as I am concerned there is no ambiguity at all, since all are crystal clear.

 

yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy.

[Ganesan]

On 07-03-2012 09:10, S.R.Krishnamurthy wrote:

My dear Sri Aditya,

 

What i have posted are not my thoughts on Consciousness, but the Vedic pronouncements of Dheergatamaa Maharshi in Rik.1-164, which anybody can verify. The pity is that because the commentators were not conversant with the science subject; they relegated the Rik as a mere parjanya mantra; which is not what is depicted. If you are a student of science, study the Sukta, without recourse to the commentaries that mislead you. You will start wondering at the Cosmic revelations.

 

But it is a pity that those who claim to be the scientists and yet perpetuators of the Tradition; condemn without knowing Sanskrit and withuot reading the Vedas, that all the talk of Science in Vedas is a bunkum. And my exposition on the subject, I have freely distributed; without caliming any IPR's and Copyrights, among all the traditionalists and the so-called researchers, who are still struggling to grapple with the newly revealsed Truth from the Vedas. Besides whatever I have deduced is in line with Chandogya and Brihadaaranyaka, which deals with scientifc axioms; as expounded by the Great Shankara; whose science Compendium on Cosmos - Panchikaranam - is more telling than all his Upanishadic vyaakhyaas.

 

Even Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan did not accept Shankara's exposition of the Universe in Wakefulness; since he could not underestand the Advaita in its finesse; since he was not a scientist. I presume that he did not heed the Panchikaranam; else he would have spoken differently. 

 

Vedas do not discriminate and choose who should know the Truth and who should not. They simply dole out the Truths. But they declare in 1-164-45; that the Truths may not be understood by each and every person. Understanding is ordained by each man's accomplishments; and accordingly, each tries to give out from what he has understood. That is how there are divergences even among scholars; even about One and the Only One. 

 

Yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy. 

 

Better than pa~nchiikarana, the Saiva Agama-s  offer a very sound and a realistic explanation of the world creation or the world evolution. One can definitely say that the 36 tattva-s propounded for the first time by the Saiva Agama-s completely exhaust all the explanations of the jagats.r.s.ti.

But please beware that for Samkara the world is ultimately an illusory creation and as he himself has said in his Brahmasuutrabhaashya (most probably in the first adhyaaya), that it is not the advaitavaadi's concern whether the world was created from this or that elment; ultimately it is 'mithyaa'. He himself does not accord any great importance or value to cosmological theories.

Your explanation about Consciousness and the cosmography seem to be oversimplified and such explanations as Vishnu and Siva as bipolar, etc. may not be of any help in the aadhyaatmika sphere, which is THE FUNDAMENTAL THEME of all these scriptures (to be distinguished from science books).

Thanks
Ganesan

[Ganesan]

On 07-03-2012 11:57, S.R.Krishnamurthy wrote:

Dear Sri Aditya and Sri Vineet,

 

Shankara expounds the whole Universe as explained in the Upanishads. The Whole visible universe is the body of the Brahman, and is composed of atoms constituted by the combination of the five primordial particles called panchamahabhootas; and is called virat. The five primordial particles, the panchamahabhoothas, in their free state, are pure energy [Thaijasam]. These subatomic particles [thaijasm - energy] are the product of the Karanashareera, the causative force, called Hiranyagarbha [literally meaning the womb of condensed energy]. All these dissolve ultimately in the Pure Brahman. This is the Vedic science.

 

As regards the Consciousnee, the modern authors apply the term to Athma. The realsation of the soul, as many authors try to explain, is not based on assuming the world is unreal. Shankara has never said so; since no upanishad says so. Indeed Brahma satyam Jaganmithya is the most misunderstood and misrepresented phrase in philosophy. The word mithya means only derivative, effect. Shankara, the Upanishads and the Vedas are very explicit that nothing asat can grow out of sat; and no sat can grow out of asat. Gita also endorses that view. That is the science.

There are people who maintain that the world is a myth, meaning unreal. It is false. becasue, if you say that this world is false, it amounts to saying that the Brahman is false; because the Vedas declare that all this is Brahma [Sarvam khalvidam Brahma]. There are scholars who misread the Upanishads; particularly the mandukya and mundaka. The Upanishat deals with the three states of deep sleep, dreamy sleep, and wakefullness; and draws a parallel. The upanishat speaks of Vaithathyam, which is different from thathyam, which means as it is. By using the term Vaithathyam, the appearance of the world is different from what it really is.

 

Just as a pot is in fact only mud; and just as an ornament like a necklace is nothing but gold, so also the universe is brahman [the pure energy from which it is constituted]. It is this realisation that is liberation of soul. This is sthe Science, the philosophy of the upanishads and the exposition of Shankara. As far as I am concerned there is no ambiguity at all, since all are crystal clear.

 

yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy.

 

Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

You seem to ingeniously extrapolate the views which Samkara has never said; he insists in all his commentaries on the 'superimposed nature'  --adhyasta--of the phenomenal world on Brahma. Nowhere he has said that mithya means only derivative, effect as you say.
Everywhere in his commentaries, and especially in aarambha.naadhikara.nam (tadananyatvam aarambha.na~sabdaadibhya.h, etc.) he never misses an opportunity to insist on the 'mithyaatva' of the effect.

That the phenomenal world is a manifestation of the supreme reality in all Its splendour and variety which bespeaks the inexhaustible power (shakti) of that supreme Reality --Parama~siva--was the bold declaration of the Saiva Agama-s and following them the Saivasiddhanta and the Pratyabhij~naa systems whose greatest representative is Abhinavagupta.
See the one of the ma~Ngala~sloka-s of the Sriika.n.tha's bhaa.sya on the Brahmasuutra:
            निजशक्तिभित्तिनिर्मितजगज्जालचित्रनिकुरुम्बः ।
       
If Samkara had said so as you read these views on him, there would not have been so much of philosophical debates all these centuries!!! by which of course, we are all benefited !!
Thanks
Ganesan

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

Mr. Ganeshan,

 

Your posting has just arrived. There are no contradictions in my posting. Did I say that all the commentators are wrong?. Besides, the word Commentators has specific annotations with reference to the context. With reg. to Valmiki Ramayana, there are four who have been recognised as Commentators, the four known as Tilaka, Bhushana, Shiromani and Kataka. Similarlarly with reg.to Vedas, Sayana, Mahidhara, etc. are considered Commentators.

 

So the point I had made was that we need not confine our views to what these so called Commentators have said. But there are other commentators also. For example, the Baroda ORI,has edited the critical editions of Ramayana. They held that khara was an ass as per Amarkosha; and thereby went astray in their interpretations. I have already posted the correct meaning of khara.

 

Now there are rules of interpretation. If as a HIndu, you marry a second woman, the second marriage is invalid. But if you are a muslim, your second marriage is valid. Again if you are a Hindu, and you married a second or even a third or fourth time, but prior to 1956, all your marriages will be valid even today. That is the law applicable to an act to decide its legality is the law that was in vogue on the date of commission of that act in question.

Similarly, if we have to connotate a word in a text, we must use the meaning that was assigned at the time of the creation of that text; and not one which came later.

 

Under such circumstances you  need not go with blinkers and blindly accept what any commentary has said; but use your diligence to arrive at a better understanding of the text under study; subject of course without contradiction of the intent of the original author.

 

As regards puranas, the various puranas are exaggerated stories, differring on many details and often wrong. For example, the Brahmavaivaswatha purana says that ब्रह्मा  सरस्वतीं मैथुनाय जग्राह ,

 [Brahmaa had an incest with his daughter]  which is patently false; and hence cannot be accepted. Again the description that Brahmaa was born out of the navel of Vishnu is an absurdity; which misrepresents the Vedas cannot be accepted since it is anti-vedas. Nabhi is not navel, but the centre of the sphere. So puranas are ancient histories most of which are inaccurate; and therefore cannot be accepted as literally true, as against Vedas which enunciate scientifie truths.

Again there are puranas at loggerheads with one another. Moreover many scientific details are given just as stories; which become meaningless. For examples, HiranyakSha and Hiranyakashipu were blackholes; to destroy whom Vishnu had to take the form of varaha and narashima. The scientific nuances are not brought out why the two different forms had to be taken by Vishnu. So the authors might have recorded the events knowingly or unknowingly in a story form for the laymen, but they cannot be accepted as they appear; without proper explanation.  But such a step has obliterated the scientific supremacy that we had; making some scholars scream in their ignorance that Science in  Vedas is bunkum.

 

In these columns themselves, a question was asked by a scholar for an explanation about one of the points touched here; and a wrong puranic concept was posted and accepted without verification of the veracity - scientific or logical - thereof. The illogic of the explanation, even when pointed out by me through a question, was not noticed or was ignored by the scholars.

 

Kindly note that not all our traditional scholars are blind to Truths; and are close-minded. There are many who are open-minded; and are willing to have a relook on the old commentaries. But it is also true that very few are ready yet to admit openly the truth, that they realise to be true.

 

Your fraternally,

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

Mr Ganeshan and Mr. Ajit,

 

Indeed upto Shankara, all our Rishis were scientists. No distinction is made between Science and philosophy, but between Sat and Asat. Not only your but all the interpretations and the furore in underatanding and misunderstandin that is goin on is because of wrong perceptions of the words used. Shankar has not defined the word mithya, true; But the very examples used to illustrate the principles, Mrith and Ghata, and hataka and aabharaNa demonstrate tellingly that one is the casue and the other the effect. so also Brahman is the cause and the Jagat is the effect.

 

Comparisons are odious. You may adopt the 21 tatvas from Shaivaagama. It is your prerogative. For me, I find that the Panchikarana is sufficient to realise what I am.

 

As regards the accusation of you, Mr. Ajit, I have recently searched the Shankarabhaashya; for terms as implied by. It was occasioned by a book on Vedas given to me for review. He does refer to दृष्यत्वं असत्यं but not वस्तुतः असत्यं anywhere. He speaks of the misleading appearances but the unreality of the world as such. If you show me exactly where such an explicit reference is, I shall be obliged to you. I may add here, that till very recently, I subsribed to the view of Sir S. Radhakrishnan; and could not reconcile with Shankara. But after I read the book given for review, I delved into ShankaraBhashya in original; I not only corrected my view; I could fully concur with shankara without any reservation I earlier had. Here I am  on a firm ground.

[Ganesan]

Dear Krishnamurhy,
It is not mine or your prerogative to accept the Saivagama views. What I insist is that there are much better explanations of world evolution in the Saiva Agama-s; they are far better and highly realistic doctrines based directly on our experience--the doctrine of 36 tattva-s (not 21 tattva-s as said by you, no Agama speaks of 21 tattva-s) than the pa~nciikara.na. Just as you say many ancient Vedic commentators had missed scientific truths in their explanations, I can also say that you are missing these truths which are available in the Saiva Agama-s.

One should come out of the 'closed circle' of Vedanta (the blinkers, to adopt your own words !!) and have a nice view of the other side of grand doctrines expounded in the Saiva Agama-s and the Saiva philosophical systems such as Saivasiddhanta and the Pratyabhijnaa schools which have a long history.

The world-- the variety--that we confront and the numberless manifesttaions--are all but the manifestations of supreme store house of power, parama~siva. Possessed of unlimited power of knowledge and action--d.rkkriyaa~sakti, He cannot have an inert "Sakti'--jaDaruupa--nor His creations--the world--a mithyaa or an unreal inert manifestation.
Now, neither this view nor as you say, that the world is the 'body' of Brahma--has never been said by Samkara at all.
That is my point. If what you say is true, then, why should it be said "brahma satyam, jaganmithyaa" ? It is enough to say, "brahma satyam".
You seem to read the views expounded in the Saiva pratyabhijnaa system--into Samkara.
What you say as scientific view was not uttered by Samkara. Just accepting that fact is enough.

Next, to revert to the earlier thread on vaalmiikiraamaaya.na:
You say that vaalmiiki has written raamaaya.na as a vedopab.rMha.na and that it is a dar~sanakaavya.
Then what about Kaalidaasa, the greatest of our poets ?
He very excellently summarises the Vedaanta in the naandii~sloka of his naa.taka (Vikramorva~siiyam):
    वेदान्तेषु यमाहुरेकपुरुषं व्याप्य स्थितं रोदसी
    यस्मिन्नीश्वर इत्यनन्यविषयः शब्दो यथार्थाक्षरः । . .
'The supreme unique reality, the PURU.SA expounded in the Vedaanta, who had pervaded the earth and the celestial regions, for whom the epithet 'ii~svara' is highly apt and DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER DEITY (ananyavi.saya).. So therefore, in the words of Kaalidaasa, the vedaanta considers that Brahma is not an unqualified nor a nameless-formless-qualityless one (naamaruupavihiina, or nirvi~se.sa).
Note the usage of the word PURU.SA and ii~svara by him to denote Brahma.
Then the naandii~sloka of the Abhij~naana~saakuntalam:
    या सृष्टिः स्रष्टुराद्या वहति विधिहुतं या हविर्या च होत्री
     ये द्वे कालं विधत्तः श्रुतिविषयगुणा या स्थिता व्याप्य विश्वम् ।
        . . . . .............
    प्रत्यक्षाभिः प्रपन्नस्तनुभिरवतु वस्ताभिरष्टाभिरीशः ।।
This concept of a.s.tamuurtitva of Siva is an old Vedic view and according to it, the entire universe--the five elements, the sun, moon and the individual self (yajamaana) are all different forms (muurti) of Siva. Here there is nothing that is 'mithyaa' nor unreal or illusory.
Nowhere does it mean the kaara.na alone is real and the effects are unreal or superimposed.
Why this view is not at all stated or referred by Samkara ?
This in fact, is a pre-Samkara view, very often found referred in the Veda-s especially in the braahma.na-s and the Lingapuraa.na.
Kaalidaasa, definitely living long, long before Samkara, has clearly stated that this view is the Vedaanta of his times--Puru.sa is Brahma is Isvara. The entire world is His manifestation or different forms of Him. He is a.s.tamuurti.  If vaalmiiki is a dar~sanakavi, definitely Kaalidaasa is also one. Probably a much better one giving the quintessence of Vedaanta in a nutshell of a poetry !!
 Nowhere is Samkara near this view.

Shall we say that Samkara has given a turn (twist ????) to the early- existing views according to which Siva is Brahma ? He made Brahma nirgu.na by giving a one-sided interpretation completely overlooking this ancient view ? That ~Sivaadvaita was the earliest standpoint of Vedaanta without any room for 'mithyaatva' of the world which Samkara has changed ?? It may also be said that he had gone one step further and gave a vaishnava tinge by stating (in the Bhagavadgiitabhaa.sya),  "k.r.s.nastu bhagavaan svayam" and more than once citing the example of the ~saalagraama than a baa.nali~Nga which is also equally appropriate in the place where he cites the example of ~saalagraama. For which, I may quip, later vaishnava vedaanta acharya-s should be indebted to him for showing them the path !!!!!
That this interpretation of Samkara is not my own view is fully supported by a very early reference to Vedaanta in one of the7th- 8th century Bauddha texts composed by a Bauddha teacher, by name Bhavya. (I do not remember he name of the text which I will give in my next mail) In this text Bhavya says that the Vedaantavaadii-s call Brahma by various names such as Isvara, Puru.sa, etc. Note that he never says that Vedaantavaada considers the manifested world 'mithyaa' ... nor Brahma a nirgu.na and nirvi~se.sa.
I think I have made some points clear.
Thanking you
Ganesan

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

Mr. Ajit, please read Radhakrishnan's Indian philosophy and see what he says 'on this world'. I agree that ignorance is bliss where it is folly to be wise.

 

About Vyavahara and Paramartha, the two words were coined by those who could not understand Shankara or the Upanishadic Advaita. For those who understand there are no two truths, one vyavaharika reality and one paramaarthika reality. Reality is one. How we view that reality varies in reality and paramaartha. That is the philosophy and that is the science.

 

Mr. Ganeshan, Valmiki has given his objective in writing Ramayana as VedopabRumhaNaratham. Please read Valmiki Ramayana in original, if you want to comment on Ramayana. As regards Shaivadwaita, vis-a-vis Vedanta, thank you for endorsing my view, though patently not supporting, that mithya is not unreal. It is good. But you argue about what you have not read; whereas I do not. I frankly admitted that I have not gone into Shaivaadwaita, since I am satisfied by the Upanishadic Vedanta espoused by Sanakara. You re-read what I have said. All that you have done is to restate what I said about Mithya and on cause and effect. I have written in plain English; without any ambiguity.

 

As regards other Kavyas, the poets have not made any such claims. Mere use of a few words does not constitute the objective of the poet; unless declared by him. However you are free to write a commentary on all the poets. I shall accept them as your views of the poet.

 

But I have said of Shankara and the scientific meaning of the Panchikarana and Rigveda 1-164, I hold to as the True import of those works. If you give them a careful reading without bias, you will also agree with me. I request you, if you are really interested in the subject, to go through them thoroughly.

 

Since I have reached my end, I am not any more interested in reading. Realisation is the end; and there is nothing beyond that. You may reach that end from different routes. The route per se is not important. Reaching the goal is important. Each has a right to choose his route according to his ability and taste. However at times, I stand to benefit from the data or views posted by others, which I shall be glad to acknowledge.

 

I would not have spoken; but for the Vedic Injunction. The Taithireeya Upanishad prescribes that what Truth you realise, you must pass it on to others also. So as a matter of duty, I am responding; and not as a scholar; so that one with a thirst and aptitude for a particular line may take it. It is not expected that everybody will have the same aptitudes and tastes. लोको भिन्नरुचिः ॥

 

Yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy.

 

 

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Krishna Murthy
All I need to reply is Ignorance is your bliss you can remain in that state. What you talk has neither scholastic input or has any scientific relevance.

"I have recently searched the Shankarabhaashya; for terms as implied by. It was occasioned by a book on Vedas given to me for review. He does refer to दृष्यत्वं असत्यं but not वस्तुतः असत्यं anywhere. He speaks of the misleading appearances but the unreality of the world as such. If you show me exactly where such an explicit reference is"

What you are saying I cannot understand.

"दृष्यत्वं असत्यं "

are you talking abut Vyavahara or Parmartha

He speaks of the misleading appearances but the unreality of the world as such.

Are you talking about Illusions.

"I subsribed to the view of Sir S. Radhakrishnan; and could not reconcile with Shankara. "

Dr. Radhakrishna never said he is the sole and only interpreter of Shankara Advaita ( What interpretation you are giving is not subscibed in any of his publication) As I I have said earlier please read primary texts of Shankara. I hope you have read Adhyasaya Bhashya. If you have read and understood you would not be talking this way.

Reghards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Shri Krishna Murthy
All I need to reply is Ignorance is your bliss you can remain in that state. What you talk has neither scholastic input or has any scientific relevance.

"I have recently searched the Shankarabhaashya; for terms as implied by. It was occasioned by a book on Vedas given to me for review. He does refer to दृष्यत्वं असत्यं but not वस्तुतः असत्यं anywhere. He speaks of the misleading appearances but the unreality of the world as such. If you show me exactly where such an explicit reference is"


What you are saying I cannot understand.

"दृष्यत्वं असत्यं "

are you talking abut Vyavahara or Parmartha

He speaks of the misleading appearances but the unreality of the world as such.

Are you talking about Illusions.

"I subsribed to the view of Sir S. Radhakrishnan; and could not reconcile with Shankara. "

Dr. Radhakrishna never said he is the sole and only interpreter of Shankara Advaita ( What interpretation you are giving is not subscibed in any of his publication) As I I have said earlier please read primary texts of Shankara. I hope you have read Adhyasaya Bhashya. If you have read and understood you would not be talking this way.

Reghards
Ajit Gargeshwari

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Sri Krishnamurthy,
This is not Shankra's interpretation of Upanishads. I didn't find any such interpretation in Shankara's bhashya on upanishads. This sounds more like your interpretation from popular books written on the subject or your understanding. Reading his bhashyas either in translation or orginal might help you to correctly interpret Shankara and not misrepresent his grand and sublime philosophy.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:57 AM, S.R.Krishnamurthy <srkmu...@gmail.com> wrote: