Hanuman is Amsavatara of Nandikeshwara - says the Skandapurana

[V Subrahmanian]

स्कन्दपुराणम्/खण्डः १ (माहेश्वरखण्डः)/केदारखण्डः/अध्यायः ०८

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/gys

In this Purana, Maha Vishnu said in connection with Ramavatara: Let the gods take the form of monkeys and incarnate on earth for the fulfillment of Rama's mission:

एवं संभाष्य भगवान्विष्णुः परममङ्गलः॥
वाली चेन्द्रांशसंभूतः सुग्रीवोंशुमतः सुतः॥ ८.९८ ॥

Vaali incarnated from the Indra element and Sugriva came as the son of Surya.

तथा ब्रह्मांशसंभूतो जाम्बवान्नृक्षकुञ्जरः॥
शिलादतनयो नंदी शिवस्यानुचरः प्रियः॥ ८.९९ ॥

Jambavan, who is Brahmamsha, incarnated as a  Vanara and became the minister of Sugriva.

Nandikeshwara  (son of Shilaada), servant of Shiva, admirer of Shiva, the eleventh Rudra, incarnated as Hanuman, to be of service of Vishnu (Rama):

यो वै चैकादशो रुद्रो हनूमान्स महाकपिः॥

(In the reading of Sri Appaiah Dikshitar : एकांशेन महाबाहो हनुमान्स महाकपिः )

अवतीर्णः सहायार्थं विष्णोरमिततेजसः॥ ८.१०० ॥

Even the Valmiki Ramayana gives us a hint about this:

किमेष भगवान्नन्दी भवेत्साक्षादिहागतः || ५-५०-२.२
येन शप्तोऽस्मि कैलासे मया संचालिते पुरा | ५-५०-३.१

On seeing Hanuman, Ravana remembers the curse of Lord Siva (Nandi) on him that he would perish when a monkey resembling Siva strikes him! He doubts if it was Nandi the chief of Pramatha ganas of Siva with a monkey face.

This is what Sri Appaiah Dikshitar has said in his own commentary to his 'Sri Ramayana Tatparya Sara Sangraha Stotra', with evidence.

In the same chapter it is said that Vishnu is a form of Shiva:

विष्णुना हि महाभागास्तस्मात्सर्वं विधास्यति॥ ८.८४ ॥
देवदेवो महादेवो विष्णुरूपी महेश्वरः॥

It is also said that Vishnu himself incarnated as Rama 'endowed with ignorance':

हे देवाः श्रूयतां वाक्यं प्रस्तावसदृशं महत्॥
शैलादिं च पुरस्कृत्य सर्वे यूयं त्वरान्विताः॥
अवतारान्प्रकुर्वन्तु वानरीं तनुमाश्रिताः॥ ८.९४ ॥
अहं हि मानुषो भूत्वा ह्यज्ञानेन समावृतः॥
संभविष्याम्ययोध्यायं गृहे दशरथस्य च॥

Om

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Pranam,so hanumanji is an amsavatara of vishweswara and purna avatara of nandi maharaj ?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te13Q7pDbw%3D%3D5yZWiXRsX5uftVqVW-zhMLLi%2BCOaUJ13jg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

It is interesting that these slokas are not present in the Baroda Oriental Institute Edition of Valmiki Ramayana -

5048001a तमुद्वीक्ष्य महाबाहुः पिङ्गाक्षं पुरतः स्थितम्

5048001c रोषेण महताविष्टो रावणो लोकरावणः

5048002a स राजा रोषताम्राक्षः प्रहस्तं मन्त्रिसत्तमम्

5048002c कालयुक्तमुवाचेदं वचो विपुलमर्थवत्

Where as in the Southern recension they are present - 

तमुद्वीक्ष्य महाबाहुः पिङ्गाक्षं पुरत स्थितम्।

कोपेन महताऽविष्टो रावणो लोकरावणः।।5.50.1।। -present in Baroda edition

शङ्काहृतात्मा दध्यौ स कपीन्द्रं तेजसावृतम्।

किमेष भगवान्नन्दी भवेत्साक्षादिहागतः।।5.50.2।। - absent

येन शप्तोऽस्मि कैलासे मया सञ्चालिते पुरा।

सोऽयं वानरमूर्तिस्स्यात्किंस्विद्बाणो महाऽसुरः।।5.50.3।। - absent

स राजा रोषताम्राक्षः प्रहस्तं मन्त्रिसत्तमम्।

कालयुक्तमुवाचेदं वचोऽविपुलमर्थवत्।।5.50.4।। -present

Best Regards

Kalyan

[সপ্ত Rishi]

I did hear of this controversy whete kumbhakonam mathas did say oppose bori edition,since they said it did not research all of the present manuscripts.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/dde5377f-1631-4584-9258-f6de3742fe9fn%40googlegroups.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Correction:where

[Kalyan]

Dear Sir

BORI is a Mahabharata edition. Not a Ramayana one.

Warm Regards

[সপ্ত Rishi]

I was answering in regards to the research that they did,it was not full proof and had valid objections.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/612391be-a534-439b-8283-be3a2d8cc548n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan]

Concerning the Baroda Edition, Sri Bibek Debroy, who translated the Valmiki Ramayana (and who is also the Chairman of Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister) has this to say - 

"This translation is of the Valmiki Ramayana. It is necessary to stress this point. Both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are so popular that one is familiar with people, stories and incidents. That doesn’t necessarily mean those people, stories and incidents occur in the Valmiki Ramayana in the way we are familiar with them.....the Oriental Institute, Baroda, produced a Critical Edition of the Valmiki Ramayana. This translation is based on that Critical Edition, published sequentially between 1958 and 1975. Producing a Critical Edition meant sifting through a large number of manuscripts of the Valmiki Ramayana. The editors had around 2000 manuscripts to work with. Not all of these were equally reliable. Therefore, in practice, they worked with fifty to hundred manuscripts, the specific number depending on the kanda in question. It is not that there were significant differences across the manuscripts and broadly, there was a Southern Recension (version) and a Northern one, the latter sub-divided into a North-Western and a North-Eastern one. The earliest of these written manuscripts dates to the eleventh century CE. In passing, the language may have been Sanskrit, but the script wasn’t always Devanagari. There were scripts like Sharada, Mewari, Maithili, Bengali, Telugu, Kannada, Nandinagari, Grantha and Malayalam. Since this translation is based on the Baroda Critical Edition, it is necessary to make another obvious point. Even within the Sanskrit Valmiki Ramayana, not everything we are familiar with is included in the Critical text......There are instances where such excision has led to a break in continuity and inconsistency and we have pointed them out in the footnotes."

In this particular instance, Sri Debroy has not indicated any break in continuity due to excision in the footnotes. The translation is fairly continuous -  

Ravana, who made the worlds shriek, was suffused with great rage. The mighty-armed one looked at the coppery eyed one who was standing in front of him. The king’s eyes were coppery red with rage. He spoke words full of great meaning, appropriate at the time, to Prahasta, his excellent adviser. ‘Ask the evil-souled one where he has come from. What is the reason why he has come here?

Warm Regards

[Kalyan]

Another interesting thing is that the  Skanda Purana link given in the original post, contains references to dvaitAdvaita (there is a dvaitAdvaita philosophy school generally associated with Sri Nimbarkacharya)

शिवप्रसादात्सकलं द्वैताद्वैतमवाप ह॥
द्वैताद्वैतविवेकार्थमृपयोप्यत्र मोहिताः॥
तत्सर्वं प्राप्नुवंतीह शिवार्चनरता नराः॥ ८.११५ ॥

Warm Regards

On Wednesday, 6 September, 2023 at 4:20:11 pm UTC+5:30 v.subrahmanian wrote:

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Subbuji,

To my knowledge, Hanumanji is considered to be the 11th Rudra. The Creator Brahmaji requested Lord Shiva also to create and Lord Shiva created the eleven Rudras. Seeing that Lord Shiva created only the immortal ones, Lord Brahma requested Lord Shiva to stop and not create any more immortal.

Further, I understand that Ravana with his ten heads, worshipped the ten Rudras, but left out the 11th Rudra. That is how Lord Ram could get the help of Hanumanji, in his war against Ravana.

I forgot  the needed inks. May be, some our friends will be able to throw more light on this aspect.

Regards,

Suni KB

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te13Q7pDbw%3D%3D5yZWiXRsX5uftVqVW-zhMLLi%2BCOaUJ13jg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Very interesting Sunil ji. The exact   references would be helpful.

Regards

subbu 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99WKS%3DBHdL%3DDN2FLvu5Czn6PwinZJeiJjrnhrSe1fuQZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks Kalyan ji for the find. Please see if you can get the English or Hindi translation for these verses.

Regards 

subbu 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/a0d99a4c-c05d-4b01-a999-a184ac404870n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan]

Dear Sir

The translation can be found here - 

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-skanda-purana/d/doc365955.html

The link has complete skanda purana translation also.

Warm Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks for the link.  The translator takes the popular meaning for the two terms: Dvaita and Advaita.  

regards

  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/b1cbb7d6-bbf0-4dd3-8d38-1950707b2b37n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan]

This is the footnotes given by the translator for dvaitAdvaita - 

"The Purāṇa-writer has respect for Dvaitādvaita philosophy. This school holds the reality of both Dvaita (dualism between man and God) and Advaita (non-dualism between them). Nimbārka (11th cent. A.D.) in his Com. Vedānta-Pārijāta-Saurahha [Saurabha?] on the Brahma Sūtra has advocated this doctrine. But this theory is older than the Brahma Sūtra itself, as we find such views of Auḍuiomi, Āśmarathya quoted by the author of the Brahma Sūtra."

Best Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Kalyan ji,

The verses in the Purana are:

शिवप्रसादात्सकलं द्वैताद्वैतमवाप ह॥

द्वैताद्वैतविवेकार्थमृषयोप्यत्र मोहिताः॥

तत्सर्वं प्राप्नुवंतीह शिवार्चनरता नराः॥ ८.११५ ॥

Due to the grace of Shiva one attained 'all' dvaitadvaita. Even sages are deluded in the discrimination of dvaitadvaita. All that is attained by one by Shivaarchana.

The translation and the footnote that you cite about the doctrine of Dvaitadvaita of Nimbarka does not seem to be the idea reflected in the verse. The 'sakalam' does not fit the doctrine idea.  In my opinion the term dvaita would mean 'bhoga' as there will be duality, multiplicity there. Advaita would mean 'moksha (apavarga)'. 

Still the 'tat sarvam' does not fit even this meaning.  

regards

subbu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/b7679044-daa3-40fd-9e7d-9e7d7dacf9aan%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan]

Dear Sir, 

I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other on this topic. I only presented the translation link because you asked for it. 

My guess is that the presence of the word dvaitAdvaita would indicate that this part of the work is composed relatively late, may be after the period of Sri Nimbarkacharya. That is why the presence of this word interested me. My guess of course, could be completely wrong and it probably doesn't matter to me either way.

Warm Regards