Re: SAGE ANGIRASA- PART 2
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
In Vedic astrology, several nakshatras (lunar mansions or star clusters) are considered to denote high intellect, curiosity, and analytical ability, often associated with specific planets.
Nakshatras for Intellect:
Ardra: Associated with Rahu, this nakshatra is linked to deep, penetrating insights, pattern recognition, and a relentless, obsessive need to decode or understand everything.
Swati: Known for intellectual curiosity and flexibility of thought, this Nakshatra is associated with Vayu (wind) and Rahu, often indicating a mind that can digest complex, difficult ideas.
Moola: Known for providing deep, transformative, and often hidden insights.
Vishakha: Linked with focused, goal-oriented intellect.
Ashwini: Associated with the Ashwini Kumaras (divine twins), this nakshatra is classically associated with quick wit, intelligence, and divine healing knowledge.
Chitra: Associated with technical intelligence, architectural skills, and creativity, ruled by Vishvakarma.
Poorvabhadrapada: Associated with deep, philosophical, and sometimes revolutionary thinking.
Planetary and Sign Influences on Intelligence:
Mercury (Budha): Signifies intellect, logic, and communication.
Jupiter (Guru): Signifies wisdom, higher learning, and knowledge.
Rahu: Associated with unconventional, revolutionary, and analytical thinking.
Aquarius & Gemini: Air signs generally associated with high intellectual capacity. Aquarius excels in analytics and logic, and Gemini excels in adaptability and verbal IQ.
Scorpio: Noted for deep, penetrating, and psychological insight.
2 Intelligence in Sanskrit is primarily expressed as Buddhi (बुद्धि), referring to the intellectual faculty, understanding, and reason. Other key terms include Prajñā (प्रज्ञा) for wisdom/higher intellect, Medhā (मेधा) for retentive memory or genius, and Pratibhā (प्रतिभा) for wit or light of understanding.
intelligence and related concepts:
Buddhi (बुद्धि): Intellect, reasoning, discernment, judgment.
Prajñā (प्रज्ञा): Highest wisdom, understanding, or discrimination.
Medhā (मेधा): Retentive power, mental brilliance, or genius.
Dhiḥ / Dhiyah (धीः / धियः): Intellect, mind, or understanding.
Pratibhā (प्रतिभा): Genius, ingenuity, or quick wit.
Pratyutpannamati (प्रत्युत्पन्नमति): Presence of mind or quick-wittedness.
Common Usage:
Intelligent: Buddhimān (बुद्धिमान् - masc.) or Buddhimatī (बुद्धिमती - fem.).
Wise/Intellectual: Prājña (प्राज्ञ).
Artificial Intelligence: Often translated as Kṛtrima-prajñā (कृत्रिमप्रज्ञा) or Yantrabuddhi (यन्त्रबुद्धि).
3 Wisdom in Sanskrit is primarily expressed as Prajñā (प्रज्ञा), representing deep insight, intuitive wisdom, and understanding of reality. Other terms include Viveka (विवेकः - discrimination), Medhā (मेधा - intellect), and Panditya (पाण्डित्य - scholarship). It is often associated with the realization of the true nature of existence.
Wisdom
Prajñā (प्रज्ञा): Supreme wisdom, insight, or consciousness.
Viveka (विवेक): Discrimination between real and unreal, right and wrong.
Medhā (मेधा): Intellect, mental capacity, or wisdom.
Jñāna (ज्ञान): Knowledge, often implying spiritual or experiential wisdom.
Vijñāna (विज्ञान): Specialized knowledge, understanding, or experience.
Panditya (पाण्डित्य): Wisdom derived from scholarship or learning.
Manīṣā (मनीषा): Intellect, wisdom, or intention.
Famous Sanskrit Quotes on Wisdom
"बुद्धिर्यस्य बलं तस्य" (Buddhiryasya balaṃ tasya): "He who has wisdom has strength" (Wisdom is power).
"प्रज्ञां विना न सिद्धिः" (Prajñāṃ vinā na siddhiḥ): "Without wisdom, there is no success/perfection."
"सुभाषित" (Subhashitam): This refers to "good speech" or pearls of wisdom/aphorisms that provide moral, ethical, and practical guidance for life.
Concepts in Wisdom
Prajñāpāramitā: The perfection of wisdom in Mahayana Buddhism.
Trividhā prajñā: The three types of wisdom: learning (śrutamayī), reflection (cintāmayī), and meditation (bhāvanāmayī).
Prajña/Prājña: Wise, learned, or intelligent.
Vidvān/Vidvattā: Scholar, wise person, or scholarship.
Pratibhā: Genius, intelligence, or brilliance.
4 Intelligence is the ability to acquire knowledge, process information, and solve problems, focusing on how to do something. Wisdom is the deeper, experience-based ability to discern should and apply knowledge with good judgment, emotional intelligence, and long-term perspective.
Variations Between Intelligence and Wisdom:
Definition & Focus: Intelligence is analytical, rapid, and often focuses on tangible data. Wisdom is integrative, slower, and considers intangible, ethical consequences.
Application: Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
Source: Intelligence is developed through learning and study, while wisdom is cultivated through experience, reflection, and maturity.
Approach to Problems: An intelligent person solves a problem, while a wise person avoids it.
Perspective: Intelligence is often narrow and focused on immediate, "how-to" goals. Wisdom is broad, focusing on the "why" and the long-term, overall picture.
While intelligence is often rewarded and measured in modern society, wisdom is recognized more slowly and involves understanding the consequences of actions on oneself and others.
5 In Vedic astrology, Jupiter (Brihaspati) is the primary planet for wisdom, higher knowledge, and spiritual growth, while Mercury (Budh) governs intellect, analytical skills, and communication. Together, they represent the balance between rational thought (Mercury) and profound, intuitive understanding (Jupiter).
Planetary Influences on Intellect & Wisdom:
Jupiter (Brihaspati): The "Guru" of the planets, it governs deep wisdom, judgment, philosophy, and spiritual enlightenment.
Mercury (Budh): Rules logic, analytical ability, memory, communication, and wit.
Saturn (Shani): Represents practical intelligence, discipline, and wisdom gained through experience.
Ketu: Associated with deep intuition, spiritual intelligence, and mathematical precision.
Moon (Chandra): Influences emotional intelligence, intuition, and mental stability.
Factors for High Intelligence in a Birth Chart:
A strong, well-placed Mercury indicates high cognitive prowess.
A strong Jupiter indicates good judgment and righteousness.
A favorable 5th house (intelligence, education) and its lord.
6 Moon: Impact on emotions and intuition [SOMA]
The Moon governs our emotions, instincts, and intuition. It symbolizes our subconscious mind and influences our emotional well-being. A strong Moon in the birth chart can contribute to emotional stability, empathy, and intuition. On the other hand, a weak or afflicted Moon may lead to mood swings, emotional turmoil, and inner unrest. Intelligence is good as well as bad as the making and marring are done only by the intelligence. Hence, Good intelligence is contributed through the SOMA THE MOON AND THE MERCURY THE BUDAN; WHILE THE BAD ONES THROUGH THE SATURN AND Rahu combined with the soma-moon & budan-mercury. INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT WISDOM IS APPLIED ON LOKAYATA ACTIONS OF Karma. On the contrary, attainment of wisdom (not acquisition) from the intelligence acquired, leads positively to great gnani of the earth and with ketu, turns one into a sanyasi in robe and thoughts. WEALTH AND THE PROPERTIUES ARE IN BETWEEEN THE INTELLIGENCE AND THE WISDOM PERIODS, WHERE ALL ARE LEFT VBEHIND AND EXIST AND EXIT WITH THE WUISDOM AND THE MIND THE SOMA ONLY.
7 NOW LOOK AT THE ASTROLOGICAL CHART: GURU AND BUDAN PLANETS OF WISDOM, AND INTELLIGENCE ARE AT THE FOUR CORNERS; THEY KEEP IN CAGE ALL THE PROPERTIESS [MARS] , WEALTH [SUKRA], FAME [SUN, BUDDI P[MOON], NEGATIVE FAME AND FALL LIKE HITLER [SATURN] WITHIN. AND ALL OFF THEM ARE CONDUCTED BY 27 STARS THE “TARA”. 18 STARS IN THE CAGE AND 9 STARS IN THE FOUR CORNERS. In these 9 stars 4.5 stars are acquisition of the knowledge equally contributing to the ultimate wisdom and moksha of 4.5 stars through the GURU. ASTROLOGY IS BASED ONLY ON MOON IN HINDUISM SOMA, TAGGED TO 27 STARS, WHICH WERE ABDUCTED FROM GURU GIVING GOOD ASPECTS FOR ALL, WHOSE COMBINATIONS WITH THE SOMA THE MOON, YIELDED ONLY THE INTELLIGENCE OF VARIED STRENGTHS. ONLY WHEN THE SOMA THE MOON SENDS THE TARA TO GURU, WISDOM WILL DAWN FOR MOKSHA. OUT OF THE 360 DEGREES IN THE CHART, ONLY 60 DEGREES IS GOAL IN HINDUISM; THE REST 300 DEGREES, MAKE KARMA THE FATE STRONGER FOR REBIRTHS. [SAGITAURUS AND AQUARIUS]. TARA RESIDENCE IS SO IMPORTANT. WITH SOMA [RASI] OR WITH GURU [POORVA PUNYA]. The rest presented as story of TARA is symbolic astrologically from the Vishnu purana.
K RAJARAM IRS 10326
Sun: Influence on confidence and vitality The Sun is considered the king of the Navgrah. It represents confidence, self-esteem, and vitality. Its positioning in the birth chart determines the strength of these qualities in an individual. A well-placed Sun can bestow leadership abilities, success, and recognition. However, a weak or afflicted Sun may lead to a lack of self-confidence and difficulty asserting oneself.
Moon: Impact on emotions and intuition The Moon governs our emotions, instincts, and intuition. It symbolizes our subconscious mind and influences our emotional well-being. A strong Moon in the birth chart can contribute to emotional stability, empathy, and intuition. On the other hand, a weak or afflicted Moon may lead to mood swings, emotional turmoil, and inner unrest.
Mars: Effects on courage and energy Mars is the planet of energy, action, and courage. It represents our drive, ambition, and physical strength. A well-positioned Mars in the birth chart can grant assertiveness, determination, and the ability to overcome challenges. However, a negatively influenced Mars can lead to aggression, impulsiveness, and conflicts.
Mercury: Influence on communication and intelligence Mercury governs communication, intellect, and analytical abilities. It influences our thinking patterns, learning capacity, and expression of ideas. A strong Mercury in the birth chart enhances communication skills, intelligence, and adaptability. Conversely, a weak or afflicted Mercury may result in difficulties in expressing oneself, learning disabilities, and challenges in decision-making.
Jupiter: Impact on wisdom and knowledge Jupiter is associated with wisdom, knowledge, and spirituality. It signifies expansion, growth, and higher learning. A well-placed Jupiter in the birth chart can bestow wisdom, optimism, and a thirst for knowledge. It can also bring opportunities for success and abundance. However, a negatively influenced Jupiter can lead to over-indulgence, excessive optimism, or lack of direction.
Venus: Effects on love and relationships Venus represents love, beauty, and relationships. It influences our romantic inclinations, artistic talents, and capacity to form harmonious connections. A strong Venus in the birth chart can bring love, romance, and a strong aesthetic sense. It can also contribute to artistic abilities and a harmonious social life. However, an afflicted Venus may lead to relationship issues, superficiality, or materialistic tendencies.
Saturn: Influence on discipline and responsibility Saturn is associated with discipline, responsibility, and hard work. It symbolizes life lessons, karma, and endurance. A well-placed Saturn in the birth chart can bring discipline, perseverance, and the ability to overcome obstacles. It encourages practicality and a strong work ethic. However, a negatively influenced Saturn may lead to limitations, delays, or a pessimistic outlook on life.
Rahu and Ketu: Karmic influences Rahu and Ketu are known as shadow planets and represent karmic influences in Vedic astrology. They signify the desires and lessons from past lives. The positioning of Rahu and Ketu in the birth chart indicates the karmic path and challenges an individual may face. They can bring both positive and negative effects, depending on their alignment with other planets.
--SAGE ANGIRASA- PART 2
Continuing from Part 1
Why Lord Shiva joined Brihaspathi in the Taraka maya war ?
One of the most famous wars between the Gods and the Asuras (demons) was the Tarakamaya war in the Satyayuga. The war was started when Chandra the moon god kidnapped Tara, wife of Brihaspati guru of the gods. (Brihaspati is often just called Guru, and he's the god of the planet Jupiter.).
To rescue their guru's wife, the gods fought a great war against Chandra, and the Asuras took Chandra's side because of Sukracharya's personal animus towards Brihaspati.
In the end Chandra gave back Tara, but not before she became pregnant with his son, Budha god of the planet Mercury.
In any case, the army of the gods was led by Shiva, who fought on the side of Brihaspati because of his loyaly to Brihaspati's father Angiras, as described in the Vishnu Purana:
Lord Siva - a student of Angiras
Srimad Bhagavatam describes Shiva as a disciple of the sage Angiras:
Viṣṇu Purāṇa in the genealogical passages that describe brahmarṣi lineages, the text briefly notes that Rudra received knowledge through the Aṅgiras line.
Bhāgavata Purāṇa A similar statement occurs in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, where Śiva is mentioned among those who receive Vedic or yogic instruction from ancient sages. In some recensions and commentarial traditions, this is linked specifically to Aṅgiras.
Google search result
Rudra as a Disciple: Certain Vaishnava texts like the Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana briefly suggest that Rudra (a form of Shiva) received Vedic or yogic instruction from the Angiras lineage as part of the transmission of knowledge from Brahma to the devas.
Vamadeva: According to the Sri Ishwara Gita, Vamadeva, who is one of the eleven Rudras, is explicitly mentioned as a disciple of Sage Angiras who protects yogis under Lord Shiva's instruction.
Sage Angiras as a Devotee: Conversely, many traditions hold that Angiras was a profound devotee who built an ancestral cave near Mt. Kailash to meditate on Shiva, eventually becoming one of the Saptarishis whom Shiva enlightened.
In summary, while the supreme deity Shiva is generally the teacher, his manifestation as Vamadeva or Rudra is occasionally linked to the Angiras lineage in specific scriptural contexts
Sage Angiras and Agni
Sage Angiras is a revered Vedic seer closely linked to Agni, often considered a high priest of fire and a "son of Agni". As a primal fire-priest and progenitor, Angiras is associated with the discovery of fire, the introduction of yajna (rituals), and is sometimes seen as a manifestation of divine radiance.
Key aspects of the relationship between Sage Angiras and Agni include:
Divine Connection & Lineage: Angiras is often portrayed as the son of Agni, or in some contexts, as a sage whose intense penance allowed him to become even more brilliant than the fire-god himself.
Role in Rituals (Yajna): Along with Sage Bhrigu, Angiras is credited with introducing fire worship (Yajna) to humanity.
Symbolism in the Vedas: The Angiras Rishis are described as the "flame-powers" or radiant beams of Agni, representing divine force and knowledge.
Legend : In one narrative, when Angiras's brilliance overshadowed Agni, causing Agni to hide in a forest, Angiras brought him back to Brahma, reaffirming Agni's role and solidifying their relationship.
Authorship: The Angiras family is credited with composing significant portions of the Rigveda, particularly the hymns devoted to fire.
Angiras thus represents the human, priestly, and intellectual link to the divine power of Agni, serving as the mediator who brings the sacred fire to humanity.
Sage Angiras and cows
Angiras (or the Angirasa Rishis) are prominent Vedic seers associated with recovering stolen divine cows, often identified as symbols of light and knowledge, from the demoniac Panis.
In Rigveda hymns, they worked with Indra to break open the mountain cave (Vala) where the Panis hid the herds, releasing them for the gods and humanity.
The relationship between Sage Angiras and cows is a central legend in the Rig Veda, representing the spiritual conquest of light over darkness.
The Legend of the Lost Cows
In Vedic legends , the Panis (a class of demons or "misers") stole the luminous cows of the gods and hid them in a deep cave within a mountain, guarded by the demon Vala.
The Search: Indra, the god of the divine mind, sought the recovery of these cows. He was assisted by the Angiras Rishis, who are described as his companions and "human fathers" (pitaro manuṣyāḥ).
The Discovery: Assisted by Sarama, the heavenly hound, the Angirasas found the cave's location.
The Victory: The Angirasas chanted the Satya Mantra (True Word), which broke open the rock of the cave. Indra then released the cows, bringing the Dawn and the Sun back to the world.
Symbolic and Esoteric Meanings
Scholars and mystics like Sri Aurobindo interpret this legend not as a literal cattle raid, but as a symbolic journey of the soul.
Cows as Light: The word Go in Sanskrit means both "cow" and "ray of light." Thus, the recovered cows represent the radiances of divine knowledge or inner illumination.
The Cave as Ignorance: The dark cave of the Panis symbolises the subconscious or the darkness of ignorance that conceals spiritual truth.
Angiras as Flaming Force: The name Angiras is linked to Agni (fire). The sages represent the flaming force of the divine consciousness that works through the power of the sacred word to manifest truth.
Sage Angiras in Satya yuga
In Hindu tradition, Sage Angiras is a primary Vedic seer and a key figure in the Satya Yuga, the first and most virtuous age of a Maha Yuga cycle. He is celebrated as one of the Saptarishi (Seven Great Sages) of the first Manvantara, a period governed by Swayambhu Manu.
Key Aspects of Sage Angiras
Mind-Born Son of Brahma: Angiras is a Manasaputra (mind-born son) of the creator god Brahma. He is often described as emerging from Brahma's mouth or skin, embodying divine wisdom and the energy of fire.
The Radiant Seer: His name is linked to the Sanskrit word Angara (glowing coal), and he is known as the "Shining One". Through intense penance (tapas), he acquired a brilliance (tejas) that rivalled the sun.
Vedic Contributions: Along with Sage Atharvan, he is the primary cognisor and author of the Atharva Veda. He also contributed several hymns to the Rig Veda and is revered as the first of the Angirasas, a lineage of fire-priests.
Teacher of Divine Knowledge: In the Mundaka Upanishad, Brahma taught the knowledge of Brahman to Atharvan, who passed it to Angiras. Angiras then transmitted this sacred knowledge to his disciple, Satyavaha.
Family and Legacy: He is the father of Brihaspati, the guru of the Devas (gods). His descendants, known as the Angirasas, form one of the oldest and most prominent clans (gotras) in Hindu genealogy.
During the Satya Yuga, Angiras was instrumental in establishing Yagna (fire sacrifice) and spiritual rituals. He is considered an eternal guide who manifests to preserve Vedic wisdom across different cosmic ages.
Compiled from websites- R. Gopalakrishnan 08-03-2026
I will continue in next posting
Key aspects of Sage Angiras and the cows:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thatha_patty...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/1957014339.3597842.1772953301158%40mail.yahoo.com.
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
WHAT IS MEANT BY “MIND-BORN”
Manasaputras (Sanskrit: मानसपुत्र, lit. 'mind-son', : Mānasaputra) are a class of beings in Hinduism, referring to the 'mind-children' or the 'mind-born' sons of Brahma. In Hinduism, Brahma is believed to have created a number of children from his mind. Sometimes, these children of the mind are stated to be identical to the Prajapatis, the progenitors of all beings in each creation. The Manasaputras are believed to have created the first
man, Svayambhuva Manu, and the first woman, Shatarupa, who had five children, who went on to populate the earth.
VISHNU PURANA:
From Brahmā, continuing to meditate, were born mind-engendered progeny, with forms and faculties derived from his corporeal nature; embodied spirits, produced from the person of that all-wise deity. All these beings, front the gods to inanimate things, appeared as I have related to you, being the abode of the three qualities: but as they did not multiply themselves, Brahmā created other mind-born sons, like himself; namely, Bhrigu, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Aṅgiras, Marīci, Dakṣa, Atri, and Vaśiṣṭha: these are the nine Brahmas (or Brahma ṛṣis) celebrated in the Purāṇas. Sanandana and the other sons of Brahmā were previously created by him, but they were without desire or passion, inspired with holy wisdom, estranged from the universe, and undesirous of progeny. This when Brahmā perceived, he was filled with wrath capable of consuming the three worlds, the flame of which invested, like a garland, heaven, earth, and hell. Then from his forehead, darkened with angry frowns, sprang Rudra, radiant as the noon-tide sun, fierce, and of vast bulk, and of a figure which was half male, half female. Separate yourself, Brahmā said to him; and having so spoken, disappeared. Obedient to which command, Rudra became twofold, disjoining his male and female natures. His male being he again divided into eleven persons, of whom some were agreeable, some hideous, some fierce, some mild; and he multiplied his female nature manifold, of complexions black or white.
Then Brahmā created himself the Manu Svāyambhuva, born of, and identical with, his original self, for the protection of created beings; and the female portion of himself he constituted Śatarūpā, whom austerity purified from the sin (of forbidden nuptials), and whom the divine Manu Svāyambhuva took to wife. From these two were born two sons, Priyavrata and Uttānapāda, and two daughters, named Prasūti and Ākūti, graced with loveliness and exalted merit. Prasūti he gave to Dakṣa, after giving Ākūti to the patriarch Ruci, who espoused her. Ākūti bore to Ruci twins, Yajña and Dakṣinā, who afterwards became husband and wife, and had twelve sons, the deities called Yāmas, in the Manvantara of Svāyambhuva.
Considerable variety prevails in this list of Prajāpatis, Brahmaputras, Brāhmanas, or Brahmarṣis; but the variations are of the nature of additions made to an apparently original enumeration of but seven, whose names generally recur. Thus in the Mahābhārata, Mokṣa Dharma, we have in one place, Marīci, Atri, Aṅgiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, and Vaśiṣṭha, ‘the seven highminded sons of the self-born Brahmā.’ In another place of the same, however, we have Dakṣa substituted for Vaśiṣṭha: ‘Brahmā then created mind-begotten sons, of whom Dakṣa was the seventh, with Marīci,’ &c. These seven sons of Brahmā are also identified with the seven Ṛṣis as in the Vāyu; although, with palpable inconsistency, eight are immediately enumerated, or, Bhrigu, Marīci, Atri, Aṅgiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, and Vaśiṣṭha. The Uttara Khanda of the Padma P. substitutes Kardama for Vaśiṣṭha. The Bhāgavata includes Dakṣa, enumerating nine. The Matsya agrees with Manu in adding Nārada to the list of our text. The Kūrma P. adds Dharma and Saṅkalpa. The Liṅga, Brahmāṇḍa, and Vāyu P. also add them, and extend the list to Adharma and Ruci. The Hari Vaṃśa in one place inserts Gautama, and p. 50 in another Manu. Altogether therefore we have seventeen, instead of seven.
But the accounts given of the origin of several of these, shOw that they were not originally included amongst the Mānasa putras, or sons of Brahmā's mind; for even Dakṣa, who finds a place in all the lists except one of those given in the Mahābhārata, is uniformly said to have sprung from Brahmā's thumb: and the same patriarch, as well as Dharma, is included in some accounts, as in the Bhāgavata and Matsya P., amongst a different series of Brahmā's progeny, or virtues and vices;
or, Dakṣa (dexterity), Dharma (virtue), Kāma (desire), Krodha (passion), Lobha (covetousness), Moha (infatuation), Mada (insanity), Pramoda (pleasure), Mrityu (death), and Aṅgaja (lust).
These are severally derived from different parts of Brahmā's body: and the Bhagāvata, adding Kardama (soil or sin) to this enumeration, makes him spring from Brahmā's shadow.
The simple statement, that the first Prajāpatis sprang from the mind or will of Brahmā, has not contented the depraved taste of the mystics, and in some of the Purāṇas, as the Bhāgavata, Liṅga, and Vāyu, they also are derived from the body of their progenitor;
or, Bhrigu from his skin,
Marīci from his mind,
Atri from his eyes,
Aṅgiras from his mouth,
Pulastya from his ear,
Pulaha from his navel,
Kratu from his hand,
Vaśiṣṭha from his breath,
Dakṣa from his thumb,
and Nārada from his hip.
They do not exactly agree, however, in the places whence these beings proceed; as for instance,
according to the Liṅga Purana ,
Marīci springs from Brahmā's eyes, not Atri, who there proceeds, instead of Pulastya, from his ears.
The Vāyu has also another account of their origin, and states them to have sprung from the fires of a sacrifice offered by Brahmā; an allegorical mode of expressing their probable original, considering them to be in some degree real persons, from the Brahmanical ritual, of which they were the first institutors and observers.
The Vāyu P. also states, that besides the seven primitive Ṛṣis, the Prajāpatis are numerous, and specifies Kardama, Kaśyapa, Śeṣa, Vikrānta, Susravas, Bahuputra, Kumāra, Vivaswat, Suchisravas, Prācetasa (Dakṣa), Aṛṣṭanemi, Bahula. These and many others were Prajāpatis.
In the beginning of the Mahābhārata (A. P.) we have again a different origin, and first Dakṣa, the son of Pracetas, it is said, had seven sons, after whom the twenty-one Prajāpatis were born, or appeared. According to the commentator, the seven sons of Dakṣa were the allegorical persons Krodha, Tamas, Dama, Vikrita, Aṅgiras, Kardama, and Aswa; and the twenty-one Prajāpatis, the seven usually specified Marīci and the rest, and the fourteen Manus. This looks like a blending of the earlier and later notions.
[3]: Besides this general notice of the origin of Rudra and his separate forms, we have in the next chapter an entirely different set of beings so denominated; and the eleven alluded to in the text are also more particularly enumerated in a subsequent chapter. The origin of Rudra, as one of the agents in creation, is described in most of the Purāṇas. The Mahābhārata, indeed, refers his origin to Viṣṇu, representing him as the personification of his anger, whilst Brahmā is that of his kindness. The Kūrma P. makes him proceed from Brahmā's mouth, whilst engaged in meditating on creation. The Varāha P. makes this appearance of Rudra the consequence of a promise made by Śiva to Brahmā, that he would become his son. In the parallel passages in other Purāṇas the progeny of the Rudra created by Brahmā is not confined to the eleven, but comprehends infinite numbers of beings in person and equipments like their parent; until Brahmā, alarmed at their fierceness, numbers, and immortality, desires his son Rudra, or, as the Matsya calls him, Vāmadeva, to form creatures of a different and mortal nature. Rudra refusing to do this, desists; whence his name Sthānu, from Sthā, ‘to stay.’ Liṅga, Vāyu P. &c.
[4]:According to the Vāyu, the female became first twofold, or one half white, and the other black; and each of these, again, becomes manifold, being the various energies, or Śaktis, of Mahādeva, as stated by the Kūrma, after the words ### which are those of our text: ###. The Liṅga and Vāyu specify many of their names. Those of the white complexion, or mild nature, include Lakṣmī, Sarasvatī, Gaurī, Umā, &c. Those of the dark hue, and fierce disposition, Durgā, Kālī, Candī, Mahārātrī, and others.
[5]:Brahmā, after detaching from himself the property of anger, in the form of Rudra, converted himself into two persons, the first male, or the Manu Svāyambhuva, and the first woman, or Śatarūpā:
so in the Vedas; ‘So himself was indeed (his) son.’
The commencement of production through sexual agency is here described with sufficient distinctness, but the subject has been rendered p. 52 obscure by a more complicated succession of agents, and especially by the introduction of a person of a mythic or mystical character, Virāj. The notion is thus expressed in Manu:
“Having divided his own substance, the mighty power Brahmā became half male and half female; and from that female he produced Virāj. Know me to be that person whom the male Virāj produced by himself.” I. 32, 33.
We have therefore a series of Brahmā, Virāj, and Manu, instead of Brahmā and Manu only: also the generation of progeny by Brahmā, begotten on Satarūpā, instead of her being, as in our text, the wife of Manu. The idea seems to have originated with the Vedas, as Kullūka Bhaṭṭa quotes a text; ‘Then (or thence) Virāt was born.’ The procreation of progeny by Brahmā, however, is at variance with the whole system, which almost invariably refers his creation to the operation of his will: and the expression in Manu, ‘he created Virāj in her,’ does not necessarily imply sexual intercourse. Virāj also creates, not begets, Manu. And in neither instance does the name of Śatarūpā occur. The commentator on Manu, however, understands the expression asrijat to imply the procreation of Virāj; and the same interpretation is given by the Matsya Purāṇa, in which the incestuous passion of Brahmā for Śatarūpa, his daughter in one sense, his sister in another, is described; and by her he begets Virāj, who there is called, not the progenitor of Manu, but Manu himself. This therefore agrees with our text, as far as it makes Manu the son of Brahmā, though not as to the nature of the connexion. The reading of the Agni and Padma P. is that of the Viṣṇu; and the Bhāgavata agrees with it in one place, stating distinctly that the male half of Brahmā, was Manu, the other half, Śatarūpā: ### Bhāgav. III. 12. 35: and although the production of Virāj is elsewhere described, it is neither as the son of Brahmā, nor the father of Manu. The original and simple idea, therefore, appears to be, the identity of Manu with the male half of Brahmā, and his being thence regarded as his son. The Kūrma P. gives the same account as Manu, and in the same words. The Liṅga P. and Vāyu P. describe the origin of Virāj and Śatarūpā from Brahmā; and they intimate the union of Śatarūpā with Puruṣa or Virāj, the male portion of Brahmā, in the first instance; and in the second, with Manu, who is termed Vairāja, or the son of Virāj. The Brāhma P., the words of which are repeated in the Hari Vaṃśa, introduces a new element of perplexity in a new name, that of Āpava. According to the commentator, this is a name of the Prajāpati Vaśiṣṭha. As, however, he performs the office of Brahmā, he should be regarded as that divinity: but this is not exactly the case, although it has been so rendered by the French translator. Āpava becomes twofold, and in the capacity of his male half begets offspring by the female. Again, it is said Viṣṇu created p. 53 Virāj, and Virāj created the male, which is Vairāja or Manu; who was thus the second interval (Antaram), or stage, in creation. That is, according to the commentator, the first stage was the creation of Āpava, or Vaśiṣṭha, or Virāj, by Viṣṇu, through the agency of Hiranyagarbha or Brahmā; and the next was that of the creation of Manu by Virāj. Śatarūpā appears as first the bride of Āpava, and then as the wife of Manu. This account therefore, although obscurely expressed, appears to be essentially the same with that of Manu; and we have Brahmā, Virāj, Manu, instead of Brahmā and Manu. It seems probable that this difference, and the part assigned to Virāj, has originated in some measure from confounding Brahmā with the male half of his individuality, and considering as two beings that which was but one. If the Puruṣa or Virāj be distinct from Brahmā, what becomes of Brahmā? The entire whole and its two halves cannot coexist; although some of the Paurāṇics and the author of Manu seem to have imagined its possibility, by making Virāj the son of Brahmā. The perplexity, however, is still more ascribable to the personification of that which was only an allegory. The division of Brahmā into two halves designates, as is very evident from the passage in the Vedas given by Mr. Colebrooke, (As. R. VIII. 425,) the distinction of corporeal substance into two sexes; Virāj being all male animals, Śatarūpā all female animals. So the commentator on the Hari Vaṃśa explains the former to denote the horse, the bull, &c.; and the latter, the mare, the cow, and the like. In the Bhāgavata the term Virāj implies, Body, collectively, as the commentator observes; ‘As the sun illuminates his own inner sphere, as well as the exterior regions, so soul, shining in body (Virāja), irradiates all without and within.’ All therefore that the birth of Virāj was intended to express, was the creation of living body, of creatures of both sexes: and as in consequence man was produced, he might be said to be the son of Virāj, or bodily existence. Again, Śatarūpā, the bride of Brahmā, or of Virāj, or of Manu, is nothing more than beings of varied or manifold forms, from Sata, ‘a hundred,’ and ‘form;’ explained by the annotator on the Hari Vaṃśa by Anantarūpā, ‘of infinite,’ and Vividharūpā, ‘of diversified shape;’ being, as he states, the same as Māyā, ‘illusion,’ or the power of multiform metamorphosis. The Matsya P. has a little allegory of its own, on the subject of Brahmā's intercourse with Śatarūpā; for it explains the former to mean the Vedas, and the latter the Savitrī, or holy prayer, which is their chief text; and in their cohabitation there is therefore no evil.
[6]:The Brāhma P. has a different order, and makes Vīra the son of the first pair, who has Uttānapāda, &c. by Kāmyā. The commentator on the Hari Vaṃśa quotes the Vāyu for a confirmation of this account; but the passage there is, ‘Śatarūpā bore to the male Vairāja (Manu) two Vīras,’ i. e. heroes or heroic sons, p. 54 Uttānpāda and Priyavrata. It looks as if the compiler of the Brāhma P. had made some very unaccountable blunder, and invented upon it a new couple, Vīra and Kāmyā: no such person as the former occurs in any other Purāṇa, nor does Kāmyā, as his wife.
[7]:The Bhāgavata adds a third daughter, Devahūti; for the purpose apparently of introducing a long legend of the Ṛṣi Kardama, to whom she is married, and of their son Kapila: a legend not met with any where else.
[8]:Ruci is reckoned amongst the Prajāpatis by the Liṅga and Vāyu Purāṇas.
[9]:These descendants of Svāyambhuva are all evidently allegorical: thus Yajña is ‘sacrifice,’ and Dakṣiṇā ‘donation’ to Brahmans.
[10]:The Bhāgavata (b. IV. c. 1) says the Tuṣitas, but they are the divinities of the second, not of the first Manvantara, as appears also in another part of the same, where the Yāmas are likewise referred to the Svāyambhuva Manvantara.
[11]:These twenty-four daughters are of much less universal occurrence in the Purāṇas than the more extensive series of fifty or sixty, which is subsequently described, and which appears to be the more ancient legend.
[12]:The twenty-four daughters of Dakṣa are similarly named and disposed of in most of the Purāṇas which notice them.
The Bhāgavata, having introduced a third daughter. of Svāyambhuva, has a rather different enumeration, in order to assign some of them, the wives of the Prajāpatis, to p. 55 Kardama and Devahūti.
Dakṣa had therefore, it is there said (b. IV. c. 1), sixteen daughters, thirteen of whom were married to Dharma, named
Sraddhā, Maitrī (friendship), Dayā (clemency), Sānti Tuṣṭi, Puṣṭi, Kriyā, Unnati (elevation), Buddhi, Medhā, Titikṣā (patience), Hrī (modesty), Mūrtti (form); and three, Sati, Svāhā, and Swadhā, married, as in our text.
Some of the daughters of Devahūti repeat these appellations, but that is of slight consideration. They are,
Kalā (a moment), married to Marīci;
Anasūyā to Atri;
Sraddhā to Aṅgiras;
Havirbhu (oblation-born) to Pulastya;
Gati (movement) to Pulaha;
Kriyā to Kratu; Khyāti to Bhrigu;
Arundhati to Vaśiṣṭha;
and Sānti to Atharvan.
X In all these instances the persons are manifestly allegorical, being personifications of intelligences and virtues and religious rites, and being therefore appropriately wedded to the probable authors of the Hindu code of religion and morals, or to the equally allegorical representation of that code, Dharma, moral and religious duty.
[13]:The same remark applies here. The Purāṇas that give these details generally coñcur with our text, but the Bhāgavata specifies the progeny of Dharma in a somewhat different manner; or, following the order observed in the
list of Dharma's wives, their children are,
Rita (truth), Prasāda (favour), Abhaya (fearlessness), Sukha, Muda (pleasure), Smaya (wonder), Yoga (devotion), Darpa, Artha (meaning), Smriti (memory), Kṣema, Prasraya (affection), and the two saints Nara and Nārāyaṇa, the sons of Dharma by Mūrtti.
We have occasional varieties of nomenclature in other authorities; as, instead of Śruta, Sama; Kūrma P.: instead of Dandanaya, Samaya; and instead of Bodha, Apramāda; Liṅga P.: and Siddha in place of Sukha; Kūrma P.
[14]:The text rather abruptly introduces
Adharma and his family. He is said by the commentator to be the son of Brahmā, and the Liṅga P. enumerates him among the Prajāpatis, as well as Dharma. According to the Bhāgavata, he is the husband of Mṛṣā (falsehood), and the father of Dambha (hypocrisy) and Māyā (deceit), who were adopted by Nirritti. The series p. 56 of their descendants is also somewhat varied from our text; being in each descent, however, twins which intermarry, or Lobha (covetousness) and Nikriti, who produce Krodha (wrath) and Hinsā: their children are, Kali (wickedness) and Durukti (evil speech): their progeny are, Mrityu and Bhī (fear); whose offspring are, Niraya (hell) and Yātanā (torment).
[15]:The three first of these are more particularly described in the last book: the last, the Nitya, or constant, is differently described by Col. Vans Kennedy (Ancient and Hindu Mythology, p. 224, note). “In the 7th chapter,” he observes, “of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa four kinds of Pralaya are described.
The Naimittika takes place when Brahmā slumbers: the Prākritika when this universe returns to its original nature:
Atyantika proceeds from divine knowledge: and Nitya is the extinction of life, like the extinction of a lamp, in sleep at night.” For this last characteristic, however, our text furnishes no warrant;
nor can it be explained to signify, that the Nitya Pralaya means no more p. 57 than “a man's falling into a sound sleep at night.” All the copies consulted on the present occasion coñcur in reading ### as rendered above.
The commentator supplies the illustration, ‘like the flame of a lamp;’ but he also writes, ‘That which is the destruction of all that are born, night and day, is the Nitya, or constant.’ Again, in a verse presently following we have the Nitya Sarga, ‘constant or perpetual creation,’ as opposed to constant dissolution: ‘That in which, oh excellent sages, beings are daily born, is termed constant creation, by those learned in the Purāṇas.’ The commentator explains this, ‘The constant flow or succession of the creation of ourselves and other creatures is the Nitya or constant creation: this is the meaning of the text.’ It is obvious, therefore, that the alternation intended is that of life and death, not of waking and sleep.
K RAJARAM IRS 10326
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
Process of Creation and Destruction
Chapter 5 - Of the Mahābhūtas (Ultimate Material Substances)
इहेदानीं चतुर्णां महाभूतानां सृष्टिसंहारविधिरुच्यते । ब्राह्मणे मानेन वर्षशतान्ते वर्तमानस्य ब्रह्मणोऽपवर्गकाले संसारखिन्नानां सर्वप्राणिनां निशि विश्रामार्थं सकलभुवनपतेर्महेश्वरस्य संजिहीर्षासमकालं शरीरेन्द्रियमहाभूतोपनिबन्धकानां सर्वात्मगतानामदृष्टानां वृत्तिनिरोधे सति महेश्वरेच्छात्माणुसम्योगजकर्मभ्यः शरीरेन्द्रियकारणाणुविभागेभ्यस्तत्सम्योगनिवृत्तौ तेषामापरमाण्वन्तो विनाशः । तथा पृथिव्युदकज्वलनपवनानामपि महाभूतानामनेनैव क्रमेणोत्तरस्मिन्नुत्तरस्मिन् सति पूर्वस्य पूर्वस्य विनाशः ततः प्रविभक्ताः परमाणवोवतिष्ठन्ते धर्माधर्मसंस्कारानुविद्धा आत्मानस्तावन्तमेव कालम् । ततः पुनः प्राणिनां भोगभूतये महेश्वरसिसृक्षानन्तरं सर्वात्मगतवृत्तिलब्धादृष्टापेक्षेभ्यस्तत्सम्योगेभ्यः पवनपरमाणुषु कर्मोत्पत्तौ तेषां परस्परसम्योगेभ्यो द्व्यणुकादिप्रक्रमेण महान् वायुः समुत्पन्नो नभसि दोधूयमानस्तिष्ठति । तदनन्तरं तस्मिन्नेव वायावाप्येभ्यः परमाणुभ्यस्तेनैव क्रमेण महान् सलिलनिधिरुत्पन्नः पोप्लूयमानस्तिष्ठति तदनन्तरं तस्मिन्नेव पार्थिवेभ्यः परमाणुभ्यो महापृथिवी संहतावतिष्ठते । तदनन्तरं तस्मिन्नेव महोदधौ तैजसेभ्योऽणुभ्यो द्व्यणुकादिप्रक्रमेणोत्पन्नो महांस्तेजोराशिः केनचिदनभिभूतत्वाद्देदीप्यमानस्तिष्ठति । एवं समुत्पन्नेन्षु चतुर्षु महाभूतेषु महेश्वरस्याभिध्यानमात्रात्तैजसेभ्योऽणुभ्यः पार्थिवपरमाणुसहितेभ्यो महदण्डमारभ्यते तस्मिंश्चतुर्वदनकमलं सर्वलोकपितामहं ब्रह्माणं सकलभुवनसहितमुत्पाद्य प्रजासर्गे विनियुङ्क्ते । स च महेश्वरेण विनियुक्तो ब्रह्मातिशयज्ञानवैराग्यैश्वर्यसम्पन्नः प्राणिनां कर्मविपाकं विदित्वा।कर्मानुरूपज्ञानभोगायुषः सुतान् प्रजापतीन् मानसान् मौदेवर्षिपितृगणान् मुखबाहूरुपादतश्चतुरो वर्णानन्यानि चोच्चावचानि भूतानि च सृष्ट्वाशयाणुरूपैर्धर्मज्ञानवैराग्यैश्वर्यैः संयोजयतीति ॥ ४० ॥
ihedānīṃ caturṇāṃ mahābhūtānāṃ sṛṣṭisaṃhāravidhirucyate | brāhmaṇe mānena varṣaśatānte vartamānasya brahmaṇo'pavargakāle saṃsārakhinnānāṃ sarvaprāṇināṃ niśi viśrāmārthaṃ sakalabhuvanapatermaheśvarasya saṃjihīrṣāsamakālaṃ śarīrendriyamahābhūtopanibandhakānāṃ sarvātmagatānāmadṛṣṭānāṃ vṛttinirodhe sati maheśvarecchātmāṇusamyogajakarmabhyaḥ śarīrendriyakāraṇāṇuvibhāgebhyastatsamyoganivṛttau teṣāmāparamāṇvanto vināśaḥ | tathā pṛthivyudakajvalanapavanānāmapi mahābhūtānāmanenaiva krameṇottarasminnuttarasmin sati pūrvasya pūrvasya vināśaḥ tataḥ pravibhaktāḥ paramāṇavovatiṣṭhante dharmādharmasaṃskārānuviddhā ātmānastāvantameva kālam | tataḥ punaḥ prāṇināṃ bhogabhūtaye maheśvarasisṛkṣānantaraṃ sarvātmagatavṛttilabdhādṛṣṭāpekṣebhyastatsamyogebhyaḥ pavanaparamāṇuṣu karmotpattau teṣāṃ parasparasamyogebhyo dvyaṇukādiprakrameṇa mahān vāyuḥ samutpanno nabhasi dodhūyamānastiṣṭhati | tadanantaraṃ tasminneva vāyāvāpyebhyaḥ paramāṇubhyastenaiva krameṇa mahān salilanidhirutpannaḥ poplūyamānastiṣṭhati tadanantaraṃ tasminneva pārthivebhyaḥ paramāṇubhyo mahāpṛthivī saṃhatāvatiṣṭhate | tadanantaraṃ tasminneva mahodadhau taijasebhyo'ṇubhyo dvyaṇukādiprakrameṇotpanno mahāṃstejorāśiḥ kenacidanabhibhūtatvāddedīpyamānastiṣṭhati | evaṃ samutpannenṣu caturṣu mahābhūteṣu maheśvarasyābhidhyānamātrāttaijasebhyo'ṇubhyaḥ pārthivaparamāṇusahitebhyo mahadaṇḍamārabhyate tasmiṃścaturvadanakamalaṃ sarvalokapitāmahaṃ brahmāṇaṃ sakalabhuvanasahitamutpādya prajāsarge viniyuṅkte | sa ca maheśvareṇa viniyukto brahmātiśayajñānavairāgyaiśvaryasampannaḥ prāṇināṃ karmavipākaṃ viditvā.karmānurūpajñānabhogāyuṣaḥ sutān prajāpatīn mānasān maudevarṣipitṛgaṇān mukhabāhūrupādataścaturo varṇānanyāni coccāvacāni bhūtāni ca sṛṣṭvāśayāṇurūpairdharmajñānavairāgyaiśvaryaiḥ saṃyojayatīti || 40 ||
Text (40):—We are now going to describe the process of the creation and destruction of the four ultimate Material Substances.
When a hundred years, by the measure of Brahmā are at an end, there comes the time for the deliverance of the Brahmā existing at that time; and then, for the sake of the resting at night, of all living beings wearied by their wanderings,’ there arises in the mind of the Supreme Lord, the Ruler of all worlds, a desire to reabsorb (all creation); and simultaneously with this desire, there comes about a cessation of the operations of the unseen potential tendencies of all souls that are the causes of their bodies, sense-organs and gross elements. Then out of the supreme Lord's desire and from the conjunction of the souls and the, material atoms, there come about certain disruptions of the atoms constituting the Bodies and sense-organs. These disruptions destroy the combinations of those atoms; and this brings about the, destruction of all things down to the atoms.—(II-i-18, 19; V-ii-1; VII-ii-10).
Then there comes about a successive destruction or reabsorption of the ultimate Material Substances, Earth, Water, Fire and Air, one after the other.—(V-ii-1, 12; VII-ii-10.)
After this, the atoms remain by themselves in their isolated condition; and simultaneously with these there remain the souls permeated with the potencies of their past virtues and vices.
Then again, for the sake of the experiences to be gained by living beings, there arising in the mind of the supreme Lord a desire for creation, there are produced, in the atoms of air, certain actions or motions, due to their conjunctions under the influence of the unseen potential tendencies that begin to operate in all souls. These motions bringing about the mutual contact of the air atoms, there appears, through the Diad,
Triad finally the “Great Air” which exists vibrating in the sky.—(V-ii-12; VII-ii-9; X-ii-2.)
After this, in this Great Air, there appears, in the same order, out of the atoms of water, the Great Reservoir of water, which remains there surging. (X-ii-2; VII-ii-9.)
In this Reservoir of Water, there appears, out of the Earth-atoms, the Great Earth which rests there in its solid form.—(V-ii-1; X-ii-2; VII-ii-9.)
Then, in the same Water-reservoir, there appears, in the same order, out of the Fire-atoms, the Great Mass of Fire; and not being suppressed by any thing else, it stands shining radiantly.
The four gross elements having thus been brought into existence, there is produced, from the mere thought (mental picturing) of the Supreme Lord, the Great Egg, from out of the Fire-atoms mixed up with the atoms of Earth; and in this egg having produced all the worlds and the Four-faced Brahmā, the Grand-father of all creatures; the Supreme Lord assigns to him the duty of producing the various creatures. Being thus engaged by the Supreme Lord, Brahmā, endowed with extreme degrees of Knowledge, Dispassion and Power, having recognised the ripeness for fruition of the Karmic tendencies of the living beings, creates, out of his mind, his sons, the Prājāpatis, as also the Manus aṇd the several groups of the Gods, Ṛṣis and Pitṛs,—and out of his mouth, arms, thighs and feet, the four castes, and the other living beings of all grades high and low,—all these having their knowledge and experience ordained in accordance with their previous deeds; and then he connects them with Virtue, Knowledge, Dispassion and Powers, according io their respective impressional potencies.
Commentary: The Nyāyakandalī of Śrīdhara.
(English rendering of Śrīdhara’s commentary called Nyāyakandalī or Nyāyakaṇḍalī from the 10th century)
Having explained in detail, the fact of the four ultimate elements being products, the author now proceeds to consider the question of their having a Creator.
We have got to consider the production and destruction of the four elements, Earth and the rest; if we were to consider these separately under the section dealing with each of them, there would be an unnecessary prolonging of our work; consequently our author takes them collectively in this section; specially as the facts apply to all of them equally.
We now proceed to describe the processes of &c. Though the creation and destruction of all these four is described collectively, yet this should not be regarded as a point of similarity among them; as the production and destruction of each is found to be described as distinct from those of another.
If we had only the word ‘Mahābhūtānām’ (‘of the gross elements’), then that would apply to the three gross elements only, as in accordance with the Kapiñjalanyāya (vide Mīmāṃsā-sūtra Adh. XI-i-38 &c.), the plurality (in “Mahābhūtānām”) would indicate ‘three’ only. In order, therefore, to include all the four elements, we have the word ‘Caturṇām’ Then again, if we had one word ‘Caturṇām’ only, then that would apply to the four ‘Air’-products just mentioned—viz.: the Airy Body, the Airy Organ, the Airy Object and Breath; hence with a view to preclude these we have the word ‘‘Mahābhūtānām.’
“If the created things were destroyed suddenly, then the God would be known as ‘merciless’ and ‘doing things without any motive’.”—In order to guard against this our Author adds that all this process of destruction and re-absorption is for the purpose of allowing the beings a rest at night, as it were.
The Gross-Elements also become destroyed in the same manner. That is to say, just as there is a destruction of bodies and sense-organs, down to the very atoms, so in the same manner, we have the destruction of the Gross Elements also. That is to say, by the process of the action and disruption of the atoms, there is a successive destruction of the Gross Elements, one after the other viz: while Water is still existing, the Earth is destroyed; and Water is destroyed before Fire; and this latter is also destroyed before Air.
After this the atoms continue to exist in their isolated state; and also the Souls permeated with the faculties or tendencies left upon them by their previous good and evil deeds, continue to exist during the same period of time, i.e. during 100 years of Brahmā. Though Time and Space &c, also exist during this time—as these also are eternal—yet the author speaks of the existence of the Souls and atoms alone, as if these did not exist at the time, then the atoms could not be developed into the product though the Karmic tendencies of the Souls; as such it is these that are by far the most important factors deserving notice.
Having thus described the process of destruction, the Author proceeds to describe the process of creation: Then again &c. Though during that time the Souls are not endowed with life, yet they have been spoken of as ‘Prāṇis’ (‘living beings,’) because of their capability for being endowed with it. There arises, in the mind of the Supreme Lord, a desire to bring about the creation, for the purpose of bringing about the experiences of pleasure and pain by those Souls. Then the Karmic tendencies of the Souls regain their operative powers.
Though the creative desire of the Supreme Lord, in the shape of an active potency, is one only, and eternal, functioning towards the appearance of numberless effects that are simultaneously brought into existence,—yet, at one time it tends to bring about destruction, and at another creation, on account of the differences in the nature of the particular time and other auxilliary circumstances. At the time that it tends towards destruction, the Karmic tendencies of the Souls cease in their operation, and assume a position of indifference (inactivity or latency). And when it tends towards creation, the tendencies regain their activity towards the bringing about of their effects.
The compound ‘Vṛttilabdhāḥ’ is to be explained as, ‘Vṛttiḥ labdhā yaiḥ te’ (‘those by whom activity has been regained’.) This compound is found mentioned along with such compounds as ‘āhitāgni’ &c., with regard to which the position of the two constituent words is laid down to be optional; (Panini II-ii-37) just as we have the compound ‘dantajāta’; consequently no objection can be, taken to the order of the two words in the compound.
Thus then the meaning is that there appear certain actions or motions in the air-atoms, on account of the conjunctions of these atoms with Souls, brought about by the active Karmic tendencies inharing in these latter. Thus in the appearance of the action in the Air-atoms, the air-atoms are the material cause; the conjunctions of the atoms with Souls whose Karmic tendencies have begun to be active, constitute the immaterial cause; and the Karmic tendency is the instrumental cause.
These actions bring about the mutual conjunction of the air-atoms. From these conjunctions, the Air-diads appear; then the Triads, and so on up to the Gross-Air, which exists vibrating in the sky, not having its speed interrupted in any way.
Then, in this Air, there appears the Great Reservoir of Water, produced, in the same manner as above, out of the Water-atoms, through the Diad, in the same order of triad &c. and this remains surging, flowing over the whole universe, not being stopped anywhere.
After the production of this great Water-reservoir, in this same Reservoir, there appears the Solid Earth, out of the Earthatoms.
Then in this Water-reservoir, appears the Great Mass of Fire, produced, in the same manner as described above, out of the Fire-atoms; and not being suppressed by anything else, this mass of fire remains shining radiantly.
Though there is a natural opposition between Fire and Water, yet it is on account of the force of the unseen agency that it becomes possible for one to be the substratum of the other.
Thus the four Great Material Substances having been produced in aforesaid manner, there appears, by reason of mere volition or contemplation on the part of the Supreme Lord, out of the atoms of Fire mixed up with the atoms of Earth, the Great Egg. It is because this Egg contained particles of Earth, that it could not appear as a Mass of pure fire.
In this Egg, the Supreme Lord produces the four faced Brahmā, the primeval ancestor of all people (and regions), along with the several worlds; and assigns to him the duty of producing the creatures. Being thus appointed by the Supreme Lord, Brahmā, endowed with extreme degrees of Knowledge, Dispassion and Powers, comes to recognise, by means of his knowledge, the Virtues and the Vices of all beings; and on account of his Dispassion be does not act with any partiality; and through his Great Power, he makes them experience the results of their deeds.
Having come to know the fruition of the deeds of living beings. Having come to know that such and such should be the results of their previous deeds, Brahmā produces his mental sons, Dakṣa and the rest, whose knowledge, experiences and lives are in accordance with their previous deeds—“mind-born sons” because produced out of mere volition,—and also the Manus, the Gods, and the Ṛṣis, and the hosts of Pitṛs; and then out of his mouth, arms, thighs and feet, ne produces respectively, the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra; and then the other beings, high and low. He connects all these with such duties (Dharma), Knowledge, Dispassion and Power, as are in due accord with their previous deeds. [The word ‘Āśaya’ means ‘āśete’, that which lies latent in the self, until the experiencing of the result]. He does not deviate one jot from this universal law.
Some people have asserted that the action of an intelligent agent is always for accomplishing some desirable end (to be served by that action), or for the removable of something that is undesirable; and as none of these motives—either of obtaining something desirable, or of avoiding something undesirable—could apply to the case of the Lord who has all his desires fulfilled, it cannot be possible for Him to act in any way towards the creation of the world.
To this we make the following reply: It is for bringing about the experiences of all living beings &c. That is to say, the action of the Lord towards creation is for the sake of others, and not for the fulfilment of any desires of his own.
Objection: “In that case He should have created the world abounding in pleasure alone, and not one mixed with pain; as the Lord would be moved to create by pure mercy.”
The reply to this is as follows: He recognises the fruits of the deeds of living beings. That is to say, though He is moved to act for the sake of others, yet He does not create a world of pleasures alone; as His creative operation is regulated by the variegated Karmic tendencies of living beings. Nor is this incompatible with His mercifulness; as pain serves the Man’s useful purpose of producing in his mind a non-attachment to the things of the world. Nor is the fact of His acting in accordance with the previous good and bad deeds of beings incompatable with his independent and Supreme Godly character; because it is He that joins them to such ‘duties, knowledge, dispassion and power’ as are in due accord with their own Karmic tendencies. That is to say, how could He cease to be the Supreme Lord, by awarding to each being results in accordance with his respective deeds? For certainly, the master does not cease to be a master by making awards to his servants in accordance with their merits.
To this process of creation the following objection is raised; “At the beginning of creation, the living beings would not know the meaning of any words, as no convention (on which the denotations of words are based) could have been fixed upon till then; and hence at that time there could be no use or words.”
The basis for meeting this objection is supplied by the text: “Mental Sons &c.” It is the soul with a body born of the womb that, on account of the great pains suffered in the womb, loses all memory of previous experiences; The Ṛṣis, the Prajāpatis and the Manus, on the other hand, being produced from the mind, have such bodies as are not born of the womb; and as such there being no reason for their losing their memories, they are found to be directly connected with their Karmic tendencies, and duly endowed with the reminiscences of previous experiences; and hence these Beings recall all their verbal usage of the previous creation; just as a man after sleep remembers things seen before he went to sleep; and having recalled these words, these Beings carry on the usage among themselves; and from this usage, the living beings of that cycle come to know the meanings of those words; and these on their turn carry on the usage, and hand it on to future generations.
Question: “What are the proofs for the existence of God?”
This proof is in the form of Scriptural Authority and Inferential Reasoning.
This Inferential Reasoning is—The four Great Elementary Substances are preceded by some one having a knowledge of them, because they are effects,—anything that is an effect is preceded by one having a cognition of it, as for instance, the jar (which is always preceded by the potter),—and the four Great Elementary Substances are effects,—hence they must be preceded by one having a knowledge of them.
Objection: “The premiss of this inference (that the Elementary Substances are effects) is not duly cognised by any means of right motion,—f. i. the fact of the Earth being an effect cannot be regarded as duly established.”
Reply: This is not right; as the Earth &c. are made up of parts; and everything that has parts is an effect, as for instance the jar; the Earth &c. have parts,—hence they must be effects.
Objection.—“An Inferential Reasoning is operative only when the invariable Concomitance (upon which it is based) has been duly recognised; as for the invariable concomitance of the character of an effect and that of being preceded by one having knowledge of it, this can never be known from the case of the jar and such other substances; as in the case of the sprouting of the seed we find that the sprouting appears at the same time as the cognition of the sprout by the person who had sown the seed; and hence in this case we do not find any precedence of the doer with the knowledge of the effect over the appearance of the effect. Nor could the sprout &c. be included in the subject of the inference in question; as it is only after the invariable concomitance has been duly cognised, and the Inference has begun to operate, that we proceed to distinguish the Subject and Predicate &c. of the Inference, for the benefit of the opponent; while in the case in question (of the sprout) it is found to be always included in a cognition contrary to the concomitance; and as such, there could be no cognition of the necessary concomitance.”
Reply: If there be no recognition of the invariable concomitance simply on account of there being no perception of duality or difference (between the time of the appearance of the sprout and the knowledge thereof by the sower),—then, in that case, we could never rightly arrive at the Sāmānyatodṛṣṭa inference of the moving of the sun, which has been put forward by the author of the Bhāṣya on the Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras. As therein also, we find that it is merely the fact of the stars &c. having assumed different positions, and not that of their having moved, that is perceived at the same time as the cognition of their other positions preceded by the movement of Devadatta (the observer) from one place to another.
Objection: “In the case of the stars, inasmuch as the non-perception of moving could be possible on account of the difference in the position (or the great difference in space) between the observer and the stars, or the difference in their positions, (the one being on the Earth while the others are in the sky),—this non-perception could not set aside the effect of the repeated seeing of the sun, which is unconditionally effective towards bringing about a cognition of the necessary concomitances; specially as the two do not pertain to the same subject.”
Reply: In that case, in the case in question also, the nonperception of the cognition of the sprout (before its actual appearance) may be due to the difference in nature between that and the doer (the Sower), who is bodiless (while the sprout is bodied); and hence the effectiveness of the repeated perceptions operating unconditionally could not be set aside by the said non-perception.
Objection: “Then again, does the above Inferential Reasoning establish only the Creator, or a Creator capable of creating the Earth &c.? If it prove a mere creator, then what is desired is not accomplished. As what you seek to prove is not a mere agent, like ourselves; as any such person having a limited vision could not create the Earth &c. Then as for an agent “capable of creating the earth &c., such a one cannot be proved to exist,—as there could be no (cognisable) concomitance with such a one; and through concomitance too, we could only “prove the existence of an agent similar in nature to the one perceived in the case brought forward as the corroborative instance.”
Reply: This objection does not apply to the case; as what the Inference is sought to prove is not any particular kind of creator. All that the premiss put forward proves is the fact of the Substances under consideration being preceded by an intelligent being in general; and this necessarily establishes his particular character in the shape of the capability of creating the Earth &c.—as the existence of no general entity can be proved without the accompaniment of a particular characteristic.
Objection: “Let the existence of the general entity lie not established; what of that?”
Reply: Not so; because the concomitance of the general entity is not set aside along with its causedness. If an Inference did not establish that which is invariably concomitant with the Reason or Probans, then the sight of smoke too would not prove the existence of Fire in general; as in this case too the existence would not be established of the particular Fire, which has not yet been perceived to be in any way related to the smoke seen; and no Universal Essence of Fire could have an existence apart from a particular Fire.
Objection: “An Inferential Reasoning has two factors—one consisting of the recognition of invariable concomitance between the Probandum and the Probans (the Major Premiss); ahd another in the cognition of the relationship between the Subject and the Probans or middle term (the minor Premiss); and the Major Premiss establishes the existence of the generality, and the Minor Premiss establishes that of the particular, in the form of the Fire located ini the mountain (where from the smoke is seen a issuing). If it were not so, wherein would lie the use of the
“Minor Premiss? And where could be the validity of that Inference which applies to something that has been previously cognised?”
Reply. If such be the case, then, the same may be said with regard to the inference of God’s existence also. As apart from ‘attachment’ all other characterestics of the ‘Actor’ in general are present in God also.[1]
The objector’s standpoint may be thus summed up: “An Inference establishes the existence of a particular entity also, when there is no means of right knowledge pointing to the contrary; as for instance, in the case of the Smoke and Fire, we find no incongruity in the inference, from smoke, of the particular fire located in the mountain side; specially as we often find the individual particulars (of generalities) occupying different points in space and time. In the case of the inference of God however, we cannot have any individual particular proved, as we have means of right knowledge pointing to the contrary. For instance, the inference cannot prove the fact of the effects (Earth &c.) being preceded by a Body (of the God); because if there be a body, it would necessarily contain the Sense-organs; and having these organs, the God could not have any knowledge of "the material causes (atoms), the accessories (in the shape of the Karmic tendencies of Souls) and the potencies of various ins-trumentalities—all of which are supersensuous,—in the matter of the creation of Earth &c.; and as such He could not be the creator of these. Then as for the creation not being preceded by a Body (of God), it is absolutely impossible to prove this; because, as a matter of fact, we find that what a doer (of any act) does is—(1) to ascertain the power or capability of the instruments, (2) to desire to fulfil the particular act by means of those instruments, (3) to put forth an effort, (4) to put the body into action, (5) to supervise over the various causes (material and others), & (6) to do the act; and if he does not ascertain, or desire, or put forth his effort, or put his body into action, he does not do the act. And from these affirmative and negative universal instances (of the acting with the ascertaining &c.) we conclude that like the Intelligence, (of God) the Body also would be a necessary means to the production of effects, as indicated by, the same means by which the invariable concomitance is recognised after a due recognition of all conditions and limitations; and hence we cannot discard this notion of the necessity of the previous existence of the Body; just as in the case of the inference from smoke, we do not discard the notion of the capacity in Fire of being produced out of (or of changing the condition of) parts. Even with all this, if you discard the notion of the existence of the Body, then you can as reasonably discard the notion of that of Buddhi also. It might be argued that—‘God, being possessed of great powers, would bring about the creation, even without having a body or intelligence for Himself; but He could not do so without a knowledge of the nature of the material and accessory causes; as no such action is met with in ordinary experience.’ But in that case my purpose also has become fulfilled; as mere desire not being operative without the intervention of effort, it is not as capable of bringing about effects as the Body which operates directly by itself.
“It may be asked—‘where, in that case, would there be room for the general precedence of an intelligent creator?’ But as a matter of fact, there could be no room for it; as such a creator could not rightly be regarded either as bodied or bodiless; and the existence of a mere ‘generality’, without the specifications (in the shape of corporeality or otherwise), cannot be established. It may be asked—‘what is the flaw in the inferential argument put forward in support of such a being?’ We reply that there is no actual flaw; but the man who in the absence of any specific character, would put forward an argument to prove the unprovable existence of the mere generic entity, which, in such a case, would be as much an absurdity as the hare’s horn,’ would stand self-condemned; just like a man who would take up a sharp sword to strike at empty space. If you should not be satisfied without my showing some flaw in your inference, then we would point out that it is open to the fallacy of Kālātyayāpadiṣṭa,’ in as much as the inference of the precedence of a bodiless being is set aside by the means whereby the invariable concomitance (of cause and effect) is recognised; and the invariable concomitance thus contradicting the desired character of bodilessness, the Inference becomes open to the fallacy of ‘Viśeṣavirudha,’ which is only a particular from of the fallacy of ‘Virudha’.”
To the above we make the following reply: Does the nature of the actor necessarily consist in being bodied? or does it consist in the character of being the operator of instruments recognised as capable of bringing about the necessary effects? The former alternative could not be accepted; as in that case a person in deep sleep, or one who is not doing anything towards an action, would also have to be regarded as the ‘actor’ (as even in these conditions he would have his body all the same). We must then accept the second alternative; as it is only when this character is present that we find the effect coming about. This character can belong to a bodiless being also; as we find in the case of the Soul (which is an immaterial thing) operating towards the moving of the body. It might be argued that the body belongs to the soul, who has obtained it through its previous deeds (and as such the operating Soul cannot be regarded as strictly bodiless). True, the body belongs to the Soul; but it is not the body that supplies the force impelling itself; as any such impulsion by itself would involve a. contradiction. It may be urged that the body may be regarded as the means of impulsion, in as much as it is the object of the impelling. But in the case of God also we have the atom as the object to be impelled or operated upon.
Objection: The impelling of the Soul’s body is found to be brought about by desire and effort; and not when the body does not exist; and from this we infer that the body is the means or author of its own impelling, through the said desire and effort.”
Reply: Not so; as the body can be only accepted as impelling or giving rise to desire and effort (and not to its own operations). After the desire and effort have been brought about, and when these begin to operate towards impelling (the body to a certain course of action), the body ceases to be the impelling agent; as the body being the object of this impelling could not, at the same time, be its doer. And thus we find that there is no similarity between the action of the soul and that of the body. Then again, we often meet with cases where certain inanimate things are moved to action by an intelligent being, merely through his own desire and effort, independently of all actions of the body. On the other hand, we never find any action apart from an intelligent being. All these facts go to establish the existence of God.
Objection: “The body would be necessary for the production of desire and effort also.”
Reply: The body may be required for the appearance of such desire and effort as are adventitious; where however these are natural, the body would not be necessary. Nor is there any inconsistency in believing the Intellect, Desire and Effort to be eternal; as we have seen, in the case of Colour &c„ that they are of two kinds—eternal and non-eternal; and the same could very well be the case with Intellect &c., also.
This is the ultimate point at which the discussion with regard to the existence of God must rest. We now proceed with the discussion as to the details of the process (of creation).
Objection:—“The atoms themselves presided over by the Souls would operate towards creation (and as such there would be no need of an extraneous God.)”
Reply: This cannot be; because the Souls depend for their cognitions upon the sense-organs obtained in accordance
with their previous deeds; and as such before they have obtained the physical body, they could not have the cognition of any thing (and hence they could not superintend the operations of the atoms).
Objection: “The Souls also are endowed with a natural intelligence pervading over all things (and hence there could be no absence of cognition).”
Reply: If the (cognitive) intelligence of the soul were natural to it (and remained with it always), then, by what agency could this intelligence have been deranged, whereby when the soul comes to have a body (after birth), he looks upon all things as wholly new. (If the intelligence had remained with the soul permanently nothing would be new to it).
Objection: “On account of the disappearance of the bodily covering (at death), the Intelligence turns inwards into the soul itself, and does not operate outwards (towards cognitions).”
Reply: In as much as the Intelligence is all-pervading, it could never cease to be connected with cognisable objects; and being eternal, its character of illuminating (making cognisable) objects could never cease to exist; and as such what could be the meaning of the said ‘disappearance’.?
Objection: “What we mean by ‘disappearance’ is the stopping of the functioning (of Intelligence).”
Reply: If such be the case, then how could the souls have any cognition of objects?
Objection: “In certain cases the functioning of the Intelligence does not cease (and in these cases the Soul would have the cognitions).”
Reply: Whence this diversity.?
Objection: “It is due to the peculiarities of the proximity of sense-organs.”
Reply: In that case, the functioning of Intelligence towards objects of cognition would be dependent upon the senseorgans, and would not be brought hot bayu[?] mere proximity of the object to the Intelligence. Then again, as even though the Intelligence is all-pervading, yet it is not found to operate upon (make cognisable) all things in the world,—and as if all cognitions were brought about by the Intelligence independently by itself, there would be no use for the sense-organs,—it is only reasonable to hold that the Souls, so long as they have no bodies, do not have the cognitions of objects. In support of this, we have the declaration: ‘The self-born One sent forth the senses outwards, hence it is that one perceives the outside and not the inside.’ [Kaṭhopaniṣat. IV-i] And not having any cognitions, the Souls could not be the superintenders or controllers of the sense-organs; consequently it is necessary to assume a certain controller above these Souls, who would have the character of the Creator, and who would be omniscient and full of pure inherent knowledge; specially as no operation of non-intelligent things could be possible without the agency of an intelligent controller.
We are now going to explain whether this controller is one or many. If there were many of them, then if they were not omniscient, they would be as powerless as ourselves; and if all of them were omniscient, then in as much as one such omniscient controller would be enough for all purposes, there would be no use for the others. Nor would there be any cause for a constant unanimity among many persons, till of whom would be equally independent and important; and this want of unanimity would, at times, interfere with the production of the desired effect. If all of them were to act in accordance with the wish of any one of them, then the character of the Lord would belong to this one, and not to the others, as we find in the case of a number of persons acting as trustees of a temple, that, in as much as there is a unanimity of purpose among them with a view to their business, each of them is not regarded as the ‘Lord’ or ‘Master.’
Thus then the Creator,—whose existence has been proved by the peculiar character, of his creations,—being omniscient, He could not be without specific cognition with regard to any object. And hence he could have no misconception (false knowledge), which is always due to the non-recognition of the peculiarities of objects. There being no misconception, He would have no attachment or aversion, both of which proceed from misconception (Ignorance). In the absence of attachment and aversion, He would have no activity, which proceeds from these; and as such He would have no virtue or vice, which are produced by actions. There being no virtue and vice, there would be no pleasure and pain, which proceed from virtue and vice respectively. And as He would always be directly perceiving all things, He could never have mere memories or Impressions; and hence the Supreme Lord is held to possess only eight qualities.
Such is the opinion of some people. Others however hold that to God belongs pure and unimpeded Intelligence alone, which constitutes His creative power; and these people do not admit of the existence in Him of Desire and Effort; and so according to them God has only six qualities.
Is this God also bound (like the other Souls), or is He free? He cannot be bound; as he is without kleśa and other things, which are the causes of being bound, and which are called ‘Bandhana’ (‘Bondage’). Nor could He be regarded as free.; as ‘liberation’ is synonymous with the removal of bondage (and as such could not belong to one who has bad no bondage). He may however be regarded as ‘ever free',—as has been declared by the revered Patanjali: ‘God is the particular person who is untouched by troubles, actions with their fruitions and residua’ [Yoga Sūtras. I-24.]
K RAJARAM IRS 10326
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
Who are the Prajapatis?
Prajapati is a term that refers to the 'lords of creation' or 'progenitors of mankind.' In Hindu cosmology, Prajapatis are responsible for the creation and perpetuation of life in the universe. The term often refers to the ten sages created by Brahma:
Marichi (मरीचि): Represents light and wisdom, often associated with the spread of knowledge.
Atri (अत्रि): Symbolizes the tranquility and balance needed for creation.
Angiras (अङ्गिरा): Embodies divine knowledge and the transformative power of fire.
Pulastya (पुलस्त्य): Associated with memory and the preservation of sacred traditions.
Pulaha (पुलह): Represents the preservation and protection of the cosmic order.
Kratu (क्रतु): Symbolizes sacrifice, rituals, and the principles of growth.
Prachetas (प्रचेता): Creativity and innovation, driving evolution.
Vasistha (वसिष्ठ): Known for wisdom and guidance, offering spiritual insights.
Bhrigu (भृगु): Embodies understanding, analysis, and exploration.
Narada (नारद): Represents communication, harmony, and linking different realms.
These sages, also known as Prajapatis, are charged with the task of creating and maintaining the balance of life on Earth. Their actions and teachings ensure the sustenance and continuity of life.
Stages of Creation
The process of creation involves several stages, each represented by different cosmic entities:
Hiranyagarbha (हिरण्यगर्भ): The Cosmic Womb
Hiranyagarbha, meaning 'Golden Embryo,' is the source of all creation. It is the cosmic womb from which everything emerges and is known as Sutrātma because it threads itself through all existence. This connection makes it the subtle universal energy that binds everything together.
Vāyu (वायु): The Element of Air
From Hiranyagarbha emerges Vāyu, the wind element, representing the life force and energy. Vāyu is essential for sustaining life, symbolizing movement and breath in the universe.
Virāt (विराट): The Cosmic Form
Virāt follows as the next stage of creation, symbolizing the physical universe. Known as Annamayātmā (अन्नमयात्मा), Virāt embodies the material world, emphasizing sustenance through Anna (food), which is vital for life.
Ten Aspects of Life Force (Prānas)
Virāt is said to be composed of ten aspects or parts, known as prānas, which nourish and support all beings. These prānas are essential life forces, represented by the ten sages who play crucial roles in creation.
K RAJARAM IRS 10326
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
Aṅgiras a Prajāpati.
Brahmā had created sixteen prajāpatis, for effecting the creation of the universe. Aṅgiras is one of them. Their names are given below:
1) Kardama 9) Pulastya
2) Vikrīta 10) Aṅgiras
4) Saṃśraya 12) Pulaha
6) Marīci 14) Vivasvān
7) Atri 15) Ariṣṭanemi
8) Kratu 16) Kaśyapa (Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Araṇyakāṇḍa, Sarga 14).
The wives and children of Aṅgiras.
Aṅgiras had several wives such as Śubhā, Smṛti, Śraddhā, Devasenā and Vasudhā. The names of the sons of Aṅgiras are given below:
1) Bṛhatkīrti 5) Bṛhadmantra
2) Bṛhatjyoti 6) Bṛhadbhāsa
3) Bṛhadbrahmā 7) Bṛhaspati.
4) Bṛhadmanā
The names of the eight daughters of Aṅgiras are given below:
1) Bhānumatī 5) Haviṣmatī
3) Sinīvālī 7) Mahāmatī
Besides these sons and daughters, other sons such as Sudhanvā and Kārttikeya were born to Aṅgiras by his other wives. (Mahābhārata, Vana Parva, five chapters from 218).
The clash between Aṅgiras and Prahlāda.
Duśśāsana stripped Pāñcālī of her clothes in the Palace hall, in the presence of the Pāṇḍavas who had been defeated in the game of dice. Before this Pāñcālī had asked Duryodhana one question, "Have you won yourself or myself?" One husband was not authorised to stake his wife Pāñcālī who was the wife of five husbands. Moreover according to the Śāstras (sciences) the deeds executed by a King, who was miserable due to hunting, drinking, playing dice and hankering after a woman, were not legally binding. Hence how could the Kauravas own Pāñcālī?" Vidura said that the witnesses in the hall had to give an impartial answer to this question, and that the punishment of falsehood would come upon the doer himself. As an instance he gave the following old story: Virocana was the son of Prahlāda; Sudhanvā the son of Aṅgiras and Virocana fell in love with the same woman once. There arose a contention between these two as to who was greater. They staked their lives on the issue. Then both of them together approached Prahlāda and requested him to give a decision as to which of them was the elder. Thinking that Prahlāda might side with Virocana his son, Sudhanvā said to him, "Sir, you should not utter words of falsehood, nor should you abstain from speaking the truth. If you do so your head will be cut into a hundred pieces by Indra with his Vajrāyudha (the weapon of thunderbolt)". Hesitating to take a decision, because of the words of Sudhanvā, Prahlāda went to Kaśyapa to clear his doubts, and asked: "Lord, do you know which are the future worlds destined for those who utter words of falsehood or abstain from giving out the truth?" Kaśyapa said, "On him, who abstains from speaking truth knowingly a thousand cords of death will fall. He who tells falsehood will have to perform many a deed of duty to attain heaven."
Having heard the words of Kaśyapa, Prahlāda said to Virocana, "Virocana, Sudhanvā is greater than you. Aṅgiras is greater than me. Likewise the mother of Sudhanvā is nobler than your mother. So according to your bet you owe your life to Sudhanvā." Pleased at the righteousness of Prahlāda, Sudhanvā gave Virocana a boon to live a hundred years more. (Mahābhārata, Sabhā Parva, Chapter 63).
How Aṅgiras became the first son of Agni (Fire God).
Once Aṅgiras was blazing out as a furious being. All the worlds were illuminated by that flame-fire. As Aṅgiras was performing the functions of Agni (fire), peoples of the worlds discarded Agni, who being sad at the derision shown towards him by the worlds went to a forest and hid himself there. The living beings were in trouble owing to lack of fire. When he became aware of this Aṅgiras went to the forest and pacified Agni. From that day onwards Aṅgiras agreed to become the first son of Agni, who resumed his duties as usual. (Mahābhārata, Vana Parva, Chapter 217).
How Aṅgiras got the name Atharvāṅgiras.
After the slaughter of Vṛtrāsura, Indra went to the lake known as Amṛtasaras and hid himself there in a lotus flower. At this time the Gods anointed Nahuṣa as Indra. Agastya cursed him and turned him to a serpent and sent him to the earth. When Indra returned to heaven many persons gathered there to greet him. Aṅgiras also was one among them who did obeisance to Indra. He paid his homage by reciting the hymns of Atharvaveda. Indra who was greatly pleased at this, said to Aṅgiras, "Hereafter you shall be known as Atharvāṅgiras". Aṅgiras who got this boon from Indra, returned with gratitude. (Mahābhārata, Udyoga Parva, Chapter 18, Stanzas 5 to 7).
Aṅgiras and Droṇa.
In the battle of Kurukṣetra, between the Pāṇḍavas and the Kauravas the great teacher, Droṇa began to release his divine darts towards his enemies in all directions. Immediately Aṅgiras with many other hermits came to Droṇa and told him, "You have burned to death innumerable men with your Brahmāstra (The most powerful of all missiles). Your end is very near. So put your weapons down and stop your fight." Droṇa seems to have paid no heed at all to the advice of the hermits. He did not stop fighting too.
The sermon of Aṅgiras on the merits of Tīrthas or holy places (Baths).
Dharmaputra once asked Bhīṣma about the importance of holy ghāṭs or tīrthas (Baths). Bhīṣma told Dharmaputra, what Aṅgiras had once told Gautama about the merits obtained by going on pilgrimage to holy tīrthas or Baths. Aṅgiras had described the holy nature and character of holy Baths in Bhārata such as Puṣkara, Prabhāsa, Naimiśa, Sāgarodaka, Indramārga, Devika, Svarṇabindu, Hiraṇyabindu, Indratoya, and such other numerous tīrthas. (Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana Parva, Chapter 25, Stanzas 7-71).
Other details:
(1) Dakṣa gave his two daughters in marriage to Aṅgiras. (Devī Bhāgavata, Skandha 7).
(2) Aṅgiras once saved the Sun. (Mahābhārata, Vana Parva, Chapter 92, Stanza 6).
(3) While the Pāṇḍavas were in exile in forest, Aṅgiras had been chanting and meditating in Alakanandā in the region of the mount Gandhamādana. (Mahābhārata, Araṇya Parva, Chapter 142, Stanza 6).
(4) When the hermits had stolen the lotus flowers of Agastya, Aṅgiras gave some hints about the culprits. (Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana Parva, Chapter 94, Stanza 20: See Agastya).
(5) Aṅgiras once gave a discourse on fasting and the merits of fasting. (Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana Parva, Chapter 106, Stanzas 11 to 16).
(6) Aṅgiras on another occasion delivered lectures on the secrets of duties. (Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana Parva, Chapter 127, Stanza 8).
(7) Once Aṅgiras drank the water in the ocean to the last drop. (Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana Parva, Chapter 153, Stanza 3).
(8) When his thirst was not quenched, even though he had drunk the entire water available in the world, he created new springs of water again and drank them dry. (Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana Parva, Chapter 153, Stanza 3).
(9) Once Agni failed to show respect to Aṅgiras, who cursed Agni and thenceforward smoke came out from fire. (Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana Parva, Chapter 153, Stanza 8).
(10) Aṅgiras conducted many of the important sacrifices of King Avikṣit. (Mahābhārata, Aśvamedhika Parva, Chapter 4, Stanza 22).
(11) Indra once gave Aṅgiras a boon. (Mahābhārata, Udyoga Parva, Chapter 18, Stanzas 5 to 7).
(12) Aṅgiras blessed Dhruva who had been doing penance. (Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Aṃśa 1, Chapter 11).
(13) The daughters named Sinīvālī, Kuhū, Rākā, Anumati were born to Aṅgiras by his wife Smṛti. (Agni Purāṇa, Chapter 20).
(14) Aṅgiras is the first of the Agni devas (Fire-Gods) and a hermit. He had a son called Hiraṇya-Stūpa, who also was a hermit (Ṛgveda, Maṇḍala 1, Anuvāka 7, Sūkta 31).
(15) The Hermit Aṅgiras began to invoke the Gods to get a son equal to Indra. Then Indra, thinking that nobody should be born as his equal, took birth as the son of Aṅgiras. He was called Savya. (Ṛgveda, Maṇḍala 1, Anuvāka 10, Sūkta 51).
(16) Indra sent Saramā, the bitch of the Gods, to find out the place where the cows had been hidden; Indra acted according to the advice of Aṅgiras. At first the bitch did not consent to go. But when Devendra promised to feed her young one with milk she agreed. Saramā found out the place where the cows were hidden and informed Indra of it. (Ṛgveda, Maṇḍala 1, Anuvāka 11, Sūkta 62).
(17) Ṛbhus are the sons of Sudhanvā. (Son of Aṅgiras). The hermit Kutsa also is descended from Aṅgiras. (Ṛgveda, Maṇḍala 1, Anuvāka 16, Sūkta 10)
(18) Aṅgiras was the son of Brahmā in the Svāyambhuva Manvantara (See Manvantara), but in the Vaivasvata Manvantara he was born from Agni.
(19) Once Vāyu (the Wind-God) had to run away from Aṅgiras and hide himself as he had caused some displeasure to Aṅgiras. On another occasion Aṅgiras taught philosophy and sacred doctrines to the hermit Śaunaka. (Muṇḍakopaniṣad).
*) There is another story about the birth of Aṅgiras. At a sacrifice celebrated by Rudra, seminal flow occurred to Brahmā who happened to see some celestial maids and was overpowered by passionate feelings. Brahmā put the sperm in the fire. From that fire appeared Aṅgiras along with Marīci, Bhṛgu and others. This deva (the shining one—the God) was called Aṅgiras because his origin was from Aṅgāra or Cinder.
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
Angirasa anger
KR: IS THE STATEMENT, RIGHT?
GOPALKRISHNAN: Many hymns of the Rigveda credit the Angirases as their authors, mainly in Mandalas I and VIII. Various Angirasa sub-clans, including the Śunahotras, the Gautamas, and the Bhāradvājas composed Mandalas II, IV, and VI respectively.]
KR: Apaurusheya (Sanskrit: अपौरुषेय) means "not of a man," "impersonal," or "authorless," referring to the fundamental Hindu belief that the Vedas were not composed by any human, sage, or divine being. It signifies that the Vedic knowledge is eternal, existing independently of human origin and revealed to sages who "saw" (cognized) the truths, rather than inventing them. It is a central concept in Mimamsa and Vedanta schools, highlighting that the Vedas are svatah pramana (self-evident, valid knowledge). The term denotes knowledge that is beyond human limitations and free from flaws, as it is considered timeless.
Transmission: While sages (Rishis) heard and transmitted the hymns, they are considered "seers" of the wisdom rather than its authors.
Opposite Concept: The opposite is Paurusheya, which refers to literature authored by humans.
First of all, it is “apaurusheya” (अपौरुषेय) i.e. not derived from purushas, i.e human beings. Apaurusheya is BRAHMAM as Kapila Rishi envisaged. THEN WHY SOME WRITE AS THROUGH GOOGLE THAT IS SUNG BYAS AUTHORS -AS EVEN THOUGH GOOGLE THOUGHT SO-YET IMPRESS THAT IT IS THE TRUTH-AS GOOGLE BRAHMAM SAID IT? OR WHY GOOGLE SAID SO? WEST TRANSLATION OF SANSKRIT WORDS AND SOME WHO WRITE THROUGH THE GOOGLE, READ ONLY ENGLISH WHICH IS NOT THE VEDA LANGUAGE. IT IS READING GITANJALI IN ENGLISH AS WE DO NOT KNOW BENGALI. NOW LET’S SEE FROM THE OLDEST SCRIPTURE TRANSLATION:
There have been many different conceptions of what that means, and there have been many misconceptions among people as well.
I will present the conception that has made the most sense to me WITH AUTHORITY.
To understand what apauruṣeya actually means, we turn to the Vedanta paribhāṣā, a basic text in Advaita Vedānta. There, Dharmaraja Adhvarindra states the views of the Pūrva-mīmāṁsakas and the Naiyāyikas on why the Vedas are pramāṇa or valid means of knowledge –
वेदानां नित्यत्वेन निरस्तसमस्तपुंदूषणतया प्रामाण्यमित्यध्वरमीमांसकाः – The Pūrva-Mīmāṁsakas state, “The Vedas are a means of valid knowledge, because they are eternal, which expels all human defects.”
तत्र वेदानां नित्यसर्वज्ञपरमेश्वरप्रणीतत्वेन प्रामाण्यमिति नैयायिकाः – The Naiyāyikas say, “The Vedas, being created by the eternal and all-knowing Parameśvara, are a means of valid knowledge” The Pūrva-mīmāṁsakas reject the notion that the Vedas were authored by anyone, including Parameśvara. For them, the Vedas are eternally existing, and therefore flawless. The Naiyāyikas on the other hand, maintain that the Vedas are created by the eternal, ominscient Parameśvara and therefore are flawless. So for the Naiyāyikas, the Vedas are pauruṣeya because they are created by Parameśvara but they are still a valid means of knowledge.
ANOTHER VIEW: Dharmaraja Adhvarindra writes:
अस्माकं तु मते वेदो न नित्यः, उत्पत्तिमत्वात्। उत्पत्तिमत्वञ्च “अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृगवेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोSथर्ववेदः” इत्यादिश्रुतेः
ASMAKAM TU MATE VEDO NA NITYA,@ UTPATIMATVAAT UTPATMATVANCHA / ASYA MAHATO “BOOTHASYA NI SWASITHAM ETATYAD, RIGVEDO, YAJURVEDO, SAMA VEDO ATHARVA VEDA ITYADI SRUTE (NOT SRUTI)
Hence, Vedas are not “anityam”; not created by nor created as also //the greatness is, they are the outcome of the breadth of living specie; rig,Yajur, sama and atharva vedas arose as we heard as sruthis. [tongue tone, brain buddi etc were never used; breadth is living specie’s first one which is starting of life; {swasam of bhoothas} {vedan anitya} {utpatim arvat, utpatim atvacha} {asya-mahato}ye tad rig-yajur-sama-atarva, ; ityadi srute not ityadi sruti,. Poorva meemamsakas said with authority not by human=purusha; Kapila said purusha + prakriti; and they came from BRAHMAM; SO BEFORE PURUSHA WAS BRAHMAM FROM WHOM CAME BRAHMA WHO WAS TAUGHT THE VEDAS FOR CREATIONS; SO IT PREEXISTED AND CAME THRO THE BREADTH OF 7 RISHIS WHO MADE THEM AS SRTIS AS THEY HEARD. “AUM VIZ A, U, MA IS THE BREADTH SOUND; THEN ONLY AGNIMELE PUROHITAM.
The fact that the Vedas are created by Parameśvara leads to the conclusion that the Vedas are not pauruṣeya. Parameśvara is a puruṣa by definition! To this objection, he writes:{VISHNU IS PURUSHA AS Purusha suktam}
न हि तावत् पुरुषेण उच्चार्यमाणत्वं पौरुषेयत्वम्, गुरुमतेSप्यध्यापकपरम्परया पौरुषेयत्वापत्तेः। नापि पुरुषाधीनोत्पत्तिकत्वं पौरुषेयत्वम्, नैयायिकाभिमतपौरुषेयत्वानुमानेSस्मदादिना सिद्धासाधनापत्तेः। नापि पुरुषाधीनोत्पत्तिकत्वं पौरुषेयत्वम्, नैयायिकाभिमतपौरुषेयत्वानुमानेSस्मदादिना सिद्धसाधनापत्तेः।
Na hi tavat purushena ucharyamanatvam pourusheyetvam; gurumate, apyadyapaka parasparya, pourusheyatvapate/ napi purushadino utpatikatvam pourusheyetvam, neyayikabi math pourrusheyetvan umasmadadeena siddasadhanapate// napi purushaadin utpatikatvam pourusheyetvam, navyayika abimath pourusheyetvan omanesmatadina siddha sadhanapate//
The world Paurusheya does not mean “that which is spoken by a person”. The Vedas are spoken by teacher to teacher, even according to Prabhākara [a guru of the Mimansaka who accept the Vedas as apaurusheya], which would then make them Paurusheya [if we take the “spoken by a person” meaning of Paurusheya]. Nor does pauruṣeya mean “having their origin due to a person” which is the inference made about the Vedas by the Naiyāyikas, because in our opinion, this is proving what is already stated [in the Vedas]. THAT IS IF ARGUED AS PURUSHEYETVAM STILL PARAMESWARA VISHNU ARE GODS ONLY SO STILL NOT MADE BY HUMAN IS CONFIRMED AS APOURUSHEYA. POORVA MEEMAMSAKAS AARE CONFIRMED BY UTTARA MEEMASAKAS OR NYAYIKA THE LOGITIANS.
EARLY WORD NU+ANITYA WERE TO BE READ ONLY AS NA+NITYA, @ AS NOT PERMANENT, THEN ALSO IT MEANS IN EVERY CHATURYUGA BEGINNING, THE VEDAS ARE RENEWED SO THEY ARE NOT NEW AFTER THE FIRST CHTURYUGA.
Dharmaraja Adhvarindra then gives his definition of the word pauruṣeya – सजातीयोच्चारणानपेक्षोच्चारणविषयत्वम् – That which is uttered independently of any other utterance of the same kind is pauruṣeya. The reason for this definition is that a person can speak the same thing differently (i.e. independently) at different times. That which lacks such characteristics, i.e. that which is repeated verbatim is apauruṣeya, even if it is spoken by a person,. The word apauruṣeya is then a negation of the above definition –apauruṣeya is that which is not uttered independently of another utterance of the same kind Thus, apauruṣeya or pauruṣeya is not identified on the basis of whether something is related with a puruṣa. Dharmaraja explains – सर्गाद्यकाले परमेश्वरः पूर्वसर्गसिद्धवेदानुपूर्वी-समानुपूर्वीकं वेदं विरचितवान् न तु तद्विजातीयं वेदम् – At the beginning of creation, Parameśvara created the Vedas with the same sequence of words as present in the previous creation, and not of a different kind. According to this definition, the Mahābharata is pauruṣeya because it does not have an identical sequence of words in this sarga with the Mahābharata in the previous sarga. Its word sequence is subject to change and is therefore independent of what came before. As such, it is pauruṣeya. But the Mahābharata is still a valid means of knowledge because it is spoken by Parameśvara in the form of Veda Vyāsa, an āpta puruṣa. Therefore, it is not necessary that a pauruṣeya text has human defects or is not a valid means of knowledge. All apauruṣeya texts, however, are always a valid means of knowledge, free from any defects.
Summary
The Vedas are not eternal because they are created by Parameśvara at the beginning of each creation.
2. The Vedas in this sarga are apauruṣeya, which means the sequence of their words is the same as the Vedas from the previous sarga.
3. The Mahābharata is pauruṣeya as its word-sequence is not rigid.
4. A pauruṣeya text can be free from human defects if it is spoken by an āpta puruṣa like Veda Vyāsa.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
THEN WHY WRONG QUOTES IS PRESENTED FROM THE OLDEST SCRIPTURE RIG VEDAM TO SHOW IT IS MADE BY RISHIS AND NOT APOURUSHEYA.?
1st verse of the earth:
Rig Veda 1.1.1
“I glorify Agni, the high priest of the sacrifice, the divine, the ministrant, who presents the oblation (to the gods), and is the possessor of great wealth.”
Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya
Agni = purohita, the priest who superintends family rites; or, he is one of the sacred fires in which oblations are first (pura) offered (hita);
Deva: a god, the bright, shining, radiant; from div, to shine; or, one who abides in the sky or heaven (dyushāna); or, liberal, donor (in the sense of giving);
Ṛtvij = a ministering priest, he is also the hotā (Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 3.14), the priest who presents the oblation or who invokes or summons the deities to the ceremony; from hu, to sacrifice; or, from hve, to call;
Ratnadhātama: lit. holder of jewels;
Ratna = wealth in genitive ral; figurately, reward of religious rites
{{KR: IS THERE ANY WORD DENOTING THAT THIS IS MY FIRST VERSE? BUT EVERY VERSE IS FINDING SOME RISHI NAMES NOT AS UTPATIT OR RECITED AS OWNER, BUT BEARS THE RISHI WHOSE BREADTH OF THOSE VERSES ARE TRANSMITTED AS SRUTHIS TO THE WORLD; AND NAMES THE DEVATHA AND CHANDASAND SVARA; NO INDIAN SCRIPTURES DO SAY THIS IS BY ME SO AND SO EXCEPT WHERE SAID SO IF INTENTIONALLY MADE BY THE INDIVIDUAL; ORELSE, HE SAID, SHE SAID, WAS TOILD ETC UVACHA. SO Mr GOPALA ARGUING GOOGLE SAID SO IS MEANINGLESS AS HE NEVER APPLIED HIS MIND AT ALL. OR READ ANYTHING FROM ORIGINAL TO ANALYSE AND THUS WORDS OF NON-WORTH IS BEING POURED INTO THE GROUPS WHEN ALL THOSE OLD RUBBISH WERE CLEANED LONG LONG AGO WHICH EITHER GOOGLE DOES NOT HAVE OR THE AUTHOR DID NOT ELICIT FROM GOOGLE; AND HENCE THE WRITER HAS TO SHOULDER THE RESPONSIBILITY; HE DOES NOT ANSWER NOT BECAUSE HE IS LEARNT BUT BCAUSE HE IS AN AVIUVEKI TRYING TO DO THE RAJA-PART IN DRAMA}}
Details: (CONTD)
Ṛṣi (sage/seer): madhucchandāḥ vaiśvāmitraḥ [madhucchandas vaiśvāmitra];
Devatā (deity/subject-matter): agniḥ ;
Chandas (meter): gāyatrī;
Svara (tone/note): Swar;
Padapatha [Accents, Plain, Transliterated]:
अ॒ग्निम् । ई॒ळे॒ । पु॒रःऽहि॑तम् । य॒ज्ञस्य॑ । दे॒वम् । ऋ॒त्विज॑म् । होता॑रम् । र॒त्न॒ऽधात॑मम् ॥
agnim | īḷe | puraḥ-hitam | yajñasya | devam | ṛtvijam | hotāram | ratna-dhātamam
ON THE CONTRARY T H GRIFFITH SAID RISHIS MADE THE MANTRAS NEUTRALLY WHICH WERE DEDUCED AS OWNERS OF MANTRAS. Throughout the ancient period, the rishis were indeed called the makers of the mantras, AS TRANSLATED BY THE T H Griffith onwards.
Following are some examples:
RV 9.112.3: kārurahaṃ tato bhiṣagupalaprakṣiṇī nanā — “I am a maker of mantras, my father (or son) is a doctor, my mother (or sister) is a flour-maker.” [AS RENDERED BY WEST COPIED]
Rig Veda 9.112.3
कारुरहं ततो भिषगुपलप्रक्षिणी नना । नानाधियो वसूयवोऽनु गा इव तस्थिमेन्द्रायेन्दो परि स्रव ॥
kārur ahaṃ tato bhiṣag upalaprakṣiṇī nanā | nānādhiyo vasūyavo 'nu gā iva tasthimendrāyendo pari srava ||
“I am the singer; papa is the physician, mamma throws the corn upon the grinding stones; having various occupations, desiring riches we remain (in the world) like cattle (in the stall); flow, Indu, for Indra.”
Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya
The singeṛ..papa...mamma:; tataḥ and nānā mean father (dada) and mother; or son and daughter respectively
Details:
Ṛṣi (sage/seer): śiśuḥ;
Devatā (deity/subject-matter): pavamānaḥ somaḥ ;
Chandas (meter): virāṭpaṅkti ;
Svara (tone/note): Swar;
KR: WHAT IS THUIS VERSE? IT SPEAKS ABOUT VARIOUS PROFESSIONS RENDERED BY THOS PEOPLE OF THE FAMILY; KA MEANS SINGING ; KARU AHAM MEANING I AM A SINGER AND NOT “MAKER OF MANTRAS”. TATO BISHAQ= DAD IS PHYSICIAAN; MOM IS GRINDING; SO ON SO FORTH. THIS IS SWASAM OF SISU RISHI.
RV 1.61.4: asmā idu stomaṃ saṃ hinomi rathaṃ na taṣṭeva — “For him, I design this hymn, just as a carpenter designs a chariot” [AS DESIGNED BY WEST]
Rig Veda 1.61.4
अस्मा इदु स्तोमं सं हिनोमि रथं न तष्टेव तत्सिनाय । गिरश्च गिर्वाहसे सुवृक्तीन्द्राय विश्वमिन्वं मेधिराय ॥
asmā id u stomaṃ saṃ hinomi rathaṃ na taṣṭeva tatsināya | giraś ca girvāhase suvṛktīndrāya viśvaminvam medhirāya ||
“I prepare praises for him, as a carpenter constructs a car, (that the driver) may thence (obtain) food; praises well deserved, to him who is entitled to commendation, and excellent oblations to the wise Indra.”
Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya
Ratham na taṣṭeva tatsināya: sina = food;
Tat = owner of the car, i.e. for his food
Details:
Ṛṣi (sage/seer): nodhā gautamaḥ [nodhas gautama];
Devatā (deity/subject-matter): indra:;
Chandas (meter): paṅktiḥ ;
Svara (tone/note): Swar;
STOMAM IS CHANTING YAGNA STOMA; SUDRSANA STOMA; ASWAMEDHA STOMA; ETC; BY CHANTING WE PRAISE THE GODS AND HOW WE WOULD DO IT; AS WE FEED PARTS FOR WHEELS OF RATHA OR MAKING A RATHAM. {WHERE IS STATED DESIGNING THE HYMN?}
RV 1.77.1: kathā dāśemāgnaye kāsmai devajuṣṭocyate bhāmine gīḥ — “ How shall we offer to Agni, what kind of words should we say to him the bright one, which will be divinely acceptable?” [AS DESIGENED BY WEST]
Rig Veda 1.77.1
कथा दाशेमाग्नये कास्मै देवजुष्टोच्यते भामिने गीः । यो मर्त्येष्वमृत ऋतावा होता यजिष्ठ इत्कृणोति देवान् ॥
kathā dāśemāgnaye kāsmai devajuṣṭocyate bhāmine gīḥ | yo martyeṣv amṛta ṛtāvā hotā yajiṣṭha it kṛṇoti devān ||
“What (oblations) may we offer to Agni? What praise is addressed to the luminous (Agni) that is agreeable to the gods? that Agni who is immortal and observant of truth, who is the invoker of the gods, the performer of sacrifices, and who, (present) amongst men, conveys oblations to the deities.”
Details:
Ṛṣi (sage/seer): gotamo rāhūgaṇaḥ [gotama rāhūgaṇa];
Devatā (deity/subject-matter): agniḥ ;
Chandas (meter): nicṛtpaṅkti ;
Svara (tone/note): Swar;
ATTRIBUTIONS OF PRAISE CHANGED TO WHAT WORDS TO USE AS IF CREATING A POEM BY A POET WHEREAS SANSKRIT WORDS USED ARE,” DEVA JYESHTO UCHYATE= GOD IN PRAISE STATED UCHYATE. VYASA UVACHA LIKE. IT IS THE WORD ALREADY IN EXISTENSE ONLY SHALL BE USED AND NO ONE WILL CREATE ANEW INFRONT OF HOMAM!
RV 1.94.1: imaṃ stomamarhate jātavedase rathamiva saṃ mahemā manīṣayā — “This stotra we make for the most sacred Jātaveda with deep meditation, just like building a chariot” [AS BY WEST]
इमम् । स्तोमम् । अर्हते जातवेदसे । रथम्इव । सम् । महेम । मनीषया । भद्रा । हि । नः । प्रमतिः । अस्य । सम्सदि । अग्ने । सख्ये । मा । रिषाम । वयम् । तव ॥
imam | stomam | arhate jāta-vedase | ratham-iva | sam | mahema | manīṣayā | bhadrā | hi | naḥ | pra-matiḥ | asya | sam-sadi | agne | sakhye | mā | riṣāma | vayam | tava
Imam stomam arhate jata vedase= ahuti into yagna fire is wrongly interpreted as, “This stotra we make”=stomam is not stotra and it is also not made.
RV 1.143.1: pra tavyasīṃ navyasīṃ dhītimagnaye vāco matiṃ sahasaḥ sūnave bhare — “I offer this newest and most expansive ritual and words to the Son of Strength” [as from west]
प्र । तव्यसीम् । नव्यसीम् । धीतिम् । अग्नये । वाचः । मतिम् । सहसः । सूनवे । भरे । अपाम् । नपात् । यः । वसुभिः । सह । प्रियः । होता । पृथिव्याम् । नि । असीदत् । ऋत्वियः ॥
pra | tavyasīm | navyasīm | dhītim | agnaye | vācaḥ | matim | sahasaḥ | sūnave | bhare | apām | napāt | yaḥ | vasu-bhiḥ | saha | priyaḥ | hotā | pṛthivyām | ni | asīdat | ṛtviyaḥ
“I offer devoutly to Agni, the son of strength, an invigorating and most new sacrifice, with words of adoration; (that Agni), the grandson of the waters, who, (present) in due season, the friend and ministering priest (of the sacrificer), sits upon the altar with (many) good things.”
Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya
The grandson of the waters: apām napāt; vegetable substances are the progeny of rain, and fire is the progeny of vegetable substances, timber, or fuel; upon the altar: pṛthivyām = lit. on the earth, on the mount of earth constituting the altar
Details:
Ṛṣi (sage/seer): dīrghatamā aucathyaḥ [dīrghatamas aucathya];
Devatā (deity/subject-matter): agniḥ ;
Chandas (meter): nicṛjjagatī ;
Svara (tone/note): Swar;
There are no word to translate as word by west; offering in sacrifice in Homam is wrongly pulled in with enforced meaning of human creation from this verse.
RV 2.19.8: evā te gṛtsamadāḥ śūra manmāvasyavo na vayunāni takṣuḥ — “Thus, we Gṛtsamadas have designed these words for you, O Indra, just as a pathfinder makes paths”
एव । ते । गृत्समदाः । शूर । मन्म । अवस्यवः । न । वयुनानि । तक्षुः । ब्रह्मण्यन्तः । इन्द्र । ते । नवीयः । इषम् । ऊर्जम् । सुक्षितिम् । सुम्नम् । अश्युः ॥
eva | te | gṛtsa-madāḥ | śūra | manma | avasyavaḥ | na | vayunāni | takṣuḥ | brahmaṇyantaḥ | indra | te | navīyaḥ | iṣam | ūrjam | su-kṣitim | sumnam | aśyuḥ
“Thus, hero, have the Gṛtsamadas”
Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya
Gṛṇāteḥ stutikarmaṇaḥ (Nirukta 9.5) fabricated praises to you, as they who are desirous of travelling (construct) roads; may those who worship you, adorable Indra, obtain food, strength, habitations and felicity. [As they who are desirous: avasyavo na vayunāni = gamanam icchantaḥ pumāṃso mārgān yathā kurvanti = as men, wishing to go,make roads
Details:
Ṛṣi (sage/seer): gṛtsamadaḥ śaunakaḥ [gṛtsamada śaunaka];
Devatā (deity/subject-matter): indra:;
Chandas (meter): virāṭtrisṭup ;
Svara (tone/note): Swar;
WHERE IS THE WORD FOR HUMAN MADE?
Niruktam 7.3: evamuccāvacairabhiprāyai ṛṣīṇāṃ mantradṛṣṭayo bhavanti — “Thus, the visions of the rishis occur with various intentions and topics.”When the rishis come down from this elevated spiritual state, they try to express their experience or vision in human language. So the vision is divine, and the words are theirs. But even the words are so unique and inimitable. And the rishi’s personality is also unique. All this is seen in the Rig Veda itself. For example, the fact that only a few are capable of having the divine vision is mentioned in RV 10.71.4:
उत त्वः पश्यन्न ददर्श वाचमुत त्वः शृण्वन्न शृणोत्येनाम् ।
उतो त्वस्मै तन्वं वि सस्रे जायेव पत्य उशतीः सुवासाः ॥
uta tvaḥ paśyanna dadarśa vācamuta tvaḥ śṛṇvanna śṛṇotyenām ।
uto tvasmai tanvaṃ vi sasre jāyeva patya uśatīḥ suvāsāḥ ॥
—“One while seeing, does not see the Divine Speech; another while hearing, does not hear Her. To another one, She reveals Herself, just as a beautifully decorated wife reveals herself only to her husband.”
This is also seen in RV 1.164.45:
चत्वारि वाक्परिमिता पदानि तानि विदुर्ब्राह्मणा ये मनीषिणः ।
त्रीणि गुहा निहिता नेङ्गयन्ति तुरीयं वाचो मनुष्या वदन्ति ॥
catvāri vākparimitā padāni tāni vidurbrāhmaṇā ye manīṣiṇaḥ ।
trīṇi guhā nihitā neṅgayanti turīyaṃ vāco manuṣyā vadanti ॥
—“Four are the levels of Speech which the wise people know of. Three of them are hidden and do not stir, the fourth is what humans speak.”
Niruktam 1.20 also says the same thing:
साक्षात्कृतधर्माण ऋषयो बभूवुः । तेऽवरेभ्योऽसाक्षात्कृतधर्मभ्य उपदेशेन मन्त्रान् संप्रादुः । … वेदं च वेदाङ्गानि च ।
sākṣātkṛtadharmāṇa ṛṣayo babhūvuḥ । te'varebhyo'sākṣātkṛtadharmabhya upadeśena mantrān saṃprāduḥ । … vedaṃ ca vedāṅgāni ca ।
—”The rishis were the ones who had a direct vision of the truth. For the sake of the inferior people who were not endowed with the vision, they gave these mantras as instruction/teaching. This is the Veda and Vedāṅgas.”
Thus where matter is serious and vedic knowledge catering -one shall not write simply without proper understanding, SINCE GOOGLE SAID IT, AS GOOGLE CAN NEVER BE ANY AUTORITY FOR ANYTHING ESPECIALLY ON VEDAS THE KNOWLEDGE. THAT INDICATES THE AVIVEKAM OF THE WRITER.
THANK YOU K RAJARAM IRS 8326