Tatwam Behind Rudra Deriving Strength From Vishnu (Rig Veda 7.40.5)

ALLEGATION:

“Shiva Derives Power From Vishnu”.

BASIS:

The basis of the above allegation is the following verse from Rig Veda.

“asya devasya mīḷhuṣo vayā viṣṇoreṣasya prabhṛthe havirbhiḥ |
vide hi rudro rudriyaṃ mahitvaṃ yāsiṣṭaṃ vartiraśvināvirāvat |” (Rig Veda 7.40.5)
“With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Viṣṇu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength“.

CONTRADICTING VERSES:

“imā rudrāya sthiradhanvane ghiraḥ kṣipreṣave devāya svadhāvne |
aṣāḷhāya sahamānāya vedhase tighmāyudhāya bharatā śṛṇotu naḥ |” (RV 7:46:1)
“To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts,The Wise, the Conqueror whom none may overcome, armed with sharp-pointed weapons: may he hear our call”.

“śreṣṭho jātasya rudra śriyāsi tavastamastavasāṃ vajrabāho |
parṣi ṇaḥ pāramaṃhasaḥ svasti viśvā abhītī rapaso yuyodhi ||” (Rig Veda 2:33:3)
“Chief of all born art thou in glory, Rudra, armed with the thunder, mightiest of the mighty. Transport us over trouble to well-being repel thou from us all assaults of mischief”.

“sthirebhiraṅghaiḥ pururūpa ughro babhruḥ śukrebhiḥ pipiśehiraṇyaiḥ |
īśānādasya bhuvanasya bhūrerna vā u yoṣad rudrādasuryam ||” (RV 2:33:9)
“With firm limbs, multiform, the strong, the tawny adorns himself with bright gold decorations. The strength of Godhead ne’er departs from Rudra, him who is Sovran of this world, the mighty”.

“sa hi kṣayeṇa kṣamyasya janmanaḥ sāmrājyena divyasya cetati |
avannavantīrupa no duraścarānamīvo rudra jāsu no bhava ||” (Rig Veda 7:46:2)
“He through his lordship pervades in all things and beings on the earth, on heavenly beings through his high imperial sway (controlling influence or power). Come willingly to our doors that gladly welcome thee, and heal all sickness, Rudra., in our families”.

In RV 7:46:2 Rudra is called as the the one who “rules” on all celestial beings through his imperial power. In RV 2:33:9 Rudra is referred as the Godhead whose strength doesn’t leave (depart from) him. In RV 2:33:3 he is called as “mightiest of the mighty” not just mighty or mightier. In RV 7:46:1 Rudra is called as the God who is “self dependent” and “none can overcome Rudra”.

As he is “self dependent”, he doesn’t need to derive strength from anyone for his work; as he is the “Godhead whose strength never departs from him”, he doesn’t require to borrow strength from anyone; as he “pervades/rules over the gods by his imperial power” which god can be an exception to this? as he is the “mightiest of the mighty”, who else can donate him strength?

Then RV 7:40:5 says “Rudra derives his Rudra strength from Vishnu”. But why this confusion within Rig veda itself? There should be some hidden meaning behind RV 7:40:5 which is not so direct and literal for comprehension. We’ll analyze and learn that all these verses are True. Before that let’s see few more verses which contradict the ALLEGATION above.

The Taittirya Aranyaka(10:24:1) of Yajur Veda clearly says Lord Rudra is ‘Veda Purusha’ (purusho vai rudrah). And none is superior to Purusha.

“vishvatashchaxuruta vishvatomukho vishvatobaahuruta vishvataspaat.h |
saM baahubhyaa.n dhamati saMpatatrairdyaavaabhuumii janayan.h deva ekaH |” (Sve. Upa. 3.03)
“His eyes are everywhere, His faces everywhere, His arms everywhere, everywhere His feet. He it is who endows men with arms, birds with feet and wings and men likewise with feet. Having produced heaven and earth, He remains as their non—dual (deva ekaH) manifester”.

“sarvaanana shirogriivaH sarvabhuutaguhaashayaH |
sarvavyaapii sa bhagavaa.nstasmaat.h sarvagataH shivaH |” (Sve. Upa. 3:11)
“All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all—pervading Bhagavan. Therefore He is the omnipresent and benign Lord”.

“yasmaat.h para.n naaparamasti ki.nchidya smaannaNiiyo na jyaayo.asti kashchit.h |
vR^ixa iva stabdho divi tishhThatyeka stenedaM puurNaM purushheNa sarvam.h |” (Sve. Upa. 3:09)
“This whole universe is filled by this person (purusha-Rudra), to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than whom there is nothing smaller or larger, who stands alone, fixed like a tree in the sky”.

Lord Shiva himself says:-

“paramo.asmi paraatparaH” (Maitreya Upa. 3:10)
“I am the supreme, greater than the great”.

ANALYSIS (with logical reasoning) :

We must know that Vedas DO NOT convey everything in sequence. Vedas are not that simple to understand since the verses are not “Literal” in every case. Vedic verses are interwoven and depend upon some other verses also. So, with half baked knowledge or with surface thinking real Tatwam behind Vedic verses can not be perceived. The allegation under discussion is one such outcome of lack of analytical ability.

I would say, yes both RV 7.40.5 and all other verses cited above are correct. I mean yes Rudra derives strength from Vishnu and also is self-dependent.

Sounds confusing?? Don’t worry, just keep reading, just be with me throughout this analysis, you’ll understand what I want to convey!

Sri Rudram from yajurveda says:

“Namo bhavaya cha rudraya cha
namah sharvaya cha pashupataye cha
namo girishaya cha shipivishhtaya cha |” (Anuvaka 5)
“Salutations to Him who is the source of all things. And to Him who is the destroyer of all ills. Salutations to the destroyer and to the protector of all beings in bondage. Salutations to Him who dwells on the mount and who is in the form of Shipivista (Vishnu)“.

From the above verses we learn that Rudra(Shiva) is the Source of all, protector and destroyer. Means he alone does the “Srushti”, “Sthiti” and “Laya”. Note the highlight which says Shiva exists as Lord Vishnu. “Sipivista” is the epithet used extensively in Vedas for Vishnu.

“sá yád dhruvā́ṃ díśam ánu vyácalad víṣṇur bhūtvā́nuvyàcalad virā́jam annādī́ṃ kr̥tvā́ |” (Atharva Veda 15:14:5)
“He (Vrata/Shiva), when he went away to the stedfast region, went away having become Vishnu…”.

“somaḥ pavate janitā matīnāṃ janitā divo janitā pṛthivyāḥ |
janitāghnerjanitā sūryasya janitendrasya janitota viṣṇoḥ |” (RV 9:96:5)
“Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven:
Father of Agni, Sūrya’s generator, the Father who begat Indra and Viṣṇu“.

It also says that Shiva himself manifested as Vishnu. So, from both Rudram and Atharva Veda we understand that Shiva does Sthiti (Protection) by assuming (manifesting as) the form of Vishnu. Also, from above mentioned verse of Sveta Upa. 3.03 we understood that Shiva is non-dual. Means he alone exists none else. Whatever else is seen, is seen as his own form/manifestation. In Sve. Upa 3.11 Shiva Bhagawan is called as all pervading. Now comparing all these verses we get to a conclusion that – Shiva who manifested as Vishnu for protection, pervaded entire universe hence his that preserver aspect/form gained a name “Vishnu”.

Now let’s extend our analysis further.

“vishhNorjanaka.n devamiiDyaM” (Sharabha Upansiahd 1-2)
“[Shiva]who is the father of Vishnu and other devas”.

“rudraatpravartate biijaM biijayonirjanaardanaH |” (Rudra Hridayopanishad 8)
“Rudra is the generator of the seed. Vishnu is the embryo of the seed”.

“umaa sha~Nkarayogo yaH sa yogo vishhNuruchyate |” (Rudra Hridayopanishad 11)
“The combination of Uma and Sankara is Vishnu”.

“kaarya.n vishhNuH kriyaa brahmaa kaaraNa.n tu maheshvaraH |
prayojanaartha.n rudreNa muurtirekaa tridhaa kR^itaa |” (Rudra Hridayopanishad 15)
“The effect is Vishnu. The action is Brahma. The cause is Maheshwara. For the benefit of the worlds. Rudra has taken these three forms”.

From the above verses it is clear that Shiva is the “cause (seed) who procreates Vishnu”. It also clarifies us that “Vishnu is generated by a combination of Uma-Shiva” and hence he is their son (also their form). But now in below verses we’ll understand that Vishnu who is the son of Uma has Uma’s attributes hence they are equated and called as one “in terms of Tatwam”. Shiva only the one non dual lord manifests as Vishnu and Brahma for the sake of the worlds. So it is clear that Vishnu is Shiva’s son and form.

Sri Rudram says:

“Namo agriyaya cha prathamaya cha
nama ashave chajiraya cha” (Anuvaka 5)
“Salutations to Him who was before all things and who is foremost
Salutations to Him who pervades all and moves swiftly”

Now the question arises, Rigveda’s one sloka says Shiva derives strength from Vishnu, another sloka says Shiva is self-dependent. Sri Rudram from Yajurveda says, Shiva exists in the form of Vishnu. Shiva is the foremost. And Sharabha Upanishad, Rudra Hridayopanishad, Atharva veda’s hymn to Vratya(Shiva) and RV 9:96:5 unanimously say Shiva is the father of Vishnu. Again it looks confusing right? No. We are almost there. Just read on…

“yaa umaa saa svaya.n vishhNur” (Rudra Hridayopanishad 5)
“Uma Herself is in the form of Vishnu”

Same thing is represented in another way by Adi Shankara said in Shivananda Lahari as,

“Ardha vapusha baryatwam, Gonithwam sakkhitha…” (Shivananda Lahari Para-82)
“Lord Vishnu occupied half your body, Became transformed to be your wife (PARVATI), Became a boar to search for you, Became your lady friend to serve the nectar (MOHINI)”

Rudra Hridaya Upanishad and Shivananda Lahari says Vishnu and UMA are of same form (they are same). Sharabha Upanishad and Rudra Hridayopanishad, Rig Veda.IX.96.5 says Vishnu is Shiva’s and Uma’s son. Sri Rudram says Shiva exists as Vishnu. Hence comparing these points we can conclude here that Vishnu is Shiva’s form (son) having UMA’s features hence UMA and Vishnu are shown as identical but since Uma manifested as Yashoda’s daughter Yogamaya as a ssiter of Krishna she is popularly called as Vishnu’s sister.
Also, since Parvati (Uma’s manifestation) is dark complexioned as like as Vishnu she is seen as having same Tatwam as Vishnu hence she is again called as Narayana-Sahodari / Narayani in scriptures. Vishnu and Uma are not different they are one being of the nature of siblings based on tatwam/Nature. But this is just a bond, but in reality Shiva-Shakti are non-dual. They created Vishnu, so Vishnu is Uma’s son as Annapoorna Astottara Shatanamavali also calls her as, “Vishnu Jananyai Namah”.

We had covered the prerequisites of our analysis. now the points have to be rearranged to understand the Tatwam. But we’re left with one more verse to be noted which plays a key role in this analysis.

Adi Shankaracharya said in the opening verse of Soundarya Lahari:

”Shivah shakthya yukto yadi bhavati shaktah prabhavitum
Na chedevam devo na khalu kusalah spanditumapi |” (Soundarya Lahari Para-1)
“Lord Shiva, only becomes able, To do creation in this world.
along with Shakthi, Without her, Even an inch he cannot move”

This is well accepted fact even in Puranas that Shiva becomes functionless without his Shakti (UMA). Shiva is pure conciousness, the agent which agitates him and brings some action in him is Uma. Due to the agitation caused by Uma Shiva desires to create, he becomes Kameshwara (the primordial Kama), and from his seed Hiranyagarbha gets generated and thereafter entire creation starts. So, it’s true that Uma is the one who brings desire in Shiva for becoming many from being one. Hence Shankara says Shiva becomes unable to create without his Shakti (Uma).

Let’s rearrange the scattered bits for conclusion now.

ARRANGEMENT (of Points in Logical Sequence):

From the above points we arrive at the following arrangement:

1. Rigeveda 7.40.5 says Shiva derives strength from Vishnu
2. Rudra Hridaya Upanishad and Shivananda Lahari says Vishnu and UMA are of same form (they are same)
3. Sharabha Upanishad and Rudra Hridayopanishad, Shaiva Agamas, Vratya hymn of Atharva Veda, Rig Veda.IX.96.5 say Vishnu is Shiva’s & Uma’s son. Sri Rudram says Shiva exists as Vishnu. Hence comparing points 2 and 3 we can conclude here that Vishnu is Shiva’s form (son) having UMA’s features hence UMA and Vishnu are shown as identical in many scriptures
4. Adi Shankara’s Soundarya lahari says Shiva derives his strength from his wife UMA (Shakti)
5. And SHAKTI and SHIVA being “Ardhanareeshwara”, they are One and the same. They are half of each other hence NOT different from each other. Therefor they are Non-Dual.
6. RV 7:46:1 says Shiva is “Self-Dependent”, Rudram says he was the “Foremost”, Svetawatara Upanishad says “he is the ONLY one who exists” (non dual).

So, finally from lot of confusing verses we have zeroed down to the conclusion that:

CONCLUSION:

Shiva derives his strength from his Shakti without which he can’t function. But since Shiva are Shakti are “Ardhanareeshwara” who are two aspects but share one body hence non-different from each other, hence it implies Shiva derives strength from “self”, hence Shiva is “Self-Dependent”.

And since Shakti (UMA) and Vishnu share same nature and attributes they are called as siblings and are not different from each other. Shakti and Vishnu are of same Tatwam, hence even though Vishnu is Uma’s son, Vishnu is given an exaggerated status of being UMA. Hence “HariHara” form of Shiva came into scriptures where Vishnu is Shiva’s left half and Shiva is called as “Vishnu Vallabha” (husband of Vishnu). Therefore in RV 7:40:5 Shiva is said to be deriving his strength from Vishnu (replacing Uma with Vishnu based on Tatwam). But since Shiva only exists as “Sipivishtha” (Vishnu), and they are “HariHara” who are two aspects but share one body hence non-different from each other, hence it implies Shiva derives strength from “self”. It again drills down to non-duality and only “Shiva alone exists” and hence Shiva is “Self-Dependent”.

This is the reason why Rudra is “mightiest of the mighty (Rig Veda 2:33:3)”, this is the reason why he is “self-dependent (RV 7:46:1)”, this is the reason why he is “the godhead whose strength doesn’t depart from him (RV 2:33:9)”, this is the reason why he is able to “rule on all celestial gods with his high imerial power (Rig Veda 7:46:2)”.

EMPHASIS:

Rudra is self-dependent non-dual lord who is “Parat-Para (supreme of the supreme)”, hence he doesn’t derive strength from Vishnu in reality. That’s all a play of Tatwams which is sung in the Vedas.

Hope this resolves all contradictions, controversies and conflicts which are prevalant between Vaishnavas and Shaivas.


Copyright © 2011, by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula. All Rights Reserved.
Check the Footer of this blog for Licenses related details.

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः)
Follow him

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः)

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula, is 'षण्मातुरः' or 'षण्णां मातृणां पुत्रः' in detail, which means 'The son of six (divine) mothers' as he considers the six great goddesses viz. Parvati, Ganga, Lakshmi, Bhudevi, Saraswati, and Gayatri, as his own mothers, and sees himself as an infant in their laps. Together with their respective consorts he considers them as his own parents. He considers their children such as Ganesha, Skanda, Sanatkumara, Narada, Pradyumna etc., as his own siblings; in fact, not different from himself. He loves these six mothers very dearly, and equally loves the divine fathers; however, he has offered his 'devotion' only to Mahadeva! Hence he stands for lord Shiva safeguarding him from his haters. One would know him better from his writings.
Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः)
Follow him

50 Comments

  1. jaiganesh

    Please enlighten me regarding the following statements of Vaishnavas against Shiva?

    The swethaswathara Upanishad states that the Supreme
    Being first created Brahma. [yo brahmaanm vidhadhaathi
    poorvam]. The Upanisahd clearly points out that Brahma
    was brought into existence by Narayanan and that from
    Narayanawas born Rudra etc.. [Narayanaat Brahmaa
    jaayathE; Naaraayanaath RudrO jaayathE] In the same
    manner, MahOpanishad relating to primary cause of the
    Universe says: [In the beginning] only Narayana
    existed, nether Brahma, nor Isaana [Rudra], nor the
    heaven; nor the earth; nor the stars; nor the water
    and the fire; nor the moon and the sun. [ekO ha vai
    nArAyaNa Aseeth; na brahma nEsAnO nApO nAgnisOmau meme
    dhaavaa prthivI na nakshathraani na sooryO na
    chandramaah:]

    Reply
  2. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Brahma (Hiranyagarbha) was created by Rudra.

    “yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH |
    hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu” (Sve Upa. 3:4)
    “He, the omniscient Rudra, the creator of the gods and the bestower of their powers, the support of the universe, He who, in the beginning, gave birth to Hiranyagarbha—may He endow us with clear intellect!”

    Well, the name “nArAyaNa” is misinterpreted by Vaishnavas and many Hindus.

    In the Vedas “nArAyaNa” doesn't refer to Vishnu. It is an epithet to call the Nirguna Brahman. It is not at all related to Vishnu (narayana). From Nirguna Brahman arose all Saguna forms, and that Brahman is again Lord Shiva only in his Nirguna state. Yajurveda says “namo brihate cha” for Shiva which means, “salutations to Shiva who is Brahman”. Also, Taittiriya Aranyaka 10:23:1) addresses Shiva as the Parambrahman. And many otehr references exists which call Shiva as teh parabrahman…..The discussion on “narayana” is a huge topic, so do not wish to elaborate much on that. In a way Narayana is a misnomer to refer to Shiva only.

    When you talk about Mahopanishad why didn't you read the following verse from the same upanishad which clearly states that Brahman is SHIVA (=Purusha=Ishana=Atman)?

    “shuunya.n tatprakR^itirmaayaa brahmavij~naanamityapi |
    shivaH purushha iishaano nityamaatmeti kathyate |” (Maha. Upa. VI:61)
    “That Brahman has been (identified with) emptiness, Prakriti, Maya and also consciousness. It has also been said to be “Shiva, Purusha, Eshana, the eternal and the self (Atman)”.

    Reply
  3. jaiganesh

    thank you ji! 🙂

    Reply
  4. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Dear Jaiganesh,

    I couldn't give you details about meaning of Narayana in detail here because I knew that it was such a huge topic that for me it was impossible to explain here in response to your comment/query. Therefore here i have written a detailed article which should solve all your queries.

    http://mahapashupatastra.blogspot.in/2012/02/narayana-suktam-hymn-to-tripurasundari.html

    Best Regards,

    Reply
  5. Madhav_Megadave

    Hello Santosh.

    I am a big zero in Vedas, I know a few suktams and Sri Rudram which were taught to me by my grandfather. For me, God is sometimes Lord Shiva who is the epitome of concentration and focus and deeply meditating on Mount Kailash, sometimes he is Lord Vishnu- the personification of resplendence and grace, who takes numerous avatars to kill all evil. At other instances, She is my most beloved mother Mata Durga who has assured me to shower her infinite love and grace upon me. I love them equally and cannot differentiate between the three.

    I had always believed that Narayana was Vishnu until I read the Narayana suktam.. ” Narayana param brahma…”, “sa brahma sa shiva sa hari… “. This got me into believing that Narayana is not Vishnu but someone else. In one chapter of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata, Narayana is said to have been beyond all forms and created Rudra and Brahma. He is also said to have incarnated as Krishna and Arjuna is believed to have possessed half his body once upon a time. Even before reading KMG's translation of the epic, without ANY reason whatsoever, I had always equated Narayana with Shakti. Of course, I would have been mocked if I ever told that in public.

    I was looking for a website or a post which would prove my belief and this led me to your blog. I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your wonderful and brilliant posts on the ever mysterious Lord Shiva. Btw, brilliant tile- Mahapashupatastra. 🙂 B-)

    Having said that, I loved your insightful and logical analysis of the Narayana suktam. It has certainly proved my belief that Narayana is not Lord Vishnu. But how far are we ready to accept it? That, I guess, only time will tell.

    Regards,
    Madhav

    Reply
  6. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Thanks a million, Madhav, for understanding my logic on Narayana! I am pleasantly surprised and am happy to know that you also echo the same thoughts on Narayana being 'Shakti'.
    That is true my friend, but the fault of Hindus is that they just go by literal meanings (ardham) and do not try to dig deep into the antarArdham (inner meaning). Our scriptures may mean something outwardly, but a deeper analysis would reveal that they actually mean something else. That's the beauty of Hinduism and our scriptures. Our saints are such that.

    Well, buddy, you needn't thank 'Me'. i am just an instrument in the hands of Mahadeva! It's he who feeds thoughts in my brain, it's he who uses my fingers and my keyboard to type; i'm just a machine at his service. So, all glories to that illustrious supreme being viz. Kapardin, the consort of that motehr of all viz. Uma! and wherever there are any shortcomings they are all purely MINE.

    Thanks for liking the blog name “mahapashupatastra”. Even I love this name 🙂

    Reply
  7. Madhav_Megadave

    Namaste Santosh. 🙂 Thanks for publishing my comment on your wonderful blog.

    I seem to go back to equating Narayana with Vishnu again and again. But at the same time I don't have problems in Vishnu being equated with Shakti. All's God's will and He just wants me to dance and wander till I reach the truth.

    While you see everything in the form of Shiva, I consider everything as Vishnu's form. BUT.. my personal experience says Vishnu= Shiva= Shakti. I am not knowledgeable enough to find differences between them. I also opine that Narayana is THE Nirguna Brahman. He also resides in Vaikuntha with Mata Lakshmi. He is also the unmanifested unborn Maheshwara Parvatipati Mahadeva of Mount Kailash. The same Brahman is my mother Mata Durga who rips off the chests of Mahishasura, Shumbha, Nishumbha etc and exists as Matrikas and Navadurgas. My claims are not based on any scriptures or philosophies since I do not know them at all. 🙂 An all pervading deity has to be auspicious and vice versa. ” I totally believe the Skanda Upanishad which says, just as Shiva is full of Vishnu, Vishnu is full of Shiva. I am well if I see that there is no difference between the two. ” Secondly, I believe that the supreme Brahman of Mahabharata is Narayana. And Shiva. And Krishna.. depending on the situation. My opinion strictly. You can disagree with it of course 🙂

    I am sorry if I hurt you. For me, Mahadeva is as important and as close as Hari. Maybe someday or the other, I will come to know the truth of it all. I am really really scared of Pashupatastra and the Shiva trishul, and I pray to Lord Shiva to protect me. 🙂

    Apologies once again.

    P.S- You are just not an instrument in the hands of Mahadeva. I think Mahadeva Himself has chosen you to make people understand about Him and show people like us who He really is. And through your blog, I feel I'm getting closer and closer to Him. That is my opinion. 🙂

    Just like you, the Trinity-Trishakti are more important to me than my own life. And I cannot stand ISKCON's ramblings. You know what they are.

    ” If Mahadeva drank the Halahala poison for us, no one has any right to call Him names or degrade Him. “

    On that note, I take your leave. My humble pranaams to you, glories to Umapathi Mahadeva. 🙂

    Reply
  8. Madhav_Megadave

    Secondly, I would like to ask you about the seeming contradictions in the Mahabharata. We have the Shiva and Vishnu Sahasranamam, we have the Bhagavad Gita, we have instances where Nara and Narayana prayed to Lord Shiva for boons, we have the story where Narayana says that He and Rudra are ONE. One who knows one automatically knows the other. In another instance, Shiva understands Narayana from Brahma. Vishnu is all pervading, so is Shiva. Shiva is divinely auspicious, so is Vishnu. My question is- what is the need for Brahman to praise or understand Himself? Is my thinking that “Brahman is ONE without a second- either Krishna or Rudra or Devi etc” correct?

    Look at what Bhishma has to say about Krishna.

    “”Bhishma said, 'O Krishna, O foremost of Beings, be thou pleased with these words which I utter, in brief and in detail, from desire of hymning thy praises. Thou art pure and purity's self. Thou transcendest all. Thou art what people say to be THAT. Thou art the Supreme Lord. With my whole heart I seek thy refuge, O universal Soul and Lord of all creatures! 1 Thou art without beginning and without end. Thou art the highest of the high and Brahma. Neither the gods nor the Rishis know thee. The divine Creator, called Narayana or Hari, alone knows thee. Through Narayana, the Rishis, the Siddhas, the great Nagas, the gods, and the celestial Rishis know a little of thee.

    followed by.. Thou bearest the trident, thou art the lord of the celestials, thou hast three eyes, and thou art high-souled. Thy body is always besmeared with ashes, and thy phallic emblem is always turned upwards. Salutations to thee in thy form of Rudra! The half-moon forms the ornament of thy forehead. Thou hast snakes for the holy thread circling thy neck. Thou art armed with Pinaka and trident… O god, gratified with me! The Vedas are devoted to Narayana. Penances are devoted to Narayana. The gods are devoted to Narayana. Everything is always Narayana!'” “

    If the above is true, Krishna is RUDRA himself in a human form. We can actually think of the Bhagavad Gita as either Narayana's song or Shiva's song. It means that I can call Shiva as THAT and Hari as THAT. Tulsidas ji, who was a devout Rama bhakta and called Rama as the supreme form of Brahman himself wrote Rudrashtakam and praised Lord Rudra as the supreme Brahman. Is His leela alone which lets Him take up so many forms? And who is THAT Brahman I am talking about- Krishna, Shiva, Devi Durga or anyone else?? :-/

    One more doubt about the pathway to God realization. Can I recite the Nirvana shatakam and mould myself into a state where I can proudly say “SHIVOHAM” or at least try to be 0.00000001% percent of that and break the bonds of Samsara if I really can ??

    A HUMBLE REQUEST FROM ME.. Could you please dedicate one blog post to the Panchakshari mantram- Om Namah Shivaya and its significance itself?? 🙂

    Regards,
    Madhav

    Reply
  9. Madhav_Megadave

    Santosh ji. Million pranaams to you. I apologize if I have been constantly irking you with my silly posts. I have just one thing to say.

    You have led me to Mahadeva. That's it. 🙂

    Regards,
    Madhav

    Reply
  10. Madhav_Megadave

    Shiva is all that exists, and all that does not. Narayana (or Shakti, call it what you will) is probably one way out of the many to realize him. Shiva is the most abstract of the abstract.”I” am the starting point, Narayana is the journey, Shiva is the destination. What's the use of Vaasudeva- the all pervading God if He is not all auspicious (Shiva) ? Similar questions can be asked for/to other deities/Gods as well. Shiva is the trinity, Shiva is the trishakti, Shiva is what I can comprehend, Shiva is what I cannot. Shiva is the stem, root, bud, flower and the leaf. All auspicious things are Shiva. All inauspicious things are “Shav”. Now I can thoroughly understand your post on Lord Shiva not being shown in the Vishwaroopa of Krishna. Because He Himself is the unmanifested, unborn Maheshwara and Krishna (as per my opinion strictly) is His Shakti, or his purest manifested form in the Dwapara Yuga. JAI SHREE KRISHNA.. JAI SHIV SHANKAR MAHADEV.

    P.S- These words are coming from a person whose ishta devata is Krishna/Vishnu. 🙂

    Reply
  11. Madhav_Megadave

    Dear Santosh.

    It's your wish if you don't want this post of mine to be made public. But I would like to know the meaning of “Sankarshan murthy swaroopo Yosaavaadityaha Parama Purusha Sa Esha Rudro Devataa ” in Sri Rudram. Many (Sri) Vaishnava friends argue that this line refers to the indweller of Rudra- Sankarshana avatar of Narayana. I'd be happy if you throw some light on it. Please prove them wrong.:) 🙂

    – Madhav

    Reply
  12. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Dear Madhav,

    The basic issue with Vaishnava friends is that they simply go by the keywords and “assume” their beliefs to be true for granted. One of my Delivery Manager in my company once defined the word Assume as – [Assume is making an “Ass” of “U” and me”].

    That definition applies properly on such assumptions.

    Coming to the phrase “Sankarshana Murty Swaroopo” – It again talks about Shiva only and here there is no scope for the Balarama.

    That phrase has been taken from the “Nyasa” portion of Rudram hymn, where it is said that Sankarshana has expressed itself as Rudra. Now, immediately we shouldn't jump to conclusions saying, “Yahoo…now we have defeated lord Shiva..he is a form fo Balarama and hence inferior than Vaishnava forms”…wait…hold on….

    Sankarshana means attracting each other / drawing together. By the term 'sankarshana' it implies to state about the oneness of Shiva and Shakti. Sankarashara means the attraction and drawing together of Shiva and Shakti which created this entire Jagat. The Supreme Truth (Rudra) expresses himself in the dwaitha form (duality) as Rudra and Shakti which the wise should see as One-the Sankarshana (i.e, Ardhanareeshwara). The form Ardhanareeswara conveys the same meaning as Sankarshana.

    Now, even the Taittiriya Aranyaka of Yajurveda states the same thing that Supreme Brahman (who is SHiva) is teh Ardhanareeshwara (non-dual SHiva and SHakti which is otherwise termed as Sankarshana in Nyasa). That same Ardhanareeshwara appears as Rudra and Uma separate gods just for the duality centric minds, but essentially Shiva-Parvati are one and the same.

    Read the following verse…

    “R^itam satyaM paraM brahma purushha.n kR^ishhNapi~Ngalam.h |
    uurdhvareta.n viruupaaksha.n vishvaruupaaya vai namo namaH |” (Taittiriya Aranyaka 10.23.1)
    “Supreme Brahman, the Absolute Righteousness and Truth, is the androgynous Person (Ardhanareeshwara) the Umamaheshvara, dark blue and reddish brown in hue, absolutely chaste and possessing uncommon eyes. Salutations to Him alone who is
    the Soul of the universe or whose form is the universe”.

    Now in light of above explanation the Nyasa verse of Rudram means to say that the Non-Dual Ardhanareshwara (Sankarshana) appears as Rudra (and Uma separately) within this duality centric universe. So, Rudra is essentrially Sankarshana Moorthy Swaroopa (of the form of Sankarshana which emans Rudra's true form is oneness of Rudra and his Uma).

    This only explains us to understand that Shiva and Shakti are never different, they are one and the same always. Hope this explanation helps.

    Reply
  13. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    [quote]Krishna is RUDRA himself in a human form. We can actually think of the Bhagavad Gita as either Narayana's song or Shiva's song. [/quote]

    Dear Madhav – Even in MBH Vyasa states to Ashwatthama (just after he fires agneya weapon and seens Arjuna, Krishna unhurt) that “Krishna sprang from Rudra himself and also states that it is the same god (read SHiva) who has assuemd the form fo Vasudeva and is beguiling the universe ith his illusion…. 🙂 Please read my articles on hiddens ecrets of Bhagawad Gita all 10 parts. You'll understand that it was Shiva who was speaking Bhagwad Gita through the mouth of Krishna. BG is entirely a glorification of Mahadeva alone, and our great benefactor god Krishna passed that great science to us.
    I'm not finding time thse days due to pressures of project at work. But definitely I have plans to write Articles on Mahabharata's excerpts also. You are right that only one god (Shiva) is praised in his various forms (Krishna, Narayana etc) in Mahabharata and also by Tulasidas Ji. Even Rig veda says, “Ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti” (there is only one truth (god) whom seers call by various names….All names are Shiva's names and all glories (applied on any god) are Shiva's glories….just we don't realize that due to illusion of Mahadeva.

    [quote]:One more doubt about the pathway to God realization. Can I recite the Nirvana shatakam and mould myself into a state where I can proudly say “SHIVOHAM” or at least try to be 0.00000001% percent of that and break the bonds of Samsara if I really can ??[/quote]

    Just by plain recitation of any hymnw e wouldn't get moksha. To gain Moksha there is one path – realization of true self (gyanam); however Bhakti eventually leads to Gyanam. So, even if we love devotion, we should have the thirst to know about our beloved god more and more, that leads to wisdom, gyanam, and we would get lifted above the realms of samsaara by Mahadeva and would be able to realize our oneness with Mahadeva. Moksham is a huge topic and believe me – whatever your inner self says is suitable for you, is the right path – Even in Yaksha Prashna episode Tudhisthira says to Yaksha that every great sage has contradictory views on god realization, no body comes to any agreement, however all those great people who have reached the final destination have done by following their inner self's voice. And do you know what? – Vedas say that inner self (Atman) is Shiva alone. So, it is Shiva (Atman) who would guide you best. 🙂 Just catch hold of his feet firmly and take his refuge.

    [quote]A HUMBLE REQUEST FROM ME.. Could you please dedicate one blog post to the Panchakshari mantram- Om Namah Shivaya and its significance itself?? :)[/quote]

    That's a great suggestion buddy. Will do that as and when Mahadeva instructs me.

    Reply
  14. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Your Krishna is not different from my Shiva by friend.

    1. You call him Jagannath I call him Vishwanaath
    2. You call him Vassudeva (as son of Vasudev).. I call Shiva as Vassudeva (Vas means to reside and Div means to shine => that Shiva who resides everywhere and illuminates this world with the knowledge of Atman-Gyanam).
    3. You call him the drinker of poison from the milky breast of Putana and as the one who liberated her…I call him as the drinker of poison from the milky ocean and the liberator of the worlds from the danger
    4. You call him the lifter of mount Govardhana ..I call him the lifter of mount Gandhamadana (Sanjeevani parvat)
    5. You call him Gopala I call him Pashupati
    6. You call him Vishnu which means all pervading, and Vedas call Shiva as all pervading and being present even as pancha bhutas

    So, where is the difference between “our” Krishna/Vishnu and Shiva my dear buddy, Madhav? I am unhappy with those Vaishnava friends who hate Shiva and love Vishnu without understanding their oneness. In fact Vedas have clearlys aid that all that is present, was presenta dn will be present is Mahadeva alone. SO, whether you call someone as Vishnu, Krishna, Rama, Kalki or whatever, all are the incarnations of Umapati Mahadeva alone…Only FANATIC Vaishnavas fall udner the trap of Mahadeva's supreme Maya and get blindfolded under her trance.

    Read this hymn from me on Narayana to understand my love for him and lakshmi mata. This would clarify you that my fight with vaishnavas is only against their ignorance and hatred for SHiva..otherwise they all are my siblings (vasudhaiva kutumbakam => entire earth is one family).

    http://stotramaalika.blogspot.in/2010/11/narayanamruta-advaitananda-lahari.html

    Reply
    1. Durai Murugan Acharya

      hi, sir. i am always the son of sri maha kameswara and sri devi kameswari. yet, there are some vaishnavas who always quote the verse from svatashvara upanishad to rectify the supremacy of krishna of my dearest shivashakti. may i know what is the meaning:
      tam isvaranam paramam mahesvaram
      tam devatanam paramam ca daivatam
      patim patinam paramam parastad
      vidama devam bhuvanesam idyam

      and some of them also quote the initial part of sri lalithopakyana from brahmanda purana stating that lord janardhana is supreme to all gods and he who the one who is in the form of sri mahatripurasundari in his pradhana form and they claim that parvati turned down her head with shame and envy seeing lord shiva enchanted by visvamohini. though i can understand what is being meant partially yet i wanna understand the real translation of this part of the purana as you are like a guru to me and you have thought me many things via your posts. im waiting for your explanation sir, tq

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

        Dear friend, I may kindly be considered a ‘friend’, rather than a ‘guru’. I am just a learner as like as you all, only thing is ‘what i learn I share here’. 🙂

        Regarding your query – I would suggest simply ignore such comments. Svetaswatara Upanishad is fully a glorification of lord Shiva only (pls refer to my article here).

        And you may read the ‘mohini’ related explanation form my article titled ‘sampurna Vishnu tatvam’

        Reply
    2. Durai Murugan Acharya

      hi sir, i wish o know the meanings of these quotes always used by vaishnavas to stand against me and my fellow sons of shivashakti. the first one is from svetasvara upanishad :

      tam isvaranam paramam mahesvaram
      tam devatanam paramam ca daivatam
      patim patinam paramam parastad
      vidama devam bhuvanesam idyam

      the second one is from sri lalithopakyana of sri brahmanda purana which states that lord janardhana claims himself to be the lord beyond gunas and beyond trimurtis and supreme. he also stats that h e has two forms, being purusha and pradhana. when he is in the form of pradhana, he becomes sri mahatripurasundari. it also states that shiva ran towards visvamohini and embraced her as he couldnt control his senses and parvati dropped her head in shame and envy. i think this have been a mis translation by the vaishnavas and i plead to you for the real translation and explanation of this part. but the same lalithopakyana narrates that mahatripurasundari being in the same form as sri narayana hence given married by him to sri maha kameswara. they clim that sri lalithambika is only the pradhana rupa and not purusha which is greater but the same lalitha sahasranama states that she is both nirguna( purusha) and prakriti(pradhana) and states that brahma vishnu mahesha rudra sadashiva are all her forms and these five forms always in praise of her lotus feets. i wander who is this janardhana who claimed himself to be the supreme? what is the difference between lord hayagriva and maharishi havagriva? i will be always waiting for your divine explanations. tq

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

        U may refer to any standard non-vaishnavite translation ….do not even refer to what vaishnavites translate as.

        Reply
  15. Madhav_Megadave

    Beautiful hymn Santosh. Felt like I was in Vaikunth 🙂

    I LOVE SHIVA!! I LOVE MATA PARVATI !! Too bad I couldn't “see” Him clearly for so long. I believed that He was the most obscure God to understand. I still do. But at least, I got the feeling of WHO He really is. Thank you for leading me to Him. 🙂 My favorite form of Shiva is Shree Dakshinamurthy.

    From KMG- ” Even that God now walketh the earth (as Vasudeva), beguiling the universe by his illusion. ”

    I agree with you 200% that Shiva is all that exists. I find it funny when Vaishnavas say that the God of Shvetaswatara Upanishad is Lord Vishnu only when names like Rudra and Shiva are directly mentioned!! Strange world it is.

    Reply
  16. Madhav_Megadave

    [quote] Vedas say that inner self (Atman) is Shiva alone. So, it is Shiva (Atman) who would guide you best. 🙂 Just catch hold of his feet firmly and take his refuge. [/quote]

    – Done!! 🙂 🙂

    Reply
  17. Madhav_Megadave

    Dear Santosh.

    I was so impressed and filled with awe when I read your article on the five faces of Shiva in another blog and how each faith leads to Shiva alone. From that moment on, I decided to recite the prayers of Sadyojata etc from the Mahanarayana Upanishad. I want to apologize a million times to Mahadeva because of my inability to understand His true nature and form. Even though He was always there, I failed to recognize Him. I wish to seek the divine motherly love of Mata Gauri too. I hope they accept me as their son and a friend. Shiv hi satya hai!!

    Om Shri Uma Maheshwara Parabrahmane namo namah. Gatistwam Gatistwam twam eka Bhavani..Sarvam Shri Sambashivarpanamastu. 🙂

    Reply
  18. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Dear Madhav,

    Wow! So, you happened to visit my blog on Veerabrahmendra Swami's life history? Hey you know what? I am a great fan/devotee of that unsung saint of Andhra Pradesh. From his life history it is believed that he was an incarnation of lord Vishnu. He taught many great secrets of Yoga and Brahmagyanam. He authored “Kalagyanam” a book containing future predictions and so far his Kalagyanam has never failed (many have already occurred like world war-1 and 2..etc.).

    I hope they accept me as their son and a friend. Shiv hi satya hai!!

    My dear friend, Madhav! God is one. They way you (and I) are a son of Lakshmi Mata and Narayana same way you are a son of Uma-Maheshwara also. We need not fill any application form for that post of becoming “son”. 🙂 WQe are their infants by default. you know what? I love all the trinity-trimata couples equally as my own parents. I consider myself their own small little newborn infant. In my poetry blog (stotramaalika), you would have seen a small kid sitting on the laps of the three divine parents…that's me (my childhood pic). I feel happy to see myself sitting in their lap. 🙂 (craziness but I can't live away from trimata and trimurty).

    mama maata cha parvati devi mama pita devo maheshwarah
    mama maata cha lakshmi devi mama pita devo narayanah
    mama maata cha saraswati devi mama pita devo chaturaananah

    And I can't prove it but they show me their presence around me every day. God really exists! I pity the atheists for their poor perception.

    Reply
  19. Madhav_Megadave

    Amazing. It was so delightful to go through your posts on the other blogs. 🙂

    If only people (read fanatic Vaishnavas) understood the trinity and Lord Shiva specifically. Committing a Shaiva aparadha would not do them any good. Please promote your blog if you can, and reach out to those people who misunderstand Mahadev. 🙂

    Reply
  20. Madhav_Megadave

    Moreover Vaishnavas argue that the God of Svet. Up is Vishnu because of the following verse:

    6-18: Seeking Liberation, I take refuge in the Lord, the revealer of Self-Knowledge, who in the beginning created Brahma and delivered the Vedas to Him.

    As per the popular beliefs, Brahma is said to have been created by Vishnu from His navel. In another instance, Rudra is said to have created Hiranyagarbha in the same Upanishad. Does it make Rudra and Vishnu one and the same? or different? Vaishnavas argue that all names like Shiva, Rudra etc refer to Vishnu alone but I can't digest this fact.

    Moreover in the Vishwakarma suktam, creation is said to have been taken place from the navel of the unborn. And they say, it's Vishnu who is being referred to. :-/ I don't know where exactly I'm going wrong. My understanding of the scriptures is minimal. Could you please throw some light on it? 🙂

    Reply
  21. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Got of Sve Upa being Vishnu is just an imagination and no reality behind that. Even Brahma being born from Vishnu's navel is FALSE. Vishnu purana starts with Brahma emerging out of Vishnu but if we rewind the tape backwards (flash back) it doesn't say anything what happened before. There cannot be 18 stories of Gods, there is only one purana which might have been divided into 18 parts calling 18 puranas just for some reason known only to Vyasa. We need to read puranas by relating them and not individually. Linga purana talks about the flashback which Vishnu purana doesn't mention.

    It says – Brahma and vishnu were equally there in the beginning (created by Shiva), one day vishnu out of boredom creates a lotus from navel and plays with it, brahma becomes annoyed because it was he who was the creator. Then they have a fun competition and Vishnu enters into Brahma's stomach through mouth and finds entire universe withinhim. He comes out and says that even within Vishnu entire universe exists, brahma tests that and enters into the belly of vishnu thru mouth. However just to play little naughtily vishnu closes all his 9 doors of exit, when brahma doesn't find any other way he sees an opening thru the navel cord thru which he comes out and gets angry. Vishnu calms him down saying it was all for fun, and asks brahma a friendly promise to be accepted as vishnu's son since he came out of vishnu's navel, brahma accepts that.

    This is how Brahma became son of vishnu and became a lotus born from vishnu's navel. However in reality vishnu never gave im birth. It is only those fanatics who read only one source of info (V scriptures) and remain contended with that surface level knowledge.

    Therefore, it is Shiva who gave birth to hiranyagarbha..therefore svet Upa is hiva's glorification only.

    Secondly, Vishwakarman is nothing but shiva only sung under that name. He is sarvatomukham (who has faces all around?), otherwise Svetawatara Rishi wouldn't have taken the viswakarman suktam verse directly and used in his upanishad for rudra.

    All these points were already dealt with in my articles on this blog, if you happen to find time pls read other articles on this blog, u'll find these points on viswakarman already refuted.

    Reply
  22. Madhav_Megadave

    Thank you. 🙂 🙂

    Reply
  23. Madhav Prashanth R

    Dear Santosh. Last few questions about Lord Rudra. 🙂

    1) Why is he mentioned as the son of Brihaspati (putro bṛhaspatỉ rudraḥ) in YV ?

    2) The Devi Suktam says that the Devi bends the bow for Rudra so he may strike the slayer of devotion with his arrows. They Vayu Suktam says that Vayu drank the poison along with Rudra.

    The V groups have frequently mentioned these in their attacks on Lord Shiva. 🙁 Are there any answers to the questions raised above? 🙂

    Reply
    1. It appears that you are familiar with Devī Sūktam; however, there are two versions of it- Vedokta (125th Anuvāka of Řgveda’s 10th Maņđala) and Tantrokta (from 5th chapter of Devī Māhātmya). In the current case, we are considering the Řgveda version of Devī Sūktam, much of whose part is also found in Devyātharvaśīrşa Upaņişad from Atharva Veda.
      In the beginning, Devī Durgā declares that She is Brahmā, Vişņu, Rudra, 11 Rudras, 8 Vasus, 12 Ādityas, 49 Mārutas, 33 Viśvadevas, Mitrā, Varuņa, Ińdra, Agni, Vāyu, Aśvini twins, Soma, Sūrya, Tvaşțār, Bhaga, Pūşa and all Prajāpatis.
      In the mid part, She says “aham rudrāya dhanurā tanomi” (I pull the pratyańcā of Rudra’s bow).
      At last, in the end She says “ahameva vāta: iva pravāmyarabhamānā bhuvanāniviśva:” (In the form of winds commencing from Heaven, I roam throughout the world).

      Considering these, your queries would be addressed:-

      1. Rudra is Břhaspati’s son

      Theologically, the word “Břhaspati” is an esoteric reference to Brahmā. We know that due to the boon Śiva had granted to Brahmā, He incarnated as later’s son Rudra.
      Maheśvara is so great, that at the request of Dānava Rambha, He even incarnated as Mahişāsura from the womb of a bufallo. What to speak of Brahmā, who is Ādiprajāpati!

      By Jyotiśa point of view, consort of Tripurasuńdarī is Buddha, the son of Cańdra through Břhaspati’s wife Tārā. Buddha is Kāmeśvara Himself, who is Bhairava of Tripurasundarī.
      As son of Tārā, He has two fathers- Břhaspati and Cańdra.

      2. Ādyāśakti pulls Pīņāka’s bowstring

      Śiva is also known as Pīņākapāņi and Tripurāńtaka, and She who is Mahākālī, is also Mahādeva. As per Mārkaņđeya Purāņa, it is Mahākālī who exists in the forms of siblings Śiva and Sarasvatī. Hence, the statement of Devī Sūktam is an esoteric reference of Hara-Gaurī Aikya.
      Other than that, when Kātyāyanī’s Āvirbhāva took place for defeat of Mahişāsura, all Devas offered their weapons to Devī Pīņākadhāriņī. Vāyu offered Her Pīņāka bow and arrows, with which She slew many Asuras who were Mahişāsura’s allies.

      3. Vayu drank Halāhala with Rudra

      In Břhannīla Tańtra and Tārā Rahasya, we find the Samudra Mańthana event, where Śiva drinks Halāhala while others refuse to accept it.
      However, Mahādeva falls unconcious, at which Devī Durgā appears in the form of Tārā, takes Śiva into Her arms and breast feeds Him. While doing so, She absorbs a part of Halāhala, and turns blue as a result. Therefore, Tārā is also known as “Nīlasarasvatī”
      The Svayambhu image of Tārā Mā breast feeding infant Śiva is enshrined at Tārāpīțh in West Bengal’s Birbhum district. This is the spot where Satī’s third eye fell, and this is the spot where Vaśişțhamuni attained Vāksiddhi by propitiating Mā Tārā with Mahācīna rituals.

      As far as Vaişņavas are concerned, in Ānańdabhairvī’s own words, a “Vaişņava” is a person who stations himself at Ajna Cakra. This statement is documented in the Uttara Bhāga of Rudrayāmala Tańtra.
      Others who call themselves “Vaişņavas” but have never even heard the name of Ajna Cakra are but imposters.

      śrī śrī padmajātāyē nama: ll

      Reply
  24. Madhav Prashanth R

    .. And the birth of Rudra and him crying to get rid of his sins in the Shatpatha Brahmana (which also talks about the death of Vishnu :-/ )

    Reply
  25. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Hahaha u r taking away my article topics as comments and answers. I already have plans to write article explaining/refuting (as applicable) these stupid arguments.
    In short, rudra himself became brihaspati, devi is his own consort and devi suktam has inner meaning. Rudra himself became vayu., and r those idiots blind to see that same rudra
    entered the universe as a child? That child,s birth is not a birth in reality. It's called appearing. I am not bothered with such weak stupid arguments. I,ll refute everything in due course of time. Stay tuned.

    Reply
  26. Madhav Prashanth R

    Awesome!! I'll stay tuned for sure. B-) 🙂

    Reply
  27. Madhav Prashanth R

    And anyways, I am least interested in debating about supremacy and stuff. I look at discussions like a spectator watching a game of cricket. I went through your visions behind the blog, and I felt that even somewhere my faith on Shiva had been hurt. Even though, I was more attached to Vishnu, but chanting Shri Rudram and Shiva Panchakshari was part of my daily routine. It still is. 🙂 Going through your blog has not only made me find answers to contentions by Vs, but has also helped me to look at Lord Shiva in an ENTIRELY NEW LIGHT. That light which was never seen by me before. 🙂 “Rockstar”, “coolest of all”, “The dude” of Gods are specifically reserved for Rudra alone. I would start reading the life histories of some of the greatest Shiva bhaktas who lived, like the Nayanmars etc. 🙂 Om Namah Shivaya.

    Reply
  28. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Bro. Even my intentions are only to erase false understanding on Shiva tatwam. I'm glad that this blog of Lord Shiva (not mine I'm only appointed worker) was fruitful for u., I don't know how many months/years mahadeva wants to use,my fingers to write here. But the day my brain publishes all its content here I have plans to continue expressing my love for trinity in my poetry blog. Om namo narayana.

    Reply
  29. Madhav Prashanth R

    🙂

    Here is another translation of RV 7.40.5 that I got from a website. I do not know Sanskrit and I really don't know if this is the correct translation or not.

    ” I propitiate with oblations the ramifications of that divine attainable Vis.n.u, the showerer of benefits; Rudra, bestow upon us the magnificence of his nature; the As'vins have come to our dwelling abond with (sacrificial) food. “

    Reply
  30. radpranav

    I'm neither a vaishnav nor a shaiv but sorry looks like a justified version with lot of twists and turns
    My explanation goes for the etymology of the word Vishnu which means to “go inside”, which gives a symbolic meaning that Lord Rudra had an Supra-Cognition which was within the Lord himself
    Looks it draws colloquial analogy that God always is there within us !!!
    Now one more point all the matter/deities everyone requires energy/power to sustain/function/perform which is the essence of ” SHAKTI”

    Reply
  31. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Dear RadPranav – Shakti is never different from Shiva. They are always identical.

    Reply
  32. radpranav

    thanks for your prompt reply but a further extrapolation Shakti=Uma=Shiva=Vishnu??

    Just to prove one cult over the other.Look for the etymology
    Also whatever Humans describe/name/ the GOD as would always be limited by Human faculties and perhaps what we would be making is what i say ” intelligent” guesses and explanations/justifications and not the true divine supreme being

    I must congratulate you, anyways, in using the inductive-hypothetico-deductive method (Science)to explain the metaphysical !!
    Cheers

    Reply
  33. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Thanks. Hahaha your words “inductive-hypothetico-deductive” were bouncers over my head. But I liked that phrase 🙂

    Well, buddy, if you feel this is somewhat forceful deductions, then I would recommend you to read the following articles and then rethink whether I'm deducting something out of the blue moon or Vedas hide the secrets under pseudonymns 🙂

    “sampUrNa vishNu tatwaM – Demystifying the Mystic Vishnu”
    “NARAYANA SUKTAM – A hymn to Tripurasundari Devi”
    “Sita-Rama Tatwam – A Replica of Shiva-Shakti Tatwam”

    Thanks for stopping by my blog, and reading with patience.

    God bless!

    Reply
  34. Agent X

    vidé hi- Knowing this
    rudró – Rudra Deva
    rudríyam mahitváM – Rudra-strength or Rudra glory

    There is no word meaning 'gained' or 'obtained' in the sentence.

    Reply
  35. Shivdas

    Whatsoever who dont have much time to understand esoteric verses of Vedanta
    WHAT U CAN DO IS TO ONLY READ SHIVA MAHAPURAN

    ITS A WHOLE CHAPTER IN A NUTSHELL JUST READ SHIV PURAN

    !! OM SADASHIVAYA NAMHA!!

    Reply
  36. Astrapaios

    It’s senseless to debate what God / Demi god is the strongest or most powerful. From the Advaita perspective there is only Nirguna Brahman. That is God, it can take many forms as it is pure creative multi cosmic consciousness. It was, It is, and it will be. To debate, even with Śruti in hand , is a snare of the Ahaṃkāra.

    Indra extends beyond heaven and earth. Half of him is equal to both the worlds. That is the truth (Satya) Indra there is no other God or mortal greater than you. You are the king of the creatures of the world. You generated together the Sun, heaven and the Dawn. – Bharadvaja Barhaspataya, Rig Veda VI.30.1,4,5.

    Carrying your power, bear your hymns of affirmation to Indra as the Truth ( Satya), if in truth he exists. ” There is no Indra, some say to you. Who has seen him? Why should we praise him. ” I am here, O singer, perceive me here. I transcend ALL BEINGS by my greatness, the directions of truth increase me, as the one who breaks things open, I break open the worlds.”
    Nema Bhargava, Rig Veda VIII.89.3-4

    Brahman / Cosmic creative consciousness can take any form it wishes. From the perspective of Monism all is one. It matters not what personal god a human subjectively worships, for all is Brahman.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Advaita is at absolute level of reality. At transactional levels these quarrels happen.

      Four your kind information – Indra is an epithet to call Rudra in Vedas!

      Reply
      1. Astrapaios

        “I am the thread that runs through all these pearls,” and each pearl is a religion or even a “sect” thereof. Such are the different pearls, and Brahman is the thread that runs through ALL of them; most people, however, are entirely unconscious of it.”

        “The Jnâni (philosopher) renounces everything, because his philosophy is that Nature never existed, neither in the past, nor present, nor will It in the future.”

        “Jnâna (knowledge) is “creedlessness”; but that does not mean that it despises creeds. It only means that a stage above and beyond creeds has been gained. The Jnâni Yogi (true philosopher) strives to destroy nothing but to help all. All rivers roll their waters into the sea and become one. So all creeds should lead to Jnana and become one. Jnana teaches that the world should be renounced but not on that account abandoned. To live in the world and not to be of it is the true test of renunciation.
        I cannot see how it can be otherwise than that all knowledge is stored up in us from the beginning. If you and I are little waves in the ocean, then that ocean is the background.
        There is really no difference between matter, mind, and Spirit. They are only different phases of experiencing the One/ Brahman.

        – Swami Vivekananda

        Reply
  37. Dhyey Bhatt

    Namaste Santoshji,
    I always feels happy reading your articles. Would u please Mention the quotation from Shrutis which can be compatible or applicable to Bhahwat Gita(15:15) “I m Creator and Knower of Vedas” as u have already mention it from ekakshar Upanishad but yet would you please mention some more Quotation in which Lord Shiva is mention as CREATOR and KNOWER of Vedas. Please help me with Quotation as u get free time

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

      “kāló ha bhūtáṃ bhávyaṃ ca putró ajanayat purā́
      kālā́d ŕ̥caḥ sám abhavan yájuḥ kālā́d ajāyata |” (Atharva Veda XIX:54:03)
      “From Time the Riks arose, the Yagus was born from Time; Time put forth the sacrifice, the imperishable share of the gods”.

      “chandā̃si yajñāḥ kratavō vratāni bhūtaṁ bhavyaṁ yacca vēdā vadanti .
      asmān māyī sṛjatē viśvamētattasmĩścānyō māyayā sanniruddhaḥ |” (Svetaswatara Upanishad 4:09)
      “The sacred verses, the offerings (yajna), the sacrifices (kratu), the penances (vrata), the past, the future and all that the Vedas declare, have been produced from the imperishable Brahman. Brahman projects the universe through the power of Its maya. Again, in that universe Brahman as the jiva is entangled through maya”.

      Reply
      1. Dhyey Bhatt

        Thanks a lot Santoshji

        Reply
  38. S K

    We have direct evidence for “Vishnu = Durga” – the Vaishno Devi temple:

    “The temple of Goddess Vaishno Devi is one of the major and sacred Hindu temples dedicated to Parvati or Goddess Shakti, the Divine Consort of Lord Shiva. This beautiful temple lies ensconced among the picturesque hills of Vaishno Devi, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in India. Hindus venerate Vaishno Devi, also commonly referred to as Mata Rani and Vaishnavi, is the very manifestation of the Mother Goddess Shakti.”

    Reply
  39. Rajashekhar Sharma

    I liked your post, the logical reasoning, the quotes from the Vedas and Upanishads, and your love for Lord Shiva, whom I too love dearly. (OK, I still have to read and verify everything you have written here, trying to translate from Vedic Sanskrit with what little I remember from my Sanskrit classes decades ago.) I liked your description of yourself as “ShanMaatrnaam Putrah” But at the end you say, “..Hence he stands for lord Shiva safeguarding him from his haters…” Really, my good Sir, if Lord Shiva needs safeguarding, he is not much of a Parameshvara, is He? I thought He was supposed to take care of us, not the other way around. Am I mistaken? Or, am I interpreting your sentence incorrectly?

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

      Thanks.

      No. You aren’t interpreting incorrectly. You are right in your point. God is all powerful no doubt, and shiva won’t get even a pinch of pain seeing the haters who abuse him. True that it is he who protects us, not the other way round. However, for a bhakta, the devotion makes the things turn upside down also. Consider the case of Yashoda mata. Although Baby krishna had shown several heroic deeds such as killing putana, shakatasura etc., still when he dives into Yamuna with the excuse of brining the ball (actually to punish kaliya snake), yashoda laments and kind of becomes unconscious. all this she does despite knowing the valor of that baby. And she always wanted to be protective of her child. Similarly, I know none can harm Shiva, but it is my devotion that – using the knowledge given by him, using the strength given to my indriyas by him, using the reasoning again obtained form his grace, I try to use his gifts for him only. It is my devotion towards my lord. Hope this is understandable now. 🙂

      Reply
  40. Rahul Subramanian R

    I’ve cross checked the meaning of the hymn RV 7.40.5. No where in the hymn it has been mentioned that rudra derives his strength from Vishnu. Rather it has been stated that “he who punishes the wicked alone shall be known as Rudra”. Hence, we can conclude that it is yet another case of mistranslation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: