Story of Subduing Shiva’s Pride from Ramayana CANNOT be taken on its face value!

This article needs to be refined. I need to explain the inner tatwam of Tripursamharam in detail. Once I am done with writing that I would update this article. Till then readers may kindly consider this article as “In Progress”
There is a story in Bala kanda of Valmiki Ramayana which gives a very biased narration towards Vishnu. Let’s first see direct excerpts from Valmiki Ramayana before analyzing this story further.

The below verses are from Valmiki Ramayana – Bala Kanda – Chapter 75. Here when Sri Rama breaks the bow of Shiva in Mithila city, sage Parashurama enters into the scene in fury, he carries a Vaishnava bow in his hand and challenges Sri-Rama to string it if he is capable. Before challenging Rama this Parashurama narrates the story of those two bows viz. Shiva’s bow (which Rama broke) and Vishnu’s bow which Parashurama carried in his hands. With this little introduction let’s proceed to read the verses directly as mentioned below:

QUOTE:

ime dve dhanuSii shreSThe divye loka abhipuujite
dR^iDhe balavatii mukhye sukR^ite vishvakarmaNaa 1-75-11
“These are the two strong and sturdy unsurpassed longbows, well-designed by gods and well-crafted by Vishvakarma, the Divine Architect, and these are very important among all bows and well-worshipped by all worlds… one broken in your, and the other in my hand…” [1-75-11]

N.B:- Please note this carefully. Ramayana says these bows were designed by Vishwakarma. This is an important point which I would later use in my analysis. Commit this point carefully to your memory!

anisR^iSTam suraiH ekam tryambakaaya yuyutsave
tripura ghnam narashreSTha bhagnam kaakutstha yat tvayaa 1-75-12
“Oh, best one among men, out of the two longbows gods gave one to restive Trymbaka, God Shiva for a combat with demon Tripura, and oh, Kakutstha, that bow alone is the annihilator of Tripura, the demon… and you have broken that alone…” [1-75-12]

N.B:- Note this point also carefully. it says Rama broke the same bow which Shiva used to annihilate Tripura (three cities). I’ll recall this point in my analysis later.

idam dvitiiyam durdharSam viSNor dattam surottamaiH
tat idam vaiSNavam raama dhanuH para puram jayam 1-75-13
samaana saaram kaakutstha raudreNa dhanuSaa tu idam
“This is the second one and the choicest gods gave this to Vishnu, thereby this is named after Him as ‘Vishnu’s bow…’ this is an indestructible and enemy-citadel conquering longbow… and this is identical in its efficacy with Rudra’s longbow…” [1-75-13, 14a]

tadaa tu devataaH sarvaaH pR^icChanti sma pitaamaham 1-75-14
shiti kaNThasya viSNoH ca bala abala niriikSayaa
abhipraayam tu vij~naaya devataanaam pitaamahaH 1-75-15
virodham janayaamaasa tayoH satyavataam varaH
“Once, all the gods were asking the Grandparent, Brahma, as to who is powerful and who is less powerful among the blue-throated Shiva and Vishnu… but the Grandparent Brahma on inferring the intent of gods started to create adversity among those two, Shiva and Vishnu, for the Grandparent is the best adherer of truthfulness, as truth cannot be demonstrated on hearsay evidence…” [1-75-14b, 15, 16a]

virodhe tu mahat yuddham abhavat roma harSaNam 1-75-16
shiti kaNThasya viSNoH ca paraspara jaya eSiNoH
“Owing to their animosity then occurred a fierce and hair-raising war among Shiva and Vishnu, as each aspired victory for himself…” [1-75-16b, 17a]

tadaa tu jR^imbhitam shaivam dhanuH bhiima paraakramam 1-75-17
hum kaareNa mahaadevaH stambhito atha trilocanaH
“By the ‘hum’ sound of Vishnu that ruinously overpowering longbow of Shiva is broken (unstrung), and the triple-eyed God, Mahadeva, is frozen…” [1-75-17b, 18a]

N.B:- This is the verse often quoted by ill-minded Vaishnavas to show superiority of Vishnu over Shiva.

devaiH tadaa samaagamya sa R^iSi sanghaiH sa caaraNaiH 1-75-18
yaacitau prashamam tatra jagmatuH tau sura uttamau
“Then gods along with the assemblages of sages and celestial carana-s have come together and appealed to those two for appeasement in the matter of wielding authority, and then those two superior gods, Shiva and Vishnu, went into a state of amity…” [1-75-18b, 19a]

jR^imbhitam tat dhanuH dR^iSTvaa shaivam viSNu paraakramaiH 1-75-19
adhikam menire viSNum devaaH sa R^iSi gaNaaH tadaa
“On seeing the bow of Shiva rendered inert by the mettlesomeness of Vishnu, from then on the gods along with the assemblages of sages deemed Vishnu to be the paramount(Supreme)…” [1-75-19b, 20a]

dhanuu rudraH tu sa.mkruddho videheSu mahaayashaaH 1-75-20
devaraatasya raaja R^iSeH dadau haste sa saayakam
20b-21a. samkruddhaH= with indignation; mahaayashaaH rudraH tu= celebrated, Rudra, on his part; videheSu= among Videha [kings]; sa saayakam dhanuu= with, arrow, longbow; raaja R^iSeH= to Kingly, sage; devaraatasya haste dadau= in Devaraata’s, hand, handed over.
“That celebrated Rudra on his part with indignation has handed over that longbow, which is already fitted with unloosened arrow, to the sagely king among Videha kings, namely Devaraata…” [1-75-20b, 21a]

N.B:- Here i purposely copied the word-to-word translation also. Note this verse carefully. It says, Shiva in fury of defeat gave that bow fitted with unloosened arrow to Devaraata. This is a clear cut contradiction to verse no. 1-75-17 above where it clearly says that the bow became unstrung (jR^imbhitam) by the ‘Hummm’ sound of Vishnu. It’s quite illogical that after defeat Shiva would have strung the bow again and placed an arrow on it. Fixing arrow on bowstring is done only when you want to shoot, and not otherwise. And if Shiva accepted his defeat and wanted to throw his bow away (give it away with fury), then there was no need to string the bow and fit an arrow!!

ANALYSIS:

Let me first summarize the important points.

1. Vishwakarma designed two bows – Shiva’s bow and Vishnu’s bow and gifted them to Shiva and Vishnu respectively
2. Shiva used the same bow designed by Vishwakarma to destroy the three-cities (Tripura)
3. In Shiva-Vishnu duel, Vishnu’s ‘Humm’ sound makes Shiva’s bow unstrung and Shiva becomes frozen
4. Shiva in fury of defeat gives that bow which is fitted with ‘unloosened’ arrow to Devaraata
5. That bow remains in Mithila
6. Rama comes there and lifts it and breaks it in two pieces

Mahabharata has a detailed account of the story of Tripura Samhaara (Destruction of three cities) by lord Shiva. Vyasa himself narrates that story to Arjuna whose excerpt has been copied below. This excerpt has been taken from the Kisari Mohan Ganguli’s translation of the Vyasa Bharata.

Book-7: Drona Vadha Parva:SECTION CCII

Vyasa narrates:

“Mahadeva thus accepted their request, moved by the desire of benefiting them, and said, ‘I will overthrow these Asuras. And Hara made the two mountains, viz., Gandhamadana and Vindhya, the two poles of his car. And Sankara made the earth with her oceans and forests his battle car. And the three-eyed deity made that prince of snakes, viz., Sesha, the Aksha, of that car. And that God of gods, the wielder of Pinaka, made the moon and the sun the two wheels of that vehicle. And the triple-eyed Lord made Elapatra and Pushpadanta, the two pins of the yoke. And the valiant Mahadeva made the Malaya mountains the yoke, and the great Takshaka the string for tying the yoke to the poles, and the creatures about him the traces of the steed. And Maheswara made the four Vedas his four steeds. And that lord of the three worlds made the supplementary Vedas the bridle-bits. And Mahadeva made Gayatri and Savitri the reins, the syllable Om the whip, and Brahma the driver. And making the Mandara mountains the bow, Vasuki the bowstring, Vishnu his excellent shaft, Agni the arrow-head, and Vayu the two wings of that shafts, Yama the feathers in its tail, lightning the whetting stone, and Meru the standard, Siva, riding on that excellent car which was composed of all the celestial forces, proceeded for the destruction of the triple city”.

This story has been narrated by Veda Vyasa himself, and exists in Mahabharata which is an EPIC. Therefore we have two noteworthy plus-points to consider this story as authentic, one is Vyasa’s spoken words, and second is presence in Epic Mahabharata.

This story clearly contradicts the points no. 1 and 2 summarized above. Here we have clearly seen that there is no Viswakarma involved in creation of any bow. Mahadeva himself did his preparation. Note that Shiva made the mountain range of “Mandara” his divine bow to destroy the triple citadels.

N.B:- The first 2 points are proven false by Mahabharata. Therefore the verse 1-75-11 of Valmiki Ramayana posted in above section is UNTRUE.

Now let’s assume that the bow (made of mandara mountain) was the same which Shiva gave to Devaraata. Then the same bow happened to be kept in Mithila. Valmiki Ramayana mentions that some hundreds of soldiers used to move the bow, it was so heavy. But practically speaking, a bow which is mount Mandara can not be moved by any no. of human efforts. And except Lord Shiva none of the Kings can carry that bow then how did Devaraata carried it to Mithila? So, definitely the Shiva-bow which was present in Mithila was NOT the one which was used in tripura Samhaara (means it was not the Mandara Mountain bow). If it was really the Mandara Mountain bow then that means Sri Rama broke it into two pieces as per point no. 6 above, which implies, Mandara mountain doesn’t exist anymore. But Mahabharata gives a clear-cut and contradictory passage where Arjuna and Krishna travels to Kailash mountain passing through the Mandara mountain as follows:

Mahabharata Book 7 (Drona Parva): SECTION LXXX

“Arjuna saw himself journeying through the sky with Kesava. And Partha, possessed of the speed of the mind, seemed to reach, with Kesava, the sacred foot of Himavat and the Manimat mountain abounding in many brilliant gems and frequented by Siddhas and Charanas. And the lord Kesava seemed to have caught hold of his left arm. And he seemed to see many wonderful sights as he reached (those place). And Arjuna of righteous soul then seemed to arrive at the White mountain on the north. And then he beheld, in the pleasure-gardens of Kuvera the beautiful lake decked with lotuses. And he also saw that foremost of rivers, viz., the Ganga full of water. And then he arrived at the regions about the Mandara mountains“.

Conclusion no. 1: Therefore the bow which Rama broke is DEFINITELY not the one used by Shiva in Tripura Samhaara and Valmiki Ramayana verse 1-75-11 is NOT TRUE

Now let’s proceed and see some more contradictions in this fake story of Ramayana.

The story of bestowal of Shiva’s bow to the dynasty of Janaka is said variously at various places. This bow obtaining story is itself NOT consistent and totally absurd. We’ll analyze now.

# 1. In the hermitage of Vishvamitra it is said that the bow is given in Vedic-ritual
“taddhi puurvam narashreSTha dattam sadasi daivataiH 1-31-8”

# 2. In the chapter 75 of Bala Kanda as seen in above verses, it is said that the bow used in Tripura Samhaara was given in the hand of Devaraata
“devaraatasya raaja R^iSeH dadau haste sa saayakam 1-75-20”

# 3. And in chapter 66 of Bala Kanda it is said that the bow which Shiva used to destroy Daksha’s sacrifice, that was the same bow which was given in Dasksha’s ritual to Gods.
“dakSa yaj~na vadhe puurvam dhanuH aayamya viiryavaan 1-66-9”

# 4. Seetha says about this to ascetic Lady Anasuya that Rain-god gave this to Janaka’s dynasty
“mahaayaj~ne tadaa tasya varuNena mahaatmanaa dattam dhanur varam priityaa tuuNii ca akSayya saayakau Ayodhya II-118”

We can combine quotes no. # 3 & # 4 and frame a thought that the bow which was used by Shiva to destroy Daksha’s sacrifice was the same given to Rain god and Rain god Passed that on to may be Devaraata. Then these points # 3 & # 4. contradict point no. # 2.

Definitely Daksha Yajna bow is NOT SAME as Tripura Samhaara Bow since for the destruction of three cities the bow was specially made then and there and was NOT any bow used previously so far.

Conclusion no. 2: It becomes clear that the bow which Rama broke was NOT the bow used for Tripura Samhaara. Hence Valmiki Ramayana verse 1-75-12 is NOT TRUE. However, it can be assumed that it was the bow used by Shiva to destroy Daksha’s sacrifice, which sounds logically proper.

Now with the above consideration, it becomes clear that the verse 1-75-17 is totally UNTRUE which states that by the ‘Humm’ sound of Vishnu Shiva’s Tripura Samhaara bow became unstrung and he gave it to Devaraata.

Another CRITICAL point to be noted is, we also can NOT assume that after destroying Tripura Shiva kept that bow with himself and later in Daksha sacrificed used the same bow and may be sometime later fought with Vishnu and got defeated and gave away that bow to Devaraata through rain god. This is also NOT A VALID assumption because, Daksha Sacrifice happened when Shiva married Sati (Shiva’s first consort), and Shiva destroyed Tripura after the birth of Kartikeya who was born after Shiva married Parvati (second incarnation). Kartikeya slayed Tarakasura and the Tripura owners (demons) were the three sons of Tarakasura.

Therefore, the Daksha Sacrifice incident precedes to Tripura destruction incident in sequence of time. So, that means Shiva definitely used a different bow in Daksha sacrifice which he might have gifted to rain God and he inturn gave that to Devaraata. And later in Tripura Samhaara, Shiva created a new bow using mandara mountain. This implies that the battle between Shiva-Vishnu NEVER happened in Reality

Conclusion no. 3:- Shiva Vishnu battle did not happen in reality. Hence verses 1-75-14, 1-75-15, 1-75-16, 1-75-17, 1-75-18, 1-75-19, and 1-75-20 are all FALSE hearsay stories and NOT at all Real.

Let’s try to combine our scattered points and conclude.

FINAL CONCLUSION:

1. Bow used in Tripura Samhaara was NOT the one used in Daksha’s Sacrifice incident
2. Logically we have seen that Tripura Samhaara bow was NOT the one which went to Mithila, and we assumed that logically it looks correct to assume that bow of Daksha’s sacrifice incident might have gone to Mithila
3. Shiva-Vishnu war is proven to be logically UNREAL and that could be just a hearsay story and no truth in that in reality

No doubt that Valmiki Ramayana is authentic scripture and has very less interpolations. But we need to understand it clearly that the EPIC portion is to be considered as Truth and authentic. This story of Shiva-Vishnu fight is PURANIC story and can NOT be called an EPIC. Ramayana can be called ‘Epic’ only when it is considered an a biography of Sri Rama’s life. And therefore all other miscellaneous PAURANIC stories are just “stories”, and are NOT authentic/True if they have contradictions.

And i STRONGLY disagree with these Ramayana verses because VEDAS, UPANISHADS and MAHABHARATA have always hailed lord Shiva as “unconquerable, unvanquished lord”. These authentic sacred books always emphasized on the point that Rudra can NOT be overcome/defeated by anyone. Here are below few references in support of Rudra’s strength. Here one may clearly note that Rudra is not only the strongest of the strong, but Rig Veda says that there doesn’t exist anyone who is mightier than Rudra.

imā rudrāya sthiradhanvane ghiraḥ kṣipreṣave devāya svadhāvne |
aṣāḷhāya sahamānāya vedhase tighmāyudhāya bharatā śṛṇotu naḥ |”
(Rig Veda 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 Unconquered 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)
“In beauty thou art the most beautiful of all that exists, O Rudra, the strongest of the strong, thou wielder of the thunderbolt! Carry us happily to the other shore of our anguish, and ward off all assaults of mischief”.

“arhan bibharṣi sāyakāni dhanvārhan niṣkaṃ yajataṃ viśvarūpam |
arhannidaṃ dayase viśvamabhvaṃ na vā ojīyo rudra tvadasti |” (Rig Veda 2:33:10)

“Worthy, thou carriest thy bow and arrows, worthy, thy manyhued and honoured necklace.Worthy, thou cuttest here each fiend to pieces: a mightier than thou there is not, Rudra“.

“namah sutayahantyaya |” (Yajurveda Sri Rudram – Anuvaka-2)
“Salutations to Lord Rudra who cannot be overcome (defeated) and slain”.

“Namah sahamanaya nivyadhina avyadhininam pataye namo |” (Yajurveda Sri Rudram, Anuvaka-3)
“Salutations to Him who can not only withstand the shock of the onset of His enemies, but overpower them. He who can effortlessly pierce His enemies; the Lord of those who can fight on all sides, salutations to Him”.
Secondly, it is Lord Rudra (Shiva) who is the father of Vishnu also. How can he get defeated by someone whom he created? In the below verse SOMA (Sa + UMA=God who is with Uma=Shiva) is an epithet of Shiva

somaḥ pavate janitā matīnāṃ janitā divo janitā pṛthivyāḥ |
janitāghnerjanitā sūryasya janitendrasya janitota viṣṇoḥ |”
(Rig Veda IX.96.5)
“Father of sacred chants, Soma flows onwards, the Father of the Earth, Father of the Celestial region: Father of Agni, the creator of Surya, the Father who gave birth to Indra and Vishnu

The below verse also supports this above verse stating that Shiva manifested as 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“.

Also, as per Rig Veda Rudra is the “best” among all Gods as stated below.

yaḥ śukra iva sūryo hiraṇyamiva rocate | śreṣṭho devānāṃ vasuḥ |” (Rig Veda 1:43:5)
“He shines in splendour like the Sun, refulgent as bright gold is he, The excellent, the best among the Gods”.

Thirdly, Puranic stories are NOT a yardstick to judge any god. Puranic stories have got contaminated with huge no. of interpolations. This story of Shiva-Vishnu fight given in Valmiki Ramayana has not been seen in any other Purana or even in Mahabharata (which contains lot many Puranic stories in an authentic tone). Then this story becomes highly doubtful. The charecters of Ramayana who narrated the sequences of stories related to Shiva’s bow, none of them were the actual witness of Shiva-Vishnu battle, and since this battle is not recorded in any Purana or even in Mahabharata it stands out as a FAKE story and could be just a hearsay one. However the bow which was there in Janaka’s palace was no doubt a bow of Shiva which Rama broke. That doesn’t make Shiva low in any sense, since it is ONLY lord Shiva who possess innumerable weapons and he only donates weapons to others whenever required. Even the famous bow named ‘Vijaya’ which Karna possessed was given by Lord Shiva to Parashurama hence it was also a Shiva’bow. So, breaking a bow or spreading false rumours around Shiva’s bow is not a big deal. Shiva’s original bow is Pinaka which he doesn’t donate to anyone. And except him no one can wield Pinaka! Shiva is the one who donated his battle axe to Bhargava Rama and after possessing that he became famous as Parashurama. Shiva is the one who gifted his own weapon called Sudarshana Chakra to Vishnu as a reward of his devotion, and thereafter that Sudarshana discus became a signature weapon of Narayana. Mahabharata clearly states this story of Sudarshana discus, and also states that when Shiva wanted to protect his devotee ‘Mandara’ (another son of Hiranyakashyap), thousands of Sudarshana discuses of Vishnu and thousands of thunderbolts of Indra could not even make a scratch on his body due to the protection of Mahadeva! How dare anyone even think of defeating Mahadeva’s devotee without his wish? When Vishnu couldn’t even scratch Mahadeva’s devotee, how can he be capable of rendering Mahadeva inert with his ‘Humm’ sound?

Fourthly, many Rama fanatics boast stating that Valmiki Ramayana has been written based on the syllables of Gayatri Mantra and that Mantra is like a parity check encoding it. Therefore there is no possibility of interpolation in Ramayana. But this is also a weak security aspect. Let’s say in the verse “I Love You” I use an encoding scheme as 1-4-3, and boast saying if someone changes it, he will be caught since it has been encoded with a scheme. But a clever mind can easily break this scheme and still put interpolation as “I Hate You” which is again a 1-4-3 parity scheme but meaning is quite opposite! Here I have used encoding scheme for the entire phrase. But the reality of Valmiki Ramayana is that it has 24000 verses and it is encoded using Gayatri mantra which has 24 syllables, in such a way that the first letter after every bunch of 1000 verses begin with the syllable of Gayatri mantra. This is the weakest scheme of encoding. That means anyone can enter anything in the 999 verses leaving the first verse only. That too only the beginning letter starts with Gayatri mantra, so even the first verse also can be changed keeping the first letter as it is. Hopefully it is clear now that there is no point to boast about the authenticity of Valmiki Ramayana. It is as vulnerable to interpolations as any other Smriti based text. So, one always need to read scriptures with an analytical bent of mind and not blindly the way they narrate!
Fifthly, a paramount question arises in my mind whether the one who narrated this story of Tripura Samhaara, Shiva’s pride and Vishnu breaking his pride; really understands what is Tripura in fact? The one who understands Tripura and it’s destruction, would never accept this story of Ramayana as real at any cost. This Ramayana story is totally bogus since it’s crystal clear that the narrater doesn’t know the Tatwam of Tripura at all..!
Tripura is nothing but the three kinds of bodies that Jeevatma possesses viz. Sthoola Shareeram (Gross body), Sookshma Shareeram (Subtle body), and Karana Shareeram (Causal Body). The Karana Shareeram is the one which is formed of ignorance (Avidya). Till the time it is not destroyed, the other two Shareerams do not get dissolved and the Jeeva takes births repeatedly without attaining salvation. It is ONLY and ONLY Lord Shiva who destroys the three cities (Shareeras) by bestowing Gyanam (Knowledge / Vidya), and gives Kaivalya Moksha (highest form of liberation) to the aspirant. These three bodies are mapped to three states of conciousness viz. Wakefulness, Dreams, and Dreamless Sleep. This entire world doesn’t exist in reality, creation is Mithya (false), entire world that appears to be existing is just a projection of the mind and Eshwara (Shiva) does that and at the end of his sport, he draws all these projections into himself. When these three states of conciousness are dissolved, implies the three bodies get destroyed, then the Jeeva attains Mukti (Salvation). And it’s ONLY lord Shiva who does this great favor on the aspirants. No other God has that capability to give Kaivalya Mukti to any one, other Gods only give inferior types of Salvation like Salokya etc.
Here are the direct verses with meanings from Kaivalyopanishat which support my point on Tripura.

“sa eva maayaaparimohitaatmaa shariiramaasthaaya karoti sarvam.h stryannapaanaadivichitrabhogaiH sa eva jaagratparitR^iptimeti ” (Kaivalyopanishad 12)

“With his self thus deluded by Maya or ignorance, it is he who identifies himself with the body and does all sorts of things. In the waking state it is he (the Jiva) who attains satisfaction through the varied objects of enjoyment, such as women, food, drink, etc”.

“svapne sa jiivaH sukhaduHkhabhoktaa svamaayayaa kalpitajiivaloke suShuptikaale sakale viliine tamo.abhibhuutaH sukharuupameti |” (Kaivalyopanishad 13)

“In the dream-state that Jiva feels pleasure and pain in a sphere of existence created by his own Maya or ignorance. During the state of profound sleep, when everything is dissolved (into their causal state), he is overpowered by Tams or non-manifestation and comes to exist in his form of Bliss”.

“punashcha janmaantarakarmayogaatsa eva jiivaH svapiti prabuddhaH puratraye kriiDati yashcha |jiivastatastu jaataM sakalaM vichitram.h | aadhaaramaanandamakhaNDabodhaM yasmi.NllayaM yaati puratrayaM cha |” (Kaivalyopanishad 14)
“Again, through his connection with deeds done in previous births, that very Jiva returns to the dream-state, or the waking state. The being who sports in the three cities (viz., the states of wakefulness, dream and profound sleep) – from Him has sprung up all diversity. He is the substratum, the bliss, the indivisible Consciousness, in whom the three cities dissolve themselves”.

Further, in the same Upanishad other verses from beginning to end sing only the glory of Mahadeva. It makes it very clear to the reader that only through the Lord of Uma, one can get Salvation (Kaivalya). And the same Lord sports in the three cities and to liberate the Jeeva he destroys the three cities.
In the entire set of 4 Vedas there is only one lord – ‘Bhagwan Shiva’ who has been called as the god of Liberation. He has been asked to confer his garce and bestow Salvation. The Mrityunjaya Mantra of Rig Veda & Yajurveda, and also the Sri Rudram have requests placed by the Vedas to Shiva to grant liberation. In Vedas there is no other God (including Vishnu) who has ever been asked to liberate. So, liberation is ONLY the attribute of Bhagwan Shiva and in order to liberate he destroys the three cities.
Now after reading this, even a fool can easily understand that there is no need for Shiva to become proud of Tripura Samhaara since it’s only he who does that and hence it’s his natural attribute not a derived one. Even if he becomes proud, then also there is no one else who can take that task or do that task. So, the question of Vishnu’s greatness does not arise at all! It’s natural that Lord Shiva only destroyed the Tripura and would always do. Hence the story of Shiva-Vishnu battle based on the credits of Tripura Samhaara is totally RUBBISH and BOGUS. At max I can conclude, that portion of Ramayana as a hearsay story incorporated in Ramayana. There can be no truth in that anytime in any Era.
Finally, if Vishnu is the supreme lord as Ramayana states falsely (Since as per Vedas Shiva is the Supreme and anything opposing Vedas is untrue), then Vishnu should be devoid of Ego and Pride kind of negative qualities. But here is an extract from Shatapatha Brahmana of Yajurveda where one can see how easily Vishnu became proud and what happened to him as a result of his pride (and Mind you! the below extract is not from any bogus scripture, it is from Yajurveda!)
Satapatha Brahmana, THE PRAVARGYA.

om devā ha vai sattraṃ niṣeduḥ agnirindraḥ somo makho viṣṇurviśve devā
anyatraivāśvibhyām | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.1)
teṣām kurukṣetram devayajanamāsa tasmādāhuḥ kurukṣetram devānāṃ
devayajanamiti tasmādyatra kva ca kurukṣetrasya nigacati tadeva manyata idam
devayajanamiti taddhi devānāṃ devayajanam | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.2)
ta āsata śriyaṃ gacema yaśaḥ syāmānnādāḥ syāmeti tatho eveme sattramāsate śriyaṃ
gacema yaśaḥ syāmānnādāḥ syāmeti | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.3)
te hocuḥ yo naḥ śrameṇa tapasā śraddhayā yaiñenāhutibhiryajñasyodṛcam
pūrvo’vagacātsa naḥ śreṣṭho’sattadu naḥ sarveṣāṃ saheti tatheti | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.4)
tadviṣṇuḥ prathamaḥ prāpa sa devānāṃ śreṣṭho’bhavattasmādāhurviṣṇurdevānāṃ
śreṣṭha iti | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.5)
sa yaḥ sa viṣṇuryajñaḥ sa sa yaḥ sa yajño’sau sa ādityastaddhedaṃ yaśo viṣnurna
śaśāka saṃyantu tadidamapyetarhi naiva sarva-iva yaśaḥ śaknoti saṃyantum | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.6)
sa tisṛdhanvamādāyāpacakrāma sa dhanurārtnyā śira upastabhya tasthau tam devā
anabhidhṛṣṇuvantaḥ samantam pariṇyaviśanta | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.7)
tā ha vamrya ūcuḥ imā vai vamryo yadupadīkā yo’sya jyāmapyadyātkimasmai
prayacetetyannādyamasmai prayacemāpi dhanvannapo’dhigacettathāsmai
sarvamannādyam prayacemeti tatheti | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.8)
tasyopaparāsṛtya jyāmapijakṣustasyāṃ cinnāyāṃ dhanurārtnyau viṣphurantyau
viṣṇoḥ śiraḥ pracicidatuḥ | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.9)
tadghṛṅṅiti papāta tatpatitvāsāvādityo’bhavadathetaraḥ prāṅeva prāvṛjyata
tadyadghṛṅṅityapatattasmādgharmo’tha yatprāvṛjyata tasmātpravargyaḥ | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.10)
te devā abruvan mahānbata no vīro’dādīti tasmānmahāvīrastasya yo raso
vyakṣarattaṃ pāṇibhiḥ sammamṛjustasmātsammrāṭ | (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.1.1.11)

14:1:1:1. The gods Agni, Indra, Soma, Makha, Vishnu, and the Visve Devâh, except the two Asvins, performed a sacrificial session.
14:1:1:2. Their place of divine worship was Kurukshetra.. Therefore people say that Kurukshetra is the gods’ place of divine worship: hence wherever in Kurukshetra one settles there one thinks, ‘This is a place for divine worship;’ for it was the gods’ place of divine worship.
14:1:1:3. They entered upon the session thinking, ‘May we attain excellence! may we become glorious! may we become eaters of food!’ And in like manner do these (men) now enter upon the sacrificial session thinking, ‘May we attain excellence! may we become glorious! may we become eaters of food!’
14:1:1:4. They spake, ‘Whoever of us, through austerity, fervour, faith, sacrifice, and oblations, shall first compass the end of the sacrifice, he shall be the most excellent of us, and shall then be in common to us all.’ ‘So be it,’ they said.
14:1:1:5. Vishnu first attained it, and he became the most excellent of the gods; whence people say, ‘Vishnu is the most excellent of the gods.’
14:1:1:6. Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Âditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.
14:1:1:7. Taking his bow, together with three arrows, he stepped forth. He stood, resting his head on the end of the bow. Not daring to attack him, the gods sat themselves down all around him.
14:1:1:8. Then the ants said–these ants (vamrî), doubtless, were that (kind called) ‘upadîkâ ‘–‘What would ye give to him who should gnaw the bowstring?’–‘We would give him the (constant) enjoyment of food, and he would find water even in the desert: so we would give him every enjoyment of food.’–‘So be it,’ they said.
14:1:1:9. Having gone nigh unto him, they gnawed his bowstring. When it was cut, the ends of the bow, springing asunder, cut off Vishnu’s head.
14:1:1:100. It fell with (the sound) ‘ghriṅ’; and on falling it became yonder sun. And the rest (of the body) lay stretched out (with the top part) towards the east. And inasmuch as it fell with (the sound) ‘ghriṅ,’ therefrom the Gharma (was called); and inasmuch as he was stretched out (pra-vrig,), therefrom the Pravargya (took its name).
14:1:1:11. The gods spake, ‘Verily, our great hero (mahân virah) has fallen:’ therefrom the Mahâvîra pot (was named). And the vital sap which flowed from him they wiped up (sam-mrig) with their hands, whence the Samrâg.

Therefore it should be clear by now that the story narrated in Ramayana (which itself has too many contradictions within Ramayana itself) is FAR from truth and needs to be REJECTED as a hearsay story without any truth in it. Valmiki Ramayana is authentic only regarding the life of Rama. Therefore it is a wasteful job of Vaishnava friends to cite such BOGUS examples to show Vishnu’s superiority over Shiva and to insult Shiva; when authentic scriptures say Shiva is unbeatable!

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

52 Comments

  1. Srinath

    Very nice article. Please publish more articles refuting the stupid and foolish claims of the fanatic Vaishnavas!

    Reply
  2. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Dear Srinath – I'm glad that you liked this article. Thank you 🙂

    Reply
  3. Krishna

    Excellent work. Really felt enlightened reading through the articles.

    Reply
  4. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Dear Krishna – Thank you so much. May lord bless you.

    Reply
  5. sameer sharma

    May Lord of Lords (Lord Shiva) Bless u For This Fantastic Work Brother !!!!!
    Also a very heartful thanks to u for bringing forth this true story…

    Reply
  6. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Dear sameer
    Thanks for your wishes. I'm glad to see your happiness. God bless you.

    Reply
  7. arun subbe

    Another version I am aware of is how the bow was given to Parashurama by Bhagawan Shiva himself. Parashurama was our Lord's star student and he gifted him an axe and a bow. After exterminating the Kshatriyas the Shivdhanush was personally handed over to Janaka by Parashurama. So there is no question of any fight between Shiva and Vishnu. I found this version in Vishnu Puran.

    Reply
    1. Subhasis Dey

      Hello Sir, thank you for the information about how Lord Parashuram received the Hara Dhanus form Lord Siva. Can you tell me related verses from the Vishnu Purana describing this and in which chapter thereof can I find this ?

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

        Dear,

        you are posting too many “help” requests while you are capable of helping yourself. It would take the same time for me to loop up verses in purana which would take you to do the same. Pls don’t expect me to have memorized all scriptures by heart.

        Also, i would not publish any of your such requests hereafter. I’m NOT an inquiry office. Had to say this finally, apologies for the closure of the shop.

        Reply
        1. Subhasis Dey

          I’m sorry to disturb you. I know your time is precious. But, I can not stand any insult of my divine Father, Lord Maheswara. Whenever these Siva haters demean Him, things become extremely painful for me and my blood boils in rage. I, therefore, try to find verses to counter such humiliations against my ‘Araddhya’. Since I find a great support in your Articles in this respect, I keep irritating you as a drowning man desperately tries to find a buoy. Anyway, sorry again for the inconveniences.

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

            No need to apologize sir. We all have one common thing i.e., wounds caused by shiva haters. But why do you have to mix with them who makes your blood boil? Be away from such groups and remain peaceful in your sadhana.

            If I am not a MBBS degree holder, just because someone handed over the mike to me in a medical conference, will it be right on my part to start the lecture saying, “Sugery is performed by doing …”? No. Similarly, if you are not yet equipped with enough knowledge of scriptures to counter them, why do you venture into such debates in the first place itself? This is why, when you run short of references, you want me to provide you ammunition. I have clearly mentioned in “vision behind this blog” page that my blog shouldn’t be used as ammunition to counter them. If still you wish to do, you need to be on your own. The best thing is – when you get filled with rage, go and cry before shiva’s vigraha or photo, ask him to provide knowledge which would wipe your tears. And then you would yourself become a weapon.

            That’s how I am made. No body helped me, I didn’t ask anybody’s help either. I turned towards Mahadeva for support.

  8. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Thanks Arun for this point.

    Reply
  9. Sridharan

    Dear Santosh,

    Some Sanskrit Pundits are of the opinion that the Balakandam of Valmiki Ramayanam was probably an interpolation and not written by Valmiki. In that case, such elaborate arguments are not necessary.

    Reply
  10. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Dear Sridharan,

    Yes, even Uttara Kandam is an interpolation as believed by some scholars. However, even though Bala kandam as interpolation is believed by some, a majority of Ramayana followers believe it as authentic. SO, I didn't want to leave any room for lord Shiva to be insulted. So, whether Bala kanda remains authentic or interpolation, this story at least remains fake. That's what was my intention.

    Reply
  11. Sridharan

    Thanks Santosh. Earlier I was very much disturbed on downgrading of Lord Shiva in epics and puranas. I was searching for reasons for this and fortunately landed on your blogspot. I am immensely delighted on reading your articles emphasising the supremacy of Parameshwara. May Lord bless you and motivate you to write many , many such articles and make Shiva Bakthas satisfied.

    Reply
  12. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Thank you dear Sridharan. I am blessed to know that a disturbed Shiva bhakta got some relief by reading these articles. Our lord has fulfilled my wish of relieving the pain of Shiva bhaktas by citing one example through you.

    Thanks for the wishes, yes, I would keep spreading Shiva-jnanam' till the time lord want me to write, till my indriyas support me and till the lord feeds thoughts in my brain. Thanks again for visiting this blog. Owing to my job I find little time for writing, that's why my articles come after a long break. However, I am always constantly engaged in thinking about Mahadeva, and have plans to write lot more by the grace of the benevolent parameshwara.

    Reply
  13. Unknown

    LMAO, This blog is utter rubbish.

    Fact no. 1 – Vaishnavas do not interpret jR^imbhitam as 'unstrung'. We interpret it as 'rendered inert'. That means, the war cry of Vishnu rendered both Shiva and his bow ineffective. Shiva became unconscious and the bow was rendered 'inert', ie, incapable of usage.

    'saayakam dhanuu' means pArvati pati handed over the bow along with the arrows. It does not indicate he fitted the arrows to the bow. Again, read the vaishnava commentaries on ramayana.

    Fact 2: Your other posts on nArAyaNA being tripura sundari, etc are errant nonsense not supported by pracIna vaidikas like adi shankara, ramanuja, madhva, etc.

    Fact 3: The Rudra mentioned in the Rudram is none other than Sriman Narayana. I have written a detailed commentary on the 1st anuvakam of Rudram myself. All names like Nilalohita, Tripurantaka, Tryambaka, Rudra, Sarva, Shiva, Shambhu, Svayambhu, Girisha, etc refer only to nArAyaNa.

    In fact, Rudram establishes the 5 forms of Vishnu in the mantra 'asau yo tamrO aruna…' and goes on to say that this Rudra descends as Vishnu (avasarpati), as the antaryamin of nilagriva (parvati pati) and antaryami of vilohita (brahma; he is red because of rajO gunam)!

    Fact 4: The tattvam of the Tripura Samharam is as follows.

    The name 'Hara' as per ranga ramanuja muni's vyakhyanam for svetasvatara means 'one who enjoys prakrti', ie, refers to the jivatmna. In the Banasura charithra of Harivamsha, the Sivajvara refers to Shiva as 'Hara,the destroyer of Tripura'.

    So, In the tripura samharam, Shiva is Hara, ie the Jiva. The facts about vedas becoming chariot, devas giving their powers, omkara becoming bow string, brahma as chariotdriver refers to various accessories of upasana, namely, bhakti yoga such as pranavOpasanam, sadaacharyan, etc. Vishnu, as the arrow tip, is the indirect upayam for completion of bhakti yoga, as he is the parabrahman. The three cities are sattva, rajo and tamo guna, which are transcended by completion of upasanam. The releasing of the arrow by Shiva is equal to the performance of upasanam by jivatma, ie, the self effort required. The arrow tip destroyed the cities, ie, Vishnu, the eternal brahman, completes the upasanam.

    Thus, this incident shows shiva is a jivatma. 'Eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma, nEshana…' Siva did not exist during pralaya. The 'nakaara' in nArAyaNa makes it a proper noun and he is identified with Vishnu in the Vishnu gayatri. All other gayatris, including RudraGayatri, begin with 'tatpurusha' whereas Vishnu Gayatri begins with 'Narayana'.

    Fact 5: The mandara mountain did not literally become the bow, just as the sun and moon did not literally become chariot wheels. It means, the power of the mandara mountain, sun, moon, devas, etc was imparted to parvati pati during tripura samhara. So, there is no contradiction in saying the bow mentioned in the rAmAyaNa is the same as the one used in Tripura Samharam.

    It was Vishnu who misled the asuras with false matham. It was Vishnu who took away the chastity of the wives. It was Vishnu who drank up the pool that rejuvenated the asuras to life, preventing them from rejuvenation. It was Vishnu who was 'tripurAntaka', ie, the arrow tip that destroyed the cities.

    The tamasa puranas try to hide all this by saying Shiva destroyed tripura with a smile. Since they are tamasa puranas that contradict the veda, they are rejected.

    Even now, I have no issues with Shaivas claiming supremacy of Shiva. That is their matham. I only wanted to counter the claim that we interpret jrimbhitam as unstrung, when we do not. Just don't put words into the mouth of Vaishnavas that we do not utter ourselves.

    Of course, all this is lost on a Vaishnava dveshi like you. I am sure you will come up with more incoherent ideas that are the product of an overactive imagination in a feeble attempt to counter this. Keep rambling.

    Reply
    1. sohini

      we are not idiots, we know who keeps rambing mr. “UNKNOWN”

      Reply
  14. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    [QUOTE]I am sure you will come up with more incoherent ideas that are the product of an overactive imagination in a feeble attempt to counter this. Keep rambling.[UNQUOTE]

    I didn't want to reply to your comment because i don't like to interact with anonymous/”unknown” people. But seeing your “surity” of belief that i would reply, in order to make your words not to get falsified, i am replying. May your belief be true! 🙂
    Your parents would have given a very beautiful name to you, and you should be pround of displaying your name. What is this name “unknown”??. I don't like people who hide behind screens and pass comments. I don't play hide and seek with anyone hence byd efault i expect others also to be open, revealed to me. Ownership is important. What you write, you should own it. Whatever i write i own it. that's why i always display my full name with all expansions. Hope you would follow my suggestion in future.
    Well, yes your belief is correct. i'll keep rambling; but unfortunately these days i am over burdened with work and higher studies so not able to ramble much. But surely your wish (“keep rambling”) would be fulfilled. Just pray to god to give me some free time so that i can ramble hehehe. 🙂

    [QUOTE]Of course, all this is lost on a Vaishnava dveshi like you. I am sure you will come up with more incoherent ideas that are the product of an overactive imagination in a feeble attempt to counter this. Keep rambling.[UNQUOTE]

    Who told you i am a vaishnava dweshi? i oppose only those vaishnavas who hate shiva. My late maternal grandpa was a great devotee of krishna and i always enjoyed his krishna-bhakti. i had no issues with his devotion which was flawless, and he never saw any differences between krishna and other gods. he was a true vishnu bhakta and i am always ready to hug such pious devotees of vishnu.

    {QUOTE]Even now, I have no issues with Shaivas claiming supremacy of Shiva. That is their matham. [UNQUOTE]

    If you have no problems with shaivas then my blogs are not for you. Kindly do not block my path. My blogs are only for those vaishnavas who hate shiva and not for them who are neutral towards shiva.

    Here are explanations for your points:

    Reply
  15. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Ans to your fact no. 1:
    jRmbhitam has several meanings as given below. It can be used as an adj. or a n. and likewise here are the meanings.

    Adj -caused to yawn (fatigued / broken), expanded, increased, enlarged, unstrung, exerted, opened
    n.-bursting, wish, exertion, opening, yawning/fatigued, swelling, developing, unfolding, kind of coitus.

    I've called jrimbhitam as “unstrung”, if that is incorrect as per you, then be it so. Let me go by some authoritative translator. Valmiki ramayana has been translated into english by sri Desiraju Hanumanth Rao. He translates that verse as follows.

    tadaa = then; hum kaareNa = by 'hum', sound [of Vishnu]; bhiima paraakramam shaivam dhanuH = ruinously, overpowering, Shiva's, longbow; jR^imbhitam = yawned [fatigued, broken]; atha trilocanaH mahaadevaH = then, triple-eyed, Mahadeva; stambhitaH = motionless [frozen.]
    “By the 'hum' sound of Vishnu that ruinously overpowering longbow of Shiva is broken, and the triple-eyed God, Mahadeva, is frozen… [1-75-17b, 18a]

    This is even a much bigger contradiction if you see. If by hummm sound that bow is broken how could shiva again give that to devaraata? The rendered inert is given as “sthambhitah” , and it was shiva who was rendered inert and not his bow. his bow was broken by vishnu's humm sound. Jrmbhitam and sthambhitah both are different and jrmbhitam doesn't mean rendering inert. I don't care what you translate it as, since your personal opinions are immaterial to me.

    Regarding saayakam dhanuh here is the translation by Desiraju hanumanth rao ji.

    samkruddhaH = with indignation; mahaayashaaH rudraH tu = celebrated, Rudra, on his part; videheSu = among Videha [kings]; sa saayakam dhanuu = with, arrow, longbow; raaja R^iSeH = to Kingly, sage; devaraatasya haste dadau = in Devaraata's, hand, handed over.
    “That celebrated Rudra on his part with indignation has handed over that longbow, which is already fitted with unloosened arrow, to the sagely king among Videha kings, namely Devaraata… [1-75-20b, 21a]

    And again i do not care what you personally translate it as! And you have asked me to read vaishnava commentaries on ramayana. thanks for the suggestion but sorry i can't take it. Ramayana is not a vaishnava property, Sri Rama and Vishnu are also not a copyright of vaishnavas. they are equally worshippable for all hindus. And i like impartial translations instead of secetarian translations. Your secetarian commentaries have always tried to supress truths and elevate falses. so can't follow your suggestion, sorry!

    Ans to your fact no. 2:

    Hmmmm my errant nonsense on narayana suktam as being a hymn of tripurasudnari is not analyzed by prachina vaidikas because they wanted this information to be disclosed by me 🙂 shankara, madhawa, ramanuja had foreseen myself to be the right person to analyze that hehehe. Well, whether it looks errant nonsense to you or whatever, the fact is fact that none of the scriptures ever called vishnu as travelling through susumna nerve. that is always kundalini (tripurasundari) and hence my analysis is correct. If you donot like, then it's your problem. please keep your problem with you. I don't go by your opinions, i go by scriptures and my intellect. Thx!

    Reply
  16. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Ans to your fact no. 3:

    Congratulations to you for having written a commentary on rudram first anuvaka. At personal level i can congratulate you and can say good job! But at professional level i am sorry to say that your udnerstanding of rudram being a hymn to narayana is totally wrong!
    In mahabharata veda vyasa and sri krishna have indicated rudram being a hymn of lord shiva in 3 instances. I would go by their words rather than following your “opinion” unless you want to say you are greater scholar than vyasa and sri krishna.
    You said, “vilohita (brahma; he is red because of rajO gunam)!” LOL…I think you didn't read puranas where brahma is depicted to have the same color as lakshmi, pink of golden complexion. Brahma is not red!! If i go by your logic of red means rajas then narayana/vishnu being black/dark complexioned must be a god full of tamo-gunam! 🙂

    Ans to your fact no. 4:

    Well, i don't follow kaliyugi saints and their logic. i go by scriptures. hence i respect “ranga ramanuja muni ji's” opinion, but that's just his opinion and not a fact! Several acharyas came in kaliyuga and expressed several opinions, but none of their opinions are acceptable if they contradict scriptures or words of ancient sages. ranga ramanuja ji cannot propose a theory different from what's there in scriptures. Kaivalya upanishad states that tripura is sthoola, sukshma, karana dehas and the lord who sports within them is shiva and he liberates jiva by destroying those tripuras. The three gunas are not tripuras. And for your kind information, the arrow tip was NOT vishnu; vishnu was just the shaft/stem of the arrow, the actual hood (point) was agni which destroyed the tripura. And again agni is none other than rudra. You'll not understand this but still let me state – it again shows “agni somAtmakam jagat” principle and it again glorifies uma-maheshwara tatwam alone.

    You said “shiva is jivatma” – but that's not true however, the truth is the other way round – “jivatma is verily shiva”. You need to understand the difference between these phrases. I don't know which acharya first propagated this bogus theory of shiva being a liberated jiva and all such nonsense; but know from me that none of the standard scriptures support that view. shiva is verily the parabrahman, the supreme lord.
    Well, for your verse which stated shiva didn't exist at the time of pralaya, may i request you to read my narayana suktam article completely? i have already refuted that verse and explained what it means. And regarding narayana being a proper noun or a verb or an adjective, i don't care what part of speech it is, but one thing i can tell you is narayana has several meanings and yes it definitely refers to vishnu but the narayana sukta doesn't praise vishnu there narayana is the name of goddess tripurasudnari.

    Reply
    1. sohini

      well said santoshji- If i go by your logic of red means rajas then narayana/vishnu being black/dark complexioned must be a god full of tamo-gunam!

      Reply
  17. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Ans to your fact no. 5:

    Well, i agree that the mountain didn't become the bow etc. that arguement i need to correct in my article which even i realized lateron but didn't get a chance to rework on that. Will do that when time permits. But leaving that also the other contradictions that i showed they are valid and hence that story is bogus one. The bow used in tripurasamhara is not the same as the one present in janaka's palace.
    Even if for time being i assume that they really fought and then also the reason why shiva got defeated is because shiva gave a boon to narayana saying he would be invulnerable to every weapon and he also said that even if he ever has to fight against shiva then he would be victorious.it exists in mahabharata. so it is shiva's mercy that vishnu would win whenever he has to fight with him. Vedas cleary declare that rudra is unconquerable, and he overpowers his enemies in battle. And if you still want to say ramayana story (which contradicts vedas) is true, then ramayana story needs to be rejected as anti-vedic. Now coming back to tripura-samhara, Vishnu misled the asuras and their wives so how does that make shiva inferior? Staff always does the actual hands-on work but always reports to the supervisor. vishnu helping shiva cannot be a yardstick to call shiva as inferior. Also, i have told you above that vishnu was not the arrow tip he was just the shaft/stem, arrow tip was agni and agni is rudra alone.
    There is no logical reason behind calling a purana tamasic. you people are fond of rejecting shaiva puranas as tamasic because they are threat to your beliefs. other than that there is no reason to categorize puranas with gunas. Your satvik purana bhagawatam itself is bogus one, and you are pointing a finger at shiva related texts, huh!

    Reply
  18. Unknown

    I see you have deleted my posts as well as that of another Vaishnava which soundly refuted your asinine views.

    Deleting our posts does you no good. Only shows your ignorance and desperation. Oh well, atleast it shows that what you have is not a 'mahApashupatastra', but a broken twig!

    Reply
  19. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    I am NOT scared of your and his absurd arguements. It is your opinion that your points successfully refuted me. Live in your utopia.
    I deleted those stupid arguements to save the readers of this blog from getting misled or confused. I have full capacity to refute every such arguements and I'll do slowly slowly. You know what? Your and his arguements gave me nice points tro write articles. I don't debate with my full intensity because of two reasons:-

    1. I don't keep a database of anti-vishnu references handy with me like you vaishnavas who are always equipped with anti-shiva references. For me Vishnu is also adorable but not the way you vaishnavas do. I have my own love for him hence seldom prepare with references to attack.
    2. I strongly believe in the saying what my friend's guru said to him – “Debate produces a lot of heat but no light!”. Therefore you and your friend are not so significant in my life to spend my valuable time in clarifying/countering your points. My time is precious hence cannot waste it on you and your friend.
    3. Gone are those days when people used to debate professionally, following the right rules of it. Now I see all these Vaishnavas doing mud-fight and not a professional debate. Debate needs to be done following authentic scriptures, NOT demented cult generated philosophies. And hence I have no interest in speaking to you and your cult-people.
    4. I gain my coherent thoughts while writinga rticles where i refute strongly the demented philosophies. But in direct debates i usually do not remain synergetic and coherant. So, even whatever replies I gave to your and your friend's comments; all were very casual and fluffy. SO, removed even my replies which were also confusing to the audience.

    But rest assured your and your friend's time spent on this space is not wasted. I have deleted all your and your friend's stupid comments from this blog, but know that I have saved a copy of them with me personally. You both have given me NICE points to refute. Thanks to both of you. You have given me nice topis to create articles. In fact you both have helped me in generating more articles here.

    I deleted your comments because they were arbitrarily posted and I see a great opportunity for thrashing them through articles, but the readers of this blog would get misled by your arbitrarily placed specially tailored arguments; which I don't want to do to the readers of this blog.

    And yea, your comment on mahapashupatastra as a broken twig really gave me laughter. I laughed for few seconds. Thanks for giving a good HUMOUR. But rest asusured in few years I will give you all a big TUMOUR (hehehe…just some word to follow a rhyme scheme, but you would have understood what it meant 🙂 )

    You have no idea about my capacity, my strengths; so pinching me every now and then by posting comments is not good for you. Pls refrain from visiting my blog or at least posting your stupid arguements here. In 2-3 years (if everything goes right by god's grace)I'll make sure that you all would not even dare to visit this blog, commenting is a remote option! (Sounds funny? It should sound funny now, but it would take away your laughter off your face once i succeed in establishing my vision)

    Good bye! I don't want to see anti-shiva people's inauspicious presence in my blog. So, kindly stop irritating me with your comments.

    Reply
  20. Pawan Gupta

    1)There are references in Mahabharat where Drona and Sons of Dhritrashtra use Pashupatastra,and it got nullified easily,i am sure its not the one which Shiva gave to Arjuna?

    2)Does Lord Shiva teach Arjuna any other weapons apart from Pashupatastra?

    3)I think Vijaya bow was not Lord Shiva’s,everywhere its been called as Indra’s bow which Vishwakarma made.Skanda Purana has a reference about the bow used in Draupadi Swayamwar being ShivaChapa,which all contenders failed to String,except Arjuna,who meditated Shiva, Narayana,and then managed to string it and shoot the target.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      1) Mahabharata uses pasupata name for raudra missile also. Drona and even Karna had the weapon but not necessarily the mahapashupata. Even Mahapashupata is also called as brahmashira in Mahabharata. Depending upon the context we need to understand what missile it is being talked about. The mahapashupata which is called brahmashira because it is shira (head) of all brahman weapons, i.e., the most supreme weapon. Hence that adjective is also used in MBH for pashupata. But it was never used. The brahmashira what Ashwatthama and Arjuna had fired, are not pashupata eitehr they are actual brahmashira weapons. The pashupatas of Drona and Karna were Raudra weapons not the one which Arjuna had received!
      2) No. Shiva teaches him Pashupata. But due to the proximity of shiva and due to having touched and fought with shiva, arjuna was charged with rudra-tejas which was required for Arjuna to face the mighty Kuru warriors.
      3) I see. Yes, even in Mahabharata Arjuna meditates upon Shiva and Narayana and lifted the bow in draupadi swayamvara.

      Reply
      1. Pawan Gupta

        Thank you for replies,

        Regarding first point,i think that weapon wasn’t even Raudra weapon,because Raudra too is a very powerful weapon.Arjun destroyed the entire Hiranyapura city in one shot of Raudra weapon.

        In my humble opinion Brahmasira is not a weapon but a category of weapons which are capable of completely destroying the creation.The Pashupastra which Arjun got from Lord Shiva was of a Brahmasira category,infact he asked Shiva for ‘Brahmasira’.Similarly the most powerful version of Brahmastra is a Brahmasira(Which Arjun/Ashwathama shot).

        The Pasupata weapon which Vashishta nullified with Brahmadanda should also not be a Brahmasira,but the other one.

        Most likely Shiva did not gave this weapon to anyone except Arjun.

        Reply
        1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

          Yes you have rightly reminded me about the hiranyapura incident. I agree with you. What version of pashupata karna and drona had is not clear in MBH but surely it was not the one which Arjuna had. You are right about the brahmashira label of weapons, shira=head and brahman=supreme being; so the supreme weapon pashupata is also called as brahmashira; this is why Arjuna calls it brahmashira while asking from Shiva,a nd he says take this pashupata for yourself. And as you rightly said, the brahmastra category of weapon also has a variant by name brahmashira which Adhwatthama had used.

          The Pasupata weapon which Vashishta nullified with Brahmadanda should also not be a Brahmasira,but the other one.

          Just a small correction – It was brahmastra of Vishwamitra which was nullified by brahmadanda of vashishtha, i think pashupata was a typo.

          yes, shiva didn’t give pashupata to anyone except Arjuna in MBH and he gave that to Rama as per Shiva Gita. Moreover, pashupata cannot be obtained so easily. For that one has to udnergo a deeksha called as “virajA-dIkShA” which is a form of “pAsupata vrataM” and it is very difficult austerity. One has to subsit for some time on fruits then only on fallen leaves, then only on water, then only on air and so on…then Shiva personally appears and gives pashupata to him. Arjuna had also performed such difficult austerity and the same was performed by Rama in Shiva Gita episode and received pashupata.
          So, Arjuna alone had that most supreme version of pashupata and no one else in MBH.

          Reply
  21. Arun Subramaniyan

    KMG translation of the MB says the following about Pashupatastra.

    “A Narrative from KMG translation of Mahabharat regarding the power of Pashupatastra:

    O thou of mighty arms, that weapon(Pashupatastra) is superior to the Brahma, the Narayana, the Aindra, the Agneya, and the Varuna weapons. Verily, it is capable of neutralising every other weapon in the universe. It was with that weapon that the illustrious Mahadeva had in days of yore, burnt and consumed in a moment the triple city of the Asuras. With the greatest ease, O Govinda, Mahadeva, using that single arrow, achieved that feat. That weapon, shot by Mahadeva’s arms, can, without doubt consume in half the time taken up by a twinkling of the eyes the entire universe with all its mobile and immobile creatures. In the universe there is no being including even Brahma and Vishnu and the deities, that are incapable of being slain by that weapon.”

    Regards
    Arun

    Reply
    1. Pawan Gupta

      Thanks Arun,

      Actually its me who had updated this description of Pashupatstra in Wikipedia.Some ignorants were calling Pashupastra an ordinary weapon.

      This excerpt is from Anushasana Parva,Indra and Krishna meeting.As per this meeting,Trident of Lord Shiva is the foremost weapon and next is Pashupatstra.

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

        Wow! I am glad to know that you are the editor of wikipedia article, pawan!

        Reply
        1. Pawan Gupta

          Actually most articles of wikipedia are editable,one can update them,I occasionally update them if i find any thing wrong in them

          Reply
          1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

            Great work. Keep it up!

      2. sohini

        thank you pawan ji on behalf of all the shiv devotees,if anytime i find anything that should be edited in wiki then i’ll tell you

        Reply
    2. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Thanks for the passage, Arun. That’s correct. This is why even in shiva Gita Shiva while giving (maha)pasupata to Rama tells him explicitly that it should not be hurled on lesser beings, never on those who are running away and should never be sued unless there is no other way to go. Same thing Shiva tells to Arjuna also in kairata parva. In my knowledge pashupata was never used in MBH war. But the possession of it was necessary because the mere presence of it would make the owner invincible because if it is present, it means Bhagwan rudra would march in front of the owner and kill the enemies. That was the reason when Arjuna was not getting sleep the night before jayadratha vadha, thinking about the difficulty of achieving the goal of his oath (of killing jayadratha by EOD or burning himself if failed), Krishna appears in his dream and asks him one simple question,”O arjuna! Do you still remember the pashupatastra mantra?” and asks him to not hesitate to tell if he has forgotten. Arjuna had forgotten and krishna takes his sukshma-deha to kailasha and makes him get it again. And the next day because of that pashupata’s presence, Arjuna had done such a large scale massive annihilation, which no other warrior had ever done in a single day. And Arjuna became flabbergasted on and enquires to Vyasa about who was the partially visible tejO-mUrti who was actually killing his enemies on his behalf, and Vyasa says it was Shankara. Such is the effect when someone simply owns a pashupata in reality even without hurling it.
      So, just reiterating what you have said, definitely, there is no weapon which can nullify pashupata. I second your post.

      Reply
  22. Arun Subramaniyan

    Absolutely. On the 14th day Arjuna slays an entire Akshauhini which is not humanly possible.

    Reply
  23. Subhasis Dey

    I found the following verses in the Sanskritised version of the Mahabharata :
    89 स एष रुद्र भक्तश च केशवॊ रुद्र संभवः
         कृष्ण एव हि यष्टव्यॊ यज्ञैश चैष सनातनः
     90 सर्वभूतभवं जञात्वा लिङ्गे ऽरचयति यः परभुम
         तस्मिन्न अभ्यधिकां परीतिं करॊति वृषभध्वजः
      89 sa eṣa rudra bhaktaś ca keśavo rudra saṃbhavaḥ
         kṛṣṇa eva hi yaṣṭavyo yajñaiś caiṣa sanātanaḥ
     90 sarvabhūtabhavaṃ jñātvā liṅge ‘rcayati yaḥ prabhum
         tasminn abhyadhikāṃ prītiṃ karoti vṛṣabhadhvajaḥ

    But, I haven’t found translation of the lines above in the K.M. Ganguly Translation of Mahabharata ( Book 7, Drona Parva, Chapter CLXXII ). The said chapter of the Mahabhata in K.M. Ganguli version describes the War at Kurukshetra. In which part of the K.M. Ganguly Mahabharata can I then find the translation of the above verses which describe ‘Krishna originated from Lord Rudra /Siva ‘? Does the phrase ‘Rudra sambhavah’ mean ‘Being originated from Rudra’?

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      The translation of your quoted verses is this:

      “Kesava is that devoted worshipper of Rudra who has sprung from Rudra himself. Kesava always worships the Lord Siva, regarding his Linga emblem to be the origin of the universe. The God having the bull for his mark cherisheth greater regard for Kesava”.

      Here is the reference of that chapter: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07197.htm

      Reply
  24. vijay vittala

    shiva devotees are demons ravan is shiva devotee rama killed ravana, hiranyakashyap is shiva devotee narasimha killed hiranyakashyap, hiranyaksha is shiva devotee varaha killed hiranyaksha, kumbhakarna is shiva devotee rama killed kumbhakarna, our lord vishnu killed so many shiva devotees in his avatars but your shiva never killed single vishnu devotee jarasanda is shiva devotee bhima is vishnu devotee bhima killed jarasanda your shiva failed to save his devotees hahaha thirupathi is world richest vishnu temple even his temple is more powerful than other gods only lord vishnu is supreme god hari sarvothama

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Vijay,

      These statistics are not the standard to measure greatness of either of the gods. I’ve received same comparative examples “X was shiav devotee, Vishnu killed X”, in few more comments from you, which I’m not publishing as they are repetitive.

      If thsi who killed whose devotee statistics make you happy to judge somebody’s greatness, may you dwell in your utopia world.

      Reply
      1. sohini

        utopia world haha

        Reply
    2. sohini

      vijay if you can digest one fact then …well digest it that MAHADEV OR GOD SHIV “KILLED” TWO INCARNATIONS OF VISHNU viz. NARASIMHA AND VARAHA .Also you should know that the ASUR NIGHAS (DEVOTEE OF MAHADEV GOD SHIV) “SWALLOWED” VISHNU. And this not only some fictional story shown in tv serial devon ke dev mahadev, its a story from our authentic spiritual scripture f.y.i. This list can go on and on but i think u need time to digest these two first. And if you can really see then see that how much trouble the asuras mentioned by you gave to your god vishnu, so shiva devotees HAVE the power to trouble your god vishnu, and without this devotees of god shiv your god vishnu and his incarnations could not have established his so called position, so…. i guess you get it

      Reply
  25. Amit

    Hari anant, Hari katha ananta. All stories could be true in different time frame 🙂

    Reply
  26. Subhasis Dey

    Recently I heard of nice story of ‘Chakrapradar’. The story is about how Lord MahaVishnu underwent severe penance for Lord Sadashiva, how Lod Shiva hid one of the thousand sacrificial lotus petals, how Lord Vishnu plucked out one of His Lotus eyes , offered it to the feet of Lord Shiva and finally how Lord Shiva gave Him the ‘Sudarshan Chakra'( the divine discus). Is this story traceable in the Mahabharata? If not, then where can I find the detail this story ?

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      It’s detailed in Shiva Purana. In mahabharata too a passing reference exists. Puranas have the detailed story of it.

      Reply
  27. Subhasis Dey

    Where in the Mahabharata can I find the passing reference of this story ? Also, let me know the related chapter in the Siva Puranam.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      I don’t have references handy with me. I don’t have much time as well. So, excuse me for not being able to help.

      Reply
  28. Subhasis Dey

    Where apart from the Siva Puranam one can find the incident of Daksha Yagna in detail ? Can this be found in the Mahabharata ?

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

      It’s there in Mahabharata. Pls help yourself wit the lookup of verses.

      Reply
  29. parijatovacha

    You have missed the gist of this episode.

    The hunkAra is Om & hearing that sound(nAda) Rudra goes into meditation. Thus his bow is jrambhita(frozen strung with arrow as it is) & Rudra is stambhita into samAdhi.

    The stupid audience concludes Vishnu’ superiority as their impure minds are drawn towards aishvarya vigraha(Vishnu).

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

      Thank you for this beautiful explanation. I have could of corrections to be made as this article was written way back and I I thought I should revise it sometime, hence I had made a notification text at the top of this article saying this article needs to be updated. So, Yes, I would do some corrections at a later point of time.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: