The unborn Rudra of Svetaswatara Upanishad and Sata Rudriya hymn is Umapati Mahadeva beyond doubt!

| Om Namah Shivaya | Shivaya Gurave Namah |

 

Background (Reason behind writing this article)


I don’t know where my Hinduism is heading at! Poor lord Shiva is being deprived of all his properties by humans. The hymn Sri Rudram which has always been recognized by ancient seers and scriptures as a hymn in praise of lord Shiva, today that hymn is being forcibly snatched away from Shiva and is being gifted to lord Vishnu. What is happening to my Hinduism I am really not sure of! If these kinds of situations continue to prevail with same intensity, I can foresee that after three or four generations Hinduism would mean only Vaishnavism. Why don’t people allow Shiva to enjoy his share of glory, I really don’t have the answer!

Recently two Vaishnavas viz. “UNKNOWN” alias “Dark Warrior” alias “Sri Vaishnava” alias “Aaryamaa” (and Originally “Srinivasan Ramanujan”) and “Humble Bhagawata Bandhu” alias “Prahaladadasa!” (Original name removed on personal request from that person) argued with me. Poor chaps, probably they thought that by hiding their real names they would be able to protect their identities! Probably they didn’t know about my detective kind of skills or probably they underestimated them. I had requested “Mr. Unknown” to talk to me under his real name, but neither he nor his friend followed my request.

They argued with me saying that Sri Rudram is not a hymn of lord Shiva and said it actually belongs to Narayana.Despite being busy these days I had no other choice than to spend some additional efforts in late night and write this article to clear their misunderstandings and explain the viewpoint of scriptures clearly. I always assumed that people would by default take that Sata-rudriyam hymn (Sri Rudram) as a hymn to Rudra, I never expected anyone disagreeing to this fact. This is the reason perhaps it never struck my mind to make ‘Rudram’ one of the topics of my articles. I am actually feeling thankful to those two Vaishnavas because they have given me a good topic to write an article on. Sometimes some good things happen with the influence of others, and the credits of motivating me to come out of my cave (of busy mechanical work life) and do some service to Mahadeva in the form of this article goes to those two gentlemen. Many thanks to them! Let us analyze this problem and see what scriptures have to say on this matter.

Vaishnavite Claims:


The following claims have been made by them.

  • Svetaswatara  Upanishad’s Rudra who gave birth to Hiranyagarbha is not Shiva, there Rudra means Narayana
  • Sri Rudram hymn is a hymn of Vishnu and all the Shaivite names contained therein also belong to Vishnu
  • Rudra was born from Prajapati and Prajapati gave him names like Ishana, Mahadeva, etc., which were the names of Narayana. Rudra was sinful at birth, and the names of Narayana made him cleansed of his sins
  • Rudra was absent during pralaya and only Narayana existed

These are the problem statements in our hand for which we’ll find solutions.  We’ll have to analyze the following things – Need to find out who fathered Hiranyagarbha. Once that is found out we can easily understand the meaning of Rudra’s appearance as a child born from Brahma. And finally we’ll also prove whose hymn is Sri Rudram.

Let’s analyse these problems based on shruti and smriti both and see what they have to say in this regard.

1. Rudra of Svetasvatara Upanishad who engendered Hiranyagarbha is lord Shiva beyond doubt!

 


1.1 Analysis using Upanishads

Let me use the “Proof by contradiction” method to solve the question who is “Rudra” in Svetasvatara Upanishad. Let’s assume that the Rudra of Svetasvatara Upanishad is Vishnu (Narayana) and let’s find out whether our assumption stands correct of gets contradicted.

Svetasvatara Upanishad states that Rudra withdraws entire creation into himself at the end of the time as follows.

“eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthurya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH |
pratyaN^ janaastishhThati saJNchukochaantakaale sa.nsR^ijya vishvaa bhuvanaani gopaaH |” (Svetaswatara Upanishad 3:02)

“Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time”.

Here we can see that Rudra of Svetasvatara Upanishad is the only one, he is the self of all (Atman), he is the creator and withdrawer of everything.  Let’s analyze and see who this Rudra is!

Mahanarayanopanishad (XVI-1) of Yajurveda calls lord Rudra the Umapati as the Atman dwelling in every being:

“aatmaaya namaH |” (Salutations to Him, He who is the Spirit – Atman – dwelling in all creatures. )
“aatmali~Ngaaya namaH |” (Salutations to Him, He who is concealed in the heart of all creatures being their inmost Self.)

Ekakshara Upanishad talks the following about the eternal Atman the indweller of all.

“ya eva.n nitya.n vedayate guhaashayaM
prabhuM puraaNa.n sarvabhuuta.n hiraNmayam.h |
hiraNmayaM buddhimataaM paraa.n gati.n
sa buddhimaanbuddhimatiitya tishhThatiityupanishhat.h |” (Ekakshara Upanishad 13)

“Whoso thus knows the eternal Dweller (soul) in the cave of the heart, the ancient Lord who has become the all, the golden, the supreme goal of the wise, is wise. He stays transcending all (forms of) wisdom. This is the secret doctrine”.

Now the same Upanishad reveals who is that lord who dwells as the Atman; in the very opening verse itself as follows. Additionally note that the below verse clearly sattes that the supreme lord is the source of all.

ekaakshara.n tvakshare.atraasti some
sushhumnaayaa.n cheha dR^iDhii sa ekaH |
tva.n vishvabhuurbhuutapatiH puraaNaH
parjanya eko bhuvanasya goptaa |” (Ekakshara Upanishad 1)
“Thou art the one Imperishable in the Imperishable, conjoint with Uma., as known by means of Susumna, here (on the empirical plane), the one firm (Principle art Thou). Thou art the ancient source of the world, the Lord of beings; Thou the Parjanya (the Principle of life-giving water), the Protector of the world”.Even Panchabrahma Upanishad states the same that Umapati-Rudra is the indweller of all as follows”.

“aya.n hR^idi sthitaH saakshii sarveshhaamavisheshhataH |
tenaaya.n hR^idayaM proktaH shivaH sa.nsaaramochakaH |” (Panchabrahmopanishat 36)
“Lord Shiva, who grants salvation to one, from this day- to-day life of the world, exists as witness without differentiation in the heart of all beings and is called Hrudayam (That which exists within)”.

Now, let’s come to the attribute of withdrawing the entire creation at the end of time which has been stated in Swetasvatara Upanishad. Even Dakshinamurty Upanishad states the same fact that at the end of time it is lord Dakshinamurty who withdraws entire creation into himself as follows.

“sa hovaacha . yena dakshiNaamukhaH shivo.aparokshiikR^ito
bhavati tatparamarahasyashivatattvaj~naanam.h . yaH sarvoparame kaale
sarvaanaatmanyupasa.nhR^itya svaatmaanandasukhe modate prakaashate
vaa sa devaH |” (Dakshinamurty Upanishad 1:01)

“He said: That constitutes knowledge of the Highest Secret,—of S’iva, the Reality—by which Siva, the Dakshinâmukha, becomes intuited. He is the Deity who, at the time of universal dissolution, absorbs all into Himself, and who shines and delights in the happiness of His own inherent bliss”.

Since by logic there cannot be two different gods who withdraw the creation into themselves at the end of time, Svetaswatara Upanishad’s god of withdrawal and Dakshinamurty Upanishad’s god of withdrawer must be identical.

Since recently I have learnt that assumptions are very costly affair. Therefore let me not assume that people would understand that Dakshinamurty is Lord Shiva. Who knows? Tomorrow someone may come up saying Dakshinamurty is the name of Vishnu and not Shiva? For all such questions, Dakshimamurty Upanishad itself gives clarity as follows.

It clearly depicts the appearance of Dakshinamurty as moon-crested, three eyed god, and serpent-girdled god as follows.

“sphaTikarajatavarNaM mauktikiimakshamaalaa-
mamR^itakalashavidyaa.n j~naanamudraa.n karaagre |
dadhatamuragakakshya.n chandrachuuDa.n trinetraM
vidhR^itavividhabhuushha.n dakshiNaamuurtimiiDe |” (Dakshinamurty Upanishad 3)

“I adore the three-eyed, moon-crested Dakshinâmûrti who is of pebble and silver colour, holding in the hands a rosary of pearls, a vessel of nectar, a book and the symbol of wisdom; having a serpent for his girdle, and putting on various ornaments”.

Therefore this analysis reveals us the truth that Dakshinamurty who is moon-crested, three-eyed Mahadeva, he withdraws the creation into himself at the end of time, hence the Rudra of Swetasvatara also muist be lord Shiva the consort of Uma only.

With this extensive analysis our initial assumption of Rudra of Svetaswatara being Narayana is clearly contradicted and we came to a conclusion that Rudra of Svetaswatara is Mahadeva alone!

Now, with this understanding of Rudra of Svetaswatara Upansiahd as Lord Shiva, we learn another fact that it is Rudra (Shiva) who engendered Hiranyagarbha at the beginning of creation as stated in below verse from Svetaswatara Upanishad.

“yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH | hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu |” (Svetaswatara Upanishad 3:04)
“He, the omniscient seer 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!”

Above verse additionally gives us the information that Rudra engendered all the Gods and he is called as a great seer (Guru) since he is the Dakshinamurty the storehouse of all knowledge, hence the above verse is requesting rudra to bestow intellect (wisdom). This is why Svetaswatara Upanishad states that at the beginning Rudra gave Vedas to Brahma as follows.

“yo brahmaaNa.n vidadhaati puurva.n | yo vai vedaa.nshcha prahiNoti tasmai .ta.n ha devaM aatmabuddhiprakaashaM | mumuxurvai sharaNamahaM prapadye |” (Svetaswatara Upanishad 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”.

Since Rudra delivers Vedas (means supreme knowledge) in the form of Dakshinamurty this is why, the same is stated in Dakshinamurty Upansihad also as follows. Here the power to create is not any alient phrase. Creation proceeds from Vedas hence this verse states Brahma got the necessary knowledge (Vedas) for creation from Shiva.

“sargaadikaale bhagavaanviri~nchirupaasyaina.n sargasaamarthyamaapya | ” (Dakshinamurty Upanishad 1:20)
“At the beginning of creation, Brahmâ the Lord, having worshipped S’iva, attained power to create and was delighted at heart”.

Due to the reason that Rudra is the greatest seer (Dakshinamurty), Svetaswatara Upanishad also pleads the southward directed face (Dakshinamurty) for liberation, since liberation is achievable through knowledge.

“ajaata ityeva.n kashchidbhiiruH prapadyate | rudra yatte daxiNaM mukha.n tena maaM paahi nityam.h |”(Svetaswatara Upanishad 4:21)
“It is because Thou, O Lord, art birthless, that some rare souls, frightened by birth and death, take refuge in Thee. O Rudra, may Thy southward face (dakshinam mukha) protect me forever!”

With the above analysis it must be clear by now that the Dakshinamurty Upanishad and Svetaswatara Upanishad unanimously glorify one and the same Rudra who is the consort of Bhavani who bestowed Vedas to Brahma. This is enough but let me also quote evidence in another Upanisahd as follows. The below Upanishad verse summarizes the same facts in a simple one paragraph all that we analyzed above so far.

“prabhu.n vareNyaM pitaraM mahesha.n yo brahmaaNa.n vidadhaati tasmai |
vedaa.nshcha sarvaanprahiNoti chaagrya.n ta.n vai prabhuM pitara.n devataanaam.h |
mamaapi vishhNorjanaka.n devamiiDyaM yo.antakaale sarvalokaansa.njahaara |
sa ekaH shreshhThashcha sarvashaastaa sa eva varishhThashcha |” (Sarabha Upanishad 1:2-3)

“I am saluting that primeval God who is the Lord, who is the best, who is the father of the world, who is the greatest among gods, who has created Brahma, who gave all Vedas to Brahma in the beginning, who is the father of Vishnu and other devas, who merits praise, and who at the time of deluge destroys the world. He is the only one who is greater than every body, who is the best and who rules over others”.

Even Mahabharata supports this fact that; it is Rudra who is the creator of the universe (known as Hiranyagarbha) and creater of all gods and it is again Mahadeva who would dissolve every god and everything into himself. Mahabharata clearly states below that there is nothing superior than Mahadeva!

“tad dṛṣṭvā vrīḍito rājan sa muniḥ pādayor gataḥ | nānyaṃ devam ahaṃ manye rudrāt parataraṃ mahat |
surāsurasya jagato gatis tvam asi śūladhṛk | tvayā sṛṣṭam idaṃ viśvaṃ trailokyaṃ sa carācaram |
tvām eva bhagavan sarve praviśanti yugakṣaye | devair api na śakyas tvaṃ parijñātuṃ kuto mayā |
tvayi sarve ca dṛśyante surā brahmādayo ‘nagha | sarvas tvam asi lokānāṃ kartā kārayitā ca ha |
tvatprasādāt surāḥ sarve modantīhākuto bhayāḥ | evaṃ stutvā mahādevaṃ sa ṛṣiḥ praṇato ‘bhavat |” (MBH 3:81:107b-111)
””And beholding this, O king, that Muni became ashamed and fell at the feet of the god. And believing that there was nothing better and greater than the god Rudra, he began to adore him in these words: “O holder of the trident, thou art the refuge of the celestials and the Asuras, of, indeed, the universe. By thee have been created the three worlds with their mobile and immobile beings. It is thou again that swallowest everything at the end of the Yuga. Thou art incapable of being known by the gods themselves, far less by me. O sinless one, the gods with Brahma at their heads are all displayed in thee. Thou art all, the Creator himself and the Ordainer of the worlds. It is by thy grace that all the gods sport without anxiety or fear”.

Now let me load Kaivalya Upanishad in my analysis. Kaivalya Upanishad clearly hails Shiva as the ONLY one who is the origin of worlds and has become everything. It hails Shiva with the highest attributes of supremacy and then clearly calls out that lord as the three-eyed, blue-necked, highest lord of Uma as follows.

“hR^itpuNDariikaM virajaM vishuddhaM vichintya madhye vishadaM vishokam.h
achintyamavyaktamanantaruupaM shivaM prashaantamamR^itaM brahmayonim.h |6
tamaadimadhyaantavihiinamekaM vibhuM chidaanandamaruupamadbhutam.h
umaasahaayaM parameshvaraM prabhuM trilochanaM niilakaNThaM prashaantam.h
dhyaatvaa munirgachchhati bhuutayoniM samastasaakShiM tamasaH parastaat.h |” (kaivalyopanishat 6-7)

“(Who is) unthinkable, unmanifest, of endless forms, the good, the peaceful, Immortal, the origin of the worlds, without beginning, middle, and end, the only one, all-pervading, Consciousness, and Bliss, the formless and the wonderful. Meditating on the highest Lord, allied to Uma, powerful, three-eyed, blue-necked, and tranquil, the holy man reaches Him who is the source of all, the witness of all and is beyond darkness (i.e. Avidya)”.

Kaivalya Upanishad also talks about the supreme lord as the one god who alone is all that was and all that will be as follows. The below verse states the same concept discussed in Purusha Suktam i.e., “purusha Eva idam sarvam yad bhUtam yad bhavyam” meaning, “Purusha is alone everything whatever was in the past and whatever will be in future.

“sa eva sarvaM yadbhuutaM yachcha bhavyaM sanaatanam.h |
j~naatvaa taM mR^ityumatyeti naanyaH panthaa vimuktaye |”(Kaivalya Upanishad 9)

“He alone is all that was, and all that will be, the Eternal; knowing Him, one transcends death; there is no other way to liberation”.

It clearly says that by knowing Rudra one attains Mukti, and it clearly rules out existance of any other path towards liberation. This means knowing Shiva is the only path to liberation!

The above verse about Rudra is what is stated in Svetaswatara Upanishad about Veda purusha Rudra as follows. Svetaswatara Upanishad also states the same path for liberation.

“vedaahametaM purushhaM mahaantamaadityavarNa.n tamasaH parastaat.h |
tameva viditvaatimR^ityumeti naanyaH panthaa vidyate.ayanaaya |” (Svetaswatara Upanishad 3:08)

“I know that great purusha (Rudra) of sunlike lustre beyond the darkness. A man who knows him truly, passes over death; there is no other path to liberation”.

Therefore it is again proved that Rudra (Purusha) of Svetaswatara Upanishad is Umapati-Rudra beyond doubt!

Conclusion: –

With the above analysis our initial assumption of Rudra of Svetaswatara Upanishad being Vishnu is clearly refuted, hence it is also crystal clear that Rudra who gave birth to Hiranyagarbha at the beginning of creation, the Rudra sung in Svetaswatara Upanishad is Mahadeva alone and NOT Vishnu.


1.2 Analysis using Vedas


Let’s analyse the problem statement using Vedas now. Atharva Veda has a hymn to ascetic form of lord Shiva (Vratya) which states how Vratya manifested within the Hiranyagarbha (Shining universe). Here are the excerpts.

“vrā́tya āsīd ī́yamāna evá sá prajā́patiṃ sám airayat | sá prajā́patiḥ suvárṇam ātmánn apaśyat tát prā́janayat | tád ékam abhavat tál lalā́mam abhavat tán mahád abhavat táj jyeṣṭhám abhavat tád bráhmābhavat tát tápo ‘bhavat tát satyám abhavat téna prā́jāyata |” (Atharva Veda 15:1:1-3)
“There was Vratya . He roused Prajapati to action. Prajapati beheld gold in himself and engendered it. That became unique, that became distinguished, that became great, that became excellent, that became Brahman, that became Tapas, that became Truth: through that he (Vratya) was born.”

That Vratya after entering the universe (Hiranyagarbha) he is again called as Eka Vratya. He was of  blue-red color (nilalOhita), and is called as Mahadeva, he being the controller of all he is called Ishana

“sò ‘vardhata sá mahā́n abhavat sá mahādevò ‘bhavat | sá devā́nām īśā́ṃ páry ait sá ī́śāno ‘bhavat | sá ekavrātyò ‘bhavat sá dhánur ā́datta tád evéndradhanúḥ | nī́lam asyodáraṃ lóhitaṃ pr̥ṣṭhám | nī́lenaivā́priyaṃ bhrā́tr̥vyaṃ prórṇoti lóhitena dviṣántaṃ vidhyatī́ti brahmavādíno vadanti |”  (Atharva Veda 15:1:4-8)
“He grew, he became great, he became Mahadeva.He gained the lordship of the Gods. He became Ishana. He became Eka Vratya. He held a bow, even that Bow of Indra. His belly is dark-blue, his back is red (Nila Lohitam). With dark-blue he envelops a detested rival, with red he pierces the man who hates him: so the theologians say.”

As evident from above verses, the being called Vratya present inside the Hiranyagarbha is the same Vratya who was present outside the hiranyagarbha and who created the Hiranyagarbha. This inner Vratya is Eka Vratya because he was the first one who manifested within the universe so Eka (loner). This Vratya was Rudra having blue-red appearance (nilalOhitam) and was hailed as Mahadeva and Ishana owing to his supremacy.

So, Atharva Veda clarifies that the Vratya (Rudra) who manifested within Hiranyagarbha is the same Vratya who engendered Hiranyagarbha. Note this point carefully. Then he manifested himself into various other deities like Agni, Varuna, Indra etc., including Vishnu (I’m just quoting Vishnu’s birth related verse).

“sá yád dhruvā́ṃ díśam ánu vyácalad víṣṇur bhūtvā́nuvyàcalad virā́jam annādī́ṃ kr̥tvā́ |” (Atharva Veda XV:14:5)
“He (Vratya ), when he went away to the stedfast region, went away having become Vishnu and having made Virāj an eater of food”.

Thus this is the same fact what we see in Svetaswatara Upanishad as follows. The below verse clearly states that the lord who fathered Hirayagarbha was Rudra and again Rudra created other gods.

“yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH | hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu |” (Svetaswatara Upanishad 3:04)
“He, the omniscient seer 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!”

So, this makes it crystal clear that Vishnu is NOT the origin of Rudra but instead Rudra is the one who manifested Vishnu from himself within this universe. So, Vishnu is Rudra’s form but vice versa is NOT true. And it is also clear that the Vratya (Rudra) was present before the creation of Hiranyagarbha and he only entered the Hiranyagarbha again.

So, from above analysis it is clear that Rudra of Svetaswatara Upanisahd is the three eyed deity the consort of Uma. Well, this itself is conclusive beyond question; but would want to explain Satapatha Brahmana’s story of Rudra’s manifestation because the Vaishnava gentlemen were misinterpreting it.

Well, we have the same story of Rudra’s manifestation within the universe as depicted in Satapatha Brahmana as quoted below. The Prajapati described in Satapatha Brahmana is the Hiranyagarbha (the shining physical universe). Satapatha Brahmana states Prajapati as “Year” and his mistress Usha as “Dawn” as shown below.

“tadyāni tāni bhūtāni | ṛtavaste ‘tha yaḥ sa bhūtānām patiḥ saṃvatsaraḥ so ‘tha yā soṣāḥ
patnyauṣasī |” (Shatapatha Brahmana 6:1:3:8)

Now, those beings are the seasons; and that lord of beings (prajapati) is the year; and that Ushas, the mistress, is the Dawn.”

What does this mean? Prajapati being year he is symbolic usage for “time” and his mistress is called Dawn which is symbolic of “Space”. This means the shining physical universe which is a framework of “Space and time”, within this space-time universe, the supreme lord Rudra who is beyond this universe, who is beyond the time, who is beyond all and is the highest; that rudra entered this universe and appeared here as shown below.

“sā tānīmāni bhūtāni ca bhūtānāṃ ca patiḥ saṃvatsara uṣasi reto ‘siñcantsa
saṃvatsare kumāro ‘jāyata so ‘rodīt|” (Shatapatha Brahmana 6:1:3:8)

“And these same creatures, as well as the lord of beings, the year, laid seed into Ushas. There a boy (kumâra) was born in a year, he cried.”

And then Satapatha Brahmana says that prajapati gives him eight names Rudra, Sarva, Pashupati, Ugra, Asani, Bhava, Mahadeva and Isana; and with each of these names respectively lord Rudra manifests himself as his eight forms cleebrated as Astamurty viz. Agni, Varuna (waters), Vegetation (Earth), Vayu, Indra, Cloud (Sky), Moon and Sun.

However, as seen above Prajapati is nothing but the physical universe (Hiranyagarbha) which comprises of space-time coordinates; and hence the Prajapati giving names to Rudra is also symbolic to say that Rudra assumed eight forms from his OWN eight names.

Now, comparing this story of Satapatha Brahmana with the Atharva Veda’s Vratya-Rudra Suktam; we can understand that the Rudra within this space-time framework MUST be same as the Rudra who is beyond this space-time framework (Prajapati), who created this Prajapati (space-time framework called Hiranyagarbha). And yes, our conclusion is true; the same conclusion is given in Svetaswatara Upanishad as follows.

“yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH | hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu |” (Svetaswatara Upanishad 3:04)
“He, the omniscient seer 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!”

We’ll see how Vaishnavas wishfully interpret Rudra’s appearance as “birth” and related stuff in a separate section titled “Refutation of Rudra’s birth related misconceptions” ant the end of this article.

This is again the end of our analysis which proves beyond any doubt that Rudra of Svetaswatara Upanishad is Bhavani’s consort the three-eyed Mahadeva only! Let me show some direct references from Taittiriya Aranyaka which supports this analysis done so far.

Taittiriya Aranyaka states Sadashiva as the overlord of Hiranyagarbha and the preserver of Vedas (as Dakshinamurty), who is the Ishwara the lord of all created beings and Ishana the supreme seer.

“iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM
brahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h ” (Taittiriya Aranyaka 10.21.1)

“May the Supreme who is Ishana the ruler of all knowledge, who is Ishwara, the controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be benign to me. That Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava (OM).”

And again there is no room for Vaishnavas for any assumptions of above Ishana being Vishnu because the immediate next para of Taitiriya Aranyaka clearly proves that the source of all vedas is the same lord of all creatures (pashupati) who is the consort of Uma.

“namo hiraNyabaahave hiraNyavarNaaya hiraNyaruupaaya hiraNyapataye.ambikaapataya
umaapataye pashupataye namo namaH ” (Taittiriya Aranyaka 10.22.1)

“Salutations again and again to Hiranyabahu [One who has ornaments of gold on the arms or possessing a form having the golden hue], Hiranyavarna [He who is the source of the syllables of the Vedas which are as precious as gold], Hiranyarupa [He who is shining in splendour], Hiranyapati [the Lord of riches wholesome and charming], Ambikapati [the consort of Ambika, the Mother of the universe], Umapati [The master of Uma, Brahma-vidya personified as such], Pasupati [the Lord of all created beings]”.

Conclusion: – Rudra of Svetaswatara Upanishad is doubtlessly Mahadeva the consort of Uma! All the speculations of Vaishnavas mapping him to Vishnu are only baseless and useless speculations.

 

1.3. Analysis using Purana – Svetaswatara rishi was truly Shiva devotee only

 

King Prithu the son of Vena, by the grace of Lord Vishnu, had two illustrious sons viz. Shikhandin and Havirdhana. The son of Shikhandin was known as ‘Sushila’. This grandson of Prithu, after having studied the Vedas and all the ancillary branches, was attracted towards renunciation. He wandered all the places and meanwhile he used to perform ‘tapas’ and also continue studying (reciting) Vedas. Finally he reached Himalayas where he reached a forest named ‘dharma-vana’ which was accessible only for the noble hearted people. Within that forrest used to flow the river mandakini. He took bathe in that river, and offered his adorations to Mahadeva with several types of lotuses. Again he immersed himself in adoration to Rudra via reciting Rudradhyaya, Rudracharita and other prayers of Shiva taken from Vedas.  

While he was immersed in devotion to Shiva he witnessed a great sage ‘Svetasvatara’ coming there. Note that below verses clearly say ‘Svetasvatara’ was a great pAshupata – coming as a jolt on all the wicked Vaishnavas who say Svetaswatara was a Rama bhakta and his Upanishad sings glory of Rama.

“athāsminnantare ‘paśyat tamāyāntaṃ mahāmunim |
śvetāśvataranāmānaṃ mahāpāśupatottamam || 31
bhasmasaṃdigdhasavāṅgaṃ kaupīnācchādanānvitam |
tapasā karṣitātmānaṃ śuklayajñopavītinam ||” (Kurma Purana 1:13:31-32)
“In the meantime, he spotted the great sage ‘Svetasvatara’ who was the best of the ‘Pasupatas (devotees of Shiva). The said ascetic had applied ashes all over his body. He wore a kaupIna (loin cloth), having lean and thin body, because of his performing tapas. He was wearing a white sacred thread, yajnopavita”.

This ‘Sushila’ out of happiness salutes that sage and submits himself as his disciple. Then the great yogi ‘Svetasvatara’ accepts him as his disciple.

“so ‘nugṛhyātha rājānaṃ suśīlaṃ śīlasaṃyutam |
śiṣyatve parijagrāha tapasā kṣīṇakalpaṣam ||” (Kurma Purana 1:13:36)
“The great sage, finding the noble king having become emaciated due to his performing severe penances, accepted him as his disciple”.

Recall that this king was desirous of renunciation, and after meeting Svetaswatara his dear wish has fructified. Sage Svetaswatara initiates him into ‘sanyasa’.

“sāṃnyāsikaṃ vidhiṃ kṛtsnaṃ kārayitvā vicakṣaṇaḥ |
dadau tadaiśvaraṃ jñānaṃ svaśākhāvihitaṃ vratam ||” (Kurma Purana 1:13:37)
“The astonishing sage made the king to perform the entire procedure for embracing ‘sanyasa’ and admitted him into his own branch of sanyasa. Then he bestowed the divine knowledge to him”.

Then look at the below verse carefully – Here Svetasvatara rishi teaches him concepts of ‘pasu (bonded jiva), ‘pasa (maya), and ‘pati (lord Shiva)’, which are typically used in Shiva’s path.

“aśeṣavedasāraṃ tat paśupāśavimocanam |
antyāśramamiti khyātaṃ brahmādibhiranuṣṭhitam ||” (Kurma Purana 1:13:38)
“He enlightened him on the theory of Pasu (Jiva), and ‘Pasa (the binding noose of avidya), the essence of all the Vedas, known as ‘antyAshrama’ and is established by BrahmA and others”.

Then that sage shows all his disciples of twice-born order performing their studies of the teachings expounded by his school, and clearly says their goal is to attain Mahadeva who is originally ‘nishkala’. Clearly thwarts all traces of the assumptions that ‘Svetaswatara’ was a devotee of Rama.

“uvāca śiṣyān saṃprekṣya ye tadāśramavāsinaḥ |
brāhmaṇān kṣatriyān vaiśyān brahmacaryaparāyaṇān || 39
mayā pravartitāṃ śākhāmadhītyaiveha yoginaḥ |
samāsate mahādevaṃ dhyāyanto niṣkalaṃ śivam ||” (Kurma Purana 1:13:39-40)
“Observing all his disciples living in that hermitage, he said – Those of the disciples viz. Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas who are performers of Brahmacharya, should study the branch initiated by me to become the yogins and attain Lord Mahadeva by meditating on that Shiva who is nishkala”.

Then that sage ‘Svetasvatara’ evoting s mind on the carrier of Pinaka initiated the king with Agni-Mantra to destroy all his sins. Clearly the object of that sage’s meditation is bhagavan Rudra only.

“evamābhāṣya viprendro devaṃ dhyātvā pinākinam |
ācacakṣe mahāmantraṃ yathāvat svārthasiddhaye || 46
sarvapāpopaśamanaṃ vedasāraṃ vimuktidam |
agnirityādikaṃ puṇyamṛṣibhiḥ saṃpravartitam ||” (Kurma Purana 1:13:46-47)
“Thus speaking, the excellent Brahmana, devoting his mind towards the lord who wields Pinaka, for the achievement of all success, advised him on the ‘agnimantra’, which happens to be the remover of all sins, the essence of all the Vedas, bestower of moksha, auspicious and practiced by the rishis. This was done by him appropriately”.

Then look at the below verses. That king applies sacred ashes over his body, becomes a Pashupata and embraces Sanyasa. As a side note – that ‘Pasupata’ is verily non-dualistic Vedantic school only. Later on Shiva created a dualistic version by the same name and spread illusion in the world. Brahmasutras refuted that dualistic school, not the original Pashupata school which is completely Vedic and Vedantic.

“so ‘pi tadvacanād rājā suśīlaḥ śraddhayānvitaḥ |
sākṣāt pāśupato bhūtvā vedābhyāsarato ‘bhavat || 48
bhasmoddhūlitasarvāṅgaḥ kandamūlaphalāśanaḥ |
śānto dānto jitakrodhaḥ saṃnyāsavidhimāśritaḥ ||” (Kurma Purana 1:13:48-49)
“On hearing his words, the noble king having been filled with devotion, turning himself to be a Pasupata, engaged himself in the study of Vedas. The king then applied sacred ashes over his body, consumed roots and fruits of the forest, remaining extremely peaceful, overpowering the anger, embraced sanyasa appropriately”.

Conclusion: – From the Kurma Purana we clearly see that sage ‘Svetaswatara’ was a devotee of Shiva and his conception of the Supreme Being was Bhagavan Shiva only. Therefore, the ‘Rudra’ of Svetasvatara Upanishad is verily umapati beyond doubt. When we have Purana itself attesting this truth, it means Vedavyasa himself is supporting this point – then why do we need to even pay attention towards the poison-hearted cunning Vaishnavas?

 

Controversy of Mahopanishad and Narayanopanishad Clarified


Those Vaishnava gentlemen also argued with me saying Rudra of Svetaswatara Upanishad cannot be Shiva because Mahopanishad states that Eshana was absent during Pralaya. What an irrational logic it is! Rudra is the one who dissolves the creation within himself, so he being absent during Pralaya is out of question; and these surface thinkers have read the Mahopanisahd purely in the literal sense.  Scriptures are esoteric and indepth understanding is required instead of surface grazing.

If Narayana of Mahopanishad and Narayanopanishad are treated as Vishnu, then it would contradict many Shruti passages, hence it would become unauthentic. However, all contradictions would get erased ONLY by knowing that “Narayana” spoken of in Vedas and Upanishads is NOT Vishnu; it is the name of unmanifest Shakti, the Kundalini which is Tripurasundari, which is identical with Supreme Brahman. All these controversial attacks from mahopanishad and Narayanopanishad have been successfully refuted, and their real meanings have been explained in my article “NARAYANA SUKTAM – A hymn to Tripurasundari Devi” (refer to section titled ‘Analyzing nArAyaNa from other Upanishads’ within that article).

 

2. Who is the central deity of Sata Rudriya hymn?

2.1 Shruti recognizes Sri Rudram as a hymn of Rudra alone

 

Sri Rudram which is a collection of Mantras from Yajurveda Samhita has the most famous mantra of liberation called mahamrityunjaya Mantra as follows

“tryambakam yajAmahe sugandhim pusti vardhanam |
urvArukamiva bandhanAn mrtyormukshIya mAmrtAt |”  (Yajurveda 1:8:6:i)

“We worship the fragrant Three-Eyed One, the Promoter of prosperity. May we be freed from the bondage of death as a cucumber from its stalk; But not from immortality”.

The same mantra exists in Rigveda (7:59:12) also.

This is a clear indication that the Rudra mentioned in Yajurveda and Rigveda is a three-eyed one. There is no scripture in Hinduism which has ever called Vishnu as three eyed deity. Take any Purana, be it Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta or BrAhma, or take even Mahabharata, Ramayana, and even Tantras; there is no scripture one can show me where Maha-Mrityunjaya Mantra has been ascribed to Vishnu. It is always a Shiva’s mantra. Puranas have many stories to support this –

  1. Daksha Prajapati cursed Chandra to suffer from leprosy, chandra worshiped lord Rudra with his Maha-Mrityunjaya Mantra and got cured by his grace and that’s how Somanatha-Jyotirlinga of lord Shiva was established by Chandra (One may refer to any Purana where Somanatha Jyotirlinga story is discussed).
  2. Shukracharya obtained Maha-Mrityunjaya Mantra with which he gained “Mrita-Sanjeevani-Vidya” again because it was Mahadeva’s grace and his Mantra’s potency..
  3. Markandeya wrote a hymn on Lord Shiva which runs under the name of “Maha-Mrityunjaya-Stotram”
  4. Sage Kashyapa prays to Bhagawan Rudra calling him Tryambaka and puShtidam in Harivamsa Parva which is an appendix to Mahabharata as follows. puShtidam (Health giver) is a synonym of puShtivardhanam (health increaser). Therefore clearly this mantra cited below is a derived from Maha-Mrityunjaya Mantra alone…

 

“tryaMbakaM puShTidaM vo bruvANaM | dharmaM viprANAM varadaM yajvanAM cha |
varAdvaraM raNajetAramIshaM | devaM devAnAM sharaNaM yAmi rudram ||” (Harivamsa Parva 2:72:45)

”I seek refuge in Lord rudra (mahAdeva) who has three eyes, who flourishes all, who advises brahmins and vice men on dharma, who provides the wishes of the masters of the sacrifice, who is the best of the best, the lord who is the winner of battles, who is the lord of gods”.

Hope these evidences are enough to understand that Tryambaka Mantra is the property of only Mahadeva! Three eyes is the copyright and trademark attribute of Mahadeva and his consort Durga only. Therefore this maha-mrityunjaya mantra which exists in Taittiriya Samhita of Yajurveda and Rigveda proves that the Rudra of Veda is Umapati. And because this mantra is also included in Sri Rudram it is evident that Rudra of Sri Rudram is Umapati-Mahadeva and not Narayana at any cost.

Then we have Sri Rudram addressing Rudra as “Kapardin”, meaning, “one who ahs matted locks of hair”. This name ‘Kapardin’ is again proprietary to Rudra alone because it is he who has braided hair which he curls and ties. He doesn’t wear any crown as such. Whereas Vishnu always wears a crown and he is nowhere called as Kapardin (even in Vishnu Sahasranama).

“Imama rudraaya thavase kapardhinee |” (Yajurveda iv:5:10:c)
“This prayer we offer up to the impetuous Rudra, with plaited hair”.

Moreover, Taittiriya Aranyaka clearly recognizes Pashupati as the lord of Uma as stated below.

“umaapataye pashupataye namo namaH |” (Taittiriya Aranyaka 10.22.1)
“Salutations to the overlord of all created beings and who is the lord of Uma”.

And Taittiriya Samhita clearly tells us that the Pashupati (Shiva) rules both quadrupeds and bipeds as stated below.

“pashupatih pashunaam chatushpadam uta ca dvipadam |” (Yajurveda III-1-4)
“What cattle the lord of cattle (pashupati) ruleth? He rules both the four-footed and the two-footed.”

So, now it is clear that the lord Pashupati who rules on both two-footed and four-footed animals is the lord of Uma viz. Umapati-Rudra. Now, let me show that Sri Rudram prays to the same lord of all pashus to protect the bipeds and quadrupeds. It’s logical to understand that the oen who rules over someone would only be able to protect and take interest in them. Note that the below verse is a part of the same verse where Rudra is called as “Kapardin” as shown above. Therefore this request is being placed to the Pashupati who is Kapardin (of matted hair).

“Imama rudraaya  thavase kapardhinee  kshyadweeraaya prabharaamahe mathim |
Yadhaa na sama sad dwipadhe chatushpadhe viswam pushtam graame asmin aathuram |” (Yajurveda iv:5:10:c)

“This prayer is addressed to Rudra (Kapardin), the destroyer of men, that health be for our bipeds and quadrupeds, And that all in this village be prosperous and free from ill”.

Also it hails Rudra as Pashupati as follows.

“pasunaam pathaye namo namah |” (Yajurveda iv:5:2:b)
“Homage to the lord of cattle! homage”.

Also, Rudram clearly calls out Rudra as Soma (sa+Uma), the consort of Uma as follows.

“nama somaaya cha rudhraaya cha |” (Yajurveda iv:5:8:a)
“Salutations to the lord who is with (his consort) Uma and to the one who relieves one from the misery of samsaara”.

Soma means Rudra with Uma, this form of Rudra who sits in Kailasha with his consort Uma sitting on his left thigh is very auspicious form. This form is said to grant all (righteous) wishes of a devotee quickly. This Soma is the name of Rudra in Rig Veda also as shown below.

 

“somārudrā dhārayethāmasuryaṃ pra vāmiṣṭayo.aramaśnuvantu |
dame-dame sapta ratnā dadhānā śaṃ no bhūtaṃ dvipadeśaṃ catuṣpade |” (Rig Veda 6:74:1)
“Hold fast your Godlike sway, O Soma-Rudra: let these our sacrifices quickly reach you. Placing in every house your seven great treasures, bring blessing to our quadrupeds and bipeds”.

 

In above Mantra again we see a common prayer to Rudra to bless the bipeds and quadrupeds. Also, this Soma (Rudra) is the god who fathered Narayana (Vishnu) and all gods as stated below. This implies Narayana(Vishnu) cannot be the deity of Rudram hymn the way Vaishnavas think. Even Narayana (Vishnu) cannot be the indweller of Rudra because he is the son of Soma (Rudra). Hence, all claims of Vaishnavas are baseless.


“somaḥ pavate janitā matīnāṃ janitā divo janitā pṛthivyāḥ
janitāghnerjanitā sūryasya janitendrasya janitota viṣṇoḥ ” (Rig Veda.IX.96.5)
“Father of sacred chants, Soma (Shiva) 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“.

 

Further, we find similarity in depictions of strength and valor of Rudra between Rig Veda and Sri Rudram as follows.

Rig Veda says clearly that lord Rudra cannot be conquered but he conquers on everyone in battle.

“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”.

The same property or attribute of Rudra has been sung in Sri Rudram as follows.

“namah hantyaaya |” (Yajurveda Sri iv:5:2:h)
“Salutations to Lord Rudra who cannot be overcome (defeated) and slain”.

“namah sahamanaya nivyadhina avyadhininam pataye namo |” (Yajurveda iv:5:3:a)
“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”.

The following verses from Rig Veda pray to Rudra requesting him not to injure their progeny.

“yā te didyudavasṛṣṭā divas pari kṣmayā carati pari sāvṛṇaktu naḥ |
sahasraṃ te svapivāta bheṣajā mā nastokeṣutanayeṣu rīriṣah |” (Rig Veda 7:46:3)

“May thy bright arrow which, shot down by thee from heaven, flieth upon the earth, pass us uninjured by. Thou, very gracious God, hast thousand medicines: inflict no evil on our sons or progeny”.

“mā no vadhī rudra mā parā dā mā te bhūma prasitau hīḷitasya |
ā no bhaja barhiṣi jīvaśaṃse yūyaṃ pāta … |” (Rig veda 7:46:4)

“Slay us not, nor abandon us, O Rudra let not thy noose, when thou art angry, seize us.
Give us trimmed grass and fame among the living. Preserve us evermore, ye Gods, with blessings”.

The same threat is felt in Rudram also and there also Vedas request Rudra not to injure their progeny and property as follows.

“eeshaam purushaanam esham pasunaam maa |
bhermaro  mo eshaam kincha namamath |” (Yajurveda iv:5:10:a)
“Frighten not nor injure (Any) of these people, of these cattle; Be not one of these injured”.

This is again a testimony that the Rig Veda’s Tryambaka (three eyed god) Rudra is the same who is glorified in Yajurveda’s Sri Rudram.

There is no scripture in Hinduism which associates the bow “Pinaka” to any other deity other than Rudra (umapati). Narayana’s bow is called as “Saranga”. This is again a great evidence that Sri Rudram is a hymn of Bhagawan Rudra (the umapati) alone since in the below shown verse clearly Rudram calls out the bow of Rudra as “Pinaka”.

“parame vruksha aayudham nidhaaya  kruthim vasaan
Aachara pinaaka bibradhaagahi |” (Yajurveda iv:5:10:j)

“And come to us wearing the hide of tiger.  Please bring along thine bow pinaaka,  as an ornament”.

Rig Veda says that Rudra dwells in the hearts of all and destroys the enemies of his devotees as shown below.

 

”stuhi śrutaṃ ghartasadaṃ yuvānaṃ mṛghaṃ na bhīmamupahatnumughram |
mṛlā jaritre rudra stavāno.anyaṃ te asman ni vapantu senāḥ |” (RV 2:33:11)
”I praise you the famous one, seated in the heart, the ever-youthful, terrible like the beast, fierce for the purpose of destruction. Lord Rudra, having been praised by us, let your armies strike at others than us”.

The above mantra IDENTICALLY exists in Yajurveda (IV:5:10:h) (i.e., verse 8 of Sri Rudram’s ANuvaka-10) except for a slight difference. This text of this Rik is slightly different in the Krishna Yajur Vedic Rudram in that “mR^iLA” is replaced with “mR^iDA”and is a part of Sri Rudram also. “mRiDA” is again the copyright name of Mahadeva only, and his consort Uma is hence called as “mRiDANI”. This is again a great evidence to understand that Rudra of Rig Veda, Rudra of Rudram both are identical and is Mahadeva only.

Now since it has already been proved in previous section above that the Rudra of Svetaswatara Upanishad is the triple-eyed Maheshwara alone, we can easily prove the hymn Sri Rudram as belonging to Maheshwara only.

It is Rudra (Shiva) who creates all the gods. This means he manifests himself as Hiranyagarbha (brahma) and Vishnu and other gods i.e., it is Rudra (Shiva) who creates by becoming Brahma. This is clearly indicated in the below verse from Sri Rudram.

“namo midhushhtamaya ” (Yajurveda iv:5:5:g)
“Salutations to Lord Rudra in the form of hiranyagarbHA; the creator of the universe”.

Svetaswatara Upanishad states that Rudra is the ONLY lord who does all the functions in this universe, he alone rules over everyone. He alone creates all the worlds (Srushti) and he protects them as their protector (Sthiti) and then finally he withdraws them within himself (Laya) as follows.

“eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthurya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH |
pratyaN^ janaastishhThati saJNchukochaantakaale sa.nsR^ijya vishvaa bhuvanaani gopaaH |” (Svetaswatara Upanishad 3:02)

“Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time”.

The same is depicted in Sri Rudram in the below verses.

“namo bhavaya cha rudraya cha |
namah sharvaya cha pashupataye cha ||” (Yajurveda iv:5:a-b)

“Salutations to Bhava, who is the source of all things (Srusthi), and to Rudra, who is the destroyer of all ills. Salutations to Sharva, the destroyer of everything (Laya), and to Pashupati, the protector of all beings in bondage (Sthiti)”.

Svetaswatara Upanishad states that Rudra pervads in fire, water and all elements as described below.

“yo devo agnau yo.apsu yo vishvaM bhuvanamaavivesha |
ya oshhadhiishhu yo vanaspatishhu tasmai devaaya namo namaH |” (Svetaswatara Upanishad 2:17 )

“The Self—luminous Lord, who is fire, who is in water, who has entered into the whole world, who is in plants, who is in trees— to that Lord let there be adoration! Yea, let there be adoration!”

This verse has been exactly adopted from Taittiriya Samhita of Yajurveda (5:5:9:i) which is also a part of Sri Rudram (as Rudram is a collection of hymns from Vedic samhitas).

“yo rudro agnau yo apsu ya oshhadhishhu
Yo rudro vishva bhuvanaaavivesha tasmai rudraya namo astu (Yajurveda 5:5:9:i )

“The Rudra in the fire, in the waters, in the plants, the Rudra that hath entered all beings, to that Rudra be homage”

In case there is any doubt if this Rudra who entered into Agni, Waters, Plants and all beings is someone else; the below evidences dispels such doubts and darkness. Satapatha Brahmana clearly states that Agni, Waters, etc eight forms i.e., Ashta Murty are the manifestations of Rudra as detailed below..

Agni became such like because of Lord Rudra:

 

“tamabravīdrudro ‘sīti | tadyadasya tannāmākarodagnistadrūpamabhavadagniva rudro
yadarodīttasmādrudraḥ so ‘bravījjyāyānvā ato ‘smi dhehyeva me nāmeti |” (Shatapatha Brahmana 6:1:3:10)


“He said to him, ‘Thou art Rudra.’ And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, ‘Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!’”

 

Waters became such like because of Lord Rudra:

 

“tamabravītsarvo ‘sīti | tadyadasya tannāmākarodāpastadrūpamabhavannāpo vai sarvo
‘dbhyo hīdaṃ sarvaṃ jāyate so ‘bravījjyāyānvā ato ‘smi dhehyeva me nāmeti |” (Shatapatha Brahmana 6:1:3:11)

“He said to him, ‘Thou art Sarva.’ And because he gave him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, ‘Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!’”

 

Plants became such like because of Lord Rudra:


“tamabravītpaśupatirasīti | tadyadasya tannāmākarodoṣadhayastadrūpamabhavannoṣadhayo vai paśupatistasmādyadā paśava oṣadhīrlabhante ‘tha patīyanti so ‘bravījjyāyānvā ato ‘smi dhehyeva me
nāmeti |” (Shatapatha Brahmana 6:1:3:12)

“He said to him, ‘Thou art Pasupati.’ And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master (patîy). He said, ‘Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!’”

 

Then it states that the boy (Rudra) entered into each of these eight forms one by one and that’s how these eight deities viz. Agni, Varuna, Vayu, Indra, Parjanya, Plants/Earth, Sun, and Moon.

“kumāro rūpāṇyanuprāviśanna vā agniṃ kumāramiva paśyantyetānyevāsya rūpāṇi
paśyantyetāni hi rūpāṇyanuprāviśat |” (Shatapatha Brahmana 6:1:3:19)

“That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumâra), but one sees those forms of his 1, for he assumed those forms one after another”.

For the point Rudra entered all beings here is a reference from Taittiriya Aranyaka of Yajurveda.

“iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM |” (Taittiriya Aranyaka 10.21.1)
“May the Supreme who is Ishana the ruler of all knowledge, who is Ishwara, the controller/indweller of all created beings.”

Even for a demented person the above evidences should be enough to understand Rudra of Rudram hymn is Mahadeva alone. But still let’s proceed further. Svetaswatara Upanishad clearly prays in the below verse to Girisha the lord of Kailash mountain.

“yaa te rudra shivaa tanuuraghoraa.apaapakaashinii |
tayaa nastanuvaa shantamayaa girishantaabhichaakashiihi |” (Svetaswatara Upanishad 3:05)

“O Rudra, thou dweller in the mountains, look upon us with that most blessed form of thine which is auspicious, not terrible, and reveals no evil!”

And the above verse exactly has been copied from Sri Rudram as shown below.

“ya te rudra siva tanur aghora’papa-kasini |
taya nas tanuva santamaya girisantabhicakasih |” (Yajurveda iv:5:1:c)

“O Rudra, thou dweller in the mountains, look upon us with that most blessed form of thine which is auspicious, not terrible, and reveals no evil!”

Kaivalya Upanishad extols Shiva with supreme attributes as stated below. Note that kaivalya Upanishad clearly calls that deity as the consort of Uma.

“hR^itpuNDariikaM virajaM vishuddhaM vichintya madhye vishadaM vishokam.h
achintyamavyaktamanantaruupaM shivaM prashaantamamR^itaM brahmayonim.h |6
tamaadimadhyaantavihiinamekaM vibhuM chidaanandamaruupamadbhutam.h
umaasahaayaM parameshvaraM prabhuM trilochanaM niilakaNThaM prashaantam.h
dhyaatvaa munirgachchhati bhuutayoniM samastasaakShiM tamasaH parastaat.h |” (kaivalyopanishat 6-7)

“(Who is) unthinkable, unmanifest, of endless forms, the good, the peaceful, Immortal, the origin of the worlds, without beginning, middle, and end, the only one, all-pervading, Consciousness, and Bliss, the formless and the wonderful. Meditating on the highest Lord, allied to Uma, powerful, three-eyed, blue-necked, and tranquil, the holy man reaches Him who is the source of all, the witness of all and is beyond darkness (i.e. Avidya)”.

And the same Upanishad in its entirety sings the glories of Shiva alone and finally states the following fact. It says that by reciting Sata-Rudriya hymn one attains liberation.

“yaH shataruudriyamadhiite so.agnipuuto bhavati suraapaanaatpuuto bhavati
sa brahmahatyaayaaH puuto bhavati sa suvarNasteyaatpuuto bhavati
sa kR^ityaakR^ityaatpuuto bhavati tasmaadavimuktamaashrito
bhavatyatyaashramii sarvadaa sakR^idvaa japet.h |” (Kaivalyopanishad 25)

“He who studies the Shatarudriya, is purified as by the Fires, is purified from the sin of drinking, purified from the sin of killing a Brahmana, from deeds done knowingly or unawares. Through this he has his refuge in Shiva, the Supreme Self. One who belongs to the highest order of life should repeat this always or once (a day)”.

This proves that Sata-rudriyam is verily a hymn of Mahadeva only. This above analysis itself is enough to understand that the triad viz. Rudra of Vedas, Rudra of Sri Rudram and Rudra of Upansiahds is umapati Maheshwara alone!

 

2.2 Smriti recognizes Rudra of Sri Rudram as Umapati-Shiva alone

 

There is a commentary on Sri Rudram by lord Kartikeya, the son of lord Shiva. His commentary goes by the name of “Skandadeva Bhashyam” and is available in the chapters 26-33 of book 12 of Shivarahasya-Itihasa, which is a scripture of one hundred thousand verses (as massive as Mahabharata). These one lakh verses have been divided into 12 books called “amsAs”.

This Bhashyam (Commentary) on Sri Rudram is authored by Skanda who taught that to Jaigishavya and other sages. It is also stated there that Skanda composed this Bhasyam just as he heard the meanings of Sri Rudram explained by Shiva to Parvati. In this work, for every verse of Rudram, Skanda has given a corresponding “dhyAna-shlOka” describing Rudra’s appearance and his qualities etc. From those verses we can clearly see Rudra being described as Umapati alone. I cannot quote that massive work completely here. However, let’s see some selective verses.

Every verse of each anuvaka is given with a dhyAna-shlOka, and also accompanied with a commentary. Here is one such verse taken from the first anuvAka. Here skanda clearly calls Rudra as the consort of Uma.

“bhaktAnAm sugamam mahAdhyaharaNam lOkAdhipatyapradam |
rAjnA chAnamatAm prasAdasumukham shrIkashyapArAdhitam |
yOdhAkAram umAsahAyam chirAdAkarNakRShtE sharam |
chApE bhAsvati sanddhAnamanisham rudram yuvAnam bhajE |” (Shivarahasyaitihasa 12:26:14)

“I constantly contemplate (Worship) the youthful Rudra associated with Uma and presenting himself as a soldier with an arrow fixed on his shining bow drawn to the ear. The lord worshipped in this form by sage Kashyapa, appears with a pleasing face suggesting favourable dispusition towards those who propitiate him, becomes easily accessible to the devotees, removes great sins and bestows the lordship of the whole world to the (devoted) kings”.

The below dhyAna-shlOka has been taken from anotehr verse. Here Skanda clearly calls Rudra as crescent wearing, and decorated with serpents.

“yuddhE vairibhayApaham praNamatAm shrIrudramArAdhitam |
dEvam nAradanAmakEna muninA nAnAyudhAlankRtam |
udhyadbhAskarakOtidIdHititanu dIptOttamAnkOjwalam |
kAntam bhIShaNabhOgibhUShaNamaham dhyAyAmi bhaktEShtadam |” (Shivarahasyaitihasa 12:26:48)

“I meditate on Rudra possessing the brilliance of crores of suns rising together, having the crescent moon shining bright on his blazing head, adorned with various weapons and having the fierce serpents for his ornaments. The lord worshipped in this form by sage Narada is the remover of fear from the enemies in battle and is the bestower of the wishes of his devotees”.

Now coming to standard Puranas – Sata Rudriyam is also available in Shiva Mahapurana where it is given as a eulogy to Mahadeva alone. There is no Purana which has ever stated that Sri Rudram is a hymn to Narayana. All Puranas (whichever Purana contains Sata Rudiram or related discussion, if any) equivocally point Sata Rudriyam as a hymn to Bhavanipati alone.

This concept of Rudram being a hymn of Narayana has no place in any Puranas. Even there is no Vaishnava Purana as well, which has ever mapped this hymn to Vishnu. This baseless concept is an invention of over-imaginative brains of Vaishnava Acharyas of Kaliyuga. Otherwise why didn’t Vedavyasa anywhere in any Purana ever mention it as a hymn of Vishnu? There is no answer because this hymn is always a hymn of Umapati alone.

2.3 Itihasa (Mahabharata) recognizes Rudram as a hymn of Shiva alone

 

2.3.1 Vedavyasa clearly understands Rudram as a hymn of Mahadeva alone

In Mahabharata Drona parva has a discussion between Vyasa and Arjuna. Vyasa narrates to Arjuna the greatness of Maheswara. In this chapter Vedavyasa has composed another Sata-Rudriyam hymn and it exists in Mahabharata. The Rudram hymn of Yajurveda is something which everyone is not eligible tor ecite. It requires a special intonation (swaram) to sing and it requires one to get initiated under a Veda Pandit Guru before reciting. Since this Vedic hymn is very potent in its mantras, it is not advisable to recite without initiation and is usually restricted to Brahmanas. However, the illustrious sage Vyasa is so benevolent to the humanity that he has given a similar Sata-Rudriyam hymn composed by himself and made it available in Mahabharata. This Rudram of Mahabharata can be read by all the four varNas and it doesn’t require any intonations (swaram), one need not get initiated by any guru to recite this. This is the greatest benefit that Vyasa has done to us.

Now, while reciting his composition, viz. Rudram to Arjuna, Vyasa states that the Yajurvedic Rudram belongs to Maheswara alone as follows. Note it carefully that he says the names contained in Rudram of Yajurveda are all Maheswara’s names derived based on his supremacy and his acts. Note that the same point even lord Krishna said which I’ll show in next section. Nowhere has he mentioned that those names are Narayana’s names applied on Maheshwara (These kind of theories can only be formulated by the Vaishnava Acharyas of Kaliyuga who consider themselves superior that Vedavyasa!).

“nāmadheyāni lokeṣu bahūny atra yathārthavat |
nirucyante mahattvāc ca vibhutvāt karmabhis tathā |
vede cāsya samāmnātaṃ śatarudrīyam uttamam |
nāmnā cānanta rudreti upasthānaṃ mahātmanaḥ |” (MBH 7:173:78-79)

“Many also are the names, of truthful import, of this Deity in all the worlds. Those names are founded upon his supremacy, his omnipotence, and his acts. In the Vedas the excellent hymn called Sata Rudriya, hath been sung in honour of that great God called Rudra the infinite. That God is the lord of all wishes that are human and heavenly”.

Here Vyasa again affirms that the hymn contained in Veda viz. Sata-Rudriyam is a hymn of Mahadeva the Umapati alone.

“caritaṃ mahātmano divyaṃ sāṃgrāmikam idaṃ śubham |
paṭhan vai śatarudrīyaṃ śṛṇvaṃś ca satatotthitaḥ |” (MBH 7:173:104)

“The hymn approved of the Vedas, and called Sata-Rudriya, in honour of that God of gods, that excellent, famous, life-enhancing, and sacred hymn, has now, O Partha, been explained to thee”

In Vyasa’s composition here are the praises by Vyasa. Vyasa clearly calls rudra as everything, he sees him present in the form of all gods. And especially note that he calls Rudra as sinless (Only vaishnavas call rudra as sinful based on their incorrect interpretation of Satapatha Brahmana).

“sa vai rudraḥ sa ca śivaḥ so ‘gniḥ śarvaḥ sa sarvavit |
sa cendraś caiva vāyuś ca so ‘śvinau sa ca vidyutaḥ |
sa bhavaḥ sa ca parjanyo mahādevaḥ sa cānaghaḥ |
sa candramāḥ sa ceśānaḥ sa sūryo varuṇaś ca saḥ |
sa kālaḥ so ‘ntako mṛtyuḥ sa yamo rātryahāni ca |
māsārdha māsā ṛtavaḥ saṃdhye saṃvatsaraś ca saḥ |
sa ca dhātā vidhātā ca viśvātmā viśvakarmakṛt |” (MBH 7:173:65-68)

“He is Rudra he is Siva, he is Agni, he is everything, and he hath knowledge of everything. He is Indra, he is the Wind, he is the twin Aswins, and he is the lighting. He is Bhava, he is Parjanya, he is Mahadeva, he is sinless. He is the Moon, he is Isana, he is Surya, he is Varuna. He is Kala, he is Antaka, he is Mrityu, he is Yama. He is the day, and he is the night. He is the fortnight, he is the month, he is the seasons. He is the morning and evening-twilights, he is the year. He is Dhatri, he is Vidhatri, he is the Soul of the universe, and he is the doer of all acts in the universe”.

Note that further Vedavyasa clearly says that whatever are the hidden secrets of Vedas and Upanishads and all scriptures is Mahadeva alone! I’m not sure how Vaishnavas fail to realize this truth.  Note here carefully that Vyasa says that Rudra is without birth and Vyasa admits that he cannot recite the virtues and glories of Rudra even in thousand years.

“īdṛśaḥ sa mahādevo bhūyaś ca bhagavān ajaḥ |
na hi sarve mayā śakyā vaktuṃ bhagavato guṇāḥ |” (MBH 7:173:70)

“Whatever is highly mysterious in the several branches of the Vedas, in the Upanishads, in the Puranas, and in those sciences that deal with the soul, is that God, viz., Maheswara, Mahadeva is even such. That God is, again, without birth. All the attributes of that God are not capable of being enumerated by me even if, O son of Pandu, I were to recite them continually for a thousand years”.

Vyasa further states that it is Umapati-Rudra whose riches reflect in the wealth of other gods. And he is the lord of even the supreme ones. This clearly shows he is independent and the one boss of all whose boss exists not.

“sendrādiṣu ca deveṣu tasya caiśvaryam ucyate |
sa caiva vyāhṛte loke manuṣyāṇāṃ śubhāśubhe |
aiśvaryāc caiva kāmānām īśvaraḥ punar ucyate |
maheśvaraś ca bhūtānāṃ mahatām īśvaraś ca saḥ |” (MBH 7:173:73-74)

“The prosperity is his that is seen in Indra and other gods. He is ever engaged in the good and evil of men in this world. In consequence of his supremacy, he can always obtain whatever objects he desires. He is called Maheswara and is the lord of even the supreme ones”.

2.3.2 Lord Sri Krishna clearly understands Rudram as a hymn of Mahadeva alone

In Mahabharata there is a conversation between Sri Krishna and the righteous king Yudhishthira about the nature and glories of lord Shiva. Vasudeva narrates all the avrious attributes, forms and glories of Mahadeva to Yudhishthira as spoken of in Sri Rudram of Yajurveda. Let’s see what he says in this context.

In the below verse Krishna clearly states that it is Rudra whom Vedas call by various names like Agni, Maheshwara, Surya, Chandra etc. it is very true since Vedas have also stated the same thing.

“yudhiṣṭhira mahābāho mahābhāgyaṃ mahātmanaḥ |
rudrāya bahurūpāya bahu nāmne nibodha me |
vadanty agniṃ mahādevaṃ tathā sthāṇuṃ maheśvaram |
ekākṣaṃ tryambakaṃ caiva viśvarūpaṃ śivaṃ tathā |
dve tanū tasya devasya veda jñā brāhmaṇā viduḥ |
ghorām anyāṃ śivām anyāṃ te tanū bahudhā punaḥ |
ugrā ghorā tanūr yāsya so ‘gnir vidyut sa bhāskaraḥ |
śivā saumyā ca yā tasya dharmas tv āpo ‘tha candramāḥ |” (MBH 13:146:1-4)

“Vasudeva said, ‘O mighty-armed Yudhishthira, listen to me as I recite to thee the many names of Rudra as also the high blessedness of that high-souled one. The Rishis describe Mahadeva as Agni, and Sthanu, and Maheswara; as one-eyed, and three-eyed, of universal form, and Siva or highly auspicious. Brahmanas conversant with the Vedas say that that god has two forms. One of these is terrible, and the other mild and auspicious. Those two forms, again, are subdivided into many forms. That form which is fierce and terrible is regarded as identical with Agni and Lightning and Surya. The other form which is mild and auspicious is identical with Righteousness and water and Chandramas. Then, again, it is said that half his body is fire and half is Soma (or the moon)”.

In below extract Krishna narrates the meanings of all the various names of Mahadeva. Here Krishna describes Rudra as thousand eyed, myriad eyed etc. which are the same attributes sung in Purusha Suktam about Rudra.

“īśvaratvān mahattvāc ca maheśvara iti smṛtaḥ |
yan nirdahati yat tīkṣṇo yad ugro yat pratāpavān |
māṃsaśoṇitamajjādo yat tato rudra ucyate |
devānāṃ sumahān yac ca yac cāsya viṣayo mahān |
yac ca viśvaṃ mahat pāti mahādevas tataḥ smṛtaḥ |
samedhayati yan nityaṃ sarvārthān sarvakarmabhiḥ |
śivam icchan manuṣyāṇāṃ tasmād eṣa śivaḥ smṛtaḥ |
dahaty ūrdhvaṃ sthito yac ca prāṇotpattiḥ sthitiś ca yat |
sthiraliṅgaś ca yan nityaṃ tasmāt sthāṇur iti smṛtaḥ |
yad asya bahudhā rūpaṃ bhūtaṃ bhavyaṃ bhavat tathā |
sthāvaraṃ jaṅgamaṃ caiva bahurūpas tataḥ smṛtaḥ |
dhūmraṃ rūpaṃ ca yat tasya dhūrjaṭīty ata ucyate |
viśve devāś ca yat tasmin viśvarūpas tataḥ smṛtaḥ |
sahasrākṣo ‘yutākṣo vā sarvato ‘kṣimayo ‘pi vā |
cakṣuṣaḥ prabhavas tejo nāsty anto ‘thāsya cakṣuṣām |
sarvathā yat paśūn pāti taiś ca yad ramate punaḥ |
teṣām adhipatir yac ca tasmāt paśupatiḥ smṛtaḥ |” (MBH 13:146:6-14)

“Because he is great and the Supreme Lord of all (Iswara), therefore he is called Maheswara. And since he burns and oppresses, is keen and fierce, and endued with great energy, and is engaged in eating flesh and blood and marrow, he is said to be Rudra. Since he is the foremost of all the deities, and since his dominion and acquisitions are very extensive, and since he protects the extensive universe, therefore he is called Mahadeva. Since he is of the form or colour of smoke, therefore he is called Dhurjati. Since by all his acts he performs sacrifices for all and seeks the good of every creature, therefore he is called Siva or the auspicious one. Staying above (in the sky) he burns the lives of all creatures and is, besides,fixed in a particular route from which he does not deviate. His emblem, again, is fixed and immovable for all time. He is, for these reasons, called Sthanu. He is also of multiform aspect. He is present, past, and future. He is mobile and immobile. For this he is called Vahurupa (of multiform aspect). The deities called Viswedevas reside in his body. He is, for this, called Viswarupa (of universal form). He is thousand-eyed; or, he is myriad-eyed; or, he has eyes on all sides and on every part of his body, His energy issues through his eyes. There is no end of his eyes. Since he always nourishes all creatures and sports also with them, and since he is their lord or master, therefore he is called Pasupati (the lord of all creatures)”.

Note here carefully that even Krishna is saying the same fact which Vyasa told to Arjuna about Rudra. Krishna also says that all the names of Rudra are derived based on his acts and his supremacy. Neither Vyasa nor Krishna has stated that the names of Rudra are derived from Narayana. Only Vaishnavas can make such anti-Vedic, unauthentic and stupid claims

Also note here that Krishna says that Sata-Rudriya of Yajurveda and the Sata-Rudriya composed by Vyasa both are recited in Rudra’s honour. It should again be a jolt on the Vaishnava philosophy which states that Sata-Rudriyam is a hymn in honour and praise of Narayana.

“nāmadheyāni vedeṣu bahūny asya yathārthataḥ |
nirucyante mahattvāc ca vibhutvāt karmabhis tathā |
vede cāsya vidur viprāḥ śatarudrīyam uttamam |
vyāsād anantaraṃ yac cāpy upasthānaṃ mahātmanaḥ |” (MBH 13:146:22-23)

“Amongst the gods he has many names all of which are fraught with grave import. Verily, the meanings of those names are derived from either his greatness or vastness, or his feats, or his conduct. The Brahmanas always recite the excellent Sata-rudriya in his honour that occurs in the Vedas as also that which has been composed by Vyasa”

Here once again we see the same fact which Vyasa revealed to Arjuna, being revealed to Yudhishthira by Vasudeva. The wealth that Indra and other gods enjoy is actually the property of Umapati only.

“sa dadāti manuṣyebhyaḥ sa evākṣipate punaḥ |
śakrādiṣu ca deveṣu tasya caiśvaryam ucyate |” (MBH 13:146:27)

“Long life, health and freedom from disease, affluence, wealth, diverse kinds of pleasures and enjoyments, are conferred by him, and it is he also who snatches them away. The lordship and affluence that one sees in Sakra and the other deities are, verily his”.

 

2.3.3 Bheeshma clearly understands Rudram as a hymn of Mahadeva alone

 

In Mahabharata Yudhishthira asks Bhishma a question about the sacred Mantras which when recited bestows success. Bhishma narrates various Mantras but I’m quoting here the one which he stated about Sata-Rudriyam.

Bhishma clearly states that Sata-Rudriya hymn of Vedas contain the mention about the glories of the eleven Rudras depicted as a hundred (means uncountable). Rudras are the sons of Rudra (Umapati), they are never the children of Narayana or any other God. And it is a well known fact that the Sri Rudram hymn at many places prays to Rudra along with his troop of Rudras. This is again a good evidence to understand that Bhishma didn’t know of any Narayana as the deity of Rudram. This means Bhishma’s opinion about Sri Rudram is that it is a hymn of Rudra (Umapati) and his troop of Ekadasa Rudras.

Aja. Ekapada, Ahivradhna, the unvanquished Pinakin, Rita Pitrirupa, the three-eyed Maheswara, Vrishakapi, Sambhu, Havana, and Iswara–these are the celebrated Rudras, eleven in number, who are the lords of all the worlds. Even these eleven high-souled ones have been mentioned as a hundred in the Satarudra (of the Vedas)”. (MBH 13:CL)

 

2.3.4 Krishna and Arjuna clearly understands Rudram as a hymn of Mahadeva alone


Arjuna received Pashupatastra from Maheswara in Kairata Parva of Mahabharata, but during the Mahabharata war he forgets the mantra to invoke Pashupata. On the night before the Jayadrata killing day, Arjuna becomes distressed and worried because he knew that Drona would surely protect him with  some complex strategy and since Arjuna was bound by an oath which he himself took in haste that if he failed to kill Jayadratha by next day’s sunset, he would set himself on fire. Seeing his anxiety, Vasudeva comes in his dream and takes him through Sukshma-Deha-Yatra (aerial travel through subtle body) to Kailasa, the abode of Mahadeva.

There they pray to shiva to grant pasupata again. And when Shiva orders them to bring that weapon present in a nearby lake, they see that weapon and a mighty bow transformed in the form of a snake. To get them they pray to Mahadeva by uttering his praise from yajurveda called as Sata Rudriyam. That’s how they succeed in getting Pasupata weapon again.

Here also there is clear cut evidence that this hymn is a praise of Bhavani-pati Mahadeva only.

“tataḥ kṛṣṇaś ca pārthaś ca saṃspṛśyāpaḥ kṛtāñjalī |
tau nāgāv upatasthāte namasyantau vṛṣadhvajam |
gṛṇantau vedaviduṣau tad brahma śatarudriyam |
aprameyaṃ praṇamantau gatvā sarvātmanā bhavam |
tatas tau rudra māhātmyād dhitvā rūpaṃ mahoragau |
dhanur bāṇaś ca śatrughnaṃ tad dvaṃdvaṃ samapadyata |” (MBH 7:57:70-72)

“Then Krishna and Partha having touched water, joined their hands, and approached those snakes, having bowed unto the god having the bull for his mark. And as they approached the snakes, conversant as they were with the Vedas, they uttered the hundred stanzas of the Veda called Sata-Rudriyam, to the praise of Rudra, bowing the while with their sincere souls unto Bhava of immeasurable power. Then those two terrible snakes, in consequence of the power of those adorations to Rudra, abandoned their snake-forms and assumed the forms of a foe-killing bow and arrow”.

 

2.3.5 Non-Vaishnavite Commentators of Kaliyuga recognize Rudram as a hymn of Shiva alone

 

There have been many commentaries on Sri Rudram by various scholars of Kaliyuga – Sayanacharya, Abhinava Shankara, and Bhatta Bhaskara have written commentaries on Sri rudram. They were NOT secetarian, especially Sayana whom everyone recognizes as a great scholar who wrote commentaries on all the Vedas, he also stated the deity of Sri Rudram hymn as Umapati Rudra only.

I am not being partial here favouring these commentators compared to the Vaishnava commentators who caleld deity of Rudram as Narayana. The logic is very simple. The aforementioned commentators followed what Vyasa, Krishna, Arjuna and Bhishma had opined in Mahabharata above and they didn’t contradict Vedas and Mahabharata. On the other hand the Vaishnava commentators went against the understanding of Vyasa, Krishna, Arjuna and Bhishma and also Sayana and stated Rudram belongs to Vishnu.

Therefore it is clearly evident whose ideas should be accepted and whose imaginary propositions should be trashed. I leave the decision to the readers discretion!

3. Refutation of Rudra’s birth related Misconceptions

Vaishnavas purposely misinterpret Satapatha Brahmana’s chapter of Rudra’s manifestation as Rudra’s “birth” in literal sense. They say Rudra was not guarded against evil hence Prajapati gave him auspicious names of Narayana and then those names became Rudra’s names. How cunning these words are!

There is no scripture which says that the eightnames that Rudra has are originally those of Narayana. In fact one may show five of the eight names present in Vishnu Sahasranama viz. Rudra, Bhava, Sarva, Isana, and Ugra. But in the Vishnu Sahasranama also the following names do NOT exist – pashupati, and Asani! Therefore this itself is a clear evidence to know that those eight names were actually Rudra’s names only, out of which the five names were copied or borrowed into Vishnu Sahasranama.

Let’s see the Satapatha Brahmana episode now.

“tam prajāpatirabravīt | kumāra kiṃ rodiṣi yacramāttapaso ‘dhi jāto ‘sīti so
‘bravīdanapahatapāpmā vā asmyahitanāmā nāma ma dhehīti tasmātputrasya jātasya
nāma kuryātpāpmānamevāsya tadapahantyapi dvitīyamapi tṛtīyamabhipūrvamevāsya
tatpāpmānamapahanti |” (Satapatah Brahmana 6:1:3:9)

“Pragâpati said to him, ‘My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?’ He said, ‘Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!’ Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;–even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time”.

Vaishnavas say Rudra is not freed from evil hence he was sinful. This is clearly a ill-minded thinking and is not true since Yajurveda clearly calls Rudra as the one who is bereft (devoid) of sins as follows.

“aghoraa papakasini |” (Yajurveda iv:5:1:c)
“O Rudra your aspect which is peaceful, and is bereft of sins.

The Satapatha Brahmana words are NOT literal in nature. The central message is important which is the manifestation of Ashtamurty from Rudra. The reference of Evil is because of prajapati’s action with his daughter Usha, but it is nothing to do with Rudra. Satapatha Brahmana treats Prajapati’s copulation with usha as sinful as stated below.

“prajāpatirha vai svāṃ duhitaramabhidadhyau | divaṃ oṣasaṃ vā mithunyenayā
syāmiti tāṃ sambabhūva |” (Satapatha Brahmana 1:7:4:1-2)

“Pragâpati conceived a passion for his own daughter,–either the Sky or the Dawn. ‘May I pair with her!’ thus (thinking) he united with her. This, assuredly, was a sin”.

In this scenario the actors are same viz. Prajapati and Usha, and when they mated, Rudra was invoked by gods and he pierces prajapati because of his sinful act. In earlier scenario also actors are same viz. Prajapati and Usha and they mated, again act was sinful and here also here Rudra appeared, but Rudra didn’t pierce prajapati but he tactfully made him to pronounce the holy eight names of Rudra viz. Bhava, Sarva, Ugra, Pasupati, Asani, Mahadeva and Isana; and Rudra playfully stated as if he himself was not freed from sin. And on Rudra’s request, Prajapati uttered Rudra’s eight holy names and Prajapati became freed of his sin and also escaped Rudra’s wrath.

This is the only interpretation that we can make. Otherwise why did Rudra pierce Prajapati when for second time he mated with his daughter Usha and why not at the first mistake itself (when Rudra appeared)?

Therefore the evil is neither in Prajapati, nor in Rudra; but the evil is deeply rooted in the brains of Vaishnavas. It is advisable for them to recite Rudra’s eight names daily to free themselves from sin.

Practically speaking, the manifestation of Rudra from Prajapati is just a human birth kind of tale but Prajapati was the year (symbolic of Time) and Usha symbolizes space. Therefore, Rudra’s manifestation through Prajapati and Usha is just another way to say that Rudra who is beyond time and beyond space, he entered and appeared within this universe of space-time coordinates and from his own eight names he transformed himself into eight gods viz. Agni, Vayu, Varuna, Plants (representing earth), Indra, Parjanya (representing cloud and sky), Chandrama, Surya.

Still, if someone really wants to take this “not freed from evil” words literally to be true then what can one say about the same story narrated differently in Kaushitaki Brahmana of Rig Veda as cited below? In Kaushitaki Brahmana there is no mention of evil, rather Rudra wants to eat food there.

“sa.prajāpatir.hiraṇmayam.camasam.akarod.iṣu.mātram.ūrdhvam.evam.tiryañcam |
tasminn.enat.samasiñcat | tata.udatiṣṭhat.sahasra.akṣaḥ.sahasra.pāt | sahasreṇa.pratihitābhiḥ |
sa.prajāpatim.pitaram.abhyāyacchat | tam.abravīt.kathā.mā.abhyāyacchasi.iti | nāma.me.kurv.ity.abravīt | na.vā.idam.avihitena.nāmnā.annam.atsyāmi.iti | (Kaushitaki Brahmana 6:02)

“As Purusha the cosmic man with a thousand heads and thousand legs the god (Rudra) is born at a sacrificial session and out of a golden bowl held by prajapati. Arisen the overpowering figure (Rudra) who grasped the father. Prajapati asked, ‘Why dost you grasp me?’ He replied, ‘Given a name’, saying, ‘For without a name assigned, I shall not eat food here in this world’.”

Then Prajapati gives him a name “bhava”, and then again he grasps Prajapati for the second time and the when asked Rudra says, “Give me a second name because with only one name I’m not going to eat food in this world”. Likewise Rudra grasps prajapati eight times and gets eight names for himself each time saying he would not eat food with those no. of names. Only with eighth name he gets satisfied.

The Kaushitaki Brahmana’s tale has a condition of getting names for eating food. What does it mean? Rudra’s food is not what we eat. His food is the hymn of his praise which when sung, it appeases him. His hymn which is Sri Rudram is a collection of his various names. And when someone sings all his names, Rudra gets satisfied. That’s the esoteric meaning of Rudra eating food. For him his food is Sata Rudriya hymn comprising of all his names.

In this context we have clear evidence in Satapatha Brahmana as follows. Rudra stood in wrath demanding food, all gods were afraid of him. Then they collected for for him which is Satarudriya hymn in his praise and sang. That appeased the hunger of Rudra.

“śataśīrṣā rudraḥ sahasrākṣaḥ śateṣudhiradhijyadhanvā pratihitāyī bhīṣayamāṇo
‘tiṣṭhadannamicamānastasmāddevā abibhayuḥ | te prjāpatimabruvan | asmādvai bibhīmo yadvai no ‘yaṃ na hiṃsyāditi so ‘bravīdannamasmai sambharata tenainaṃ śamayateti tasmā etadannaṃ samabharañcatarudriyaṃ |” (Satapatha Brahmana 9:1:1:6-7)

“This Rudra with a thousand heads, thousand eyes, and thousand quivers, stood with his bow strung, and his arrows fitted on the string, causing terror, and demanding food. The gods were afraid of him. They said to Prajapati,:’We are afraid of this being, lest he destroy us.’ Prajapati said to them: ‘Collect for him food, and with it appease him.’ They collected for him this food, the satarudriya.”

This makes it clear that the food that Rudra wanted to eat in this world is to hear his hymn Sata-Rudriya. For that reason he was asking prajapati to give him names with which he would eat food (listen to his hymn). Here also, we cans ee that Rudra made Prajapati pronounce his holy eight names and manifested eight forms from his eight names.

Hence, I conclude that there is no sin or evil that can touch Rudra since Rudra is the Brahman of Vedas and he is beyond sins, merits, virtues and vices! He was before the universe was created (we have seen this in above sectiosn), and he alone entered within this universe as the first God, and he again manifested himself into various other Gods including Vishnu (we have seen this in above sections). So, calling Rudra as sinful or attached with evil is a highly sinful act for which there is no atonement. Vaishnavas are advised to abandon such evil thoughts for Rudra.

Rudra is in reality unborn (hence he has a name “Aja Ekapada which means, the Unborn one footed lord”). Rudra is verily the Brahman and we have ample proofs in Vedas to support this. Let me give one example. Kena Upanishad supports Rudra as the Supreme Brahman as nararted below.

“sa tasminnevAkAshe striyamAjagAma bahushobhamAnAmumA.N haimavatIM tA.NhovAcha kimetadyakShamiti |” (Kena Upanishad 3:12)
“Then in the same space (ether) he came towards a woman, highly adorned: it was Umâ, the daughter of Himavat. He said to her: ‘Who is that sprite?’”

“sA brahmeti hovAcha brahmaNo vA etadvijaye mahIyadhvamiti tato haiva vidA~nchakAra brahmeti |” (Kena Upanishad 4:01)
“She replied: ‘It is Brahman. It is through the victory of Brahman that you have thus become great.’ After that he knew that it was Brahman”

Shiva Purana and Skanda Purana narrate the same story and clearly there they call this Yaksha (Brahman) as Shiva. When Puranas support Shruti, they cannot be rejected as Tamasik. Therefore this Brahman of Vedas is Umapati Bhagawan Rudra alone.

Vaishnavas wishfully narrate above mentioned Rudra’s manifestation from Satapatha Brahmana as “birth of Rudra” and say that he was given names of Narayana. This is wickedness at its peak. Rudra is the Brahman who engendered Hiranyagarbha and entered into it and appeared inside again as Rudra. And after entering Hiranyagarbha and apeparing there as the “first god” he manifested himself as Vishnu also. Therefore Vishnu can never be the origin of Rudra, because Rudra is the father of Vishnu! And all the names of Rudra present in Vishnu Sahasranama are inherited bu Vishnu from his father viz. Rudra and they are originally Rudra’s names.

Vaishnavas’ wishful thinking and wickedness towards Mahadeva cannot falsify the truths.  From this above analysis any rational thinker, any normal Hindu (non-Vaishnava) would be easily able to see the truths and also will be able to see how Vaishnavas twist the same.

VERDICT

 


We have the following to conclude

  1. Rudra of Svetaswatara Upanishad is Umapati-Mahadeva only
  2. The deity who the hymn Sata Rudriyam is addressed is again Umapati-Rudra only
  3. Rudra is unborn supreme reality, the supreme Brahman who engendered Hiranyagarbha and entered inside
  4. Narayana (Vishnu) is never the origin of Rudra, in fact Rudra is the father of Narayana!

If these evidences are still not enough to convince someone that Rudra of Svetaswatara and Satarudriyam hymn is Umapati Mahadeva alone, then rest assured even Brahma cannot convince such a person. Let me close this article with a verse from Atharvashika Upanishad which should clarify many things in a nutshell.

“sarvakaraNAni manasi saMpratiShThApya dhyAna.n viShNuH prANaM manasi saha karaNaiH saMpratiShThApya dhyAtA rudraH prANaM manasi sahakaraNairnAdAnte paramAtmani saMpratiShThApya dhyAyIteshAnaM pradhyAyitavya.n sarvamidaM |” (Atharvashika Upanishad 2:1)
“The pranava (the sound of Om) makes all the souls to bow before it. It is the one and only one which has to be meditated upon as the four Vedas and the birth place of all devas. One who meditates like that goes away from all sorrows and fears and gets the power to protect all others who approach him. It is because of this meditation only that Lord Vishnu who is spread every where, wins over all others. It is because Lord Brahma controlled all his organs and meditated upon it, he attained the position of the creator. Even Lord Vishnu , parks his mind in the sound (Om) of the place of Paramathma (ultimate soul) and meditates upon Eeshana, who is most proper to be worshipped. All this is only proper in case of Eeshana”.


|| ētat sarvaṁ ṣrī umāmahēṣvara parabraḥmārpaṇamastu ||

 


Copyright © 2014, 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

80 Comments

  1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Mr. UNKNOWN (aka Srinivasan ramanujam),

    I see you posting arbitrary illogical comments calling them as “the only authentic” ideas on this article. I care NOT to respond to your stupid arguements! I am NOT obliged to answer any of your arguements originating from your demented Vaishanva philosophy. Got it?
    I don't want other normal readers to get misled with your wishful arguements. So, not publishing them. But know that whatever stupid way you analyze Rudram calling it as Narayana's hymn, you cannot show me the following. Show me your face only if you can do the following.

    1. if Rudram is Narayana's hymn, then get the Tirupati priests to perform pushpArchana to venkateswara by throwing one flower at a time by chanting “Bhavaya namah….rudraya namah…pashupataye namah” etc. OR get them chant Rudram while doing milk-abhishekam on lord's archa-vigrahams (idol). Get that recorded by TTD devasthanam's channel and get that telecasted, inform me in advance when that video is coming on TV. OK??
    2. if Rudram is Narayana's hymn, then the central mantra of that hymn which is “nama shivaya”. Make the Tirupati Devasthanam pandits accept the authority of panchakshari maha mantram and chant the same! Jeeyar Swamy who always says “Jai Sriman Narayana”, let him speak “Namah sivaya” during his pravachanams. or let him speak both mantras. Can you do that? or let the Tirupati pandits who all come in TTD Bhakti channel, let them call “Namah shivaya” instead of “Om namo venkatesaya”, at least few times everyday. Can you get this done? There are acharyas who gift rudra's hymn forcefully to Vishnu. But none of them ever did ABHISHEKAM to vishnu's idol using this hymn. last time I told the same to you. But you conveniently ignored the word “Abhishekam” and you said, “yes in Vishnu temples Rudram is played and chanted”. It is played and chanted, but never to wroship Vishnu's idol with Abhishekam. Now, don't try to reply with stupid arguements again. Come back only if you can do the aforementioned things. Give me TV program's timings so that i can watch your accomplishments!

    Good luck!

    Reply
    1. Durai Murugan Acharya

      hi sir, i just wanna ask about an incident depicted in some books stating that lord shiva himself called krishna as narayana when krishna wished for a son from lord shiva. thus lord shiva asked ‘why are you praying to me? you are narayana? you are the preserver?”.
      i just need more clarification. tq

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

        You are probably referring to the harivamsa parva. Shiva never keeps glory to himself. He loves to give credits to others. Look at his lifestyle itself. Scriptures say that all the aishvaryam that exists with other gods actually belongs to Mahadeva, but what he leads is a simple life. So, his eulogy to other gods is just his large heartedness. Ignore shiva’s such prayers. He does all such gimmicks to confuse people and for his own amusement and sport.

        Reply
  2. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    And one more point. You have send me comments saying “KaivalyOpanishad”, “Atharvashika Upanishad” and “DakshiNamurty Upanishad” as unauthentic saying they were not fully commented by ancient vaidicas.

    Adi Shankara had written a hymn “Dakshinamurty Varnamala stotram”, that hymn's starting syllables is taken from the Dakshinamurty mantra contained in Dakshinamurty upanishad. So, Dakshinamurty upanishad existed before Adi Shankara himself.

    Your logic of someone not doing commentary on a upanishad means that is a bogus one is totally FLAWED. Adi Shankara and other acharyas most probably had not stepped on the land on which my home is standing now. That doesn't mean this piece of land is unauthentic. I know this example is very loose arguement but your idea on authenticity is also as loose as this example.

    If you want me to agree to your idea that all Vaishnava acharya's statements are the authority and all vaishnava scriptures only speak truth; then sell your product elsewhere, i am not convinced to buy your product.

    And yes, don't come back to show your face till you get the program schedule to show me.

    Reply
    1. Karthick

      Bhativedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada himself have given the list of 108 Upanishads in one of his purports:

      http://www.vedabase.com/en/cc/adi/7/108

      Reply
  3. arun subbe

    I have witnessed Thirumanjanams to Lord Vishnu and never even once was Sri Rudram chanted.

    Reply
  4. Sridharan

    Dear Santosh,
    Your reasoning is excellent. Nobody, even in the wildest of their dreams, can think of Sri Rudram as a prayer for Vishnu. Those who make such foolish comments are really hard core terrorists. We should guard Hinduism from the attacks and venom of such extremists. Let Maheswara shower his blessings on you abundantly for this purpose.

    Reply
  5. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Thank you Sri Sridharan bro,

    Thank you for your thoughts and many thanks for showering Maheswara's wishes. Your message is a message sent by that graceful lord who is the holder (dhara) of sri (Lakshmi) viz. Sridhara (Vishnu)!

    May the Shiva dampati, Vishnu-dampati and Brahma-dampati bless you and your entire dynasty!

    Regards!

    Reply
  6. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Yes bro!

    In their hearts they all know that Rudram is NOt Vishnu's prayer, so they would never worship Vishnu with Rudram. But there are no restrictions for tongue no? That's why they take the liberty to utter all nonsense!

    Reply
  7. sudhir

    great work broo keep it up i m a rregular follower of your blog
    namah shivay

    Reply
  8. Humble Bhagavata Bandhu

    May you please remove the reference to my real name in the first paragraph? I would like to protect my privacy!

    Reply
  9. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Dear Humble Bhagavata Bandhu (HBB),
    I regret for the late reply since as you know I am busy with exams and preparation etc.

    Well, [You said]: “May you please remove the reference to my real name in the first paragraph? I would like to protect my privacy!”

    [I say]:
    You've asked in a very friendly tone, and that impressed me, however i am deeply sorry friend. I am not able to accomodate this request. It's just a matter of 60 secs job for me to edit my article and remove your original name, but I would have helped you out had the sequences of events in recent past not been so unfriendly. My mind asks me WIIFM (What's In It For Me?) in this favor? And honestly i don't have a convincing answer to tell my mind. I didn't want to detail the reasons, but habitually i prefer to keep the other party clear and unambiguous so narrating them, pls bear with me, i don't have the ability to tell in short sentences (that's a weakness). Reasons are as follows:
    1. What good did you do to me or to lord Shiva that I should accept your request and edit MY blog to protect your so called privacy? No doubt I support Shiva more, but unlike vaishnavism, in my eyes Vishnu is NOT a “Demi-God/Jeeva/Servant of Shiva/unworshipable etc”. But I didn't see even a single line fo respect for Maheswara in your voice. So, when my mind asks Why should you helo him? I have no answer!
    2. You are an Advaitin by background and education, and for advaitins all forms bet it God or a dog everything is Brahman. They don't take any side because they see one Brahman's projection into many forms thru Maya. So, for advaitins, every god is Eswara's reflection. But you failed to apply your own school's learnings in your tone for Mahadeva!
    3. You being an Advaitin, you yourself brought disgrace to your own lineage of Acharyas by calling Shankara's works for other Gods as not his works. Every indian hails Mahaperiyavar (sage of kanchi) as a walking God, a saint who did many miracles. When he himself used to do pravachans on Saoundarya lahari etc. in his lectures (as documented ind evaitankural), and he never attributed the authorship to anyone else. It's disheartening to see an Advaitin calling laharis as not authroed by Shankara. if a vaishnavite says so, that's understandable and i am aware fo those claims for the past many years. They are not new to me, but seeing an Advaitin claiming such, i didn't like! Secondly, if Shankara didn't write poems on anyone else apart from Vishnu, then how come Sureshvaracharya wrote Bhashya on Dakshinamurty Stotram in manollasa? May be he was also delluded as per you.
    3. In my last conversation on your blog, I saw today that you left a comment calling me as one having two faces. Me? Really? Is it not true that in reality it's you who displays two faces? My friend, you didn't maintain the sanctity of your sect. As Sri Ramanan you want to be an Advaitin, and as HBB you display yourself as staunch Vaishnava fanatic. You want me to erase your original name so that you can play the dual role without any fear of identity crisis. It's not movie, it's real life friend! We shouldn't do that. Who has a double sided personality now?

    Contd…

    Reply
  10. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    4. Most IMP point:- You're talking about “Privacy”?? It's strange to see! Had you been aware of the ethics and the Laws, you wouldn't ahev done what you have done and felt so heroic! You stated in your article that I wasn't aware that you ahd subscribed to my blog comments, hence even when I deleted them from here, you had a copy and you pasted them in your blog. felt very heroic as if won a nobel prize,isn't it? But do you even know that what you have done is not only unethical, but also unlawful? Let me explain with an example – When you chat on yahoo Msngr OR Gtalk OR Skype or anything with say your close buddies, just becasue you have a saved copy of chat you cannot put it on public display without taking permission/approvals from all the parties involved. Whether the chat was “how to cook idlies” OR “How to do a bank robbery”, whatever be the sensitivity of conversations, you should take approvals from all the involved parties before leaking it to public. In my case, entire conversation as comments happened with my involvement, it revolved around me totally. I had my reasons for deleting that which i had also told you and your friend when asked. Who gave you permission on my behalf to upload that conversation (which I preferred to remove for whatever reason) on your blog? And you felt very heroic doing an illegal job saying i wasn't aware that you subscribed to comments? Who on this web doesn't know that blogs allow subscriptions? I may have many subscribers and i know that very well.
    5. You uploaded my conv. plus padded with your commentary as well, that too not in a gentleman's tone. Why should I help you after seeing adjectives for me like “Choked up”, “Shaivite fellow”, “That fellow” etc.? I could also use many bad adjectives to refer you in my blog, but you would have seen me calling you and your friend as “friend”, “vaishnava gentlemen” etc. Why? Becasue there is a decorum/protocol that I need to follow while talking with living beings. I can use any words while calling someone in general like say, “ignorant vaishanvas”, that becomes an arrow in the air. But when I debate with a human opponet, i need to try to be civil which doesn't seem to exist in your tone on your blog. Why should i pay attention to your request?
    6. On a verse in Kurma Purana which i called out in my blog, you “Directly” accused Bhaskararaya of cooking up / citing that verse from “his own version” of Kurma Purana. You said that verse doesn't exists in that Purana. That was a direct accusation on Bhaskararaya who is believed to have done many miracles and on whom Devi herself was gracious. And it was “Indirectly” an accusation on me and my intelligence also as if i take any piece of of info just like that and paste in my blog. Best part is your confidence that the link to Kurma purana what you pasted in your blog doesn't conatin any such reference. It was your “inability” in searching/locating verses, and you pushed your shortcoming on me and bhaskararaya? Go figure out in your own cited link check verse no. (kUrma PuraNa 1:11:245). Overconfidence is bad. Speed thrills but kills! Now how can you take back the insult to Bhaskararaya and me?
    7. You supported the concept of Tamasikatva of Puranas like Vaishnavas, without even caring how logically they fit into that concept.

    And many more trasgression of your social, moral, ethical, lawful limits!…And keeping all these in mind after having thought from 360 degree view, i decided NOT to accept your request and remove your name from my blog. I'm sorry to have disappointed you.

    contd…

    Reply
  11. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Now coming to the problem of your so called identity / privacy backdoor. Here also i am not responsible at all. reasons are:
    1. Instant glory, overnight stardom attracts but they also become costly if foresight is lacking. Who asked you to go for publicizing your blog in Hindudharmaforums by creating anew account and posting blog's link there for everyone's reading? I saw lot of reader traffic coming from your blog to my blog, and reason is your own act f publicity.
    2. Did i ask you to link to my articles on your blog while bashing me up? You have made the lives of readers easy by providing links to my articles. Obviously they would land directly on my page and surely they would have read your original name. I have not advertized my articles there on HDF right? So, who is responsible for this traffic generation? (It's you!). You lacked foresight and kept doing actions in rage. ANd at last you realized, “Gosh! that “fellow” had put my original name there, adn i linked that article here. Oh no!”. And now you want me to seal your backdoor so that you can confidently dig pits around me, and you can abuse Mahadeva under your fake name? hmmm!
    For all these reasons, I would not remove your name from my article. There are three kinds of problems viz. “My problem”, “Our problem”, and “Your problem”…and I think your privacy issue falls udner “Your problem”. 🙂
    But one help that i can do is, since your name exists on my recent article which is at top, and directly visible to general audience also, what little i can do is, as soon as i get some time after my next exam paper, i would simply pen down some small article and publish so that the current article goes one level down and that pops up. I know this is not a bulletproof idea, but the only idea which comes to my mind to help you a bit.

    With this, signing off. Need to study for exams! Bye, and may Adi Shankara and your ishta/fav lord Vishnu bless you!

    Reply
  12. Humble Bhagavata Bandhu

    All the best for your exams… There is no urgency to read/approve/publish my comments before your exam is over.

    ======

    You are free to remove comments from your blog, that is your freedom. However, we did not have a private conversation anywhere, and all the comments were published here in public domain.

    Look Mr. Santosh, I just made a request since it would be indecent on your part to post private information stealthily. If I find out that one of your bosses is pro-Vaishnavite and then I forward your blog to him, that won't be decent on my part either. Btw, I knew very well that you put my private info here before I publicised my blog.

    Regarding the Kurma Purana verse, I agree that I had overseen it, and it is there even in the version I quoted. Go look at my blog page, and I have updated it, while conceding that I had originally erred. This should be enough for you to be convinced that I am not interested in hiding information.

    Rest of your points are asinine, as usual.

    I never insulted Bhaskararaya. Look at my tone. I just said he quoted from a version which was corrupt. And i said “It seems”. I did not say Bhaskararaya maliciously corrupted it.

    I also chose my words carefully. I said “I could not find these verses”. I did not say “these verses are not there”.

    Calling you a “fellow” does not imply insult. “Fellow” is not a derogatory term. I agree that “fellow”/”guy” is informal, but that was written along the flow.

    As usual, you have not answered any of the points that I have heaped against your arguments.

    I do not wish to comment on the late Mathadhipati of Kanchi Kamakoti. That is outside the scope of our discussion. Someone's fame among the masses does not imply anything about authenticity. That's all.

    As I have shown in my web page with heaps of quotes from authentic works, Shankara wholeheartedly accepts Vishnu alone as the supreme. Shankara clearly says “yatra dEshE vAsudEva nindA tatra na vAsyam” in his Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya. He could not have written any of the laharis that you mentioned, since these songs declare that Hari is inferior.

    Manasollasa is another spurious attribution which no one has quoted before 15th century. Sureshvara held Vishnu alone to be supreme. Moreover, Manasollasa proclaims Agamic Shaivite ideas such as 36 tattvas which was rejected by Vedantins including Shankara (see Pashupata Adhikaranam section of his Brahma Sutra Bhashya).

    How can someone write:

    “atisnEhA apakRShTA umA dEhArddhaM shUlinaH shritA
    tvaM tu AtmAnaM sarvAtmanA kRtsnaM mAm Aptumicchasi”

    and still write a work like Manasollasa proclaiming Shiva-Shakti as parabrahman?

    The verse above occurs in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya Varttikam and says that the affection that Maitreyi had for Yajnavalkya is better than the affection that Uma had for Maheshvara (dEham vs. AtmA and arddhaM vs. kRtsnaM)

    Sureshvara also says that Shiva obtained Ganga which originates from Vishnu's toe through the power of Yoga. The verse is found in the concluding few shlokas of Naishkarmyasiddhi:

    “viShNOH padAnugAM yAM nikhila-bhava-nudaM sha^nkarO'vApa yOgAt”

    It is clear that Sureshvara implies Shiva is a deity who is subordinate to Parabrahman (Vishnu), obtaining the pAda tIrtha through yOgic means. (Paramatma does not need to “obtain” anything, he is avApta-samasta-kAmaH).

    Shankara was Vaishnava in theology, only philosophically advaitin. This claim was not first made by Vaishnavas of modern age. It was claimed thus by Narayana Bhattathiri (in Narayaneeyam) and the great Vidwan Shri Ramasubba Sastrigal of Tiruvisanallur who was born in mid-19th century and lived until 1922. I have also provided that information on my blog. Somehow you turn a blind eye to all of this!

    Finally, show me one place where I have denigrated Shiva. You are the one who subscribes cheap stories such as ones that say Sharabha “killed” Narasimha.

    Reply
    1. Light

      As there is no weightage of Guru of Vaishanva Acharya outside their sect. Now, Vaishnavas are dragging Adi Shankara in their sectarian association so that their theory can gain some weightage:

      1) If Adi Shankara was Vaishnava then why didn’t he changed his name and kept names like Haridasa, Govindadasa, etc.. Why he remained in name Shankaracharya ? Shankara is Jeeva as per you. Also why did he himself kept name of Mandana Mishra as Sureshwara which means Deveshwara, an epithet of Shiva. He should have kept his name Govindadasa. Or like names like Bhagvata Bandhu etc..

      2) In the Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.45 Shankara calls Pancharatra as Veda Ninda scriptures. He also cites example Pancharatra say one can get more bliss from Narayana/Pancharatra then Vedas. So, it is Veda Ninda. Veda Ninda is a serious sin. If he was a Vaishnava then why did he called Pancharatra as Veda Ninda? He should have reconciled his views as done by Vaishnava Acharyas like Yamuna, Ramanuja… etc.. No, Vaishnava Acharya can call Pancharatra scriptures as Veda Ninda.

      3) Look at the commentary of Shankara in Vishnu Sahasranama for the name Rudra, Shiva.. There it is clear he treats all name as attributes only. So, Name of Vishnu, Narayana are also attributes only as per Shankara and also as per Advaita. So, anywhere he uses Vishnu or Narayana as ParaBrahman are attributes of Nirguna Brahman only. So, just as Rudra is attribute, Vishnu is also attribute of that attributeless Nirguna Brahman. But even that attribute is seendue to ignorance only. So the four handed form of Vishnu blue complexion etc.. are seen due to Ignorance or Avidya only. How can Vaishnava Acharya say that form of Vishnu is due to Avidya/Ignorance ?

      4) Why did he choose Kanchi Kamakoti Mutth (a Mutth of Shakti) to live ? As a Vaishnava he should have choosen Dwaraka Matth. As, he choose Kamakoti Mutth so the successors of that Mutth are called by the name Shankaracharya.

      5) He got emancipation in Kedara Linga. One whose thought is filled by what, he gets Moksha in that. So, Shankara was Shivamaya. I believe in God and I can write many articles on God. Now, if I right an essay on atheism, then this doesn’t mean that that essay isn’t written by me. People can write in different perspectives and
      this doesn’t mean that only one thing written by them is authentic.

      6) Standard Acharyas always write in all perspective. For eg. Vyasa; he shows Shiva as supreme in Shaiva Puranas; he shows Vishnu as Supreme in Vaishnava Puranas. Now, this doesn’t mean that he didn’t wrote those Puranas. As per your logic as Vyasa shows Supremacy of Vishnu so he can’t write Shaiva Puranas… haha.. what a logic. He also shows Vishnu as Supreme in Mahabharata somewhere and somewhere Shiva as supreme. So, he didn’t wrote that? So, there are only 6 Puranas? Others aren’t written by him?

      7) So, a legendary Acharya like Vyasa, Shankara can write stutis, slokas being in different perspectives and different consciousness. Don’t compare the great Acharya Adi Shankara with your sectarian Gurus like Yamuna, Ramanuja, Madhava, etc.. They didn’t possess such fine intellect and consciousness to remain in different levels like Adi Shankara and Vyasa. Also the stotras like Kanakdhara Lakshmi stuti, Nirvana Shatakam, Saundarya Lahiri, Bhajs Govindam etc.. each have their own story why and when they were spoken/written . So, it is clear that he reached in different state of consciousness while composing them. Only a legendary and yogic Acharya like Vyasa, Shankara only can do these things. So, don’t think that every Acharya are in levels of your own Vaishnava Acharya. Your Acharyas couldn’t compose stotra about Shiva doesn’t mean that everyone are like that.

      8) Also, why are you so exicted to make Adi Shankara as Vaishnava ? As per your so called Satwik Purana Padma Purana and most corrupted portion Uttara Khanda. And around chapter 236 which is the most authentic chapter for Vaishnavas as it talks about Satwik, Tamasik and Rajasic Purana. In that chapter Vaishnavas cite Adi Shankara was a deceiver. So, why are you interested in making a VishnuBhakta as a deceiver? And also he cites Linga Purana, Shiva Purana in Vishnu Sahasranaam Bhasya. As he read them and as per the so called (most imp. Chapter for Vaishnavas), Tamasic Puranas lead to hell. So Adi Shankara should be suffering in hell. So why are you interested in such person who is suffering in Hell.

      The only thing is you are afraid of your own theories. Your only faith based theories can’t stand in front of highly logical and instant suffering removing theories of Adi Shankara. So, seeing the popularity of Advaita which tells Nirguna Brahman is Supreme. And seeing the own fallacy of own Acharyas theories in modern time. Now, Vaishnavas started conspiracies in making Adi Shankara as Vaishnava. If this is not the reason then why are you interested in making Shankara as Vaishnava who is heavily criticized by your own Acharyas Ramanuja, Madhava, Chaitanya etc… It is because you are afraid of your own theory. Your Acharyas theory can’t stand in Modern time where illusion of world is proved itself by Physics. So, stop trying to pollute Advaita with your sectarian thoughts.

      Reply
  13. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Hello HBB,

    It's not your mistake, but in general many people do not know the difference between “publicly available ontent” and “being in public domain”. Our conversations were publicly available (for sometime), but were NEVER in “public domain” (and cannot be till 60 Yrs after my death). Let me explain what they are. As soon as you pendown your thoughts on paper (or web), by default they become your copyright even if you do not mention (c) symbol and related text. And as per the law anything that has been penned down, all rights remain with the author till his lifetime plus 60 years after his death. ONLY after 60 years of the author's demise all his/her works go into “Public domain”. That means, only after the validity expires, one can copy, paste, redistribute “as-it-is” anywhere without seeking anyone's approval. e.g., Max muller's translations are in “Public Domain” and also “publicly available”, hence you/i can copy paste his works. Even KMG's Mahabharata translation is in Public domain because he belonged to 18th CE when copyright law wasn't there, and also 60 yrs have already passd since his demise. So, MBH of KMG is free to be copied and used. But even though comments on my blog were publicly “available” for viewing, copying them elsewhere without permission is against the law. There is another clause which again many people do not know is, even though rights on individual posts/comments remain generally with us, but they get automatically transferred to the facilitator. e.g., if we join some forums and write good articles, by default those articles are ours but a moderator can delete them on his own will beccause the forum being his and since that facility is provided for our use, all our rights get transferred to him or overrided by his rights. We can only crib but cannot demand him to restore the posts or to feel guilty of removing our (apparantly) owned content. Another example from IT industrry i would cite. Many Project managers do not remain aware or may be neglect and do not tell their team members due to which sometimes they end up into crisis. One of my IT trainer talking about management said this – usually team members write white-papers during office hours if workload is less and upload them to their company knowledgebase portal as their contribution. This is illegal, even though they, being authors, are copyright holders, but since they wrote that sitting in customer-provided network, using customer-provided internet, system, MS Office s/w and other tools, during that too during office time; by law that white-paper becomes a property of the customer. If customer comes to know, he can claim it for himself. SImilarly, till an author has a manuscript (MS) with him, he remains sole owner, but since publishers facilitate his MS to become a published-book, making an un-popular writer a'published-author', publishers gain the rights of the work. He name only remains on the book as the author, and ofcourse he gest the royalty/earnings, but all rights get transferred/taken up to/by the company. This is one primary reason why today young generation who want instant fame as writers are preferring “Self-publishing” companies offering POD (Print on demand) technology ratehr than going for traditional publishers. Here self-publishing companies chanrge for the services but ultimately all rights and everything rests with the authors, but drawback is, they need to market their books themselves unlike traditional publishers who ensure huge sales and good author earnings. People are ready to take such marketing/low sales risks also to retain their rights. This is emerging concept in India and we ahev only 2 companies today offering self-publishing services. It’s quicker than traditional path.
    contd…

    Reply
  14. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Similarly, blogger is a platform/facility, where if someone contributes via comments etc., blog owner is given the “delete” button with permission on users’ comments also unlike any other non-admin user, who cannot delete another user's comment. Blog owner's rights override every other right of individual contributor as the entire content becomes his property.
    Therefore, when i wished to remove the entire trail for whatever reasons I stated, subscribers who have a copy cannot go ahead and publish them elsewhere without primary blog owner's permission! This is the thing I was talking about.

    Now regarding, indecency on my part of revealing your info, it may be indecent from your POV, but it's not unlawful/indecent looking from my side. Don't get me wrong, i'm not comparing you with terrorists, kindly just understand the point i want to make, – many pakistani terrorists come with multiple aliasses like “abc..aka..bcd..aka..xyz..and originally some MNO-Khan”. Intelligence dept., or Police, after identifying their all “aka-s” do not go for seeking their permission or ask them if they would feel bad. News reporters reveal those all aliases without any threat or guilt. That is something which is quite normal and depends upon the revealers wish if s/he would like to call that person with his famous alias or would want to reveal original names. So, from humanity perspective, i may agree with you that your privacy might be at stake, but that's your problem, as stated earlier, WIIFM?, your works (which may be true from all those acharyas perspective) are helping those groups who always attack on Maheswara whose side i am taking. So, even though personally you are not my enemy and being a believer of “vasudhaiva kutumbakam”, i consider you as my distant relative and have no malice personally; professionally when our thoughts are conflicting, i don't see any value bringing personal humanity to consider your request which is a one-way-benefit-activity.

    Reply
  15. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Regarding Kurma Purana verse, i admire you for your strike-through and related update that you made. I always saw a “man of principles” in you. You need not prove that to me, i can read peronalities within 1-2 interactions. I being a diehard fan of Gangaputra Bhishma, like people who follow principles. You said i didn't answer your many points which you made on your blog. True, but as I said slowly slowly my articles would clarify them. I neither have interest and time to discuss “people” in particular, nor “points/arguements” in particular. My interests are in discussing/contradicting “themes”, “theories”, “phylosophies” in gneeral. Therefore, you will not see me contradicting your references in 1-to-1 mapping ratio, but my upcoming articles would falsify many themes that contain such references what you cited. And to generate theme based articles, takes time as blogging is not my primary job and i operate within many constraints as you might know. Therefore if you don't see me line-by-line countering, that's OK to be expected from me for aforementioned reasons. And you wouldn't even see me discussing at length about you in my upcoming essays. I don't work for anyone, i have my definite path, i carry my own torch with batteries, and a route map, and walk listening to my “antah-sphuraNa”. It even may hapen that finding me not responding as desired, you may lose interest in me calling me coward, i wouldn't give my ear to that. My pace is my fav, whether it's snails or a leopards and I wouldn't waste time in debates, peeking what you've written and then thinking what to write etc., I have a clear path to follow, and eventually while writing my stuff as suggested by my inner self, i firmly believe that many of your references/beliefs would get clarified with more authoritative texts. In case it anything gets missed, then also such metrics i cannot track. To give an example, I'll prove that shiva-sahasranama episode of MBH is authentic! That is a theme, and solves a larger problem of many misinformed ones rather than countering your statement in particular. Hope you understood my style, and hence pls don't expect line-by-line counter arguements from me. If this means my defeat in your eyes, let me tell that i have no time in thinking about my self-victory/defeats, i have assigned a duty to myself and i think my life is too short to complete my duty with perfection if i get carried away with trifles. And so even if 100s of your kind of blogs try to pull me there asking “answer this…answer that…etc”, i would follow myself alone.

    Reply
  16. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    And yeah, let me admit my admiration on one good thing that i noticed and liked in your blog. When I read your challenge in yellow highlighted text saying if I can show Shiva being called as “Purushottama” you wrote – “I will promise that I would consider such a refutation tantamount to answering all of my points here defending Vaishnavism!”. This is again a bravery which i liked. I purposely wanted to remain failed in that challenge, because there is a direct verse available in scripture. I thought, “what if this person accepts that verse and sacks due to his own bold oath?” and hence didn't care to respond. Such stringent oaths remind me of my ideal viz. Bhishma whose path I always try to follow, hence i saw a commonality between us. This blog is a result of an oath, a determination as infallible as my Bhishma's principles. You couldn't tolerate me even for a month and gave birth to your blog, do you understand how many years took me to say “it's enough!” and create this account? Impressions cannot be created on a baked pot, but when i was just a soft-clay equally attached with all forms of god, a normal devotee reciting all stotras, and having no knowledge of scriptures, joined a forum which was famous before FB came in, and found innumerable people attacking Shiva, calling him demi-god, unworshipable etc.. my only mistake was that after seeing 9 pages of attacks (each page having 10 post limits = 90 posts), i happened to ask question supporting shiva, based on my only source of knowledge viz. TV serial on Shiva's greatness; and without even considering what scholarly levels the enterant stands at, i was brutally attacked with many arrogantly toned words against Umapati. I had to go silent, learning what all scriptures we have, what scriptures are considered authentic by everyone, and etc., my gurus were those Vaishnavs only who told where to read which book from and it took few years for me, to learn and raise my voice, and everytime i found i was alone the suporter and cowards attacking in groups. Whatever i wrote in the vision page here is “also” my story! And sgain after a lot of time, when tolerance limits crossed, this blog was born, with my oath to stand by the side of Maheswara. And being alike bhishma, i would not deter.
    Since I have felt same force in your statement on proving “Purushottama” thing, I wouldn't show you that verse readily or upanisahd's name but just would give a hint – in one of the 108 upanishads itself lord Shiva himself says “i am the purushottama”. Well, you always have an option to nullify saying that upanishad is unauthentic, but since i don't know “your” complete list of authentic upansiahds I am afraid, in case you happen to consider that upanishad as authentic, you may feel bad, and your bold oath would get broken, hence i would humbly request NOT to search for this. I am ready to stand as a loser in front of those courageous words of your which i admire. Probably my fate is so bad that we are standing facing each other instead of being side by side. But probably this is what is destined since I believe “nothing happens without the will of almighty, and whatever happens happens for good of the world”, hence whatever is happening, may be something good exists in store which we cannot see. Also, in my MBA books recently i learnt that “Competition” among industries is highly necessary for the consumers to gain value for their money, hence all govts have removed the right of monopoly-businesses. This is why if someone feels lux is not good for them, they have an option to go for rexona, or dove and gain happiness for their money spent. After learning that concept, i am happy that your product is keeping me balanced, this way, the web-readers would finally reap value to their investments. And whatever happens would happen by the Lord's wish.

    Reply
    1. sohini

      santoshji can you mention the verse u r talking below
      [ I purposely wanted to remain failed in that challenge, because there is a direct verse available in scripture. I thought, “what if this person accepts that verse and sacks due to his own bold oath?”]

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

        Pls check the footer of the blog where there is a link ‘criticism of…’ that document ahs the references what i was talking about.

        Reply
  17. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Having said that i am in no way trying to get into your good books or buttering you! Those are against my principles in life, office and everywhere, probably this is why many of my junior colleagues earn greater salaries than me today.

    My duty is protection of fading shiva-dharma, and i would continue my efforts in its upliftment in my style within the limits of my capabilities and if that means to stand facing admirable opponents or even if to stand alone on this earth, i being Bhishma's alike, cannot abandon my lord on whose feet i have tied my “self”.

    And yes, you have not denigrated Shiva, but copying your friend's opinion as “shiva is a Jiva”, on your blog is indirectly the same. There is no standard scripture which calls Shiva as a Jiva, but yes we ahev shruti which say jiva is verily shiva (under ignorance) and this is same as “jeevo brahmaiva na para” concept. All such claims of shiva being Jiva etc are various “interpretations” of stories by humans. Vyasa never said that directly anywhere. But regarding Sharabha thing Puranas and one Upansiahd has story, also ashtavakra in bharatam says to bandin “eight are the legs of sharabha which killed the lion”.

    Well, anyway, If you still feel i should support you hide your identity let me know, I'll edit and remove your original name without further questioning!

    Thanks for your patience in reading my lengthy posts as always!

    Reply
    1. sohini

      santoshji plz explain this comment by hbb- [[[[Sureshvara also says that Shiva obtained Ganga which originates from Vishnu’s toe through the power of Yoga. The verse is found in the concluding few shlokas of Naishkarmyasiddhi:

      “viShNOH padAnugAM yAM nikhila-bhava-nudaM sha^nkarO’vApa yOgAt”]]]]]

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

        Human words are not pramanas for me. I take only scriptures as pramanas. This is why i do not take help of any acharya’s words or works as far as possible. Only when i see any scholar’s words being in agreement with scriptures, i quote them.

        Reply
  18. Humble Bhagavata Bandhu

    Hi Santosh,

    First of all, the copyright protection for your blog says that it is under the “creative commons” license. The extra bit that you added, saying that


    None of this site's content should be copied by any means to any of the Vaishnava websites, blogs or books. For all Vaishnava sects, this site content is prohibited, and stands as unsharable with 'All rights reserved' clause applicable thereon.

    For Shaivite websites, and blogs copying this site's content is allowed under the following License.

    is null and void, and creative commons does not have any provision for excluding certain groups of people. Further, there is no formal legal definition for a “Vaishnava website” and a “Shaivite website”. As required by creative commons license, I have attributed all your comments to you only and I have not claimed that your work is mine, or that it is someone else's.

    Moreover, copyright laws regarding comments are not black and white like you specify. Take a look at these:

    http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/07/07/copyright-explained-i-may-copy-it-right/

    http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/05/who-has-comment-copyright-ownership-in.html

    http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/copyright-of-comments

    “You may comment upon and report about copyrighted material. “The “fair use” exemption to (U.S.) copyright law allows commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author.””

    “You may quote only limited portions of work. “Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.””

    – This allows me to comment on what you write, without the necessity of seeking your permission.

    “It is reasonable to provide terms of service for comments. “Posters should be informed that they are responsible for their own postings. The newsroom should consider advising readers that the newsroom does not control or monitor what third parties post, and that readers occasionally may find comments on the site to be offensive or possibly inaccurate. Readers should be informed that responsibility for the posting lies with the poster himself/herself and not with the newsroom or its affiliated sites.””

    – You did not have anything similar to the above in your web page.

    Most important point here:

    “You may not always delete or modify your visitors’ comments. “You should never treat comments as though you own them by manipulating them or deleting them without having included a terms of service which gives you permission to do so. Consider that if you are allowing anonymous posts you will have no way of verifying the true owner of a comment when someone emails you asking for you to take a comment down. Consequently, you should make sure to at least collect basic identifying information before allowing someone to comment or post on your site.””

    – This means you are under clear violation of copyright laws, since the comments that I posted do not belong to you entirely as you claim!

    Reply
  19. Humble Bhagavata Bandhu

    And regarding the puruShOttama challenge, it looks like you have not understood the challenge in the first place. The challenge is to quote a kavi, kAvyam, or nikaNDu that calls Shiva as Purushottama. I clearly stated this:

    “Saivites may very well use yuktis to argue that Uttama Purusha in Vedas is Siva, not Krishna. But they stand exposed when they are asked to quote any kavi or kAvyam or nikaNDu in history that assigns Purushottama name to Siva. “

    The key is “loke vede ca pratitaH puruShOttamaH” in bhagavad gita 15.18. Krishna does not just say “vede”, but “loke vede ca”. While “vede” means “in the Vedas”, “loke” means in the world, which means the popularity of the name Purushottama. There is no popular work in the whole of Hindu history that ascribes the name “puruShOttama” to Shiva, i.e., “Purushottama is Shiva's name” has no loka prasiddhi.

    This being the challenge, you say that one of the Upanishads says Shiva says he is Purushottama, when the challenge is to quote from outside the Vedas (including Upanishads).

    Why, even the Shiva Sahasranamas available on the “Satyam Shivam Advaitam” site do not have “puruShOttama”.

    This is in stark contrast with Vishnu Sahasranama. The first few names in the Vishnu Sahasranama (from “Vishvam Vishnur VashatkAraH…” up to “… yogo yogavidAm netA pradhAnapuruSheshvaraH”) identify Supreme Brahman by generic characteristics. The very first few names that specify Supreme Brahman in Vishnu Sahasranama by form specify Purushottama as the name: “nArasimha-vapuH shrImAn keshavaH puruShottamaH”.

    As I said, Kalidasa also concedes (in Raghuvamsa) “Hari alone is known by the name 'Purushottama'”, following popular tradition/practices (loka prasiddhi). This is the significance of “loke vede ca” where Krishna authenticates the popular traditional practices and belief with the purport of the Vedas.

    //eight are the legs of sharabha which killed the lion//

    – wrong translation. The correct one is: “eight is the number of the legs of the Sarabha, which preyeth upon lions” – Here “lions” is generic, and does not in any way mean “Narasimha”. Your translation “the lion” implying “one particular lion (Narasimha)” has no basis in the text: “tathASTapAdaH zarabhaH siMhaghAtI”

    Reply
    1. Light

      As you are talking about Raghuvamsam of Kalidasa. Have you read first verse of Raghuvamsam which says:

      “Vagartha viva sampruktau vagartha pratipattaya । Jagata pitarau vande Parvati Parameshwaru ।। ”

      “I salute to the Parents Of the Universe Parvati and Parameshwara which are inseparable like the words and meanings”

      Reply
  20. Humble Bhagavata Bandhu

    // All such claims of shiva being Jiva etc are various “interpretations” of stories by humans. Vyasa never said that directly anywhere. //

    Vyasa also never explicitly says Indra, Surya, Chandra, Kubera, or even the Daityas are Jiva. Does that mean there is no possibility of inferring them to be?

    There can not be two Supreme Lords. And this is Krishna alone – as said in the Gita (11.43). Shiva clearly is not Supreme Lord as per this verse. This is a logical position accepted by Vaishnavites.

    Shankara is no exception to this. He says Rudra-Pashupati was created by Prajapati (Brihadaranyaka Bhashya 1.4.10). Shankara says elsewhere that entities which are spoken of as being created, annihilated etc. in the Vedas can not be the Supreme Lord. In light of these two facts, and in light of “nArAyaNAd rudro jAyate… nArAyaNe pralIyate” as stated in Shruti (Narayanopanishad), we have to say that Shankara agrees that Shiva is not Supreme Lord.

    You are saying Shiva should not be called Jiva. So what else can we call Shiva then, as he is neither Ishvara, nor Jiva? The only entity (tattva) left here is jaDa-prakRti. This is far worse, and is denying the existence of umApati the parama bhAgavata.

    Reply
    1. Light

      //you are saying Shiva should not be called Jiva. So what else can we call Shiva then, as he is neither Ishvara, nor Jiva? The only entity (tattva) left here is jaDa-prakRti //

      Don’t you know about fundamental theories in Vaishnavism. In Gaudiya there is a state where one is neither Ishwara nor Jiva. Such are called Nitya Suri. And as per Gaudiyas Shiva is Nitya Suri.

      //here can not be two Supreme Lords. And this is Krishna alone – as said in the Gita (11.43).//

      11.43 is simple and spoken by Arjuna and such verses are spoken by everyone while praising anyone. For eg. Devas also speak such type of verses in S.B.to SadaShiva before Shiva consumes Halahala..

      There can be absolutely 2 Supreme Gods… if they are same… Krishna and Rama look different but they are same.. similarly Shiva and Vishnu can be same… Read Harivamsa Parva of Mahabharat in Banasura fight episode. There Markandeya says “Every objects of Universe are made up of Agni (Rudra) and Soma (Vishnu)…” so you think you are more intelligent than Markandeya by making these verses false.

      //Shankara is no exception to this. He says Rudra-Pashupati was created by Prajapati (Brihadaranyaka Bhashya 1.4.10)//

      Why should Shankara be a exception to this? It is a well known fact. It is cleary stated in Satapatha and Kaushtiki Brahmana. What great thing is in it? It is also clearly stated in Shiva and Linga Purana. But Lord Shiva also existed before Prajapati as seen clearly in Vratya-Rudra suktam of Atharvaveda.

      //Vyasa also never explicitly says Indra, Surya, Chandra, Kubera, or even the Daityas are Jiva. Does that mean there is no possibility of inferring them to be?//

      Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra have specific works related with them. So, if Shiva was Jeeva than scriptures would clearly mention it. Like of Brahma is mentioned also age is fixed as 100 yrs. Also there is procedure how can one become Indra.

      Where is it written that Shiva is title and one can acquire by doing this and this..?

      //and in light of “nArAyaNAd rudro jAyate… nArAyaNe pralIyate” as stated in Shruti (Narayanopanishad), we have to say that Shankara agrees that Shiva is not Supreme Lord//

      In Advaita there is no thing such as Jeeva at all. At absolute level ie. In Paramathika Satyam there is neither creation nor destruction at all. So, there are not Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara at all in absolute level. So, it is absolutely ridiculous that Shankara considered only one form of God is Supreme. He considered Nirguna Brahman as Supreme. That’s it.

      If you go on citing Minor Upanishads like Narayana Upanishad, Gopala Tapaniya Upanishad etc then I can also cite Sharabha Upanishad, Kalagni Rudra Upan. etc.. see and search about Narayana Upanishad in Wikipedia to know about position of Narayana Upanishad.

      Talk about major Upanishads like Svetasvatara Upanishad which state “eko hi Rudra na dwitiya”, Mahanarayana Upanishad “Purusho Vai Rudra” , Mandukya Upanishad “Shivamadvaita” ie. Final Turiya state is to be one with Shiva, Kenopanishad” Uma, the daughter of Himalayan is the one who shows Brahman”, Brihadaranyaka Upan. “Dasame Puruse Prana Atmaikadasate” ie. Ten Rudras are Prana of Purush and eleventh is the Atman, Kathopanishad “Prana is Brahman”..etc..

      //you are saying Shiva should not be called Jiva. So what else can we call Shiva then, as he is neither Ishvara, nor Jiva? //

      We can call Shiva Ishwara Ok… if you talk about Advaita then Shiva is self of all and if you talk about Vishishtadvaita then Shiva is Antaryami of all..

      Taittariya Aranyaka states “Ishana sarvaVidhyanaama Ishwara SARVABHUTANAMA ” .. By your common sense you should know that Jeeva can’t be Ishwara and that to for Sarvabhuta (All time).. If we talk only about heard portions ie. Samhitas:

      Jagatam Patayae Namaha = Salutation to Lord of Universe (Sri Rudram)

      Devanam Hridayabhyo = who is situated in Heart of Devas (Sri Rudram)

      Bhavaye Cha Rudraye Cha = who is cause of creation and cause of destruction (Sri Rudram)

      Sipivishtaye Cha = who is in the form of Vishnu. (Sri Rudram)

      Yo Rudro Vishwa-Bhuwana Vivesa = Salutation to Rudra who has entered to the whole world (Yajurveda)

      One who is the Lord of Universe, who is situated in heart of all, who is the cause of creation and destruction, who is in the form of Vishnu can easily be called Ishwara ok..

      Now, the above portion is Samhita ie. Heard mantras so they have greater authority than Brahmanas, Upanishads and Aranyanaks. If something contradicts with above mentioned thing in absolute level than that is either worthy of rejection or that should be reconciled in such way that it doesn’t contradict.

      Now don’t cite your ridiculous theories like Sri Rudram is for Vishnu and so on. See Anukramani of both Taittariya and Vajasena Samhita , devata of this hymn is Rudra OK…

      So, if we go by Samhitas of Vedas then the highest place is of Vishnu “Tad Visnho Paramam Padam” and the LordShip is of Rudra “Isanadasya Bhuvanasya”… In Vedas Rudra alone is called “Ishana” the ruler and “Bhava” the cause…

      Reading your other comments I think you are a Sri Vaishnava and for me I feel pity to the theories of Sri Vaishnavas regarding their concept of Shiva:

      At least Gaudiya have concept that there are two Shiva one son of Brahma and another SadaShiva who is in Param Padam. They can solve many contradictions by this concept.

      At least Madhava Dvaita have theory that Shiva becomes Vayu then Brahma then moksha. Although this is ridiculous and no scriptures support it.. But at least they have theory.

      But see the condition of Sri Vaishnavas they call Shiva as Jeeva. But they have no concept and theory how can one become Shiva. They keep on barking Shiva is Jeeva, Shiva is Jeeva.. and they stand where they are always…So, seeing the Shruti contradiction of their barkings they began to create absolutely ridiculous theories, they try to drag Advaita in sectarian view… and so on….Pity Full Condition..

      Reply
  21. Humble Bhagavata Bandhu

    // Well, anyway, If you still feel i should support you hide your identity let me know, I'll edit and remove your original name without further questioning! //

    I do, and I think it is fair. People who turn into Vaishnavism are often persecuted by their peers who find it hard to accept.

    This is not the case the other way around – many from Vaishnavite families turn to neo-Advaitam and neo-Hinduism without facing any consequences.

    This is very true in my case, from the background I come. I wrote my blog fearlessly for the sake of Vishnu and His devotees, without worrying about the consequences. But if my blog gets popular (somehow), I will have to face harassment. Of course, you can keep my name if you wish that you rather silence me than answer my challenges.

    Having said this, I am not that worried though, as my (original) name is not quite unique and there are several individuals with that name. Not publishing private information (including full name) stolen from somewhere is indecency, in my opinion.

    Reply
  22. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Hi HBB,

    Your this comment went into the spambox due to URls perhaps, so despite being the first part of your today's chain of comments it is appearing at last.

    Well, there is no special clause related to blog comments existing in copyright laws. If i am wrong, please help me locate the clause from copyright.gov website of copyright page. or even copyright.gov.in page of india. Whatever you cited as links are general in nature and in your cited links itself there are some contradictory passages, but yes they do talk about terms of service inclusion.

    See below google help page itself which talks about removing “others” blog comments after they are published. if there was really any law as such that the owner/admin of the blog is not supposed to remove comments of users, google wouldn't have acted against it by providing the facility and the steps as detailed below.
    https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/42398

    Blogging is recently born concept (may be 10 yrs old?), whereas traditional publishing of text, audio, video, drama etc are age old and laws revolve mostly around them. We need to understand the blogging in the context of traditional writing. And in that sense whatever i stated in earlier posts still stand valid. Facilitator owns the Intellectual property rights over the content. So, my understanding based on books, IPR, software usage policies, SOWs when applied on blogs stiil hold true.

    Well, coming to having multiple licenses in my blog one sort of rule for vaishnavas, one for shaivites etc, what you observed is also valid. You are right that creative commons doesn't provide such extensive customizations, but if you would have worked on or used any softwares like ERP/CRM for instance, they come with multiple licences suiting the corresponding people/firms. Therefore, my blog's default license i can keep as “all rights reserved”, and can override it for specific audience. that's what i did. But if it confusing and i need to re-think, i'll re-think when time permits.
    Regarding terms of use, you may be right in suggesting their inclusion, but it is again optional keeping in traditional writing rules. But your point is good, i'll include them when time permits so that in future noone gets confused.

    Regarding the fair i haven't ever complained on your commentary dude, i know you have just taken excerpts only. so, nothing to talk on this. chill! 🙂

    Reply
  23. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    summary is – i am free to delete anyone's comments from my blog. but others (subscribers) cannot copy them end to end on their blogs without permission. Yes fair use which means copying little extracts is fine. The way you commented on my narayana suktam thing is fair and allowed.

    Reply
  24. Shiva-Shakti

    First of all Shubho Bijoya from Bengal. Sir, you have done an excellent job. After reading your articles, I have found strength to counter the abuses Vaishnavas have hurled on me for being a Shakta woman. They cannot even tolerate my videos on youtube which glorified Ma Durga without even mentioning the name of Krishna. But someone had to reply them back. You did this, and I am grateful to you for that. May Ma Bhavani support you like she supported our guru Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. Jai Ma.

    Reply
  25. Shiva-Shakti

    By the way, why don't you write something on Kalikula, the eastern school of Shaktism and Gaudiya Vaishnava Samprada of Bengal?

    Reply
  26. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Pranam Mata!

    Shubho Bijoya to you too!

    I'm glad to know that my articles could heal your wounds caused by Vaishnavas. All glories belong to Mahadeva, I'm just an instrument in his hands. Feeling happy to know that Maheshwara has comforted a devotee's heart from the painful experiences.

    Thank you a million for gracing me with the blessings of Bhavani mata. May she always confer her grace on you and your family as well..

    Jai Ma!

    Reply
  27. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Mata!

    If the mother Bhavani wishes to get something written by me then surely that day would come. May Bhavani mata bless me with time, health and wisdom.

    Reply
  28. Ashok

    Sa vain a devaa asura marthaya thiryang,
    Na Sthree na shando na puman na janthu,
    Naayam guna karma na sanna na chasath,
    Nishedha sesho jayathad asesha.

    our mind personifies the OM in many ways

    Reply
  29. Humble Bhagavata Bandhu

    //Well, anyway, If you still feel i should support you hide your identity let me know, I'll edit and remove your original name without further questioning!//

    Just reminding that you haven't kept up your promise, Santosh. We can argue decently without mud-slinging at each other. Advising you that it only shows in poor light if you publish private information despite my insistence.

    Also, take a look at the kind of foul, racist, uncouth, language another person who claims to support you on the internet has been using. She has said that she has taken inspiration from your blog. I think it will help you if you denounce her strongly and immediately:

    http://shiva-parvati.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/vedic-commentary-on-sri-rudram_3231.html

    // Ramanuja, Bhattar and Vedanta Desikan. To hell with them. Let the fleas of hundred rabid street dogs infest their armpits and pubes. //

    // So ram the commentaries of your God-forsaken “commentators” in your puny little stinking shithole //

    // Yes, I do watch TV because I can atleast afford it. I don’t think you can even afford a meal for two times a day. What do you eat, you stinking arshole of a yack? Rotten idli and leftover uttappam from public dustbins? //

    //Seems you are mistaking saliva with foam, that I’ll spit on your filthy black Dravidian face.//

    //So be a good boy and shut that filthy mouth of yours which smells of rotten curd-rice.//

    // You barbarians are so cheap that you don’t even deserve my apathy. I spit on your boyfriend’s filthy face. By the way, I can sense the cowardice in you and your boyfriend or else why on earth two men are required to pin down a woman! Well, I am sort of enjoying pulling down both your pants and if you two gays don’t leave on your own, Khuda kasam I’ll send you stripped off your clothes. //

    Reply
    1. sohini

      u r writing a blog on GOD, so nothing there is private

      Reply
  30. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    You had also written the following statement, based on which I decided not to remove your name.

    [Quote] Having said this, I am not that worried though, as my (original) name is not quite unique and there are several individuals with that name.[End Quote]

    Anyway, don't worry. take this as a Shiva Ratri gift to you in advance (removed your original name). Please check above for confirming the same.

    Regarding the blog link you gave, I'm sorry, I can't strain my eyes. Already i suffer from good amount of eyesight and the black background + font highlighted in red color is too painful on my eyes. Plus the font size is too small for a comfortable reading. It pinches and strains my eyes.

    Well, regarding that blog's author -> If he/she says s/he is inspired from me, that's purely his/her personal feeling. I do not send anyone to fight with anyone (friends or opponents) on my behalf. Please know that on my path I like to stride alone, neither I indulge with anyone nor I call anyone for help. I am responsible ONLY for what comes out of my pen and that too on my platform to pen down my thoughts i.e, my blog(s) only. Hence I am noone to encourage or stop him/her.

    Therefore, I am really not at all aware of what sort of discussions between you (or your co-author) and her/him happened which led to this kind of hot words exchange (what you quoted above); and I was neither a participant, nor a witness; hence I cannot intervene or comment on any side since I have no idea of the background of all such fights. If she/he is a Shiva Bhakta then by the rule “bAndhavA shiva bhaktAscha..” s/he is definitely my bandhu as like as YOU too are, based on “vasudhaiva kutumbakaM”…However, it is also true that I have neither encouraged anyone to learn from my blogs and invite debates with opponents (see my vision behind…page) nor I endorse anyone's views putting my stamp.

    Regarding the personal remarks that s/he has made, again I am not aware what had led to such an aggresion, so I cannot comment. However, on the food related comment just for her/his benefit and for your reading also I just want to say what has come in my mind now.

    Food, whether it is south indian or north indian; food is food and it should never be criticized. Food is obtained by the grace of mata annapUrNA (and you may replace this name with lakshmi), and it is the stuff which sustains our lives. Also, if s/he is inspired from me, s/he should not insult any food because I myself look at food with reverence. Also, the lord of food is again my lord (and also her/his lord) Shiva (annAnAM patayE namO as Rudram says). So, insulting some food is insulting the lord. And I never say 'this food is tasty, that's not etc….all foods are amrutam for me untill it's veggie…I am a foodie [bhOjanapriya brAhmaNah as they say :)]. Therefore I wouldn't encourage remarks on food and eating habits. I am sure s/he would understand this and would not do such aparAdha with food.

    Well, on a side note, south-Indian VS. north-indian talk is as time-wasting and never ending as Mohd-Rafi Vs. Kishore-Kumar (who is best singer?) etc is! So i would usually keep myself away from such discussions. I have lived in North since childhood and have many northies as friends, at the same time I love many many things of south india also. “Rice OR Roti” is decided by the mother nature for us based on climatic conditions, and one has no long-term choice there. Actually speaking, many great food items of south india go unnoticed because what people see is what people get in Hotels.

    Based on your mutual interest your team and s/he may continue/stop these debates, i wish to remain excluded from these. I'm still busy with many things currently 🙁

    Reply
    1. Shashwata Shastri

      I know her. :v

      Reply
  31. Humble Bhagavata Bandhu

    Thanks for replying as I expected. Your sentiments about food are exactly the same as mine, except that with vegetarianism I would add restrictions like avoiding onion, garlic, radish, cabbage, etc.

    Well done and appreciated . Thanks. My criticism is only against your views on Vaishnavism and Vaishnavas as seen in your blog posts. Vaishnavas never denigrate Lord Shiva or his devotees, they are only uncompromising with their own views so that Vaishnavism is not confused with other forms of Hinduism.

    I have also toned down the use of caustic language against you and your blog in my page. I have never attacked you personally on my blog. You can check it when you get the free time if you wish. I can reciprocate in kind if you have similar requests (I can just keep the content of our debate and remove the reference/links to your blog and/or remove your name).

    It is good that we both feel we should conduct ourselves with people whose views/beliefs are different from us in a civil way. This will show to the world how amicable different sects of Hindus are, in contrast to Shia/Sunni or Catholic/Protestant inquisitions.

    Reply
  32. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Dear HBB,

    I'm very glad to see your happiness that reflects through this message here. Many a times it happens to me that God always gives some hints and pointers to us, and one such hint I got two days back. I know many people don't like forward emails, but I like to read them and I even like PJs (ppor jokes) 🙂 but unfortunately people have become too matured to send such forwards nowadays. However, after so many years suddenly 2 days back I got the below inspiring story from a collegue.

    ================
    Happy Weekend:

    A wonderful short story :: HOW CAN WE BE HAPPY ?
    —————————————————
    Once a group of 50 people was attending a seminar.
    Suddenly the speaker stopped and decided to do a group activity. He started giving each one a balloon. Each one was asked to write his/her name on it using a marker pen. Then all the balloons were collected and put in another room.
    Now these delegates were let in that room and asked to find the balloon which had their name written, within 5 minutes. Everyone was frantically searching for their name, colliding with each other, pushing around others and there was utter chaos.
    At the end of 5 minutes no one could find their own balloon.
    Now each one was asked to randomly collect a balloon and give it to the person whose name was written on it.
    Within minutes everyone had their own balloon.
    The speaker began— exactly this is happening in our lives. Everyone is frantically looking for happiness all around, not knowing where it is.
    Our happiness lies in the happiness of other people. Give them their happiness; you will get your own happiness.
    And this is the purpose of human life.
    ====================

    I liked this story. And on the same day I saw your comment on my blog asking about removing your original name. I did it and now in the latest comment from you, I can see the above story unfolding into reality in front of my eyes. I'm happy to see your happiness. 🙂 May be this was the hint from God that I could catch, interpret and act as God wished. Hence this contentment that I am gaining with this is itself enough. Also, thank you, for your kind offer of return favor. That's so nice and kind of you. Thanks so much! However, I would politely like to decline that help not because of some ego/over-smartness/any negative feeling; but because it would become a vyApAraM (business) to give something with one hand and take something from you with another hand. I know that earlier I had talked a lot with you about our debate material and expressed all sorts of dissapointments with you uploading that, but please forget all that discussion because the latest voice coming from my inner self says that taking advantage of your happy mood and to behave like a vyApArI now is adharma for me. If i accept and get all my nonsense covered up and my traces wiped off with your help, I may be happy in short run but soon I would be questioned by my inner self and wouldn't eb able to face it. You are magnanimous, and your this offer shows how large hearted you are (even with your opponents). May god bless you! However, I would humbly seek to be pardoned for not being able to respond positively.

    Secondly, I need not verify your blog, I trust your words 🙂 In fact, a month back one Advaitin friend also gave a feedback about my tone/language in my works, and I assured him that in future works of mine I would take special care on my language, same I would like to convey you that it's tough for me to find and rephrase my language in the existing articles, but in future wroks I would take special care to focus only on the content and quality rather than the people. In reminds me of a good friend (katz aka Karthik) from Orkut days who used to be a great moderator of a community and used to say, “attack the message, not the messenger!”

    Agreed with your thoughts on other points overall.

    Reply
  33. Humble Bhagavata Bandhu

    Dear Santosh,

    Well… okay. I also think it would be wise to remove these pieces altogether:

    // “UNKNOWN” (aka Srinivasan Ramanujan) and “Humble Bhagawata Bandhu” ( alias Prahaladadasa! Original name removed on personal request from that person)//

    //Poor chaps, probably they thought that by hiding their real names they would be able to protect their identities! Probably they didn't know about my detective kind of skills or probably they underestimated them. I had requested “Mr. Unknown” to talk to me under his real name, but neither he nor his friend followed my request. //

    Reply
  34. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Well, I feel that's OK to retain them.

    Reply
  35. Vinay Kumar Polkam

    Namaste Santosh garu,

    There is stotra called Samba Sada Shiva Aksharamala stotra where Lord Shiva is being praised as Purushottama. Please see below few lines of the stotra.

    hara purushottama adwaitaamruta poorna muraari suseavya siva

    Also Lord Shiva is praised as below in Shata-Rudriyam by Great sage Vyasa.

    prajApatInAm prathamam tEjasAm
    purusham prabhum
    bhuvanam bhUrbhuvam dEvam sarvalOkEshwaram prabhum

    sahasra sirasE chaiva sahasra nayanAya chA
    sahasra bAhavE chaiva sahasra charanAya chA

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Namaste Vinay garu,

      Thanks for citing those beautiful verses and adding to the points here. You are right.

      Reply
  36. Kalyan

    this is worse! Rudra is the son of Brahma, and Brahma came from Maha Vishnu…The author does not seem to know what he is talking about. The ganga that Rudra wears comes when Brahma does abhishekam to the Vamana avatar feet, nArayaNa is the supreme as clearly mentioned by Adi Shankara/Ramanujacharya , Adi Shankara clearly mentions this in Bhagawadgita commentary. The son of Vasudeva is the supreme Ishwara he says, even Ramanujacharya also when the word Ishwara came , did not give such direct meaning…The author does not know a single bit of vaidika dharma.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      there comes another fool on the net. misguided by the Vaishnavite acharyas!! Had you read the entire article you would have got the answers of few of the points that you stated in your message. Your ignorance of Shiva-tatwam is clearly visible form your post. Thx!

      Reply
      1. sohini

        santoshji just at this moment i can’t remember any mention of birth or emergence of ganga prior to when vamana puran was written. if i have to find out then i gotta re-read all scriptures i have read till read, and that amount of time i can’t afford now due to my studies, so if u can recollect any such mention then plz share, but if u don’t have time for now then i can wait 🙂

        Reply
        1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

          I have explained this in my article titled ‘sampurna vishnu tatwam – demystifying the mystic vishnu’ . Vishnu enacts on physical plane all the acts that are actually done by shiva and shakti in yogic/cosmic/transcendental planes.

          Reply
  37. Ombhuhu

    Seriously, this article and the comments that have followed show why it is dangerous for the pristine and highly valuable Vedas to fall in wrong hands. All the half baked knkowledge and translation is only leading us to very selfish views about Santana Dharma. Such arrogant ranting would only leave a scar on Sanatana Dharma.

    The beauty of Sanata Dharma is the flexibility to see God in the way you experience it. That is why in India we see a God in animals, birds, other human beings and that is why believe in supernatural forces. This doesnt really apply for many other faiths.The Vedas, the shaiva acharyas and Vaishana acharyas tried to lead us towards enlightenment. This is the beauty of flexibility and diversity that Sanatana Dharma offers.

    It is one Brahman with different names that we are all calling out.

    As with everything else, when ego and selfishness gets more importance, we feel what we follow to be the best and everything else is below us. This is the effect of human nature, half baked knowledge but not prescribed by Sanatana Dharma. We are all followers of the same principles and hatred will only cloud our judgement more.

    Vedas, upanishads and other authentic texts we follow are all talking about the same God but each from its own perspective (one view rudra, another view narayana and another view brahma and so on…). Its the highly advanced/ sophisticated way that our ancestors have mastered ( to realize the truth) that we are losing in this materialistic world.

    High time we should cast hatred away, join hands in harmony to safe guard the valuables passed down the generations and try to realize Brahman.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Well, in general, I agree with what you have said barring few statements like “Vaishana acharyas tried to lead us towards enlightenment”. Vaishnava Acharyas were the ones who lead our sanatana dharma to doom and peril. No point in over-glorifying them, as already they have been falsely placed at high pedestals.

      Reply
      1. sohini

        quite true

        Reply
  38. Subhasis Dey

    I don’t have words to thank you Santoshji. Your article has given me immense mental peace. May Lord Siva and Mother Durga, my divine parents bless you to remove the cloud of ignorance from the mind of millions of people through your articles.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Thanks for the kind words, and wishes, Subhasis Ji. ALl credits I humbly submit at the lotus feet of Uma maheshwara.

      Reply
  39. Subhasis Dey

    Another favour please. I want to know about the Hymns/ Stotras / related depictions in the Vedas , Upanishads and other Hindu scriptures that reveal the unborn nature of Lord Siva.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      They have already been discussed in this article.

      Reply
  40. nandy

    hi, I am trying to get in touch with the kamakotimandal.com folks but they dont seem to have a way to connect. can u help?

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      I have never contacted them. I think there was an option to contact them earlier. Seems they have removed it. Try to see if you could submit a comment on their articles and pass your message?

      Reply
  41. Light

    Although the mention of weilder of Pinaka, rider of Bull, blue necked one, three eyed one etc… in Sri Rudram makes it cleae that it is for Lord Shiva… but still there is a very vivid description of Lord Shiva in Manava Shrauta sutra associated with Yajurveda….Shrauta Sutras are very ancient even Wikipedia dates it about 500-600 BCE while it dates Puranas in A.D. Manava Shrauta Sutra clearly identifies Rudra of Vedas as Umapati:
    In Manava Shrauta Sutra 11.7.1.14

    “A Brahmin shall meditate correctly on the three eyed, five faced , ten armed, auspicious, adorned with all rock crystal, with a serpent cord over the left shoulder, a tigerskin as upper garment, a water jar and a rosary in the hand, a club in the hand, mounted on the shoulder of a bull, bearing half of the body of Uma, flaming, wearing a brown trees with a diadem, causing splendor on the top knot of hair, coverted with immortality, excited, worshipped by Gods and Asuras, joined with deities of quarters, continual and eternal, kind, constant, imperishable, immutable, all pervading, deceitless, multiform ruler Rudra.”

    Thus it is clear as it says “bearing half of body of Uma” also it calls Rudra as eternal, pervading and multiform ruler.

    Om Namaha Shivaya…Om Namaha Narayanaya…

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Thanks for the Manava Srauta Sutra reference. Yes, Umapati is indeed Mahadeva.

      Reply
  42. Subhasis Dey

    What is the relation between the Vedas and the Upanishadas ? Are the Upanishadas parts of the Vedas or they are commentaries on the four Vedas ? I’ve heard that each of the four Vedas viz. the Rikveda, the Samveda, the Yajurveda and the Atharvaveda have four different sections namely the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas, the Samhitas and the Upanishadas. And the Vedantas offer commentaries on the Vedas. Is this true ?

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Upanishads are called vedanta because they are found to be existing towards the concluding portions (end portions) of veda texts. Hence they are called veda-anta (end portion of vedas). Each of the divisions have upanishads at the end – there are upanishads at the end of brahmanas, at the end of aranyakas etc.

      Upanishads are not commentaries, but they are the sections which discuss about brahma-vidya (supreme wisdom). Hope this clarifies.

      Reply
  43. Subhasis Dey

    Thank you Sir, for the clarification. Things are clear for me right now. Please tell me now at the concluding portion of which Vedas /Aranyakas/ Samhitas is the Svetaswatara Upanishadas found ?

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Tracing exactly end to end of most of the upanishads to some veda’s sections in today’s date is not possible as we have lost many branches of Vedas. What we have currently is probably less than 10% of the actual vedic repository.

      However, many of the Svetaswatara mantras can be traced to Vedas. Here is a brilliant article by my friend on this. It is a must read. – “Lord Rudra — The Heart of Rishi Śvetāśvatara.“.

      Reply
  44. Subhasis Dey

    Thank you for the reference site. I’ve gone through it. Now, I’ve a critical question in mind. Is our consciousness different from our soul or they are same? Recently, one of my friends said in this context that our consciousness varies from one birth to another and also from time to time in a single birth but our soul remains the same. What I had been believing so far is that our soul is none other than the Supreme Lord Shankara and our consciousness is our beloved Mother Bhavani. So, they are not different. Then how consciousness varies in every individual but the soul remains unchanged ?

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Soul etc., words are not right to use when we are discussing Hinduism. Our philosophical words do not have a direct translation available in English. What do you mean by soul? Do you mean Atman, or Jiva here?

      I would recommend you to join some Vedanta discussion forums and post your vedantic queries and get clarifications. Even further, I would say these topics are best cleared by a learned guru, and nor randomly by anyone on internet.

      Reply
  45. Subhasis Dey

    I mean Atman here. Could you please refer to such Vedantic discussion forum where I could post such queries of mine? My opinion regarding this is that Our Atman viz. Lord Maheswara and our Consciousness viz. Mother Tripursundari are same. What we perceive as a change in our consciousness is due to our tiny individual consciousness because of the illusion posed by our beloved Mother Bhavani on us. Do you think I am right ?

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Vedantic answers are best learnt or discussed here in following 2 groups. you could subscribe to one or both.

      Advaitin Yahoo group Or Advaita-L mailing list

      I am not clear with your point. For me, consciousness is atman, (prajnanam brahman). Hence it is same atman which is termed shiva and which is termed uma both.

      Reply
  46. Subhasis Dey

    Can Upanishadas such as the Sarabha Upanishada and Rudra Hridayopanishada be called the Vedantas ? If so, to which of the four Vedas do they belong ?

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

      Sarabha belongs to atharva veda, and rudrahridayopanishad belongs to yajurveda.

      Reply
  47. Dhyey Bhatt

    Namaste santoshji,
    I’ve 1question regarding “PURUSH SUKTAM” of veda(s). As “Purosho vai Rudrah” mention in Yajurveda, so it is obviously that “Purush Suktam” is hym belongs to Lord Shiva isn’t it? And would you please write article regarding same as you have written for Narayan Suktam-hym dedicated to Adi-Shakti(Tripura Sundari).

    And Yes eagerly waiting for Your COMPLETE 3 article “Hidden Secret Of Bhagwat Gita” ,Narayan Suktam” and “Krishna’s Bhagwat is Bogus”

    Thanks for enlightening us.May blesses of Shiva-Shakti shower on u.

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

      Namaste Dhyey ji,

      Already my friend had written a brilliant commentary on Purusha Suktam. actually it is his blog that inspired me to put my learnings in the form of blogs. He is inactive since 2010, but he is literally “baap” of my knowledge. I mean, his knowledge is far far far greater than that of mine, and I admire him so much so that I have not even the slightest ego problem or shame in acknowledging that as a fact that he is superior to me. 🙂 I can assure that after reading his blog you would not even like to visit my blog. LOL….Such is his knowledge. But not sure why he has become totally inactive for the past 7 years. Sometimes I even get scary thoughts thinking whether he is alive or not. I hope he is alive somewhere. 🙁

      Here is the link to his extra ordinary commentary on Purusha Suktam. Purusha Suktam – A Hymn to Lord Rudra

      Well, to the latter part of your comment. Just a small info – ‘ Krishna’s Bhagawatam is bogus’ article has already been updated. It wouldn’t need any further updates. The rest two will have updates in due course of time.

      Reply
  48. Dhyey Bhatt

    Namaste Santoshji,
    I’ve something to share with you.

    1) In Bhagwat Gita (11:32) Lord of Gita says I m Kaal(Mahakaal). Even in Bhagwat Gita (10:33) Lord Says I m Akshay kaal(Mahakaal). So its much clear that Bhagwat Gita is originated from Lord Shiva only through Medium(Lord Krishna).

    2)In Bhagwat Gita (13:22)”within Body Supreme to Individual Consciousness on indwelling observer, a sactioner,a preserver, an enjoyer & Ultimate Controller(MAHESHWAR) as well is describe as Ultimate Consciousness. ” So again it is tight slap to people who use Holy Gita to Make Krishna Supreme.

    3)In Bhagwat Gita (14:3-4) God Says Mool Prakriti (Adi Shakti) is Yoni(Source or Origin ) of all Creation And I m Father” But As per scriptures Lord Krishna is said “JagatGuru” (KRISHNAM VANDE JAGAT-GURU) And not Jagat Pitaah but again Lord Shiva only is Glorified as Universal Father.”JAGAT PITRO VANDE PARVATI PARMESHWARO”
    So it is clear that it(verse) is spoken By lord shiva and Not By Lord Krishna

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

      True!

      Reply
  49. Dhyey Bhatt

    Thanks Dear Santoshji for the reply. I pray to God about your friend well being.I hope may he became active again.

    Om Namah Shivaay

    Reply
  50. Utkarsh

    DEAR SANTOSH JI your works are amazing and i feel immense peace after reading your articles. Sir im just a boy of age 17 who wanta to read and understand the vedas and im sick of iskcon claims that lord shiva is the gatekeeper of goloka,the servant of krishna etc. Sir please help me by publishing some of the sects of vedas upnishads theough which by meditation one cam realise supreme formless sadashiva. Iv asked on vaiahnawas gurus on how to meditate but i think you know wht they must have said. Please sir just highlight some links or verses in whicb lord shiva explains on how to attain self realisation.

    Reply
    1. You may read Shiva Gita (present here in this blog) to begin with. There lord shiva explains bhakti, jnana, yoga etc., every path that leads to him.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: