Posted by: adbhutam | March 25, 2015



The bloggers have responded to my article on their Keshi suktam blog. It only shows that my blog has caused much perturbation to them and brought disrepute to their blog.

My responses, to show that theirs are only products of desperation, are in between { } What they say is shown in between // – //

// Now, when according to the blogger, Lord Śiva is a jñāni (which the blogger accepts), where is the need to ‘cleanse’ the karmas? The Mundakopanishat 2.2.9 says: भिद्यते–हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते–सर्वसंशयाः। क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे ॥ ९ ॥ [Upon obtaining the direct realization of the Supreme, all karma-s are destroyed…(excepting prārabdha karmas, which, however, have to be expended only by experiencing).]

ANSWER: Maybe you haven’t noticed, but we use “jnAni” in vishishtadvaitic terms. In vishishtadvaita, a jnAni is someone who realises he has karmas because he has understood his miserable plight. It is not the same as advaitic definition of jnAni. Basically, shiva is a jnAni who cried when he realised he had karmas and hence was cleansed of those karmas obstructing experience of Brahman.

As far as advaita goes, Sridhara clarifies in his vishNu purAna vyAkhyAna that shiva has the supreme knowledge of vishNu (paramEsvara) and his crying therefore is a play to obey his father Brahma (during the naming) since jnAnis do not cry. Note however, that Sridhara only says Shiva’s crying was a play; he does not deny that shiva has prarabdha and also places shiva here as one who has vishNu jnAna and hence lower to vishNu.//

{ That ‘viṣnu jnana’ is not of any saguna entity called ‘vishnu’. On the other hand it is the Vedantic Brahman which is infinite, all-pervading, ananta. Advaitins never teach that securing the jnana about the resident of vaikunta and consort of Lakshmi as liberating knowledge. The pseudo vaishnava does not even understand what I mean by ‘Jñāni’. They have accepted that Shiva had Vishnu-knowledge (which is liberating knowledge), which they brag as ‘Vishnu jnānam’ and is a Jagadguru, imparting the ultimate knowledge. So, the above ‘answer’ is no answer. And Sridhara has only given the pseudo vaishnavas a slap on their face by saying Shiva’s crying was only a play. Even Sayana, in that shatapathabrahmana bhashya says: it is an ākhyāyikā, a story, in praise of a vedic injunction. And the ‘jnani’ of Sridhara is completely different from the jnani of the pseudo vaishnavas. So, the whole episode of ‘crying’ is shorn of the punch the pseudo vaishnavas attempted to give to the story by projecting Shiva as someone miserable. Now that they have put this information on their own pages, they only admit their mistake.}

//when Śiiva has no karma to be ‘cleansed’ where is the question of the ‘drinking’ of the poison ‘cleansing’ him and his ‘acquiring’ merit?

At birth, Shiva acquired names to cleanse himself of karmas obstructing his knowledge of Brahman. He became a yogi, but just like Vishvamitra, he is still prone to tamas (as evidenced by incidents when he fought vishNu, etc) and hence performs acts like swallowing poison and getting vishNu pAda teertha on his head to cleanse himself of karmas. As old karmas are cleansed, new actions often result in new karmas.//

{ All this kind of stuff will not hold water with an Advaitin. There is absolutely no reasoning involved in the above. When Shiva has paramātma jnana, where is the need for cleansing karma, no karma ever remainss to be washed off. They are only offering comedy to their readers by doling out stuff as the above: Shiva performing the swallowing to cleanse himself of karma!! And a paramātma Jnani’s actions do not give rise to ‘new karmas’. That defeats the very purpose of Atma jnanam.}


//”sinner” does not mean Shiva is a bad person, merely that he, like everyone, has papa karmas too. The idea is that he is more elevated than the other devas and acts as a guru.//

{ Revealing ignorance of basic Vedanta. For an Atmajnani, there is no such concept as papa karmas. The BS ‘तदधिगम उत्तरपूर्वाघयोरश्लेषविनाशौ तद्व्यपदेशात् 4.1.13 says: upon realizing the Highest Truth, there is no contact with future actions and with regard to past actions, they have been destroyed, since there is the teaching to this effect.’ So, when Shiva is a vedantic jnani, there is no karma left for him to cleanse. The pseudo vaishnavas have no fundamental knowledge of even Vedanta, let alone their system or advaita. Further, in the Taittiriya Upanishad, Brahmanandavalli, 1, there occurs a sentence: किमहं साधु नाकरवम्, किमहं पापमकरवमिति… [Why did I not perform good deeds, why did I engage in sinful deeds?] – Such a feeling of regret does not arise in a Jnani. Shankara says there: कथं पुनः साध्वकरणं पापक्रिया च न तपतीति, उच्यते – किं कस्मात् साधु शोभनं कर्म नाकरवं न कृतवानस्मि इति पश्चात्संतापो भवति आसन्ने मरणकाले ; तथा किं कस्मात् पापं प्रतिषिद्धं कर्म अकरवं कृतवानस्मि इति च नरकपतनादिदुःखभयात् तापो भवति । ते एते साध्वकरणपापक्रिये एवमेनं न तपतः, यथा अविद्वांसं तपतः । कस्मात्पुनर्विद्वांसं न तपत इति, उच्यते – स य एवंविद्वान् एते साध्वसाधुनी तापहेतू इति आत्मानं स्पृणुते प्रीणाति बलयति वा, परमात्मभावेन उभे पश्यतीत्यर्थः । उभे पुण्यपापे हि यस्मात् एवम् एष विद्वान् एते आत्मानात्मरूपेणैव पुण्यपापे स्वेन विशेषरूपेण शून्ये कृत्वा आत्मानं स्पृणुत एव । कः? य एवं वेद यथोक्तमद्वैतमानन्दं ब्रह्म वेद, तस्य आत्मभावेन दृष्टे पुण्यपापे निर्वीर्ये अतापके जन्मान्तरारंभके न भवतः । Such a thought of regret that normally arises in an ignorant person towards death but the Jnani does not feel regret. Why? He sees all actions as non-different from Atman, as per the above bhāṣya of Shankara.

So, the argument of the pseudo vaishnavas, only to vilify Shiva, has no support whatsoever in the Vedanta. They have no answer to the question: Was Shiva a self-realized one or not at the time of the amrutha mathanam? If not, then the stuti of the devas addressed to a sinner is unjustifiable. The whole episode would be a laughing stock. They say the devas are jnanis and see Brahman everywhere. If Shiva is not a jnani and does not see Brahman everywhere, how does the stuti even come about? Also, if he was not an paramatma jnani then, how would the Bhagavatam depict him to be the one giving out liberating knowledge? }


//You still ignore Shankara’s opinion of Rudra as a tAmasa devata in “bhUta krt”. The prasnOpanishad bhAshya is only an elaboration of vibhUtis for the sake of upAsana. Already explained and not dwelling on it further.//

{ Where has Shankara said that? It is only to hoodwink the readers that the bloggers misrepresent Shankara. What Shankara says there is: तमोगुणमास्थाय रुद्रात्मना भूतानि कृन्तति कृणोति हिनस्तीति भूतकृत् [(that very Pure Consciousness called Viśṇu) as Rudra, assuming Tamoguṇa, destroys all beings. Hence He is called ‘bhūtakṛt’.] Shankara is saying this not of Shiva but of Vishnu. The word ‘sa’ pronoun only refers to Vishnu and not Shiva. So, Shankara nowhere ‘opines’ that Rudra is a tāmasa devatā. In fact what Shankara says there, amounts to saying that Vishnu is the tāmasa devatā as Rudra.

The queer logic of the bloggers gets exposed here too. They want all heroic acts like drinking the poison to be attributed to Vishnu but do not want the ‘tāmasa’ attribute to go to him. If Shiva is a vibhuti of Vishnu, as the bloggers claim, in drinking the poison, why and how does the same Shiva cease to be a vibhuti, that too when it is Vishnu, according to Shankara, that bears the tamoguna while engaging in destruction or while weeping?

Also, the bloggers have a fundamental misunderstanding with the concept of sattva, rajas and tamas. They do not understand that these three gunas are required, by default, to perform these acts of creation, sustenance and dissolution. So, the word ‘tamoguṇa’ is no way used by Shankara as a derogatory one. In fact it is this guna that is at play in the BG 11th chapter where the Lord says ‘Kāloṣmi lokakṣayakṛt’. So, the blogger’s accusation only boomerangs on them.

And there is no upāsana in the Prashnopanishat according to Shankara’s bhāṣyam when the name Rudra occurs. It is a praise of Prāṇa (prajāpati) by the other entities like the sense organs. }

Unable to answer my question, the pseudo vaishnava, in desperation, makes a comment:

// there is no reference in the Bhagavatam or any other puranas where the Amṛtamathanam event is alluded to that ‘Rudra was weeping because of his karmas’ when the churning took place.

Answer: For a dull headed person like you, there is no reference. For everyone else who reads this blog and your diatribes, the references are plenty.//

He can never succeed in showing just one, let alone plenty, reference in support of ‘Rudra was weeping’ during the amrtha mathanam.’ Quite contrary to the claims of the bloggers, the very Bhagavatam describes the state of Shiva when the devas, finding themselves unprotected by anyone, approached him:


vilokya taḿ devavaraḿ trilokyā

bhavāya devyābhimataḿ munīnām

āsīnam adrāv apavarga-hetos

tapo juṣāṇaḿ stutibhiḥ praṇemuḥ


vilokya — observing; tam — him; devavaram — the best of the demigods; trilokyāḥ — of the three worlds; bhavāya — for the flourishing; devyā — with his wife, Bhavānī; abhimatam — accepted by; munīnām — great saintly persons; āsīnam — sitting together; adrau — from the top of Kailāsa Hill; apavargahetoḥ — desiring liberation; tapaḥin austerity; juṣāṇam — being served by them; stutibhiḥ — by prayers; praṇemuḥ — offered their respectful obeisances.


The demigods observed Lord Śiva sitting on the summit of Kailāsa Hill with his wife, Bhavānī, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The demigods offered him their obeisances and prayers with great respect.

Surely, a person who is worshiped by mumukṣus cannot be a someone miserably ‘weeping because of karmas’. There cannot be a better joke than the blogger is making. How can one who himself is not free from papa karmas be in a position to give the liberating knowledge to others? When the blogger himself is a dull head, he is trying to include Veda Vyasa and Shuka also to his club. }

// Quoting Ganguly and you call us ignorant of sanskrit grammar!//

{ I do not even know where Ganguly’s translation is available. As usual, making wrong guesses, the blogger gives a completely wrong twist to the MB verse not knowing that the ‘antaryāmi’ stuff does not hold water with Advaitins. Let them keep such stuff with themselves and not explain away explicitly clear verses of Hari-Hara abheda of the MB to suit their theories. }

// Answer: That is an argument between us, Madhvas and true Advaitins who are vaishnavas.//

{There is no advaitin who has commented on the Keshi suktam except Sayana who never takes it as related to the amrtha mathanam. So, bringing in advaitins of any color here is irrelevant. Also, it is only the bloggers’ pet theory that advaitins are vaishnavas. There is absolutely no evidence to that.}

// This etymology is only applied for vishNu here.

Not so. It is an etymology of the Sivapuranam to refer to Shiva as the Paramakāraṇam and not Vishnu. So, Shankara’s citing it here is undoubtedly only to establish Hari-Hara abheda. Shankara would not cite an etymology that clearly applies to Shiva of the Shivapuranam in the VS unless he sees the abheda, and that too, not of the non-advaitin type of desperately adding that ‘as antaryāmi….shareera-Atma bhāva’ etc.

Shankara cites two seminal verses from the Bhaviṣyottara purāṇa in the introduction to the VS:

Maheśvara (Śiva) says:

विष्णोरन्यं तु पश्यन्ति ये मां ब्रह्माणमेव वा ।

कुतर्कमतयो मूढाः पच्यन्ते नरकेष्वधः ॥

[Those fools who, devoid of proper thinking, consider Me and Brahmā as different from Viṣṇu will be baked in the lowly hells.]

ये च मूढा दुरात्मानो भिन्नं पश्यन्ति मां हरेः ।

ब्रह्माणं च ततस्तस्माद् ब्रह्महत्यासमं त्वघम् ॥

[Those fools, wicked ones, by seeing Me and Brahmā as different from Hari are committing the heinous sin of brahmahatyā.]

Surely, Shankara, while citing these two, coming from Shiva, is not acknowledging the ‘antaryāmi type’ oneness. How do we know that? That section of the VS bhāṣya is a fine discussion where Shankara establishes the Advaitic identity and not the vishishtadvaitic ‘sharira-atma bhāva’. He gives a provisional conclusion after citing several puranic verses saying: ityādivākyāni ekatvapratipādakāni (these verses are establishing identity, oneness). And he continues, api cha and gives several shruti passages like tattvamasi and again raises a question: ‘All this is for upāsana like viṣṇu buddhi in a pratimā.’ And says ‘that is not the case since the above advaitic passages (of both the puranas and shruti) will then be diluted and distorted and clearly shows where such upāsana passages occur and in what manner. And says all these passages teach ‘abhedapratipatti’ and further concludes: such innumerable passages refute the vision of difference. Further concludes Shankara: iti advaitātmajñānam samyagdarśanam ityuktam bhagavatāpi and gives the ultimate purport of what the VS introductory verses teach: Therefore set the mind firm in the Atmā that is Ishwara. Thus for Shankara the VS is not any deity-specific but the Advaitic Nirguna Brahman-specific. In Advaita the Atman is none other than Ishwara (not saguṇa Brahman, but the Ishwara of the Ishavāsyopanishad bhāṣya).
//Shankara himself clarifies rudra is under tamas and has an antarAtma in the same bhAshya for bhUta brt.//

Shankara never ‘clarifies’ that ‘rudra’ in under tamas; if any it is Vishnu who is under tamas ‘as’ Rudra. Also, it is not for bhūtabhṛt but for bhūtakṛt. The bloggers are repeatedly demonstrating that their blogs will not survive unless they piggyback on Shankara. And they do it so hopelessly that even a casual reader is able to see their desperation in promoting their funny theories by taking Shankara’s support knowing that Shankara alone has the reputation that their own Acharyas do not have.}

// These acts are due to their austerity and hence the ultimate glory is for narayana only.//

{Only the pseudo vaishnavas have to claim such ‘ultimate’ glory to Narayana. Narayana is not desperate to claim such glories for himself and that too from others’ acts. Nārāyaṇa is not a fanatic as these so-called followers of Nārāyaṇa want him to be. If any, for Advaitins, even the so-called ‘glories’ of Narayana are not his but of Maya. Without maya there is no glory of any kind to anyone whatsoever. In the BSB 1.4.3 Shankara says ‘without that latent power the Brahman of Vedanta cannot even engage in creation.’ Which ‘Vaishnava’ would openly acknowledge that ‘Ishwara is dependent on Maya for creation, etc.’? So, taking Shankara’s support is only proving detrimental to the bloggers.}

// Case in point – he thinks the worship of antaryAmin is indirect and unnecessary when vishNu is already present. Does the sukta not indicate that the devas are “munis” who have a direct sakshatkara and can see the antaryAmin as well as viShNu beside them? They did not see Shiva there, they had tattva darshana and saw vishNu. And they eulogised that form which they knew would drink the poison – corroborated by the rk using different names “keSi” and “vAyu”.//

{ There is no case in any point there. If the devas are munis and had tattva darshana, they would not be running to Shiva’s abode, feeling no protection even in the presence of Vishnu. The Upanishad declares ‘abhayam vai janaka prāpto’si’. A tattva darshi is beyond fear. The episode in the purana will have no purpose at all if the devas are tattva darshins. The devas went to the abode of Shiva, not to see him really there but to see Vishnu!! If they wanted to see Vishnu, he was available right in front of them. Why travel to some other place to see him and that too in someone who is not he? There will be no takers for such nonsense as these bloggers are doling out. The Bhāgavata clearly says: arakṣyamāṇāḥ śaraṇaḿ sadāśivam A tattva darshi need not take refuge in anyone. He transcends all needs.

The devas felt that no one protected them and took shelter under Sadasiva. Not able to bear the ‘insult’ the vaishnavas twist the verse and give a pathetic explanation which the Iskcon people have added on that page from Madhva. }

// The answer is that he is still known by that name as Brahma gave it to him. The rk calls him rudra specifically to remind that he was the one who cried at birth but now has become mahAdeva and was used as a vessel by narayana to drink the poison, thus showing how he has attained a venerable state by bhagavad krupa. I think we clarified that pretty well.//

{ Is this any explanation? Why should the Rk remind anyone about Rudra’s weeping, which is after all a play according to Sridhara? Also, why should one rely on that meaning for the name Rudra, while Shankara has cited from the Shivapuranam where the element: rur duḥkham duḥkhahetum vā tad drāvayati [He who eliminates the misery or the cause of misery is Rudra] not be taken?. After all the poison and the prospect of it destroying the devas did cause misery to them and Shiva by drinking it freed them of that misery. Even if the shivapuranam etymology is not taken, Shankara gives the meaning: samhārakāle prajāḥ samharan rodayati iti rudraḥ. [He who torments beings during the dissolution] The sadistic mindset of the bloggers is what is revealed in trying to give that etymology: ‘because he wept’ while it is not at all called for in the Keshi suktam.

Pricked by his own conscience, and realizing his blog is a disaster, upon reading my exposure of the completely wrong information contained in their blog,   the blogger makes a weak defence, hoping that his readers are fools just as he is:

// “As Shiva cried due to his “anapahatapApmatva”, bhagavAn made him the instrument to drink the poison and hence enabled Shiva to cleanse his karmas (as he has acted in favour of bhagavAn). What pleases bhagavAn is puNya, what displeases him is pApa karma. Shiva thus acquired merit in this incident.”

What we meant here is that shiva cried during his birth and not that he cried during the samudra mathanam. At that time of his birth itself, he wanted to become great and renowned. He became known as rudra since then. The rk signifies that the same being who cried during his birth was made as a vessel by bhagavan and thus became exalted — thus highlighting how bhagavan by his grace fulfills the desires of all.   //

{ What a pity!! Would someone want to become renowned and great by that negative epithet of Rudra with the ‘crying’ etymology? Whom do the bloggers want to deceive? No one who knows even a little bit of English will mistake what he has written. That sentence in his quotes unambiguously relates the crying with the bhagavan making him an instrument. And the above ‘clarification’ contradicts what the blogger himself claimed in another comment:

// Veerashaiva says: there is no reference in the Bhagavatam or any other puranas where the Amṛtamathanam event is alluded to that ‘Rudra was weeping because of his karmas’ when the churning took place.
Answer: For a dull headed person like you, there is no reference. For everyone else who reads this blog and your diatribes, the references are plenty.//

His deranged mind does not even remember what it said, just a few lines before and thereby he coronates himself with the epithet: ‘dull headed’. Let us condone such shortcomings of the blogger, for that is the norm of their blogs. Why should bhagavan try to make Shiva ‘exalted’ and that too require Shiva to ‘cleanse’ his karmas? I have already shown the scriptural proof of an Atma jnani not having any karma to ‘cleanse’. Also, an Atma jnani does not have any desire. He is beyond punya and papa. The Brahma sutra I have cited says that the ‘agha’ (literally pāpa, but taken as including puṇya) of the pre-jnana and post-jnana period of the Jnani will not affect him/are destroyed. So, there is no way Shiva can be shown as needing any cleansing of any karmas by doing punya karma and his requiring to become ‘exalted’. A Jnani is a kṛtakṛtya, not needing any additions or deletions from his personality which he has discarded as unreal. Those who know a little bit of Vedanta will easily see the ulterior motives of these bloggers and their ignorance.

The blogger does not even know who really a ‘Virashaiva’ is. He is definitely not someone who will establish, from scriptural proof, the Hari-Hara abheda. Without even this fundamental awareness he is naming me a ‘Vīrashaiva’. And no advaitin is a vaishnava either, for a vaishnava will never declare the world to be mithyā and Ishwara’s attributes as avidyā kalpita and hold the vaikuntha to be subject to pralaya. If advaitins were vaishnavas, there was no need for the sprouting of schools under the garb of ‘vedanta’ post-Shankara. Only because Ramanuja found Shankara to be devoid of appreciation for the attributes of Vishnu (the ‘kapyāsam’ of Chandogya) and finding Shankara to be a sinner, propounded a new school which Shankara dubbed, even before, as a product of ‘Veda nindā’ in the BSB (pāncharātra). No vaishnava would hold the pāncharātra to be veda nindā. So, pop goes the bloggers’ theory that there are advaitin-vaishnavas or Shankara was a vaishnava. And above all no vaishnava will establish advaitic aikya across the trimurtis and abheda between Hari and Hara as Shankara has done unmistakably in the VS bhāṣya both in the introduction and in the nāma-commentary. }

A note on the Shivapurāṇam etymology cited by Shankara:

That verse with the names ‘Rudra and Shiva’ is available in this page of the Shivapuranam:

The set of verses giving the etymology of select eight names of Shiva, which Shiva himself has selected, with which Shiva is to be worshiped. All the eight names are of Shiva only as specifically made clear in the verses themselves. To take them as ‘neutral’ is only pitiable. The particular section is about the ‘Pāśupata yoga’ which the purana says is based on the Shruti and is liberating in nature. This sādhana is ‘śreṣṭham’ says the purana. The eight names are ‘shiva pratipādakam’ as clearly says the purana (see line 24ab below)and not vishnupratipādakam. So, contrary to the blogger’s misinformation, the names are not neutral. They are explicitly shiva-specific. The verses 50 onwards below clearly teach the method of applying the eight selected names of Shiva (and not Lakshmipati Vishnu) for meditation/worship. It is ardhanārīśwara who is to be worshiped here with those eight names for which etymology are given. All are decidedly Shiva-specific and never neutral as the blogger wants his gullible readers to believe. And this meditation using the eight select names will lead to ‘pāśupata jñānam’ and mokṣa. All this is tāmasic and anathema to vaiśṇavas and just in order that they do not want Shankara citing from this, they indulge in all this circus. Who knows, to save their skin they will give ‘vaiṣnava’ meanings to ardhanāriśwara, pāśupata, etc. and convert the entire Shiva purana to a ‘saattivika’ one !!

And thus, this section clearly falls under the ‘tamasa’ nature which the entire Shiva purana is. This section is not saattvik portion as the blogger desperately tries to misinform his gullible readers and thereby save his loss of face from an earlier declaration that Shankara has not cited from the tamasa purana for any purpose other than either Vishnu-specific or general vedantic purpose (as for example the lingapurana verse he cites in the Kathopanishad bhashya for an etymology for the word Atman). The very eight names are taken up with the sole purpose of expounding the pāsupata yoga where Shiva is the upāsya and lakṣya for mokṣa (22ab). It is only because Shankara sees no difference between Hari and Hara that he cites from the shivapuranam for the name ‘rudra’ of the VS. For Shankara, as it is made clear in the introduction to the VS bhāṣya, the purport of the VS is in advaita. He strikes the identity even between the tri murtis, as the cited verses stand testimony. He is nowhere arguing for a antaryāmi/sharīra-ātma type of identity. If that was his genre, Ramanuja would never have raised his head.

तेषु पाशुपतो योगः शिवं प्रत्यक्षयेद्दृढम् ॥ 17cd
तस्माच्छ्रेष्ठमनुष्ठानं योगः पाशुपतो मतः ॥ 18ab
तत्राप्युपायको युक्तो ब्रह्मणा स तु कथ्यते ॥ 18cd
नामाष्टकमयो योगश्शिवेन परिकल्पितः ॥ 19ab
तेन योगेन सहसा शैवी प्रज्ञा प्रजायते ॥ 19cd
प्रज्ञया परमं ज्ञानमचिराल्लभते स्थिरम् ॥ 20ab

प्रसीदति शिवस्तस्य यस्य ज्ञानं प्रतिष्ठितम् ॥ 20cd
प्रसादात्परमो योगो यः शिवं चापरोक्षयेत् ॥ 21ab
शिवापरोक्षात्संसारकारणेन वियुज्यते ॥ 21cd
ततः स्यान्मुक्तसंसारो मुक्तः शिवसमो भवेत् ॥ 22ab
ब्रह्मप्रोक्त इत्युपायः स एव पृथगुच्यते ॥ 22cd
शिवो महेश्वरश्चैव रुद्रो विष्णुः पितामहः ॥ 23ab
संसारवैद्यः सर्वज्ञः परमात्मेति मुख्यतः ॥ 23cd
नामाष्टकमिदं मुख्यं शिवस्य प्रतिपादकम् ॥ 24ab
आद्यन्तु पञ्चकं ज्ञेयं शान्त्यतीताद्यनुक्रमात् ॥ 24cd
संज्ञा सदाशिवादीनां पंचोपाधिपरिग्रहात् ॥ 25ab
उपाधिविनिवृत्तौ तु यथास्वं विनिवर्तते ॥ 25cd
पदमेव हि तन्नित्यमनित्याः पदिनः स्मृताः ॥ 26ab
पदानां प्रतिकृत्तौ तु मुच्यन्ते पदिनो यतः ॥ 26cd
परिवृत्त्यन्तरे भूयस्तत्पदप्राप्तिरुच्यते ॥ 27ab
आत्मान्तराभिधानं स्याद्यदाद्यं नाम पञ्चकम् ॥ 27cd
अन्यत्तु त्रितयं नाम्नामुपादानादियोगतः ॥ 28ab
त्रिविधोपाधिवचनाच्छिव एवानुवर्तते ॥ 28cd
अनादिमलसंश्लेषः प्रागभावात्स्वभावतः ॥ 29ab
अत्यंतं परिशुद्धात्मेत्यतो ऽयं शिव उच्यते ॥ 29cd
अथवाशेषकल्याणगुणैकघन ईश्वरः ॥ 30ab
शिव इत्युच्यते सद्भिश्शिवतत्त्वार्थवादिभिः ॥ 30cd
त्रयोविंशतितत्त्वेभ्यः प्रकृतिर्हि परा मता ॥ 31ab
प्रकृतेस्तु परं प्राहुः पुरुषं पञ्चविंशकम् ॥ 31cd
यं वेदादौ स्वरं प्राहुर्वाच्यवाचकभावतः ॥ 32ab
वेदैकवेद्ययाथात्म्याद्वेदान्ते च प्रतिष्ठितः ॥ 32cd
तस्य प्रकृतिलीनस्य यः परस्स महेश्वरः ॥ 33ab
तदधीनप्रवृत्तित्वात्प्रकृतेः पुरुषस्य च ॥ 33cd
अथवा त्रिगुणं तत्त्वमुपेयमिदमव्ययम् ॥ 34ab
मायान्तु प्रकृतिं विद्यान्मायिनं तु महेश्वरम् ॥ 34cd
मायाविक्षोभको ऽनंतो महेश्वरसमन्वयात् ॥ 35ab
कालात्मा परमात्मादिः स्थूलः सूक्ष्मः प्रकीर्तितः ॥ 35cd
रुद्दुःखं दुःखहेतुर्वा तद्रावयति नः प्रभुः ॥ 36ab
रुद्र इत्युच्यते सद्भिः शिवः परमकारणम् ॥ 36cd
तत्त्वादिभूतपर्यन्तं शरीरादिष्वतन्द्रितः ॥ 37ab
व्याप्याधितिष्ठति शिवस्ततो रुद्र इतस्ततः ॥ 37cd [this line gives the etymology for the name ‘viṣnu’which is a name of Shiva, as all-pervading; there is another pāṭha: शिवतत्त्वादिभूम्यन्तं शरीरादि घटादि च। व्याप्याधितिष्ठति शिवस्तस्माद्विष्णुरुदाहृतः].
जगतः पितृभूतानां शिवो मूर्त्यात्मनामपि ॥ 38ab
पितृभावेन सर्वेषां पितामह उदीरितः ॥ 38cd
निदानज्ञो यथा वैद्यो रोगस्य विनिवर्तकः ॥ 39ab
उपायैर्भेषजैस्तद्वल्लयभोगाधिकारतः ॥ 39cd
संसारस्येश्वरो नित्यं समूलस्य निवर्तकः ॥ 40ab
संसारवैद्य इत्युक्तः सर्वतत्त्वार्थवेदिभिः ॥ 40cd
दशार्थज्ञानसिद्ध्यर्थमिन्द्रियेष्वेषु सत्स्वपि ॥ 41ab
त्रिकालभाविनो भावान्स्थूलान्सूक्ष्मानशेषतः ॥ 41cd
अणवो नैव जानन्ति माययैव मलावृताः ॥ 42ab
असत्स्वपि च सर्वेषु सर्वार्थज्ञानहेतुषु ॥ 42cd
यद्यथावस्थितं वस्तु तत्तथैव सदाशिवः ॥ 43ab
अयत्नेनैव जानाति तस्मात्सर्वज्ञ उच्यते ॥ 43cd
सर्वात्मा परमैरेभिर्गुणैर्नित्यसमन्वयात् ॥ 44ab
स्वस्मात्परात्मविरहात्परमात्मा शिवः स्वयम् ॥ 44cd [Since there is none greater than Him, Shiva Himself is called ‘paramātmā’. Thus, there is no way these eight names are described in a ‘neutral’ way. They are decidedly of the Pārvati pati Shiva only. It is a folly on the part of the vaishnava acharyas to have hijacked one or more of these names and pass it off as applicable to Nārāyaṇa to hoodwink their gullible followers.]
नामाष्टकमिदं चैव लब्ध्वाचार्यप्रसादतः ॥ 45ab
निवृत्त्यादिकलाग्रन्थिं शिवाद्यैः पंचनामभिः ॥ 45cd
यथास्वं क्रमशश्छित्वा शोधयित्वा यथागुणम् ॥ 46ab
गुणितैरेव सोद्धातैरनिरुद्धैरथापि वा ॥ 46cd
हृत्कण्ठतालुभ्रूमध्यब्रह्मरन्ध्रसमन्विताम् ॥ 47ab
छित्त्वा पर्यष्टकाकारं स्वात्मानं च सुषुम्णया ॥ 47cd
द्वादशांतःस्थितस्येन्दोर्नीत्वोपरि शिवौजसि ॥ 48ab
संहृत्यं वदनं पश्चाद्यथासंस्करणं लयात् ॥ 48cd
शाक्तेनामृतवर्षेण संसिक्तायां तनौ पुनः ॥ 49ab
अवतार्य स्वमात्मानममृतात्माकृतिं हृदि ॥ 49cd
द्वादशांतःस्थितस्येन्दोः परस्ताच्छ्वेतपंकजे ॥ 50ab
समासीनं महादेवं शंकरम्भक्तवत्सलम् ॥ 50cd
अर्द्धनारीश्वरं देवं निर्मलं मधुराकृतिम् ॥ 51ab
शुद्धस्फटिकसंकाशं प्रसन्नं शीतलद्युतिम् ॥ 51cd
ध्यात्वा हि मानसे देवं स्वस्थचित्तो ऽथ मानवः ॥ 52ab
शिवनामाष्टकेनैव भावपुष्पैस्समर्चयेत् ॥ 52cd
अभ्यर्च्चनान्ते तु पुनः प्राणानायम्य मानवः ॥ 53ab
सम्यक्चित्तं समाधाय शार्वं नामाष्टकं जपेत् ॥ 53cd
नाभौ चाष्टाहुतीर्हुत्वा पूर्णाहुत्या नमस्ततः ॥ 54ab
अष्टपुष्पप्रदानेन कृत्वाभ्यर्च्चनमंतिमम् ॥ 54cd
निवेदयेत्स्वमात्मानं चुलुकोदकवर्त्मना ॥ 55ab
एवं कृत्वा चिरादेव ज्ञानं पाशुपतं शुभम् ॥ 55cd
लभते तत्प्रतिष्ठां च वृत्तं चानुत्तमं तथा ॥ 56ab
योगं च परमं लब्ध्वा मुच्यते नात्र संशयः ॥ 56cd
इति श्रीशिवमहापुराणे सप्तम्यां वायवीयसंहितायां पूर्वखण्डे श्रेष्ठानुष्ठानवर्णनं नाम द्वात्रिंशो ऽध्यायः ॥ 32 ॥

The text with a slightly alternative reading of the above portions of the Shivapurāṇa is uploaded here as a zip file consisting of images:

Om Tat Sat


  1. Narayanastra bloggers should know of an old saying:”If you speak the truth there is no need to remember anything”.

    • Very true.

      • Even shri Ramachandra cries when sita goes missing.if Rudra crying means what he says so should rama crying. If the blogger thinks Rudra needed help from narayana to drink poison(though it’s no where mentioned) rama needed help of sugriva and army to find sita.

  2. Madhvas show the Keshi Suktam as evidence for Rudra being blessed before drinking the poison. They also show the Mahabharata for this. These are not seen that way by others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: