Posted by: adbhutam | December 3, 2015


What Is not a true ‘stuti’?

In the world of traditional Sanskrit literature it is an accepted norm that praise, stuti is: गुणिनिष्ठगुणाभिधानं स्तोत्रमिति स्तोत्रलक्षणम् – the expressing of those attributes, traits, accomplishments, etc. that inhere in a certain entity/person is called a ‘stuti.’ Naturally, those attributes that are not conducive to be praised are excluded from an ideal stuti. In the sequel is discussed what ought not to be a stuti by taking an example of a supposed ‘stuti’ found in the URL below:

// In this genuine section of the mahAbhArata, the devas seek refuge of Shiva, who is extolled as a yOgin par excellence and a mahAtman, and recognising this, they compose a hymn that directly addresses the antaryAmin of shiva, ie, nArAyaNa, who is in his sankarshana-narasimh arUpa in the cave of rudra’s heart.  Thus, the stuti addressed to shiva is a direct praise of his antaryAmin and not a praise of shiva as anything other than a vibhUti.//

//After this, the Kumbhakonam edition contains one more sloka which does not occur in other recensions, which occurs prior to the succeeding sloka. I will translate this here:

devadevaM paraM sthANuM varadaM tryambakaM shivam sharvamIDyamajaM rudraM shashA~NkA~NkitamUrdhajam

Meaning: (The husband of Uma is) the Chief of Devas (devadeva), superior to or detached from material enjoyments (paraM), firm in yOga or meditation on vishNu (sthANuM), the bestower of boons (varadaM), the three-eyed as he is the knower of the 3 vedas (tryambakaM), agreeable to his true nature (shivaM), the remover of ignorance (SharvaM), the praise-worthy (IDyam), the mover or instigator of the mind towards paramAtma (ajaM), the one who wept as he knew he was not freed from karmas (rudraM), whose hair is marked by the moon (shashA~NkA~Nkita mUrdhajam).//

//As he wept on being born due to pApa karmas, therefore he is marked by the moon which symbolises that he was able to cleanse himself of the karmas/tamO guNa and become lustrous and cool or sheltered from the heat of samsAra by his austerities, which is symbolised by the cool moon.//


// Shiva crying due to karmas is an indication of his knowledge of his true nature. It is actually a praise of his ability to recognise the truth.//

Response to the above contents of the above blog

A stuti is aimed at a particular entity to whom it is addressed and not to someone else.  If there was a need to address that someone else, the stuti should be directly addressed to that someone and not anyone else. The blogger, evidently propelled by his bigoted views of ‘Viṣṇu alone is the Supreme and none else should be praised’ and a patently visible hatred to Śiva has embarked upon the exercise of ‘interpreting’ a section of the Mahabharata. That what he has done is a complete misinterpretation is well known to everyone. By saying this:

// the mover or instigator of the mind towards paramAtma (ajaM), the one who wept as he knew he was not freed from karmas (rudraM), //

the blogger reveals that he cannot stand the epithet ‘ajam’ (‘unborn’) to Śiva because he (the blogger) has a misconception that only Viṣṇu is unborn and everyone is not unborn but has birth. This is directly contradicted by śrutis such as the Atharvaśikhā which holds that from Śambhu were born Brahmā, Viśṇu and Rudra. And such is not any real birth but only One Supreme Consciousness assuming  the three forms to perform the three cosmic functions of creation, etc. This is very clearly brought out by the Viṣṇupurāṇam (VP) Sec.1, ch.2:

After having shown that Viṣṇu, the Paramātman, as the One Only truth, prior to creation, the VP goes on to demonstrate how that Supreme Reality assumed various forms to bring about creation, etc.

जुषन रजोगुणं तत्र स्वयं विश्वेश्वरो हरिः ।
ब्रह्मा भूत्वास्य जगतो विसृष्टौ सम्प्रवर्त्तते ॥६१॥

Assuming rajoguṇa He Himself the Universal Lord Hari, became Brahmā and engaged in the act of creation of the universe.

सृष्टं च पात्यनुयुगं यावत्कल्पविकल्पना ।
सत्त्वभृद्भगवान्विष्णुरप्रमेयपराक्रमः ॥६२॥

In order to preserve/protect/sustain the created world of varieties, Bhagavān Viṣṇu of unparalleled might, assumed sattva guṇa.

तमोद्रेकी चा कल्पान्ते रुद्ररूपी जनार्दनः ।
मैत्रेयाखिलभूतानि भक्षयत्यतिदारुणः ॥६३॥

At the end of the kalpa, with a predominance of tamas, Janārdana Himself, O Maitrya, swallows up the entire created beings, in the form of Rudra, the Fierce form.

भक्षयित्वा च भूतानि जगत्येकार्णवीकृते ।
नागपर्यंकशयने शेते च परमेश्वरः ॥६४॥

Having withdrawn the creation, making the variegated world into one ocean, the Lord reclines on the snake-bed.

प्रबुद्धश्च पुनः सृष्टिं करोति ब्रह्मरूपधृक् ॥६५॥

Waking up, again he engages in creation taking upon the form of Brahmā.

सृष्टिस्थित्यन्तकरणीं ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवात्मिकाम् ।
स संज्ञां याति भगवानेक एव जनार्दनः ॥६६॥

One Only Janārdana, assumes the names of brahmā, viṣṇu and śiva corresponding to the functions of creation, etc.
Thus, there was no need for the blogger to struggle to give a convoluted meaning to the word ‘ajam’ applied to Rudra. Then, for the word ‘Rudra’, the blogger reveals his sadistic nature by giving the meaning of ‘one who wept because of his karma-s, etc.’  One has to see what Shankara says for the same word ‘Rudra’ (114) in the Viṣṇu sahasra nāma bhāṣya:

रुर्दुःखं दुःखहेतुं वा तद् द्रावयति यः प्रभुः । रुद्र इत्युच्यते तस्माच्छिवः परमकारणम् ॥ (samhitā 6, ch.9, verse 14) (Śivapurāṇam)

(‘Ruḥ’ means misery or the cause thereof. This is destroyed, melted away, by Rudra. Hence the Supreme Lord, Shiva, who is the Ultimate Cause (of creation, etc.) is called ‘Rudra’).

Shankara is establishing the Hari-Hara abheda by citing the above verse for the name ‘Rudra’ in the VS.

If one insists that ‘Rudra’ indeed means ‘one who wept because of karma…’ then one cannot escape that meaning very explicitly given in the Valmiki Ramayana:

Rāma cried, ‘rudan’, says Valmiki, using the ‘śatṛ’ suffix (indicating present continuous tense), acknowledging Rāma’s knowledge of his true nature. It is actually a praise of his ability to recognise the truth of his past sinful karma. While Rudra realized his true nature (of being a sinful person) soon upon birth, Rāma did that much later.  See those verses here:

Aranya Kandam sarga 63:

स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः।
उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।

विपुले शोके in intense grief, निमग्नः plunged, सः that, रामः Rama, सशोकम् with sorrow, रुदन् crying, शोकवशाभिपन्नम् who was caught in sorrow, लक्ष्मणम् Lakshmana, उष्णम् hot, विनिश्वस्य sighing, व्यसनानुरूपम् in his grief, वाक्यम् these words, उवाच said.

Plunged in deep grief, Rama heaved hot sighs and said these words to grief-stricken Lakshmana, weeping:

न मद्विधो दुष्कृतकर्मकारी मन्ये द्वितीयोऽस्ति वसुन्धरायाम्।
शोकेन शोको हि परम्पराया मा मेति भिन्दन्हृदयं मनश्च।।3.63.3।।

वसुन्धरायाम् on earth, मद्विधः like me, दुष्कृतकर्मकारी who undertakes forbidden acts, द्वितीयः second person, नास्ति not, मन्ये I think, शोकेन grief, शोकः grief, परम्परायाः continuously, हृदयम् heart, मनश्च mind also, भिन्दन् shattered, माम् my, एति हि is befalling.

I think there is none on earth like me who has performed such forbidden acts. One grief after the other is successively piercing my heart and my mind.

पूर्वं मया नूनमभीप्सितानि पापानि कर्माण्यसकृत्कृतानि।
तत्रायमद्यापतितो विपाको दुःखेन दुःखं यदहं विशामि।।3.63.4।।

मया by me, पूर्वम् in the past, नूनम् certainly, अभीप्सितानि dear to me, पापानि कर्माणि sinful deeds, असकृत् often, कृतानि done, तत्र there, अद्य now, विपाकः consequence of that, आपतितः has descended, यत् since, अहम् I, दुःखेन by sorrow, दुःखम् sorrow, विशामि I am entering.

In the past I had certainly done some sinful deeds I often liked the consequences of which have descended on me now as I am experiencing one sorrow after another. [Here is where the ‘anapahatapāpmatvam’ (lack of freedom from sins) of Rāma is brought out by Himself.  The blogger’s tirade on Shiva in the śatapathabrāhmaṇa is replayed, and returned with compliments by Vālmiki, with some changes though, in this episode of the Rāmāyaṇa.]


राज्यप्रणाशस्स्वजनैर्वियोगः पितुर्विनाशो जननीवियोगः।
सर्वाणि मे लक्ष्मण शोकवेगमापूरयन्ति प्रविचिन्तितानि।।3.63.5।।

लक्ष्मण Lakshmana, राज्यप्रणाशः loss of kingdom, स्वजनैः kith and kin, वियोगः separation from, पितुः father, विनाशः death, जननीवियोगः separation from mother, सर्वाणि all, प्रविचिन्तितानि thinking over, मे I, शोकवेगम् fast increase sorrow, आपूरयन्ति greater measure.

O Lakshmana, loss of kingdom, separation from kith and kin, death of father, separation from mother–all these thoughts augment my sorrow faster and in greater measure.


The blogger says:

// Shiva crying due to karmas is an indication of his knowledge of his true nature. It is actually a praise of his ability to recognise the truth.//

This applies perfectly to Rāma as evidenced in the above copious quotes from the pen of Valmiki.


If the blogger thinks ‘Śiva’s having the moon on the head means that he was cleansed of the karma/tamoguṇa’, then one can happily apply that to Rāma too: Rāma-chandra (‘chandra’ = moon) was so named because he will be cleansed later of his pāpa karma and tamoguṇa by worshiping Shiva. 


The moral: If you sow the wind you will reap the whirlwind.  The blogger’s subtle attack on Rudra has boomeranged on him.


The blogger says:


//Let us begin. It must also be noted that the stuti seems to address srI Lakshmi narasimha, who, as has been proven earlier, is sankarshaNa rUpi and the antaryAmi rUpam of rudra.

namo devAtidevAya dhanvine chAti manyave |

prajApatimakhaghnAya prajApatibhirIDyase || 45||


Meaning: Salutations to (sriman nArAyaNa, the antaryAmin of rudra) the possessor of auspicious attributes (devAtideva) unique and excelling all others, to the holder of the bow symbolizing the mind (dhanvine), to the One who is the sacrifice or the means to liberation (manyavE), to the destroyer of the actions of mind which rules the senses (prajApati makhagnAya), to the One who is adored (via meditation) by those who rule over their senses (prajapatibhrIDyase)


Response: There is no mention of any such ‘Narasimha’ in the Mahabharata. There is no need to hijack the stuti to Śiva to Narasimha.  The epithets perfectly apply to Shiva only.  Only with struggle, by killing the direct meanings one invents convoluted meanings to somehow make those epithets appear to apply to someone other than Shiva.


Continues the blogger:

namaH stutAya stutyAya stUyamAnAya mRRityave |

vilohitAya rudrAya nIlagrIvAya shUline || 46||


Meaning: To the One who alone is worthy of praise as he alone has auspicious attributes (stutAya), to the One who is the form of that praise as he alone blesses us to praise him (stutyA), to the One who is being praised by everyone for the attainment of their desires, to One who is death to the deaths of his devotees, ie, he ends their cycle of births and deaths (mRityu). To (Lord Narasimha) who is reddish colored (vilohitAya), the Lord who drives away the misery of the cycle of births and deaths (rudrAya), the One whose throat is black, ie, his open mouth inspires fear (nIlagrIvAya), the One who is armed with Death against Hiranyakasipu, ie the enemies of devotees (shUline)



The names are quite popular as those of Śiva in the Śrīrudra anuvāka of the Krishna Yajur Veda. The attempts of bigots to comment the Rudram as applying to Vishnu have met with utter failure. Mṛtyu is death, destruction.

It is interesting to note that in the 12th Canto which is the Śāntiparva of the Mahābhārata there are these verses (12.352.72-76) addressed by Lord Krishna to Arjuna, post-war:

मया त्वं रक्षितो युद्धे महान्तं प्राप्तवाञ्जयम्।।
यस्तु ते सोग्रतो याति युद्धे संप्रत्युपस्थिते।
तं विद्धि रुद्रं कौन्तेय देवदेवं कपर्दिनम्।।
कालः स एव विहितः क्रोधजेति मया तव।
निहतांस्तेन वै पूर्वं हतवानसि यान्रिपून्।।
अप्रमेयप्रभावं तं देवदेवमुमापतिम्।
नमस्व देवं प्रयतो विश्वेशं हरमक्षयम्।।

नमस्व देवं प्रयतो विश्वेशं हरमक्षयम्।।

यश्च ते कथितः पूर्वं क्रोधजेति पुनः पुनः।
तस्य प्रभाव एवाग्रे यच्छ्रुतं ते धनंजय।।

The translation of these verses as available here:

Protected by me in the great battle, thou hast won a great victory. That Being whom, at the time of all thy battles, thou beheldest stalking in thy van, know, O son of Kunti, is no other than Rudra, that god of gods, otherwise called by the name of Kaparddin. He is otherwise known by the name of Kāla, and should be known as one that has sprung from my wrath. Those foes whom thou hast slain were all, in the first instance, slain by him. Do thou bend thy head unto that god of gods, that lord of Umā, endued with immeasurable puissance. With concentrated soul, do thou bend thy head unto that illustrious Lord of the universe, that indestructible deity, otherwise called by the name of Hara. He is none else than that deity who, as I have repeatedly told thee, has sprung from my wrath. Thou hast, before this, heard, O Dhananjaya, of the puissance and energy that reside in him!'”

Continues the blogger:

amoghAya mRRigAkShAya pravarAyudhayodhine |

durvAraNAya shukrAya brahmaNe brahmachAriNe || 47||


Meaning: To One who grants the fruits desired to those like PrahlAda who worship him (AmoghAya), the One with eyes of anger at Hiranyakasipu (mRgAkshA),the One who fights with the most excellent of weapons, ie, his nails(pravarAyudhayOdhine). To the irresistible One (durvAraNaya), the One of lucid mind that thinks of protecting his devotees (shukrAya), He who has as his body the individual selves and matter (brahmaNe), who lives (ie, is revealed) in the Vedas (brahmachAriNe)


Response: There is no need for the above meanings. The references given above are enough to happily show that Shiva alone is the one who is praised there in the Karṇa parvan.


Says the blogger:


kumArapitre tryakShAya pravarAyudhadhAriNe |

prapannArti vinAshAya brahmadviTsa~NghaghAtine || 49||


Meaning: The One who is the root cause (pitR) of that (knowledge) which destroys obstacles, ie, sins (kumAra), the Eye of the three vedas (tryakSHaYA), who bears the foremost of weapons, ie, the pAnchajanya which destroys ignorance (pravarAyudhadhArine). To the destroyer of the distress of those surrendered to him (prapannArti vinAshAya), to the destroyer of those opposed to dharma (brahmadviTsanghaghAtine)


Note 1: kumara = ku + mAra. That which destroys obstacles, ie, pApa karmas that hinder experience of Brahman, which is knowledge. “pitR” – refers to akAra, the root cause. “akArasyavisnoH” and hence it refers to bhagavAn as the root cause of such knowledge. If “kumara” occurs alone without pitrE, it also directly denotes bhagavAn as the destroyer of obstacles.


Response: It is awful to see how bigoted the blogger is. He is trying to hide the famous name ‘kumāra’ which is well known as Subrahmanya, by resorting to splitting of the word!! Shiva is the one referred to hear, as everyone can see, as the father of Subrahmanya. Shankaracharya says in the Sutra bhāṣya that Bhagavan Sanatkumāra (Chandogya Upanishad) was born as the son of Shiva.


The stuti continues:

vanaspatInAMpataye narANAM pataye namaH |

gavAM cha patayenityaM yaj~nAnAM patayenamaH || 50||


Meaning: To the master of those who possess desire or longing, ie, the devotees (vanaspatInAMpatayE), the master of auspicious attributes known as “naras” which are longed for by devotees (narAnAmpatayE), also To the lord of those who have been conquered by the beauty of his form and attributes (gavAm ca patayE), to one who is ever possessed of sacrifices, ie, always and ever performing acts for his devotees (yajnAnAmpatayE)


Response: ‘vanaspatInAMpataye’ is a direct reference to the ‘vṛkṣāṇām pataye, vanānām pataye’ of the Śrīrudram. ‘gavAM cha pataye’ is the famous ‘paśūnām pataye’.


Says the blogger:

//tavātisargād deveśa prājāpatyam idaṃ padam mayādhitiṣṭhatā datto dānavebhyo mahān varaḥ tān atikrānta maryādān nānyaḥ saṃhartum arhati  tvām ṛte bhūtabhavyeśa tvaṃ hy eṣāṃ praty arir vadhe sa tvaṃ deva prapannānāṃ yācatāṃ ca divaukasām   kuru prasādaṃ deveśa dānavāñ jahi śūlabhṛt

Meaning: Brahma says: O Ruler of the devas! By your consent, I have the position of Lordship over all beings. By virtue of this position, I have given boons to the Daityas. None else other than you can destroy these transgressors. You are “Rtam” or all-pervading, you are the Lord of the past, present and future (as you have pervaded all entities as in the inner controller at all times and states).  You indeed are competent to destroy the enemies of those devas, who are residing in the celestial abodes, who have surrendered to you asking for protection.  Show your grace to them, O Ruler of the Devas, and kill the Asuras, O bearer of grief or death!


The above idea that Brahma’s prayer/stuti to Shiva is directed to Viṣṇu is contradicted by the Mahabharata and several other puraṇas.  None can succeed in refuting these references as ‘tāmasika, interpolations, etc.’ which excuses are not acceptable to vaidikas. If anyone wants to say that some parts of or whole of some puranas are tāmasika, then there is no way this does not apply to some Upaniṣads. The Kaivalya, Shvetashvatara, Jabala, Atharvaśikhā/śira etc. will have to be the unfortunate victims of ‘tāmasika’ branding, for the sole reason that they are holding Śiva to be the Supreme. Attempts to give Viṣṇu-meanings to these patently Śiva-names in these Upaniṣads easily reveal the bigotry of those translators/commentators.    

The concept of Turiya Śiva is widely present in the scriptures.  A sample of quotations is in the Mahabharata Anushasanika parva, Ch.45. Here Krishna says about Shiva that from Shiva have Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra have emerged. I have not given the translation of each verse:
योऽसृजद्दक्षिणादङ्गाद्ब्रह्माणं लोकसम्भवम् |
वामपार्श्वात्तथा विष्णुं लोकरक्षार्थमीश्वरः ||१८३||

युगान्ते चैव सम्प्राप्ते रुद्रमङ्गात्सृजत्प्रभुः ||१८३||

स रुद्रः संहरन्कृत्स्नं जगत्स्थावरजङ्गमम् |
कालो भूत्वा महातेजाः संवर्तक इवानलः ||१८४||

एष देवो महादेवो जगत्सृष्ट्वा चराचरम् |
कल्पान्ते चैव सर्वेषां स्मृतिमाक्षिप्य तिष्ठति ||१८५||

सर्वगः सर्वभूतात्मा सर्वभूतभवोद्भवः |
आस्ते सर्वगतो नित्यमदृश्यः सर्वदैवतैः ||१८६||

From the Adityapurana: Aditya says to Manu:

आत्मभूतान्महादेवाल्लीलाविग्रहधारिणः ।
आदिसर्गे समुद्भूता ब्रह्मविष्णुसुरोत्तमाः ॥
तमेकं परमात्मानमादिकारणमीश्वरम् ।
प्राहुर्बहुविधं तत्त्वमिन्द्रम्मित्रमिति श्रुतिः ॥
न तस्मादधिकं कश्चिन्न ज्यायान्न समः कुतः ।
तेनेदमखिलं पूर्णं शंकरेण महात्मना ।

आदिसर्गे महादेवो ब्रह्माणमसृजद्विभुः

(The idea conveyed by the above cited MB verses is contained in the Adityapurana too. The underlined part is the alluding to the famous Rg. vedic passage: indram mitram varunam…. Ekam sat viprāh bahudhā vadanti as the pramana for the concept of One Paramatma having various forms.)

In the Padmapurana, Shiva tells Rama:

Here is just the gist of the few verses: From the right side Shiva created Brahmā and from the left, Hari. From the heart region Shiva created Mahesha. These three sons he created. Just upon being born the three asked ‘Clearly let us know who You are and who we are?’ Shiva replied: ‘You are my sons and I am your father.’ तानाह च शिवः पुर्त्रान् यूयं पुत्रा अहं पिता.

[The bloggers propagate the idea that Rudra is born of Brahma and Brahma is Vishnu’s son]

In the Shaivapurana, Vāyavīyasamhitā, Dadhīchi says to Dakṣa:

ब्रह्मविष्णुमहेशानां स्रष्टा यः प्रभुरव्ययः

The ‘ṛight side left side’ creation by shiva of brahma and vishnu is contained in several purans. In the shaiva, the section cited ends with this line: संसारमोचको देवः पश्यन्नन्य इति श्रुतिः । [It is alluding to a shruti passage which contains the word ‘paśyannanyaḥ’ as pramana for the concept]

The skanda purana: Nandikeshvara addresses Sanatkumara about the same concept.

सृजते सकलं देव ग्रससीश पुनः पुनः

ब्रह्मविष्णुसुराः सर्वे स्थावराणि चराणि च

Shiva purana, vñavīyasamhitā:

यस्मात्सर्वमिदं ब्रह्मविष्णुरुद्रेन्द्रपूर्वकम् ॥ 2ab
सह भूतेन्द्रियैः सर्वैः प्रथमं संप्रसूयते ॥ 2cd
कारणानां च यो धाता ध्याता परमकारणम् ॥ 3ab
न संप्रसूयते ऽन्यस्मात्कुतश्चन कदाचन ॥ 3cd

There itself in the 8th chapter:

ततस्तेभ्यो विकारेभ्यः रुद्रविष्णुपितामहाः


यं वातमाहुर्यं रुद्रं शाश्वतं परमेश्वरम्
परात्परतरञ्चाहुः परात्परतरं शिवम्
ब्रहमणो जनकं विष्णोर्वह्नेर्वायोः सदाशिवम्

The shruti pramana for the concept of One Para Shiva being the cause of the Brahma Vishnu and Rudra is: सोमः पवते जनिता मतीनां जनिता दिवो जनिता पृथिव्याः …जनितोत विष्णोः .

The alluding, rephrasing, of the above shruti, called ‘upabṛhmaṇam’ is found in several puranas, and the most direct one is:

Sanatkumara samhita where Vishnu tells Prabhakara:

मतीनाञ्च दिवः पृथ्व्या वह्नेः सूर्यस्य वज्रिणः ।
साक्षादपि च विष्णोश्च सोमो जनयितेश्वरः ॥


द्यावापृथिव्योरिन्द्राग्नेभ्यो विष्णोर्धातुर्यमस्य च ।
वरुणस्य शशांकस्य जनिता परमेश्वरः ॥

Kurmapurana, skandapurana too give out this concept. In the latter it is said that even the three consorts of the three murtis are born of the Supreme Shiva:

Brahma tells Vasishtha: आत्मशक्त्या ससर्जाथ कन्यात्रयमनिन्दितम्


अजायां जज्ञिरे पुत्राश्चिदानन्दात् सदाशिवात्
त्रयस्त्रेताग्निसंकाशा एकपञ्चचतुर्मुखाः
सृष्टिस्थितिविनाशानां कर्तारः कार्यकोविदाः
ब्रह्मा विष्णुश्च रुद्रश्च मात्रास्तिस्रः प्रकीर्तिताः

Here, by eka, pancha and chatuḥ, Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma are indicated.

In the Brahmandapurana, Brahmā says to Bhṛgu:

He says: Shiva created me from his right side and created Vishnu from his left and instructed us both to engage in creation and sustenance. At the time of dissolution, he, out of his own amsha, will be instructed in that act.

Ishānasamhitā too contains this concept. There is a shruti passage too cited:

त्रिणेत्रं त्रिगुणाधारं त्रयाणां जनकं विभुम् ।
स्मरन्नमस्शिवायेति ललटे तु त्रिपुण्ड्रकम् ॥

[The above have been cited in very great detail in the book ‘Vedantanāmaratna sahasram’ authored by Sri Paramashivendra Saraswati, the guru of Sri Sadashivendra Saraswati. This book is a compilation of 1000 names from the shruti. In support of those names, as far as possible, the author has cited references from Itihasa and puranas. That list contains names such as Vishnu, Vasudeva and Narayana, and shown as names of Brahman, with references from shruti/smrti none of them are about a vaikuntha vāsin, lakshmipati, etc. just the same way they are found in the Shankara’s bhashyas. The book is available for download in DLI.]

What is shown above is with reference to the upanishadic/vedic name त्रयाणां जनकः {The progenitor of the ‘three’} for which alone the author has given copious references from the Mahabharata onwards.

The blogger says:

//All this denotes the inner controller of Rudra, namely nArAyaNa. This was made clear by the use of “loka hita vacaH” mentioned earlier. Brahma is speaking in accordance to the shAstra, and directly addresses the indwelling nArAyaNa here. There are two ways to take it as referring to nArAyaNa:

  1. Mode of PratIkOpAsaNa or meditation of Rudra as the inseparable attribute of nArAyaNa – The names “dEvEsha”, “Rtam”, “sUlabrt”, can be taken as “Rudra, is Devesha, Rtam, sUlabrt since that is the condition of nArAyaNa who has him as his body”. Since the body is the inseparable attribute of the self, Rudra is the inseparable attribute of nArAyaNa who is devesha, rtam and sUlabrt and thus it can be said Rudra is in this condition.
  2. Alternatively, the meditation is directly on nArAyaNa as the indweller of Rudra bypassing the need to meditate on Rudra. By both ways, it is bhagavAn who is the referent of this praise.
  3. “rtaM” – means “sarvagataM” – all-pervading. The reference to all-pervasiveness through the usage of “Rtam” also indicates this refers to the antaryAmin. “RtaM satyaM param brahma” and “viShvashambhuvaM” according to the nArAyaNa sUkta reinforce this.

“sUlabrt” – Taken by using method 1), it refers to nArAyaNa, who has the trident bearing Rudra as his inseparable attribute. Alternatively, using method 2), It refers to nArAyaNa, who bears “sUla” that is death or grief for the asurAs. Either way, it only denotes bhagavAn.


A slight modification is seen in the Kumbhakonam recension where instead of “lokahita vacah”, we see “lokapitAmahah” – an adjective of Brahma. It does not change the meaning.

pitR^idevarShisa~Nghebhyo.abhaye datte mahAtmanA. satkR^itya shaMkaraM prAha brahmA lokapitAmahaH..imAnyasuradurgANi lokAMstrInAkramanti hi. kashcha prajApatirghorAMstAnsrarvA~njahi mA chiram..varAtisargAddevesha prAjApatyamidaM param. mayA.adhitiShThatA datto dAnavebhyo mahAnvaraH.. nAstyanyo yudhi teShAM vai nihantA iti naH shrutam. tAnatikrAntamaryAdAnnAnyaH saMhartumarhati.  tvAmR^ite sarvabhUtesha tvaM hyeShAM tvaM deva prapannAnAM yAchatAM cha divokasAm. kuru prasAdaM varada dAnavA~njahi saMyuge.. tvatprasAdAjjagatsarvaM sukhamaidhata mAnada. sharaNyastvaM hi devAnAM vayaM tvAM sharaNaM gatAH.. 8-25-(1-6)

Meaning: After the fears of the devas, rishis and pitrs had been dispelled by the noble soul (Rudra), Brahma, the Grandsire of the worlds, offering obeisances to Shankara, spoke  -O Ruler of the devas! By the foremost act of consent (by nArAyaNa), I have the highest position of Lordship over all beings. By virtue of this position, I have given boons to the Daityas. None else other than you can battle with and punish these asurAs, we have heard. None other than you can destroy these transgressors. You are “Rtam” or all-pervading, you are the Lord of all beings (as you have pervaded all entities as in the inner controller at all times and states and you are pervading Rudra as well). You are competent to destroy the enemies of those devas, who are residing in the celestial abodes, who have surrendered to you asking for protection.  Show your grace to them, O Bestower of Boons, and kill the Asuras! By your grace the entire Universe attains bliss. You indeed are resorted to by the devas. We surrender to you.

Note that despite the fact that “lokahita vacaH” has changed to “loka pitamahaH”, the meaning does not change, ie, all this is still addressed to nArAyaNa. This is because of the usage of “RtaM” – a reference of the all-pervasiveness at all times, states and places. This is mentioned to indicate that the Supreme Brahman pervades all, and here he is pervading Rudra as his indweller, and hence is alone being referred to by these terms.//


The word ‘Ṛtam’ is nowhere present in the two versions cited by the blogger. Only the word ‘ṛte’ is present, which means: without/bereft.  So, the blogger has gone on to give an imaginary explanation for a non-existent word there saying that it denotes all-pervasiveness, etc. The BG 2nd chapter has the word ‘sarvagataḥ’ which means ‘all-pervading’. The Lord is teaching that the ātmā is all-pervading and nitya and therefore is not subject to extermination. This svarūpa is the true nature of everyone, not necessarily Narayana. So, to show that attribute as a distinguishing feature, the blogger has achieved nothing.

If saying ‘Rudra wept because of his karma, tamoguna’ etc. is stuti, then these difficulties arise:

Since the blogger holds that the ‘stuti’ of Shiva is actually a stuti of Narayana, then the ‘crying..’ also applies to Narayana. There is no way that only the valorous acts of Shiva are actually those of Narayana and the ‘crying, karmas, tamoguṇa, etc.’ of Rudra are not that of Narayana. There is the defect of ‘ardha jaratīya nyāya’ if one takes recourse to selectively attributing epithets to Narayana. [Of course applying the ‘crying’ to Viṣṇu is quite justified as demonstrated irrefutably in the Valmiki Ramayanam.]

There is no way one can save Narayana from being referred to by the above ‘stuti’ since the blogger has admitted that Rudra is an ‘inseparable’ vibhūti/attribute of Narayana. There is no rule that the ‘negative’ aspects of Śiva cannot apply to Narayana. This is because ‘inseparable’ means that which has not come to inhere in Narayana at a later time but inheres in him from anādi. If some attribute attaches to Narayana only anew, then Narayana will have to be held a ‘sāvayava dravyam’, an assemblage of parts, that will definitely be destroyed on disintegration of the parts and it will be jaḍa.  If a vibhūti is a new arrival then there is the inevitable possibility of its leaving: ‘संयोगाः विप्रयोगान्ताः’ [all that conjoins will remain so only till they disjoin] is a rule that is cited by Shankaracharya in the BG 15.7. And if something is ‘inseparable’ it cannot be anything but the very svarūpam of that locus, like the heat of fire, Narayana, in this case. So, admitting Shiva as an ‘inseparable’ vibhūti’ of Narayana will make the former non-different from the latter. Hari-Hara abheda is what results from this. Advaita, however, does not admit of the vibhuti-s to be the svarupa of Brahman; they are products of Māyā, superimposed on Brahman for upāsana purposes. The ‘śarīra-śarīri bhāva’ is not admitted by Advaitins since the Upanishads are clear that Brahman has no body, except a māyā-conjured one, for creation, upāsana purposes. ‘śarīram’ is kśetram, anātmā, jaḍa.  Even if pṛthvī, etc. entities are stated to be ‘śarīram’ of Brahman on the supposed strength of the ‘antaryāmi brāhmaṇam’ of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, they are only kṣetram, jaḍa, finite, produced. That relation of the created things being the ‘body’ of Brahman is solely for the purpose of showing the true nature, existence, etc. of Brahman. Therefore, the body is only taṭastha lakṣaṇa. The ever-uncreated Brahman cannot be admitted in absolute terms to have a created, perishable, body!!

And if ‘Rudra wept because of his karma’ is a stuti of Śiva (and thereby, of Narayana), then there is no way one can bar these following facts also as being ‘stuti’ of Narayana:

  • ‘O Narayana, you are the one who did great penance on Rudra and obtained the boons of being, uninjured and invincible in any battle and even in a battle with Shiva’ (Drona Parvan of the Mahabhārata. Veda Vyasa says these in reply to a question of Aśvatthāma.)
  • ‘O Narayana, you are the one who failed to fathom the origin of Shiva when along with Brahma you attempted to find out the truth of the Tejas (Lingodbhava described in various puranas and by Shankara in the Shivananda lahari, which is the sole reason for the bigots to hold those puranas as tamasic and the work as not of Shankara!!)’
  • ‘O Narayana, you are the one who did penance and worshiped Shiva with the thousand names to obtain the boon of progeny’
  • ‘O Nārāyaṇa, you are the one who were created from one shoulder of Śiva.’
  • ‘O Nārāyaṇa, you are the one, adopting tamoguṇa, extreme anger, engaged in the slaying of Hiranyakaśipu, etc. deomons. [The acts of destruction, etc. are not possible without the assuming of the power of rajas/tamas. That is why the Mahabharata holds that the actual slayer of the warriors in the Mahabharata battle is Shiva, named ‘Kāla’.]
  • ‘O Narayana, you are the one, as Rāma, that wept in great grief upon Sita being abducted, cursing your fate and pāpa karma.’
  • ‘O Narayana, you are the one, as Krishna, engaged in amorous sport with women who were wives of other men which Śuka admitted as ‘dharma vyatikrama’ in the Bhāgavatam.’
  • ‘O Narayana, you are the one who, even as a brahmachārin, just a juvenile, went to Kubja’s (Kamsa’s scent supplier) house in the evening and gave her ‘kāma sukham’.

The list can go on. That is the effect of gleefully saying: ‘Rudra’ is the name because he wept due to his knowing that he is endowed with pāpa karma.’  Thus, in the foregoing one can easily discern what an ideal ‘stuti’ should be from what a stuti should not be like.

The blogger concludes:

// The above should clarify two things: 1) How genuine stutis differ from bogus interpolations like shiva sahasranAma in that the former is logical and fits in the context of mahAbhArata as opposed to the latter which have nonsensical meanings and seem out of place as well as clash with the other sections of mahAbhArata, 2) How even in the genuine stutis of devas like Indra, Shiva and Brahma, it is only vishNu who is extolled.//


One can easily see how nonsensical the meanings the blogger has conjectured for genuine epithets of Śiva, solely with the ulterior motive of denying those epithets to Śiva and hijacking them so artificially to Narayana. If he has this ‘ability’ to give such nonsensical meanings, he could have tried giving such meanings to the entire 1000 names of the Shiva sahasranama (SS) of the Mahabharata instead of trying to brand it as an interpolation.  None can succeed in proving that the SS is an interpolation in the Mahabharata.  The bloggers failed miserably by citing the Andhra Bharatam to support their claim.  It was shown that this Telugu work is surfeit with Hari-Hara abheda and several names common to both Hari and Hara. Even an earlier Bharata Manjari of Kshemendra has annotated the SS.  The blogger’s claim that the ‘Śiva stuti’ in the Karna parvan is actually addressed to Narayana has no basis whatsoever; only he has labored hard to give such an impression to his gullible readers.

Om Tat Sat

The above article can be downloaded here:

Click to access Is_this_a_true_stuti.pdf

Click to access Is_this_a_true_stuti.pdf

Click to access Is_this_a_true_stuti.pdf

Click to access Is_this_a_true_stuti.pdf




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: