‘Viṣnu’ and Sandhyāvandanam, etc.
Here is a ‘comment’ from a person to the following blog. Since the commenting person is evidently wrong in his assumptions, the correct position is stated herein between [ ].The original comment is shown in italics.
Also sandyavandana mantras provide another pramanam for claiming primacy for vishNu’s and nArAyana’s in vedic tradition.
[There is no proof for the above claim]
You can hear a lot of vishnu namas in this yajur veda nitya vidhi mantras.
[Ironically, the above video, demonstrating the Kannada (Andhra too) sandhyāvandanam, etc. contains the famous verses/mantras:
Śivāya viṣṇurūpāya śivarūpāya viṣānave
Śivasya hṛdayam viṣṇuḥ viṣṇoścha hṛdayam śivaḥ
Yathā śivamayo viṣṇuḥ evam viṣṇuymayam śivah
Yathāntaram na paśyāmi tathā mey svastirāyuśṣī
at timing 1.01.. of the over 3 hrs video.
The above verses are part of the daily three times sandhyā worship of Kannada and Andhra smārtas. The Tamil smartas do not recite these mantras. In any case, the claim of the commenting person that there is primacy for viṣṇu/nārāyaṇa in sandhya mantras, is belied by the above smārta practice, which clearly offsets the ‘primacy’ claimed and rather teaches the śiva-viṣṇu abheda, by emphasizing the concept by repetition. Unfortunately the bloggers published the comment, along with the video, evidently without checking it, only to weaken their cause and claims. They even went to the extent of claiming in a different reply of theirs that the above verses (actually these mantras are found in the Skandopaniṣat) are not found in the early Telugu Sandhyavandanam books which they posed to have ‘researched.’ Here are the pages which contain those verses in the Telugu Sandhya vandanam books printed over a hundred years ago. The following URL contains a file where images from the pages of three Telugu Sandhyavandanam books printed in 1910, 1913 and 1917, and also from Krishna Pandita’s Telugu Sandhyavandana bhashyam, from two sources, are included where the stated verses are found part of the sandhya worship, though with a few variations.
The URL for the file containing the five images from Telugu books is:
Here are links to the complete sandhyā practice of Telugu and Kannada smartas:
Both these have the stated verses. One can notice that there is hardly any difference in the sampradaya of the two smartas, Telugu and Kannada. As far as I have noticed both in the above URLs and in the Telugu books printed in the early 1900’s the sankalpa uttered is ‘sri parameśvara prītyartham.’
In fact the Telugu-Kannada (together called ‘Andhra sampradāya) smartas utter 24 names (Keśava, etc.) while the Tamils, only 12 during each āchamanam. In any case, the above ‘śivāya…’ mantras automatically make all the 24 names applicable to, and therefore of, Śiva. So, on this count too there is no truth in the claim of the commenting person ‘Also sandyavandana mantras provide another pramanam for claiming primacy for vishNu’s and nArAyana’s in vedic tradition.’]
Vedic tradition has settled on vishNu, nArAyAna, madhava, and govinda as worthy of maximum worship on a daily basis.
[The above claim stands falsified by what is stated in [ ] above based on facts.
Advaitam, vishishtAdvaitam, and dvaitam take the same perspective. Contrary opinion is not in line with vedic tradition.
[This claim is also wrong. Smartas, prior to the sandhyā worship, perform the bhasma dhāraṇam ritual by uttering five mantras from the Taittiriya Araṇyaka (Mahanarayanopaniṣad) which are ‘sadyo jātam..etc.’ All these are patently śiva mantras only and Sāyana bhāṣya too says so. So, the majority of vaidikas who are evidently smartas, cannot be said to have given any place for ‘maximum worship’ of Viṣṇu in their daily practices. They also engage in daily Śiva linga puja chanting Rudram-Chamakam and śiva aṣṭottara with bilva etc. Their important festivals/functions/celebrations are not without Rudra japam, abhiṣekam, etc. For example, during the 60th birthday, a Rudraikādaśī is mandatorily performed. Such practices are not there in non-smartas who are only a minority of vaidikas. ]
Rudram itself provides an ancient perspective on how rishis felt about the viswam and vishNu. This is a very ancient perspective. We have a more refined and divisive perspective even starting with latter vedic period. Yet common practice starting with sandyavandanam provides proof as to what rishis thought. We need to reflect on these symbolisms and hierarchize the devatas according to primary vedic tradition.
[The above conclusion is false and without any basis. There is no ‘ancient-more refined’ divide. To reiterate, the ‘śivāya viṣṇurūpāya..’ mantras are enough to neutralize any apparent ‘viṣṇu-predominance’ in the sandhya and daily practices of vaidikas. There is no substance in the desperate viṣṇu-para commentary for the Rudram anuvāka-s. One can easily see how artificial and convoluted they are.]
Above all, the smartas bear the names such as Shankara, Parameshvara, Somasundara, Chandrashekhara/mouli, Gowrīsha, Subrahmanya, etc. which account for the ‘maximum’ such names of vaidikas. Even if one were to point out several names of popular viṣṇu among vaidikas, on the rule, ‘nyāya’, established by the ‘śivāya viṣṇurūpāya..’ mantras, all such names will be equally that of Śiva and thereby proclaiming only Hari-Hara abheda. Smartas are never desperate to make any such claims as the above comment / blogger indulge in. For smartas there is no need to rake up such unwanted issues. Their philosophy is not dependent on such flimsy grounds. They are happy with the veda-purāṇa-Mahābhārata, śiṣṭācāra and Shankaracharya onwards all Advaita Acharyas based Hari-Hara abheda and go about their lives pursuing the Tattva jnanam that transcends such petty quarrels.
Om Tat Sat