Posted by: adbhutam | November 19, 2017




The word ‘tattva’ means: tasya bhāvaḥ tattvam. The true nature of a thing is called tattvam. 

Shankara says BSB 1.1.21:

कथमेतदवगम्यते ? ‘येनाक्षरं पुरुषं वेद सत्यं प्रोवाच तां तत्त्वतो ब्रह्मविद्याम्’ (मु. उ. १ । २ । १३) इति प्रकृतस्यैवाक्षरस्य भूतयोनेरदृश्यत्वादिगुणकस्य वक्तव्यत्वेन प्रतिज्ञातत्वात् ।

Here the word ‘tattva’ of the Mundakopanishat is given the meaning: That Source of the Beings that cannot be seen with the eye, etc.

We have in the Bh.Gītā the Lord saying:

भक्त्या मामभिजानाति
यावान्यश्चास्मि तत्त्वतः ।
ततो मां तत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा
विशते तदनन्तरम् ॥ ५५ ॥

He who knows Me as the Vishvarupa and also As I am actually in truth,  thus having known Me actually, he becomes one with Me immediately.

Shankara says: भक्त्या माम् अभिजानाति यावान् अहम् उपाधिकृतविस्तरभेदः, यश्च अहम् अस्मि विध्वस्तसर्वोपाधिभेदः उत्तमः पुरुषः आकाशकल्पः, तं माम् अद्वैतं चैतन्यमात्रैकरसम् अजरम् अभयम् अनिधनं तत्त्वतः अभिजानाति । ततः माम् एवं तत्त्वतः ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरं मामेव ज्ञानानन्तरम् । नात्र ज्ञानप्रवेशक्रिये भिन्ने विवक्षिते ‘ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम्’ इति । किं तर्हि ? फलान्तराभावात् ज्ञानमात्रमेव, ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि’ (भ. गी. १३ । २) इति उक्तत्वात् ॥

Shankara gives the Tattva of Bhagavān: By devotion one knows Me with the upādhi-created expansive form (Vishvarūpa), and ‘As I am’ free of all upādhis, the Supreme Purusha, Brahman, just like ether, Advaitam, without any kind of second, Pure Consciousness, free of old age, fear, death, thus knowing Me ‘tattvataḥ’, As I Am in truth…Having secured the right knowledge of Me, he ‘enters’ Me. Shankara raises a question, with a teaser: Is this ‘entering’ the Lord mean anything like: After knowing, one enters later?’. No. Then what does the Lord say: By using the word ‘viśate tadanantaram’, ‘enters immediately upon knowing’. There is no fruit other than knowing, as the Lord has said in the 13.2: Know Me as the Kshetrajna as well.’

Shankara is reiterating the Vedānta siddhānta: there is no two-step procedure here: first know and then enter. It is jnanamātrāt mokṣa. He has said this elaborately in the BSB, samanvaya sutra bhashya. This is an aside.

The point that is made here is: There is a need to know the Truth ‘as it is.’  And what is apparent is not the truth as it is. The tattvataḥ jnānam is a must. This is because the Krishna that one sees and converses with is a body-mind complex, that has a date of birth and a date of disappearance. So with Rama or any other avatāra of Brahman. So, what one gets to see and even hear is usually a sopādhika brahman. Hence the need to stress that the liberating knowledge is of the nirupādhika Brahman which cannot be grasped by the senses; it is not upāsya, which is a-brahma and an-ātmā, but the nirupādhika Brahman which alone is/can be non-different from the Atma of the seeker.    Thus, it is the knowledge of the nirguṇa tattvam that constitutes ‘knowing Rāma or Krishna or any other tattvataḥ or tattvena’. Only a Vedantin can know thus tattvataḥ; others who cannot grasp the nirguna tattva of Krishna, etc. cannot get the Vedanta tattva; it is only a-tattva, a-brahma, anātmā, that they end up with.

Even when one refers to one’s iṣṭa devatā, it is the tattva that is being actually referred there. So says Anandagiri, for example, in the introduction-invocation of theBh.Gi.Bhāṣya of Shankara: नारायणः परोऽव्यक्तात्….Anandagiri says: it is the iṣṭadevata’s tattva that is being invoked here by Shankara.

Here are two etymological meanings for the word ‘Kṛṣṇa’ and ‘Rāma’:

In the Bhagavadgita Bhashyam 6.34 Shankara has given an etymology to the name ‘Kṛṣṇa’: कृष्ण इति कृषतेः विलेखनार्थस्य रूपम् । भक्तजनपापादिदोषाकर्षणात् कृष्णः, तस्य सम्बुद्धिः हे कृष्ण । The word krsna is derived from the root krs in the sense of ‘uprooting’; He is Krsna because He uproots the defects such as sin etc. of devotees.

There is a popular etymology in a verse form: कृषिर्भू-वाचकः शब्दो णश्च निर्वृतिवाचकः । तयोरैक्यं परं ब्रह्म कृष्ण इत्यभिधीयते ।। ’kṛṣiḥ’ connotes Existence, Sat, and ‘ṇa’ is Bliss. The combination of these two is Supreme Brahman known by the name ‘krṣṇa’. It is said to be in the Gopālatāpinyupaniṣat. The Mahabharata too contains a similar verse: कृषिर्भूवाचकः शब्दो णश्च निर्वृतिवाचकः। विष्णुस्तद्भावयोगाच्च कृष्णो भवति सात्वतः ।। 5-69-5a 5-69-5b The name ‘Kṛṣṇa’ occurs in the Śivasahasranāma’ too of the Mahabharata.


तथा चागस्त्यसंहितायामुक्तम्-
“रमन्ते योगिनोऽनन्ते सत्यानन्दे चिदात्मनि ।
इति रामपदेनासौ परं ब्रह्माभिधीयते ।।”

The word Rāma is derived thus: ra-ma – ramante yogino anante satyānande cidātmani. iti rāmapadena asau param brahma abhidhīyate. That Para Brahman which is Infinite, Eternal, Bliss, Consciousness in which yogin-s revel is denoted by the name ‘rāma’.

‘Keśava’ – Shankara, alternatively, has given an etymological meaning for the name  in the VSN Bhāṣya number 23: कश्च अश्च ईशश्च त्रिमूर्तयः केशास्ते यद्वशेन वर्तन्ते स केशवः ।

[Brahmā, Vishnu and Shiva are the trimūrti-s – all of whom are under the control of that entity which is called Keśava.] Thus Shankara clubs Viṣṇu too along with the other two and shows Viśṇu is also under the control of a higher authority. This is the greatest contribution of Shankara to the lofty cause of Vaiṣṇavism : ) This is in addition to his naming Viṣṇu as a samaṣṭi jīva in the Mundaka bhāṣya and quoting from the Kaṭharudropaniṣad  in the Brhadaranyaka bhashya (for sannyasa, which is also cited by Vishveshvara Saraswati in the yatidharma sangraha) which also holds Viṣṇu as the foremost of jivas by showing Shiva as the Jagatkāraṇam. Of course the VSN reference to Rudra as the ‘Shivah parama kāraṇam’ of the (tāmasic) Shiva purāṇa is another such service to Vaishnavism by Shankara.  All these will go down in the history of Vaishnavism with Shankara as the greatest benefactor.

There is another way of looking at the ‘tattva’ of Krishna:

The Skandopanishat and the Mahabharata have explicitly said शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय शिवरूपाय विष्णवे….whereby Viṣṇu’s/Kriṣṇa’s tattva, heart, is Śiva. Krishna has said in the Mahabharata that he worships his Self, Shiva (nārāyaṇātmaka = he who is the ātmā of nārāyaṇa), thereby exemplifying the Brhadaranyaka statement 1.4.8 तदेतत्प्रेयः पुत्रात्प्रेयो वित्तात्प्रेयोऽन्यस्मात्सर्वस्मादन्तरतरं यदयमात्मा ।’ That which is the innermost is the dearest for oneself. Shankara commenting on this says: तस्मादप्यन्तरात् अन्तरतरम् , यदयमात्मा यदेतदात्मतत्त्वम् । That which is the innermost is this Atmatattvam (taught by the Upanishad). Thus, for Krishna, the ātmatattvam is Shiva.

शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय शिवरूपाय विष्णवे ।
शिवस्य हृदयं विष्णुः विष्णोश्च हृदयं शिवः ॥८॥
यथा शिवमयो विष्णुरेवं विष्णुमयः शिवः ।
यथान्तरं न पश्यामि तथा मे स्वस्तिरायुषि ॥९॥
यथान्तरं न भेदाः स्युः शिवकेशवयोस्तथा ।[Skandopaniṣat]

[(obeisance to Śiva who is of the form of Viḷṣṇu, and to Viṣṇu of the form of Śiva. Śiva’s heart (self) is Viṣṇu and Viṣṇu’s self is Śiva. Just as Viṣṇu is fully verily Śiva, so too Śiva is fully verily Viṣṇu. As I do not see any difference between them, let me be prosperous and long-lived. Let there be no difference between Śiva and Keśava. In fact the Mahabharata itself contains a similar verse:

शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय विष्णवे शिवरूपिणे ।।

दक्षयज्ञविनाशाय हरिरूपाय ते नमः। 3.39.76 (हरिरुद्राय) [These are the words of Arjuna to Lord Śiva.]

In the Harivamśa, an extension of the Mahabharata, we have Markandeya’s words:

मार्कण्डेय उवाच॥ शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय विष्णवे शिवरूपिणे। अथान्तरं न पश्यामि तेन ते दिशतः शिवम् ।

Sridhara Swamin has, in the invocation to the Srimadbhāgavatam, captured the essence of this purāṇa:

माधवोमाधवावीशौ सर्वसिद्धिविधायिनौ। वन्दे परस्परात्मानौ परस्परनुतिप्रियौ॥

I bow to Mādhava and Umādhava (Shiva) who are both ‘Isha-s’ Supreme Lords. They are capable of bestowing all accomplishments (to their devotees). They are both the selves of each other and both love to engage in the stuti of each other. Thus, the Self, which is the dearest for one, is Shiva in the case of Krishna/Vishnu. The Vishnupurana commentary of Sridharaswamin contains the episode of Vishnu offering his very eye in worship of Shiva. One can gauge the love of Vishnu for his Self.

Also, the Nrsimha uttara tāpini upanishat has given an advaitic etymology for the name ‘nr-simha’. Thus Nrsimha tattva is also Nirguna Brahman. To sum up, Keshava, Krishna, Vishnu (vyāpana śīla), Rāma, Nrsimha – all have a tattva that is different from what is generally connoted by those names. That tattva is Nirguna Brahman. In the Shiva sahasra nāma occurs the name Vishnu.

Says the Mahabharata:

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्।

लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। 12-350-27a 12-350-27b.

O Kaunteya, Rudra and Narayana are one principle manifesting as two going about in the world…

Om Tat Sat



  1. ओन्नमः कृष्णाय नमः कृष्णाय नमः कृष्णाय नमो नमः। 🙏🏼
    ओन्नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय​। 🙏🏼

    The वृन्दावनेश्वरतत्त्वम् is the परमतत्त्वम्। 🙏🏼 The tattvam which is described at several places like पाद्मम् (पद्मपुराणम्), ब्रह्मवैवर्तपुराणम् etc

    Believe me lovers of कृष्णः will love this अध्यायः from पाद्मम्।

    There are multiple विष्णवः (plural form of विष्णुः -> विष्णवः),
    the concept of multiple विष्णवः isn’t just present in कौर्मम् (कूर्मपुराणम्) etc where multiple नारायणाः was described, it’s also described in पाद्मम् (पद्मपुराणम्), for instance let’s see the verses from पाद्मम् :

    वृन्दावनरजोवृन्दे तत्र स्युर्विष्णुकोटयः।
    आनन्दकिरणे वृन्दव्याप्तविश्वकलानिधिः॥ ४५

    In the group of dust in वृन्दावनम् there are CRORES of विष्णवः/नारायणाः (plural form of विष्णुः)

    Dust is रजः, पांसुः धूलिः रेणुः परागः (पुष्पधूलिः or धूलिः in general)

    ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवादीनां देहकारणकारणम्।
    चराचरं जगत्सर्वं यन्मायापरिरम्भितम्॥ १६

    She (māyā) is the cause of the bodies of brahmā, viṣṇuḥ & Śivaḥ। The entire cara & acara jagat (चरः & अचरः) is occupied/grasped by māyā

    It’s ∴ rational to conclude that as their शरीरम् which is due to माया, thus being the condition hence their देहाः (bodies) perishes.

    And पाद्मम् clearly specifies the longevity of विष्णुः as well. Like I remember the words where the longevity of विष्णुः is specified. I have quoted in the comment section of other articles which states महेशस्य चतुर्निश्श्वासमात्रेण विष्णोरायुरुदाहृतम् 5.108.70 (In the same पातालखण्डः)

    P.S.: The definition of tattvam is explained by भगवान् पाणिनिः very clearly in a सूत्रम् which states as तस्यभावस्त्वतलौ। तस्य भावः त्व-तलौ।

    तद्/तत् – तस्य भावः तत्त्वम्। ∴ कृष्णस्य भावः कृष्णत्वम्। That’s the reason why advaitam is stated as parama tattvam, that’s why अद्वैतवादः is a परमतत्त्ववादः because that’s the only true nature. paramaika tattvam.

    ओन्नमश्शिवाय​। 🙏🏼पद्मपुराणम्/खण्डः_५_(पातालखण्डः)/अध्यायः_०७७

    • This is really beautiful, thank you.

      • mahodaya to be very frank, certain portions in the पुराणानि such as पाद्मम्, बृहन्नारदीयम् etc. & the ENTIRE ब्रह्मवैवर्तम् /brahmavaivarta- purāṇam is a challenging to all the self-proclaimed वैष्णवाः (vaiṣṇavāḥ), brahmavaivartam also has श्रीगणपतिखण्डम् other than श्रीकृष्णजन्मखण्डम् I have a huge amount of respect on this illustrious purāṇam actually, along with other पुराणानि as well of course.

        I feel that it’s challenging to all the non-devotees self-proclaimed वैष्णवाः because they cannot agree with the concepts which were stated in the brahmavaivartam.

        This entire पुराणम् should be & is challenging to both rāmānujasya अनुयायिनः & also to the mādhvāḥ, And they cannot escape stating that it’s rajoguṇa sahitam purāṇam. Just because it’s stated in a purāṇam that it’s rajoguṇa sahitam purāṇam it doesn’t mean whatever which were stated in that purāṇam is false. In fact, the entire is advaitam friendly.

        That’s why सम्प्रदायविदाचार्याः like the अमलानन्दः the commentator of the bhāmatī has stated as follows: पुराणानाम् अद्वैतपरत्वम् (which you have aptly quoted in an article)

        Interpolation Theory:

        How many verses from all the 18 पुराणानि have been interpolated?

        The devotees, meaning the followers of व्यासशङ्करौ will do the समन्वयः, at a very least instance the followers of व्यासशङ्करौ subscribes to this interpolation theory or prakṣiptam or prakṣepaṇam or mithyā kalpanam

        I think only the non-devotees subscribes to this interpolation theory MAJORLY. I’ll state few examples: non-devotees states that authentic शिवगीता, many portions from देवीभागवतम्, शैवम् etc. are interpolated. But this isn’t any proper justification. They say that certain portions are interpolated just because certain devotional portions aren’t satisfying their ego.

        So, mahodaya are you aware of any PROPER justification(s) from the self proclaimed वैष्णवाः regarding ब्रह्मवैवर्तपुराणम् ?

        Thanks, in anticipation

        P.S.: विशेषतया लैङ्गम्, ब्रह्मवैवर्तम्, बृहन्नारदीयम् & देवीभागवतम् are very interesting to me.

        ओन्नमश्शिवाय​। 🙏🏼

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: