PDA

View Full Version : Scriptural Sources for Shlokas and Mantras



saidevo
07 September 2006, 12:29 PM
There are a number of shlokas and mantras that are used in prayers and in written texts, without any reference to their source. I suggest we can discuss such snippets of shlokas and mantras in this thread:

I came across this saying in the Orkut Hinduism community:

Vishnoasya hrudayam siva: Sivosya hrudayam vishno – says Upanishads and Yajurveda.

Can someone tell me the scriptural reference of this nice saying?

Sudarshan
07 September 2006, 01:18 PM
Skandopanishad verse 8.

These Upanishads are not widely accepted.

sarabhanga
07 September 2006, 10:34 PM
Namaste,

The Skanda Upanishad belongs to the Krishna Yajurveda, so that anyone who rejects that particular Veda might equally ignore the Skanda along with all of the Krishna Yajurveda’s 32 Upanishads. The Skanda is, however, considered as one of the 24 Vedanta Upanishads, which cannot easily be rejected by any Vedantin.

शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय शिवरूपाय विष्णवे ।
शिवस्य हृदयं विष्णुः विष्णोश्च हृदयं शिवः ॥८॥
यथा शिवमयो विष्णुरेवं विष्णुमयः शिवः ।
यथान्तरं न पश्यामि तथा मे स्वस्तिरायुषि ॥९॥

śivāya viṣṇurūpāya śivarūpāya viṣṇave |
śivasya hṛdayaṁ viṣṇuḥ viṣṇośca hṛdayaṁ śivaḥ || 8 ||
yathā śivamayo viṣṇurevaṁ viṣṇumayaḥ śivaḥ |
yathāntaraṁ na paśyāmi tathā me svastirāyuṣi || 9 ||


(I bow) to Shiva in the form of Vishnu, and Vishnu in the form of Shiva;
Vishnu is Shiva’s heart and Shiva is Vishnu’s heart.
Just as Vishnu is full of Shiva, so is Shiva full of Vishnu.
As I see no difference, I am well all my life.

satay
08 September 2006, 12:44 AM
These Upanishads are not widely accepted.

why not, any particular reason?

Sudarshan
08 September 2006, 02:25 AM
why not, any particular reason?

Yes, please show one ancient commentrator who quoted it - Shankara, or his disciples, or other vedantic traditions. Most of these upanishads have never been quoted prior to the 17-18th century, and that make them spurious. Shankara quotes from no less than 55 authorities in all, but Skanda Upanishad is never cited.

Many upanishads are passed on as pertaining to a particular veda to claim authority, but no such listing of upanishads is found outside of Muktika - Muktika itself is first cited only by somebody in the 18th century.(by Brahmendra Yogi)

So these upanishads have at the best smriti like status - unless you have a particular biased reason to accept their authority, more like Agamas.

So, to accept the authority of a particular Upanishad, it is prudent to check if it has been referred to be anyone in the past. If you are an Advaitin, you must possibly look into whether it has been quoted by one of Shankara, Madusudhana or Appayya Dixita - and Appayya being a Shiva devotee and an ardent advaitin facing a lot of challenge would not have spared any Upanishads that supported his view. But even does not quote this upanishad.

Sayanacharya, compiled a list of upanishads in the 14th century, but he was not aware of the Muktika canon.

You must be surprised to know that there is an upanishad for Allah - named Allopanishad. Just because something is called an Upansihad and also listed as part of some veda is not sufficient. You must be able to trace its authority through an ancient authority. Anybody can add Upanishads, there are many new ones like Ramakrishna Upansihads. After 500 years, this one will perhaps be passed on as authentic scripture too, because there will be no way to determine then.

sarabhanga
08 September 2006, 07:46 AM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Does ultimate Truth have an expiry date? If so, what is the official cut-off point for scriptural validity?

Can you please explain why Shankaracarya (or Vedanta) would actually reject any of this brief Upanishad?

Are only the 55 texts cited by Shankaracarya (in what remains of his writings today) to be considered as valid scripture for Vedanta?

The few lines of Skandopanishad may not have been written down until some relatively late date, but that need not mean that its shlokas were completely unknown before they were manuscript.

Sudarshan
08 September 2006, 08:51 AM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Does ultimate Truth have an expiry date? If so, what is the official cut-off point for scriptural validity?

Can you please explain why Shankaracarya (or Vedanta) would actually reject any of this brief Upanishad?

Are only the 55 texts cited by Shankaracarya (in what remains of his writings today) to be considered as valid scripture for Vedanta?

The few lines of Skandopanishad may not have been written down until some relatively late date, but that need not mean that its shlokas were completely unknown before they were manuscript.

But with that approach one could say anything and claim that it is vedanta isnt' it?

We start with Shankara because he was the first to interpret the triplet of Gita, Brahmasutras and the ten canonical upanishads, and hence he made more citations than anybody else before him. We do not know what was Hinduism prior to him - rest is a guess. For most Hindus including those who oppose his interpretations still hold him very honest in his scriptural citations and no one accuses him of using fabrications.

Similarly, all early vedantins are completely free of such false charges of inventing scripture. The first such charges on "scripture fabrication" falls on Madhvacharya, who was accused so by Appayya Dixita. But the Madhvis of the time of Appayya Dixita asnwered the charges suitably and the question never resurfaced.

I would be willing to trust all citations made upto the time of Appayya Dixita. But after the sixteenth century too many additions to various vedas have been made, and which are not referenced by Shankara or others.

There is an example given by Shankara for the cause of superimposition - like seeing two moons on pressing the eyes. This was given by Shankara directly without scriptural refernce in one of his commentaries.( Chandogya?) . But we find this example in one of the Muktika upanishads. If a direct reference were available in a trusted upanishad why would be create a new example to justify himself? He could directly give the citation, sin't it? There are many such upanishads where pieces of Shankara's words are taken, transformed and made into an Upansihad. This can be so obviously noticed. What about the Mahavakya Upanishad? How could a dualistic school crop up when Upanishads of this name existed?

Also, you have to note that there is a lot of "jagan mitya" quotes all over the 108 upanishads. But what does Shankara himself quote in support of this theory? He is not able to cite anything other than the Mahavakyas. If the scripture were so blatant in promoting that idea of world being illusory, how could other schools even justify their positions?

Shankaracharya himself is found wanting for sufficient evidence for many of the claims of Advaita. If you take all 108 given in Muktita there could be no problems for Shankara and nor could anyone dare to oppose his theories. But such texts did not exist at Shankara's time. No vedantin can claim to ignore any accepted upanishad and call himself a vedantin. The fact is only about fifteen upanishads were commonly accepted in the vedantic community. Rest did not exist or had no authority.

New scriptures can be made from time to time. But they wil not be accepted. That is why vedas are considered "unauthored" in theory. Otherwise anyone could add or remove anything, and the authority of vedas is itself questionable.

Did Shankara accept Skandopanishad that uses this verse? I doubt it.

In Vishnusahsranama Bhashya, Shankara interprets the name Kesava as the originator of Brahma and Shiva and he quotes from Harivamsha, which is not even part of vedas. Why would Shankara choose a Harivamsha verse over Skandopanishad? His preferences are so clear. Kesava normally refers only to a person with beautiful hairlocks, and what was the need of this far fetched interpretation which even the Vaishnavite commentrator(Parashara Bhattar) missed completely.

sarabhanga
08 September 2006, 11:32 PM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Is Vedanta merely a corpus of manuscripts, or is it an eternal ideal (the essence of the Vedas)?

There are many important ancient mantras that have NEVER been committed to paper, but they have been transmitted orally from Guru to shishya as a sacred trust.

śivāya viṣṇurūpāya śivarūpāya viṣṇave śivasya hṛdayaṁ viṣṇuḥ viṣṇośca hṛdayaṁ śivaḥ is commonly quoted by Sannyasins, and it is quite possible that the Skanda and other apparently late Upanishads contain selected sayings of Shankaracarya or other great saints.

Do you have any reason to assume improper fabrication in this verse?

All of the Upanishads were composed by divinely inspired humans, as an aid to correct understanding of the Veda ~ as the condensed essential wisdom of those timeless revelations.

I do not believe that true inspiration completely expired after the 16th century, although I do agree that we must be cautious with manuscripts dated after about 1600.

The Mahavakyas are well known from the principle Upanishads, so what difference does it make to their truth when they are collected together in one place?



brahmasatyaṁ jaganmithyā

Brahma is eternally true; that which passes is illusory

Brahman is immortal Truth; all that passes is mortal illusion

The stated contradiction is, Brahma (the one self-existent Spirit) vs Jagat (that which moves or is alive) ~ fixed immortal existence vs moving mortal (temporary) existence ~ eternal verity vs veritable illusion.

Brahma (eternal reality) is always true; Jagat (passing reality) is only apparently so.

Shri Shankaracarya did not invent this fundamental idea, but he surely popularized the saying.

Common sense tells us that everything in this world is subject to decay and transformation; while divine sense tells us that Brahma is unborn, immortal and eternally unchanged.

And no true Vedantin can reject the idea:

“Vishnu is Shiva’s heart and Shiva is Vishnu’s heart; and just as Vishnu is full of Shiva, so is Shiva full of Vishnu.”

saidevo
24 September 2006, 02:10 AM
Brahmano Bhojana Priya

I heard about a shloka that ends with the line brahmano bhojana priya, stating in its other lines that Shiva is abhisheka priya and Vishnu is alankara priya. What is the full shloka and its source?

saidevo
29 September 2006, 08:53 AM
I checked up with our family prohit. He gave me the following shloka and said that it is not from any scriptures, but simply a vacanam that has been in use.

alankAra priyaH vishnuH
abhisheka priyaH shivaH
namaskAra priyaH suryaH
bhojana priyaH brahmanH

Some people find the bhojana part of the shloka a bit sarcastic of the brahmana, so they say the phrase is actually bhajunana. It seems to me that since material things such as alankara, abhisheka are associated with the Gods themselves, it can only be bhojanam for the brahmins.

Sudarshan
29 September 2006, 09:09 AM
Brahmano Bhojana Priya

I heard about a shloka that ends with the line brahmano bhojana priya, stating in its other lines that Shiva is abhisheka priya and Vishnu is alankara priya. What is the full shloka and its source?

A brahmana is typically a person who courts poverty, and does not possess much. Such a brahmin is pleased most when food is offered to him- hence the bojana priya.

sarabhanga
30 September 2006, 05:40 AM
mAyA (as creation or manifestation) is annabrahman (or brahman as “food” ~ the annamayakosha of brahma).

brahma is annakAma (“food loving”) and savitR is the annapati (“lord of food”).





|| bhagavanbhoga ||


ब्रह्मार्पर्णब्रह्माहविर्ब्रह्माग्नौब्रह्मणाहुतम् ।
brahmArparnabrahmAhavirbrahmAgnaubrahmanAhutam |

ब्रह्मैवतेनगन्तव्यंब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ॥
brahmaivatenagantavyaMbrahmakarmasamAdhinA ||

saidevo
20 January 2008, 01:16 AM
Anyone may please tell me the source of these mantras/shlOkAs:

'aham etat na (asmi)'
(I This not am or I am not This)
--which is the foundation mantra of Advaita Vedanta

and

sruti smriti purAnAnAm
Alayam karuNAlayam
namAmi bhagavatpAdam
sankaram lOkasankaram

We salute the sacred feet of Sri Sankara, the abode of Srutis, Smritis, Puranas and of compassion, and who ever accomplishes the good of the world!

Rajalakshmi
20 January 2008, 03:04 AM
Namaste Saidevo,


Anyone may please tell me the source of these mantras/shlOkAs:

'aham etat na (asmi)'
(I This not am or I am not This)
--which is the foundation mantra of Advaita Vedanta


What is the fuller sentance? Many instances of 'ahaM etad.h na' are found in Brihardaranyaka and chAndogya Up.

One for instance:

ta\m+ hovaacha kiMgotro nu somyaasiiti sa hovaacha
naahametadveda bho yadgotro.ahamasmyapR^ichchhaM maatara\m+
saa maa pratyabraviidbahvahaM charantii parichariNii yauvane
tvaamalabhe saahametanna veda yadgotrastvamasi jabaalaa tu
naamaahamasmi satyakaamo naama tvamasiiti so.aha\m+
satyakaamo jaabaalo.asmi bho iti || C.U 4.4.4||

But I dont think it is used here in the sense of a mahAvAkya.







and

sruti smriti purAnAnAm
Alayam karuNAlayam
namAmi bhagavatpAdam
sankaram lOkasankaram

We salute the sacred feet of Sri Sankara, the abode of Srutis, Smritis, Puranas and of compassion, and who ever accomplishes the good of the world!

This is part of invocatory verses used in the advaita tradition( guru paramparA), and can be seen in many commentaries.

nArAyaNam padmabhavam vasishTam shaktim cha tat putram parAsharam cha vyAsam
shukam gowDapadam mahAntam gOvinda pAda yOgIndram atha asya shishyam sri
shankarAchAryam atha asya shishyAm padmapAdam cha hastAmalakam cha shishyam
tam tOTakam vArtikakAram anyAn asmad gurUn santatam AnatOsmi

shruti smriti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
namAmi bhagavat pAda shankaram lOkashankaram

~RL

sarabhanga
20 January 2008, 05:34 AM
Namaste Saidevo,

ahambrahmAsmi is mahAvAkyam for advaita vedAnta, and I do not know the source of ahametatnAsmi, but it is certainly not “the foundation mantra of advaita vedAnta”.

ahametatnAsmi (aham etat na), ahamidamnAsmi (aham idam na), ahantannAsmi (aham tan na), ahannetyasmi (aham na iti) ~ these are all guruvAkyam, but not specifically occurring in scripture. And I would guess that aham etat na is sai bAbA’s own version of the instruction.

saidevo
21 January 2008, 09:27 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga.

As you have rightly conjectured, Bhagavan Sathya Sai Baba places great emphasis on the instruction 'aham etat na' (I am not This) and says that the affirmation 'neti neti' (not this, not this) will help move towards the realization of the instruction.

However, I was looking for any Vedic/Vedantic source for the instruction, because this instruction is often referred to in Theosophy too. Now on a re-search and by reading the works of the great Hindu scholar (who was awarded Bharat Ratna) Bhagavan Das of the Benaras Hindu University, I understand that the instruction stems directly from the 'praNava mantra' AUM.

Known in Christianity as the 'word' of God (the Bible however has not elaborated its power as with our AUM) and in Hinduism as 'shabda brahman', AUM is the key to the ultimate Self-Realization. Comprising three letters 'A', 'U' and 'M' and the corresponding sounds 'a', 'o' and 'M', the mantra stands for the totality of the Self ('Atman' represented by the 'A'), Not-Self ('anAtman' represented by the 'U') and the continuous negation/denial of the latter by the former as their relationship ('niSedha' represented by the 'M'). In this process, it represents in its totally the Nirguna Brahman. (I think you have also explained to this effect elsewhere in HDF).

Swami Jnaneshvara in his Website www.swamij.com has an enlightening article on the power of the AUM mantra (http://www.swamij.com/om.htm), wherein, quoting Patanjali Yoga Sutras, he maps the 'A' to 'vaishvAnara' (walking state), 'U' to 'taijasa' (dream state) and 'M' to 'suSupti' (deep sleep state, which SwamiJ calls 'prajna') and gives a roadmap for the 'sAdhakA' for the ultimate piercing of the 'bhindu' when the Kundalini is awakened.

The placement of the components of the mantra and the instruction is significant. The mantra is 'AUM' and the corresponding instruction is 'aham etat na (asmi)' where the Self is the first and only reality over which is projected the Not-Self, and the Self keeps denying it for ever, thereby creating the whole 'saMsAra' of the World-Process. The Not-Self is projected over the Self by Maya Shakti 'UMA', in which combination it is emphasized that the 'Not-Self is Not the Self' or 'Not-Self is Naught to the Self'.

Using these combinations, it seems me that:

-- in the walking state the predominant combination is 'UAM', where the 'Not-Self (is apparent, and the) Self (is) Not.' This is because in 'vaishvAnara' the multitude of Not-Self is uniformly felt to be the same world to all the immanent Self(s) with practically no denial taking place. The wise invoke the blessings of Goddess UMA to get them through the mirage of Maya to her own source of Ishvara.

-- in the dreaming state ('taijasa') the created world is highly personal and keeps changing, so the combination 'AMU' may be appropriate where the Self keeps denying the projected Not-Self.

-- In the deep sleep ('suSupti') state the combination could be 'A-U-M' because the Self and the Not-Self are merged into one another only the Silence of unconsciousness remains.

-- In the fourth state of 'turIya' the combination is perhaps 'AUM' in its entirety, where the Self consciously absorbs the Not-Self into it and enjoys the bliss of peaceful silence.

Namaste Rajalakshmi.

I am really blessed to have one more highly knowledgable and enlightened member at HDF. I immensely enjoy and get clarified by your messages that have amazing clarity of thought and understanding, backed by rich erudition. When and how did you pick up all your knowledge of the Hindu scriptures? I sincerely thank you for your explanations for my above query in this thread.

sarabhanga
21 January 2008, 05:49 PM
Namaste Saidevo,


AUM = vaishvAnara
UMA = taijasa
MAU = prAjña
MA = turIya
M = turya

saidevo
28 January 2008, 08:52 PM
Namaste.

Someone may please identify and quote the remainder of this shloka. I know it is spoken by Hanuman but perpahs can't search in Ramayana:

dehabuddhayA tu dAso&haM jIvabuddhayA tvadaMshakaH |
AtmabuddhayA tvamevAhaM,...