Is Surya (Sun god) Vishnu or Shiva (amsa)?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Sounds like Sun is treated as the Supreme Brahman here..

yes that is correct, thus the prayer

॥श्रीसूर्याष्टकम्॥

साम्ब उवाच -
आदिदेव नमस्तुभ्यं प्रसीद मम भास्कर ।
दिवाकर नमस्तुभ्यं प्रभाकर नमोऽस्तु ते ॥१॥

Bhāskara, Ādideva (the primodial Lord), bless me! prostration unto thou, O Divākara (The deity responsible for the creation of Day), O Prabhākara(the deity responsible for ushering light unto the world), prostrations unto to thou.

सप्ताश्व रथमारूढं प्रचण्डं कश्यपात्मजम् ।
श्वेत पद्माधरं देवं तं सूर्यं प्रणमाम्यहम् ॥२॥

The Sun God (Sūrya) seated on a chariot drawn by seven horses, the resplendent one, the son of Kaśyapa, holding a lotus in the hand, unto Him I prostrate.

लोहितं रथमारूढं सर्वलोकपितामहम् ।
महापापहरं देवं तं सूर्यं प्रणमाम्यहम् ॥३॥

Seated on a red chariot, the father of the whole world, the annihilator of deadly sins, unto him I prostrate.

त्रैगुण्यश्च महाशूरं ब्रह्माविष्णु महेश्वरम् ।
महापापहरं देवं तं सूर्यं प्रणमाम्यहम् ॥४॥

The one who assumes the form of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, and also the form(s) of Brahmā, ViṢṇu and Maheśvara, the great warrior, remover of deadly sins, unto that Sun God, I prostrate.

बृह्मितं तेजःपुञ्जञ्च वायुराकाशमेव च ।
प्रभुत्वं सर्वलोकानां तं सूर्यं प्रणमाम्यहम् ॥५॥

The Omni-present and luminous Lord of the whole Universe, unto that Sun God, I prostrate.

बन्धूकपुष्पसङ्काशं हारकुण्डलभूषितम् ।
एकचक्रधरं देवं तं सूर्यं प्रणमाम्यहम् ॥६॥

Sūryadeva of red complexion like that of the Bandhūka tree, adorning a garland around His neck, Earrings on his ear, holding the divine discus (cakra) in the shape of time, unto Him, I prostrate.

तं सूर्यं लोककर्तारं महा तेजः प्रदीपनम् ।
महापाप हरं देवं तं सूर्यं प्रणमाम्यहम् ॥७॥

The supreme ruler of all the worlds, the administrator, of all deadly sins, unto that Sun God I prostrate.

तं सूर्यं जगतां नाथं ज्ञानप्रकाशमोक्षदम् ।
महापापहरं देवं तं सूर्यं प्रणमाम्यहम् ॥८॥

I prostrate the Lord of The world, the bestower of liberation through the effulgent rays of knowledge and the destroyer of great sins.

सूर्याष्टकं पठेन्नित्यं ग्रहपीडा प्रणाशनम् ।
अपुत्रो लभते पुत्रं दारिद्रो धनवान् भवेत् ॥९॥

Through the daily recitation of (this) Sūryāṣṭakaṁ the problems caused due to graha-pīḍā (problems caused by planetary movements) are rent assunder, he without sons will beget progeny, and the poor become abundant with wealth.

अमिषं मधुपानं च यः करोति रवेर्दिने ।
सप्तजन्मभवेत् रोगि जन्म जन्म दरिद्रता ॥१०॥

He who consumes meat, intoxicating drink(s), on Sunday (the day of the Sun God), will be born plagued with diseases in seven births, and remain pauper throught his births, present and future.

स्त्रीतैलमधुमांसानि ये त्यजन्ति रवेर्दिने ।
न व्याधि शोक दारिद्र्यं सूर्य लोकं च गच्छति ॥११॥

He who ceases from intimate company of women, oil bath, meat, honey on Sunday, will not be affected by miseries caused due to diseases, worries or poverty and shall live happily; at the end He will depart (directly) to Sūryaloka - the abode of Lord Sūrya.

॥इति श्रीसूर्याष्टकम्॥

Even in Ramayana, Sri Rama prays to Surya for success in battle using Aditya Hridayam.

I remember reading elsewhere in HDF in some old post that some shastras do describe Indra, Varuna, Surya, Agni, and so forth as 'Supreme Brahman' individually.. I wonder why this is so. (if I am right).

- Rig Veda Book 1, Hymn 164, Verse 46.

इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान |
एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः ||

indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān |
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ ||

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title; they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan
.

Veda samhita speaks of deva they only speak of the divine 33 and rig ved do not admit to any other. It is them they say are referring to eakam sad vipra bahuda---

12 Aditya, 8 Vasus, 11 Rudras and two other,

The rishi Yajyavalkya discusses this:in the Brihardarayanka Upanishad

The question is asked ' how many gods are there' ? He starts with "three and three hundred and three and three thousand."

These are expressions of Brahman. When he finishes his discourse, as the questioning continues to ask
"how many are there really?" Yajyavalkya says there is just One. And the questioners (Sakalya) asks, "Which is the one God", Yajyavalkya answers - "The cosmic vital force. That is Brahman. They (the wise is inferred here) denote It by the term tyat , (THAT)."

One God with many aspects ~ all equally divine ~ The One true God is known by many Names; and these Names evoke Forms.
And yet, the One true God encompasses and surpasses All Names, and All Forms.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Viraja]

Thank you Ganesh, for the informative post.

I thank everyone for their replies. Thank you, Sri Vaishnava, your post on Alwars was excellent. Thank you, Philos, for the informative posts.

[ShivaFan]

How Surya became the Supreme Deity of Hinduism
-- An Historical Context in the Late-21st Century --

by Professor Gore Vidal
Emeritus at Yale University Eastern Philosophy Department

Yale University Publishing House, 2082 C.E.

Preface

When I was a teenager growing up in New York City (before the collapse of the Brooklyn Bridge in August of 2025), I would often visit Hindu temples located in the greater New York and New Jersey area. Even though I was considered “non-Desi”, I was always welcome, and I particularly enjoyed visiting temples of the South Indian tradition, but I had the opportunity to visit temples of many denominations of Hinduism, including Saiva and Vaishnava.

Today the terms Saiva and Vaishnava may not be familiar to many westerners, being that today most temples in the United States and Canada which have community support and funding to maintain large operations are Soura, which is a term more familiar to many. While Saiva and Vaishnava temples still have a notable presence in India, today even in India which is the motherland of Hinduism, or what is more commonly termed today as “Surya Dharma”, the Soura Revivalist Movement is becoming very important if not predominant among many in the popular masses.

This book is an analysis of how this happened, and how Surya became the supreme deity of Hinduism in the western world today, and now also with a huge number of adherents in India. There are also chapters which document the phenomena of Soura sect in Bhutan even after the invasion by China which incorporated the former independent state into the Greater China Co-Prosperity Sphere along with areas of former Kashmir and Assam.

In my analysis I will demonstrate that the inspiration for the Soura Revivalism was the spread of the internet throughout the world, and began when different denominations within the family of Hinduism all tried to stake claim and ownership of Surya as the manifestation of their own, former, supreme deities such as Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva. This rivalry of competing sects within Hinduism in claiming Surya as theirs only, initially an internet and social media collective, exposed an undercurrent within this ancient religion that eventually made its way into the mass consciousness among all Hindus that Surya must be, and eventually became, the most popular deity of all deities.

After all, why so much rivalry among so many sects within Hinduism to associate Surya with their own deity?

“Surya is Vishnu alone!” was the claim by some sects, while others strongly opposed this with their own assertions, “No! Surya is Shiva alone!” or “Surya is the husband of Devi Shakti”.

Such rivalries, which arose during the early 21st Century grew to global prominence through the internet, and over time had the effect of adding status to Surya, and reinforced the idea in mass consciousness that not only is Surya extremely popular, but held a preeminent status within the hierarchical claims of gods within particular Hindu sects.

Soon, new Surya temples were being constructed, in particular in the US and Canada, but also in India where the worship of the very popular Surya had a sudden revivalism.

By the 2030’s C.E., many in the general populace of popular Hinduism began to consider that since every sect was claiming Surya as the manifestation of the supreme deity of each particular sect, that in fact Surya himself was the supreme.

Rivalries regarding who Surya was a manifestation of soon turned into a popular belief that Surya was all the other deities, Surya was Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, as well as the supreme Brahman. After all, one sect or another was claiming Surya was a manifestation of one deity or another of each sect, such that some began to wonder, “Perhaps they are all correct …. Surya is all of them!”.

Surya’s importance, and eventual dominance, was on an incline of prestige that soon elevated the Sun God to the highest position within the Hindu pantheon. By the 2070’s, Surya and his manifestation known as Aruna, rose to the peak of popularity. An entirely new bhakti or devotional movement swept across the Hindu landscape.

This study documents this revivalism of Surya worship and the root causes for its manifestation. It puts the revivalist movement of the Soura sect into historical perspective and includes narratives from adherents to this devotional movement so that those in the study of Eastern Philosophy can understand and be a part of this modern era phenomenon.

Professor Gore Vidal, summer of 2079 C.E.

[Necromancer]

Namaste.

Even though I am a Shaivite, I was also brought up in the traditions of Hatha Yoga.

My day started with 9 rounds of Surya Namaskar at 6am (or sunrise) followed by chanting 108 Gayatri Mantras.

I also chanted all the mantra names of Surya Deva during the Yoga poses.

My teacher taught me that the 'Sun 'God' was, in fact, the goddess Devi in the form of the Gayatri Mantra.

I was also led to believe (which I ultimately did) that Surya Deva was an emanation of Lord Narayana. It was stated as such in the holy scriptures anyway.

It only made sense to me, since Lord Chandrashekhara is more associated with the Moon than the Sun...He even embodies it.

In the end though, the 'Sun God' is just that...the 'Sun God' and trying to find out who/what He is beyond that is rather pointless.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[philosoraptor]

Pranams.

I did find the verse in the purANa which equates meditation on the sun with worship of Vishnu, specifically as the indwelling controller of the sun-deva . I will try to post that later, hopefully by tomorrow morning.

dheyaH sadA savitRimaNDalamadhyavartI nArAyaNaH sarasijAsanasaMniviShTaH |
keyUravAnmakarakuNDalavAn kirITI hArI hiraNmayavapurdhRtashaNKhachakraH || NP 62.17 ||

Lord Naaraayana, the holder of conch and discus is seated on a lotus; adorned with a crown, a necklace, armlets and ear-rings. He is possessed of a body shining and splendorous like gold. Devotees meditate on Vishnu as present in the center of the solar orb. (narasimha purANa 62.17)

Note that this is very similar to other scriptural statements to the effect that the person in the sun is brahman, and/or that the sun represents brahman. See also bRihadArANyaka upaniShad 2.5.5 ('the puruSha in the sun is effulgent and immortal'), mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad 3 ('He pervades the three regions and by His splendour the sun illuminates'), mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad 102-104 (draviDa pATha), vALmIki rAmAyaNa 6.105.5-24, and viShNu purANa 3.5.14-20.

[Omkara]

Which shakha of the sama veda does it belong to?

Most of these so- called 108 upanishads are fake. There are no extant manuscripts of them which are dated more than a few centuries ago, and they are not commented on or mentioned in any ancient literature.

And by the way, the muktika upanishad from which these 'upanishads' derive their authority is the biggest fake of them all. This 'upanishad' attributes the kaivalya and mantrika(chulika) upanishads to the yajurveda but every mention of them in literature attributes them to the atharvaveda. This shows that this upanishad is a recent one and did not exist in ancient times, and even if it did exist, it was not acknowledged as authoritative.

[philosoraptor]

And by the way, the muktika upanishad from which these 'upanishads' derive their authority is the biggest fake of them all. This 'upanishad' attributes the kaivalya and mantrika(chulika) upanishads to the yajurveda but every mention of them in literature attributes them to the atharvaveda. This shows that this upanishad is a recent one and did not exist in ancient times, and even if it did exist, it was not acknowledged as authoritative.

Or at the very least, it shows that the muktika upaniShad is adulterated, and thus no longer should be given the status of shruti.

[Omkara]

Since this thread is about Surya, I thought it would be a good idea to pkst these translations of Aruna Prasnam here-
http://www.srihayagrivan.org/html/ebook037.htm
http://www.srihayagrivan.org/html/ebook038.htm
http://www.srihayagrivan.org/html/ebook039.htm

[Sri Vaishnava]

And by the way, the muktika upanishad from which these 'upanishads' derive their authority is the biggest fake of them all. This 'upanishad' attributes the kaivalya and mantrika(chulika) upanishads to the yajurveda but every mention of them in literature attributes them to the atharvaveda. This shows that this upanishad is a recent one and did not exist in ancient times, and even if it did exist, it was not acknowledged as authoritative.

At this juncture, it would be best to define exactly what "authenticity" means and give a list of the upanishads.

We only consider those shaastrA as authentic, which have been used as pramAna in debates prior to the 15th century. This is because during those times, debates were in full swing, and anyone who used a spurious upanishad, purAna or any other work would have been condemned.

In fact, we have a historical event of Appayya Dikshita accusing Sri Madhva of fabricating texts and refusing to recognise the authenticity of BhallavEya Sruti, Paingi Sruti et al. It was Sri Vijayendra Tirtha who wrote a work proving the authenticity of said works.

Without getting into Appayya vs Madva, let us say that this example must be enough to convince people that if a fake upanishad had been quoted, rivals would have torn it to pieces.

Post 16th century, such debates were fading and this marks the period when a number of fake upanishads came into being. These are often rip-offs of the works of certain individuals.

The authenticity of upanishads is divided into two categories:

1) Upanishads which have full commentaries from Shankaracharya's time are accepted in their present form as of today.

2) Some Upanishads have been quoted by these acharyas, but not commentated in full. These upanishads are not accepted in their present form as of today, but those quotes and the fact that such an upanishad under the same name must have existed is accepted. It is clear that these acharyas did not commentate on the upanishad fully because it had not been available in a pristine form to them...they had only access to genuine quotes which had already been used by earlier scholars. A classic example is the mahOpanishad, from which certain vAkyas are quoted by all scholars, but lacks a commentary. Indeed, Sri Vedanta Desikan remarks that the mahOpanishad had been corrupted in his Saccharitra Raksha (there was a discussion on this in the Dvaita forums on another site).

So, 2) points out that these acharyas only quoted the vAkyas that had seen prior usage by vidwans of the past and refrained from the other portions of the upanishad that were recognised as inauthentic.

Lastly, one must note that these views are taken with consideration of both ancient vaishnava scholars and ancient shaiva scholars like Haradutta. There is no bias involved.

That being said, here are the two categories -

1) The 10 main upanishads, plus the Kaushitaki, MaitrAyaNi, Subala, SvetAsvatArA, mahAnArAyaNa, nArAyaNa, narasimha-tApanIya are fully accepted in content and have commentaries.

2) The Kaivalya, SannyAsa, Jabali, chulika, garbha, Atharvasikha, Atharvasiras, mahOpanishad, brahma bindu, amrta-bindu, mudgala, and some others are accepted in NAME as upanishads which had been existing before, but are presently in corrupted form. Only the quotes of scholars from these upanishads is accepted.

[Omkara]

1) The 10 main upanishads, plus the Kaushitaki, MaitrAyaNi, Subala, SvetAsvatArA, mahAnArAyaNa, nArAyaNa, narasimha-tApanIya are fully accepted in content and have commentaries.

2) The Kaivalya, SannyAsa, Jabali, chulika, garbha, Atharvasikha, Atharvasiras, mahOpanishad, brahma bindu, amrta-bindu, mudgala, and some others are accepted in NAME as upanishads which had been existing before, but are presently in corrupted form. Only the quotes of scholars from these upanishads is accepted.

I am not sure whether Shaivas accept Maha,Narayana,and Narasimha Tapani upanishad.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=e...search_r&cad=1

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=e...search_r&cad=1

The above links say that the mahopanishad has been challenged by critics, and that Vedanta Desika has defended it against such criticism.


The rest of the list is fine.
Some of the upanishads need to be moved from the second to the first list. Atharvasikha and chulika have commentaries by Sri Ranga Ramanuja Muni of your own tradition. Kaivalya and Atharvasiras have numerous commentaries by Advaitins and Shaivas. I think you have neglected to mention some upanishads like Jabala, Pranagnihotra etc.