Scriptural Sources for Shlokas and Mantras

[saidevo]

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]

Skandopanishad verse 8.

These Upanishads are not widely accepted.

[sarabhanga]

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]

These Upanishads are not widely accepted.

why not, any particular reason?

[Sudarshan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.