How do Vaishnavas interpret the Shvetashvatara Upanishad?

[LostKiera]

Hi all

I was just reading through axlyz's topic on the greatness of Lord Vishnu and he stated that all the upanishads praise Vishnu as the supreme. But doesn't the Shvetashvatara Upanishad indicate Shiva is the supreme? Or is there a different way it can be interpreted?

 

[Aupmanyav]

This question generates quite a heat. I request you to kindly ask the Mods to transfer it to General Religious Debates. We too have our little rivalries.

 

[LostKiera]

Ah ok, wasn't trying to offend anyone or spark a debate, was just curious. But point noted!

 

[4consideration]

***Mod Post***

This thread has been moved to Same Faith Debates, per OP's request.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

No fault of yours and kindly do not mind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads#Association_with_Vedas, Svetasvtara is associated with Krishna YajurVeda (which is the older YajurVeda, though not much different) and is Shaiva and Sannyasa in intent. So, no surprise, it will consider Shiva as the Supreme deity. Actually it is with Svetasvatara Upanishad that the Vedic God Rudra gets transformed in to Shiva. That means that at least such verses were written at a time when Hindus (the indigenous people of India) and Aryans (migrants from Central Asia) were merging in to each other. Wikipedia says that Svetasvatara Upanishad is the first to use the term Shiva. However, I will point to two things: 1. It does not mean that a Shiva like God was not worshiped in India before Svetasvatara. It may have been worshiped as Mahadeva (Great God). 2. Literally Shiva means one who is kind, friendly, favourable, benignant, gracious, benign, blessed, etc.

 

[Chakra]

Hi all

I was just reading through axlyz's topic on the greatness of Lord Vishnu and he stated that all the upanishads praise Vishnu as the supreme. But doesn't the Shvetashvatara Upanishad indicate Shiva is the supreme? Or is there a different way it can be interpreted?

Yes, Vaishnavas also have many commentaries on the Shvetashvatara Upanishad. I can explain to you all the details about Vaishnava interpretation of texts, but just so I can understand where you are coming from, why do you think the Shvetashvata Upanishad talks about Shiva as the supreme? Is it because names like Shiva, Rudra, etc are mentioned?

 

[LostKiera]

Thanks Aup.

Axlyz, I suppose I'm thinking of 4.18-19 of the Easwaran translation which says:
"Know him to be the supreme source of all religions, ruler of the world of light, where there is neither day nor night, neither what is nor what is not, but only Shiva. He is far beyond the reach of the mind. He alone is. His glory fills all worlds."

 

[Chakra]

Thanks Aup.

Axlyz, I suppose I'm thinking of 4.18-19 of the Easwaran translation which says:
"Know him to be the supreme source of all religions, ruler of the world of light, where there is neither day nor night, neither what is nor what is not, but only Shiva. He is far beyond the reach of the mind. He alone is. His glory fills all worlds."

When it is mentioned like that, names like Shiva have to be interpreted etymologically as adjectives because they are common nouns. Because Narayana is the proper noun in Shruti (and has been identified as the Supreme God), all names refer to him. Shiva simply means "Auspicious". When it says Brahman is Shiva, it means Brahman is auspicious. The deity Shiva need not be the true recipient of the praise, and even if Shiva is being mentioned, then the Sharira-atma bhava is applied. However, the name Narayana is very unique, due to many esoteric reasons which I am not posting unless you are interested, but mainly because it is a proper noun as per the rules of Sanskrit. The Vishvakarma Suktam says "yO dEvAnAM nAmadA Eka Eva", which means that Brahman is the one who bears all the names of the Devas (Indra, Brahma, Shiva, Agni, etc). Besides, if one were to say that Shiva was truly the supreme god of this Upanishad, it would contradict the Shatapatha Brahmana (where the birth of Shiva is mentioned), the Mahopanishad (where it is mentioned that Narayana alone existed and from him came Brahma and Shiva), the Mahanarayana Upanishad, as well as other countless texts.

This is how Vaishnavas interpret most of the Upanishads. It's a very simple explanation that I have given, since the interpretation methods are quite complex. If you have any more questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

HYMN LXXXII. Visvakarman.
1. THE Father of the eye, the Wise in spirit, created both these worlds submerged in fatness.
Then when the eastern ends were firmly fastened, the heavens and the earth were far extended.
2 Mighty in mind and power is Visvakarman, Maker, Disposer, and most lofty Presence.
Their offerings joy in rich juice where they value One, only One, beyond the Seven Ṛṣis.
3 Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing,
Even he alone, the Deities' narne-giver,him other beings seek for information.
4 To him in sacrifice they offered treasures,—Ṛṣis of old, in numerous troops, as singers,
Who, in the distant, near, and lower region, made ready all these things that have existence.
5 That which is earlier than this earth and heaven, before the Asuras and Gods had being,—
What was the germ primeval which the waters received where all the Gods were seen together?
6 The waters, they received that germ primeval wherein the Gods were gathefed all together.
It rested set upon the Unborn's navel, that One wherein abide all things existing.
7 Ye will not find him who produced these creatures: another thing hath risen up among you.
Enwrapt in misty cloud, with lips that stammer, hymn-chanters wander and are discontented.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10082.htm)

Just because it mentioned 'navel', Vaishnavas took it to be Vishnu. It is quite possible that RV 10.82 may not have meant 'navel' in the way Vaishnavas take it, not a lotus flower coming out of Vishnu's navel. Like that 'garbha' also has been used metaphorically in many places. Hiranyagarbha, the 'womb of the golden one'. Now does God have a womb? But no problem, Vaishnavas can take it the way they want it. However, Vishvkarma in Vedas and as well in the modern Hindu psyche is a God very different from Vishnu. Vishwakarma is the artificer of the Gods. It was smart of Vishnavas to appropriate the name but hardly true.

"There are a few other abstract deities whose names were originally epithets of older gods, but now become epithets of the supreme god who was being evolved at the end of the Rigvedic period. These appellations, compound in form, are of rare and late occurrence. The most important is Prajapati, 'Lord of Creatures' Originally an epithet of such gods as Savitr and Soma, this name is employed in a late verse of the tenth book to designate a distinct deity in the character of a Creator. Similarly, the epithet Visvakarman, 'all-creating', appears as the name of an independent deity to whom two hymns (x. 81. 82) are addressed. Hiranyagarbha, the 'Golden Germ', once occurs as the name of the supreme god described as the 'one lord of all that exists'. In one curious instance it is possible to watch the rise of an abstract deity of this type. The refrain of a late hymn of the RV. (x. 121) is kasmai devaya havisa vidhema? 'to what god should we pay worship with oblation?' This led to the word ká, 'who?' being used in the later Vedic literature as an independent name, Ka, of the supreme god. The only abstract deity of this type occurring in the oldest as well as the latest parts of the RV. is Brhaspati (p. 83)."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vedaread.htm

The community comprises five sub-groups - carpenters, blacksmiths, bell metal workers, goldsmiths and stonemasons - who believe that they are descendants of Vishwakarma, a Hindu deity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishwakarma_(caste))
In the Vedic period the term first appeared as an epithet of Indra, Surya, and Agni. In later time creator concept of Brahma might have been intertwined with the concept of Vastospati and Bṛhaspati, or Brahmanaspathi. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishvakarman#In_the_Vedas)

 

[Chakra]

You can go ahead and follow the theories of Indologists, whereas people who are serious about what the Vedas truly say can follow the interpretations of Vedantins. It is as simple as that, Aup.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Beg to differ. There is no question of being a Western indologist or and Indian indologist. Anyone can put forward his/her views and others are free to criticize them. This is historical research and it does not take into consideration the views of any sampradaya. For us, the exact words of the Vedas are important. We do not twist the meaning to suit us.

 

[LostKiera]

Thanks guys - I can see this is quite a complex issue!

When it is mentioned like that, names like Shiva have to be interpreted etymologically as adjectives because they are common nouns.

So essentially you would argue that passage should be translated as "Know him to be the supreme source of all religions, ruler of the world of light, where there is neither day nor night, neither what is nor what is not, but only the auspicious one" as opposed to "Know him to be the supreme source of all religions, ruler of the world of light, where there is neither day nor night, neither what is nor what is not, but only the one named Shiva"? Is there any way of telling from the context whether "Shiva" was meant as a noun or an adjective here?

Besides, if one were to say that Shiva was truly the supreme god of this Upanishad, it would contradict the Shatapatha Brahmana (where the birth of Shiva is mentioned), the Mahopanishad (where it is mentioned that Narayana alone existed and from him came Brahma and Shiva), the Mahanarayana Upanishad, as well as other countless texts.

True. Do some Vaishnavas solve that issue by refusing to accept the Shvetashvatara Upanishad as canon rather than interpreting it as being about Vishnu? Much like Protestants reject those books of the Bible that seem to support Catholic theology.

Just because it mentioned 'navel', Vaishnavas took it to be Vishnu.

Could the argument be made that if Vishnu is the supreme manifestation of Brahman then all scriptures discussing deities are ultimately either false or really about Vishnu?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is there any way of telling from the context whether "Shiva" was meant as a noun or an adjective here?

Could the argument be made that if Vishnu is the supreme manifestation of Brahman then all scriptures discussing deities are ultimately either false or really about Vishnu?

No, there is none, at least in this verse. And in Advita or in Shaiva Siddhanta, there is no need either to differentiate. It is the whole of existence, eternal, nameless, formless who takes all forms, unconcerned, the aleph and the Omega, etc.

Yes, for some Vaishnavas, either they accept Vishnu or they are wrong. But then, not all who worship Vishnu, Rama or Krishna are part of some sampradaya. There are independent Vishnu worshipers also.

 

[Chakra]

Thanks guys - I can see this is quite a complex issue!

So essentially you would argue that passage should be translated as "Know him to be the supreme source of all religions, ruler of the world of light, where there is neither day nor night, neither what is nor what is not, but only the auspicious one" as opposed to "Know him to be the supreme source of all religions, ruler of the world of light, where there is neither day nor night, neither what is nor what is not, but only the one named Shiva"? Is there any way of telling from the context whether "Shiva" was meant as a noun or an adjective here?

Yes, the context will tell you everything. There are places where devas are actually mentioned and thus names like Indra, Shiva, Agni etc are interpreted as referring to the actual devas. There are other places where names like Indra, Shiva, etc are used in the description of a Supreme Being. We cannot take these names to be referring to the actual devas because elsewhere in Shruti, the devas like Indra, Shiva, etc are shown to be fallible. On the other hand, there exist no mention of the creation of Narayana nor does there exist a verse that shows Narayana to be fallible.

It may sound far-fetched to you, but this is the only way to reconcile all the statements in the Vedas. If you are interested, I can send you a link which will explain this concept (and others) in great detail.

True. Do some Vaishnavas solve that issue by refusing to accept the Shvetashvatara Upanishad as canon rather than interpreting it as being about Vishnu? Much like Protestants reject those books of the Bible that seem to support Catholic theology.

No, all Shruti is taken into consideration in Vaishnavism. Just so you know, Shaivites and Shaktas have a track record of rejecting parts of the Vedas/Upanishads because the latter contradict the Shaiva/Shakta agamas. Vaishnavas would never do so.

Could the argument be made that if Vishnu is the supreme manifestation of Brahman then all scriptures discussing deities are ultimately either false or really about Vishnu?

If we are talking about Shruti, then it is clear that other deities are also discussed (although not as the supreme). Even the praise given to them goes to Vishnu ultimately, because of Sharira-Atma bhava (Body-Soul relationship). Other philosophies will explain it differently, but the same conclusion is derived: Vishnu is the true recipient of all the praises in the Vedas. To give you a very simple example: If I say that you have beautiful hair, the praise goes to you, not the hair itself.

 

[Chakra]

And in Advita or in Shaiva Siddhanta, there is no need either to differentiate. It is the whole of existence, eternal, nameless, formless who takes all forms, unconcerned, the aleph and the Omega, etc.

*Sigh*

Shaiva Siddhanta rejects a lot of Vedantic scriptures like Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras, Vedas, etc. It is clear that they care more about Shaiva agamas than Shruti. Their opinions on Shruti are as valid as a Christian minister's.

Advaita is a Vaishnava darshana. If Advaitins can't prove that Shankara held any other god as Saguna Brahman besides Vishnu, then they should stop rabidly arguing "all gods are one".

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I do not know this in detail because I do not follow Shiva Siddhanta, but perhaps Shaiva Saiddhanta rejects many things that Vaishnavas say. My advaita is 'smarta'. My advaita demands respect to all forms of Brahman equally. Even to a stone, that too is none other than Brahman.

 

[Chakra]

Beg to differ. There is no question of being a Western indologist or and Indian indologist. Anyone can put forward his/her views and others are free to criticize them. This is historical research and it does not take into consideration the views of any sampradaya.

Study of Vedas or Shruti without the guidance of a guru, that is not appropriate. How would one know if the translations of indologists are correct? Oh well, it doesn't matter. Only people who follow the contradictory and absurd translations of indologists will think that Indra was the supreme God of Shruti, Vishnu is a minor solar deity, a "Vedic Rudra" evolved into a "Puranic Shiva" etc. Funny though.

For us, the exact words of the Vedas are important. We do not twist the meaning to suit us.

Instead, you guys will make weird translations from the beginning, and when you cannot reconcile your translation with another part of Shruti, you will simply brush it away saying that the other part of Shruti was from a later date when Vedic religion changed. Very nice.

If you think that western or even Indian indologists have better translations of Shruti than Vaidikas who dedicated their whole lives to the study of Sanskrit, Upanishadic philosophy, and Shruti, then I'm not sure what more I can say. Shows your respect for Vaidikas and their efforts to prove that the meaning of all Shruti is harmonious and beautiful.

"Shankara is my guru". Is he really, especially when you completely disregard his opinions on Shruti's message and go by the opinions of indologists (who again, aren't the best at Sanskrit)? Perhaps you should reconsider some of your previous statements about Shankara and Advaita.

 

[Chakra]

Yes, I do not know this in detail because I do not follow Shiva Siddhanta, but perhaps Shaiva Saiddhanta rejects many things that Vaishnavas say.

Of course, since Vaishnavas have been the only Vedantins historically, Shaivas are expected to disagree with both Vaishnavas and Vedantins.

My advaita is 'smarta'. My advaita demands respect to all forms of Brahman equally. Even to a stone, that too is none other than Brahman.

I'm not sure how long it will take you to understand that by Advaita, I mean Shankara's Advaita, not yours. Your Advaita may very much be "Smartha", Shankara's may not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How would one know if the translations of indologists are correct? .. Funny though.

Instead, you guys will make weird translations from the beginning, and when you cannot reconcile your translation with another part of Shruti, you will simply brush it away saying that the other part of Shruti was from a later date when Vedic religion changed. Very nice.

If you think that western or even Indian indologists have better translations of Shruti than Vaidikas who dedicated their whole lives to the study of Sanskrit, Upanishadic philosophy, and Shruti, then I'm not sure what more I can say. Shows your respect for Vaidikas and their efforts to prove that the meaning of all Shruti is harmonious and beautiful.

"Shankara is my guru". Is he really, especially when you completely disregard his opinions on Shruti's message and go by the opinions of indologists (who again, aren't the best at Sanskrit)? Perhaps you should reconsider some of your previous statements about Shankara and Advaita.

There are Sanskrit 'Shabda-koshas' and 'nighantus'. I have http://spokensanskrit.de/ on my favorites which has four more (Monier-Williams, Apte Sans.-Engl., Apte Engl.-Sans. and Cologne Sanskrit project). May be some will consider assimilation funny, but it worked nicely for both parties.

I think that is a fact of life. Vedas were sang (heard, seen, if you want it that way) over generations and over a long period of time. The Westerners also spent their lives working on Hindu scriptures. Let us not be ungrateful to them. Vaidikas were good in their time, they did their best. The Westerners have only built upon them. Yes Shruti is harmonious and beautiful in its own way, like the lore of aboriginal people all over the world; Africa, Australia and Amerindians.

Yes, Sankara is my Guru - 'Brahma satyam jagan-mithya ..' (and so is Buddha too - 'It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon ..' https://web.archive.org/web/2013020...stoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html). And then I charted my own way.