7

Vaishnavas believe that only Lord Vishnu can grant Moksha. If that is the case, then how do they explain this mantra from the Rig Veda which clearly says that Lord Shiva can grant Moksha?

Om tryambakaṃ yajāmahe sugandhiṃ puṣṭivardhanam urvārukamiva bandhanānmṛtyormukṣīya mā'mṛtāt

Translation:

We worship the Three-eyed Lord who is fragrant and who nourishes and nurtures all beings. As is the ripened cucumber freed from its bondage (to the creeper), may He liberate us from death for the sake of immortality.

"Three-eyed Lord" is a clear reference to Lord Shiva, is it not? If so, then how can one say only Lord Vishnu can grant Moksha?

Ikshvaku
  • 22,130
  • 2
  • 39
  • 116

3 Answers3

7

Lord Narasimha is described as Mrityumrityu (Death's death) in the Nrisimha Mantra. Accordingly, Sri Vaishnavas interpret tryambaka - the three-eyed one as Narasimha. This is supported in various places including Shruti, Smriti and works of Acharyas (whether or not they subscribe to Vishishtadvaita philosophy). Here are a few examples:

  1. Nrisimha-Purva-Tapaniya Upanisad (NPTU) refers to Narasimha as three-eyed one and also as Mrityumrityu. The NPTU is pre-Sankaran as Sankara himself has written a commentary on it. See English translation here.

  2. Adi Sankara in his commentary on the NPTU There he says that the Lord Nrisimha is three-eyed and is referred to by names commonly used for the Lord Shiva such as pinAkI and nIlakaNTha "tasmāt nṛsiṃhaḥ parameśvaraḥ trinetraḥ nīlakaṇṭhaḥ pinākī iti siddham"

  3. The Ayushya Sukta of the Rigveda which is chanted in the Ayushya Homa and in the Udaka Shanti ceremony prays to Narasimha for a long life "suvarṇarambha grahamarkamarcam" referring to the "One who came out of a golden pillar"

  4. Vedanta Desika in his Kamasikashtakam verse 2, refers to Lord Lakshmi Narasimha as the three-eyed one - tapana indu agni nayanaH - One who has the Sun, Moon and Fire as his eyes. He also connects it with the Tapaniya Upanisad.

tapanēndvagni-nayanaḥ tāpānapacinōtu naḥ |
tāpanīya-rahasyānāṃ sāraḥ kāmāsikāhariḥ ||

tapana indu agni nayanaḥ – He has three eyes – the Sun, the Moon and the Fire
tāpanīya rahasyānām sāraḥ – He is the esoteric essence of the Nṛsimha Tāpanīya Upaniṣad
kāmāsikā hariḥ – He is Lord Narasimha of Tiruveḷukkai
naḥ tāpān apacinōtu – May He destroy our suffering.

Apart from these, there are several verses in the Pancharatra Agamas, etc. supporting this view.

Community
  • 1
hashable
  • 3,645
  • 18
  • 33
  • I don't know what can be added to Tejaswee's answer to https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/21632/is-it-true-mahamrityunjaya-mantra-is-not-dedicated-to-lord-shiva ; on top of it Siva also gives the mrityunjaya mantrato Sukracharya in the puranas - But hey - revisionism floats some peoples' boats. – S K Feb 12 '19 at 22:52
  • 4
    The question was "How to Vaishnavas interpret" this mantra especially in the context of the word "tryambakam" and I provided an answer with references to Vedic texts and works of revered Acharyas such as Adi Sankara and Vedanta Desika. Tejaswee's answer is irrelevant. The current question doesn't ask "What is the right interpretation of this mantra?". If you'd like to debate that point, we can do it on a separate thread. – hashable Feb 12 '19 at 23:21
  • @hashable Thanks for the answer. What about Tejaswee's answer where the says the mantra is dedicated to Rudra according to the Anukramani? – Ikshvaku Sep 13 '19 at 14:34
  • @Iksvaku The anukramani doesn't have any special status. It is an interpretation by an editor. Existence of one interpretation, even if it be the dominant interpretation of the day doesn't prevent another from existing. Your question is about the Vaishnava interpretation. – hashable Sep 16 '19 at 00:22
  • @hashable I agree there are references to Lord Nrsimha being portrayed as Mrtyunjaya. In addition to the list you have provided, Sri Nrsimha Purana also has a Mrtyunjaya Mantra on Lord Nrsimha (recited by The sage Markandeya), and that goes very close to the one on Lord Rudra as Mrtyunjaya (rudram pashupatim sthAnum nIlakanTam umApatim). That said, the one I disagree with you is, it is not conclusive that Sri Adi Sankara wrote the bhashyam for Nrsimha Tapinya Upanisad. The Sankara Matams don't include that, though some publications do, and neither does the Advaita Ashram. Contd in next msg. – Vidyarthi Apr 08 '20 at 01:37
  • @hashable Likewise Svetasvatara Upanisad bhashyam also is attributed to His Holiness Sri Adi Sankara, and disputed. But Sri Sankara quotes from this Upanisad, just like His Holiness quotes from a few others, but it is far from clear His Holiness wrote a bhashyam for Nrsimha Tapani Upanisad. Many things are attributed to His Holiness Sri Sankara, and some are disputed. The main stream Sankara schools / institutions don't include Nrsimha Tapani Upanisad in the list of His original bhashyams, and many of them don't include Svetasvatara Upanisad either. – Vidyarthi Apr 08 '20 at 01:40
  • Moving away from from the Sri Sankara Bhashyam for a minute, The Nrsimha Purva Tapinya Upanisad itself carries references to names that are used typically for Lord Shiva. उमापतिः पशुपतिः पिनाकी ह्यमितद्युतिः । ईशानः सर्वविद्यानामीश्वरः सर्वभूतानां ब्रह्माधिपतिर्ब्रह्मणोऽधिपतिर्यो वै यजुर्वेदवाच्यस्तं

    also the following is found in The Nrsimha Purva Tapinya Upanisad, and it is also there in The MahA nArAyana Upanisad with some minor variations.

    ऋतं सत्यं परं ब्रह्म पुरुषं कृष्णपिङ्गलम् । ऊर्ध्वरेतं विरूपाक्षं शङ्करं नीललोहितम् ॥

    Some paatams add "nrkEsarinam" in the same mantra.

     – Vidyarthi Apr 08 '20 at 01:49
  • The interesting thing is it connects with Yajur Veda as mentioned above, so that kind of clears some ambiguity on which could have been the source. But I hold the view it is hard to be conclusive as to which ones are the original works of Sri Adi Sankaracharya. There is a mention of one Abhinava Sankaracharya of Kanchi Matha in the literature, who was a saint of later times, and some scholars attribute certain works to HIM as opposed to Sri Adi Sankara. It is hard to be certain either way, and nothing I read so far gave me a conclusive view. – Vidyarthi Apr 08 '20 at 01:54
  • @Vidyarthi It is incorrect that Sankara Mutts dispute Sankara's authorship of the NPTU. In 1910, the Vani Vilas Press in Srirangam published 20 volumes containing all the works traditionally attributed to Adi Sankara under the direction and guidance of Sringeri Acharya Swami Saccidananda Sivabhinava Narasimha Bharati and republished decades later by Samata Books with the blessings of Sringeri Acharya Swami Abhinava Vidyatirtha. These contain the NPTU bhashya. There are other opinions that Gaudapada wrote a bhashya on the NPTU but not clear if it is the same one or a different one. – hashable Apr 09 '20 at 05:59
  • @hashable thank you. Do you have any reference to back this up? I am not implying you are wrong, but I have not heard or read the part where Sringeri Maha Swami provided the guidance and blessings. I am aware of the publications by Vani Vilas press, and I know it contains the bhashyam. But it is disputed. Many slokhas are also are part of Vani Vilas publications, and Samata Press, and they are also disputed. I will have to check if other Mutts have taken any position on this in the past. I don't have that information handy at the moment, I will check to make sure – Vidyarthi Apr 09 '20 at 06:42
  • @hashable but in the meanwhile if you can provide any reference to back up your statement there, that will be helpful. People confidently say something is correct or incorrect, and it is hard to know how much of that is hearsay. The fact something is not written down doesnt mean it is wrong, but it could be. Other than Sankara Mutt, Advaita Ashrama, Divine Life society (Swami Sivananda), Chinmaya Mission etc don't include the bhashyam for Nrsimha Tapani Upanisad in Sri Sankara's worksBut I agree Vani Vilas press published it, and I have a copy. But that doesn't prove it is original work. – Vidyarthi Apr 09 '20 at 06:49
  • @Vidyarthi Check out https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-February/023752.html by Vidyasankar Sundaresan (a close sishya of the Sringeri Mutt and reputed scholar of Advaita Vedanta). Also do you have a reference to back up your claim that mainstream Sankara Mutts dispute Sankara's authorship of the NPTU (presumably that's what you meant by "do not include the NPTU bhashya in the list of original bhashyas")? I am looking for something explicit. Excluding a text in a publication is not sufficient unless the work is titled something like "complete/authentic works of Sankara". – hashable Apr 09 '20 at 07:15
  • @hashable Thanks for that link. At least there is something even if it is an email conversation. Just to answer your question before I forget - no, I do not have an explicit reference that all or any single mainstream Sankara mutts dispute the NPTU. I will check to make sure though. That said, I guess by now we both agree and understand each other that inclusion or exclusion of something in a publication is not a proof of any thing. From the way you worded your response, it sounds like our threshold is a bit different here. contd in the next message ... – Vidyarthi Apr 09 '20 at 07:27
  • @hashable Even if something is titled as "complete/authentic works of Sankara", I would not take it as a proof. Simply because it is easy enough to publish something with that caption. I thank you for that link, but it is still an email (though better than nothing). I do not distinguish hearsay (as a word of mouth) from a email (could just be hearsay in a written form). I will try to reach out to Sringeri Mutt (and Kanchi) to verify this claim. If it ends up that Sringeri Mutt considers this as original work, that is great. Personally I want less dispute surrounding ALL of our Acharya's works. – Vidyarthi Apr 09 '20 at 07:35
  • @Vidyarthi

    In historical matters, there is never 100% proof. We are only talking about the opinions of reputable organizations here.

    Inclusion is certainly indicative of acceptance. Exclusion is not (unless it is made explicit that it is).

    There are two ways to indicate rejection of a text: (1) Explicit statement, (2) Explicitly title a work called "All authentic works" and exclude a specific text from it.

    Without an explicit statement, it is not possible for one to determine if a particular work is disputed or simply "not yet published".

     – hashable Apr 09 '20 at 07:43
  • @Vidyarthi BTW, unless you personally speak to the Jagadguru Himself, everything has elements of hearsay in it. And even if you do, once you convey it to me, it becomes hearsay. – hashable Apr 09 '20 at 07:43
  • @hashable I agree with your last comment. I do not understand your stmt "Inclusion is certainly indicative of acceptance" . I am talking about evidence and proof, and your statement about "acceptance" is not clear to me if we are talking about the same. To make sure I understand you, "acceptance" by whom? By the publishers? Obviously !! They publish what they accept. But that still does not mean it is original work. Contd in the next message - – Vidyarthi Apr 09 '20 at 08:13
  • So by "acceptance" if you mean "evidence" yes it is a form of evidence, but needs more checking and validations. But if you mean it is a "proof" then I disagree - because any one can publish including certain things they want to "accept". I don't know what you find surprising or disagreeable about that, but for me neither inclusion nor exclusion is conclusive enough proof. But like I said, our threshold may be different, and it is not a good use of our time to discuss this in that case. Now the real qn is what kind of evidence do I seek that passes the check of certainty and not hearsay? – Vidyarthi Apr 09 '20 at 08:16
  • It is hard to explain that as comments here (without violating this rule about extended comments). Multiple institutions accepting something is one of the many things I consider. Talking to JagadGuru Himself will also make it hearsay, but at least that will be a compelling evidence for me about the Sringeri Mutt's position. I care more about my due diligence here, as opposed to telling others. Sure, absolute certainty is not possible. But saying that leaves the room open to consider if this Bhashyam was the original work of Sri Adi Sankara or not. I guess we can disagree on our approach. – Vidyarthi Apr 09 '20 at 08:39
  • @Vidyarthi I meant that if an organization publishes a work, then it obviously means that they accept its authenticity (unless they issue disclaimers about it explicitly in the book). But just because an organization doesn't publish a work, one cannot conclude that they don't endorse it. It is very well possible that they haven't had a chance to publish it yet. One cannot conclude anything from the non-publishing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Other than that I don't disagree with you. If you like we can continue discussions on some other medium like GMail/Chat/Whatsapp.

     – hashable Apr 11 '20 at 12:23
  • @hashable, agree with everything except your implied conclusion that the organization that accepted this here is The Sringeri Sri Saradha Peetam. As you can recall from my answers, that's what I am still trying to ascertain (along with the claim that The Jagadguru approved it in the 1910 publication of Sri Vani Vilas), therefore I am not ready to accept or agree with that as yet. That does not mean I disagree with you either - just that I am not ready to say either way. I wish Sankara Matas publish some of these information on their websites, which will address some of these ambiguities..contd – Vidyarthi Apr 12 '20 at 02:22
  • As for exclusion not being a proof, which is quite obvious, we both are in complete understanding. Sure if you won't mind dropping an email to me at the email address formed by combining the three words "the", "mind", "factor" separated by dot (or period) followed by at gmail dot com, we can exchange some notes. Again it is the word "the" followed by a dot, followed by the word "mind" followed by a dot, followed by the word "factor". "TheMindFactor" with each word separated by a dot followed by gmail domain. Thanks again. – Vidyarthi Apr 12 '20 at 02:26
  • @hashable and others of this forum - just a quick update as my due diligence is in progress (not done yet). I like to confirm that Sri Anandashrama also has published the BHAshyam for Sri Nrsimha tApAni upanisad (attributing a BHAshyam to Sri Adi Sankara, and another work by Sri Vidyaranya's - the latter one exists in my view, I am not aware of any disputes surrounding its authenticity). So at least there have been three publications of NPTU with a BHAshyam attributed to Sri Adi SankArachArya (Sri Anandashrama, Vani Vilas, and the relatively new one from Samata Books). Just wanted to update. – Vidyarthi Apr 15 '20 at 01:18
  • The Archive copy of the Vani Vilas publication of Sri Adi Sankaracharya's works states that not all those might be Sri Sankara's works. It is not clear if that note was added by the person who uploaded the volumes, of it it is mentioned in the publication. I will check the copies. Quoting: "Both Indian and Western scholars agree that many of these works must have been written by later Sankaracharyas rather than the original or Adi Sankaracharya. But there is no agreement on which ones are genuinely his" – Vidyarthi Apr 15 '20 at 01:32
2

Disclaimer: The following answer has been written from a Ramanandi Vaishnava perspective.

Ramanandi Vaishnavas have absolutely no problem in accepting the fact that Lord Shiva is the deity being extolled in the Mahamrityunjaya Mantra since Jagadguru Ramanandacharya and great Ramanandi saints such as Tulsidas has accepted Hari-Hara-abheda and that Shiva, like Vishnu, is indeed a bestower of moksha.

However, Ramanandi Vaishnavas also believe that the Mahamrityunjaya Mantra can also be interpreted to be referring to Sri Rama Himself. This is how Swami Ramabhadracharya interprets the Mahamrityunjaya Mantra in one of his lectures:

Vashishthaji is its Rishi. Meaning Vashishthaji is the one who recieved this mantra...He said "Tryambakam Yajamahe". What did he say? "Tryambakam". What does "Tryambakam" mean? Generally, Vedic scholars will interpret it to be referring to the three-eyed Shiva. That is indeed the correct interpretation but it also has another interpretation. "Tryambakam Yajamahe". Three Ambas i.e. the one who has three mothers: Kaushalya, Kaikeyi and Sumitra. "Tryambak", what does "Amba" mean? Mother. So what does "Tryambakam" mean? The one who has three mothers, that person "yajamahe" i.e. Lord Sri Rama we worship..."Tryambakam Yajamahe"- we worship the one who has three mothers...sugandhim pustivardhanam. From who's body is the sacred fragrance being emanated. Pustivardhanam, who is healthy. What does "Pusti" mean? To nourish. The dependence of devotees over the Lord and the Lord's blessings over His devotees is what "Pusti" refers to. (Translated from Hindi)

  • Rama had three mothers!?!?!!? – Spark Sunshine Feb 11 '19 at 19:31
  • 1
    @NaveenKick In a way, yes. Why are you so startled? –  Feb 11 '19 at 19:51
  • 2
    See this https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/20321/11510.Tryambaka means three eyes ambak means eye and ambika means mother.Lord shiva is called tryambaka not tryambika plus the diety Is Rudra not anyone else and there are evidence from puranas and vedas also ,It is dedicated to Lord shiva only. – Karmanya Nanda Feb 12 '19 at 04:38
  • @Partha Swami Ramabhadracharya has categorically stated that it also does refer to Shiva. He believes Vedic verses can have multiple interpretations and all can be correct. Also, nobody is disputing the fact Rama worshipped Shiva. Tulsidas Himself states in the Ramcharitmanas that Lord Shiva's body embodies the knowledge of Brahman and is Supreme. –  Feb 12 '19 at 05:39
  • 1
    @SuryaKantaBoseChowdhury but In mantra shiva is called Tryambaka not tryamba 'ambak' means eye!nowhere Shri Rama is called tryambaka in valmiki ramayana rather shiva is only called tryambaka in Valmiki Ramayana.that verse diety is also Lord Rudra.It is only dedicated to Lord shiva. – Karmanya Nanda Feb 12 '19 at 06:41
  • @KarmanyaNanda Nobody is disputing Tryambaka refers to Lord Shiva. It is only another interpretation given by Swami Ramabhadracharya. He categorically states that the mantra does refer to Shiva. Keep in mind that Sanskrit words have multiple meanings. –  Feb 12 '19 at 06:43
1

There is no need of Vaishnava's interpreting this mantra.Interpretation is given only by someone who is interested in the mantra.Vaishnavas have assurance from Sri Vishnu that He will liberate His devotees from mrityu and give mukti (Uddhaar)

Tesham aham samudharta mritysamsaarasagarat (Gita,12/7).

So why would Vaishnavas even chant the Mahamrityunjaya Mantra? They have surrendered to Sri Vishnu for their salvation!

By the way, the ajectives sugandhi and Pustivardhana are adjectives of Urvaruka and not of Tryamvaka.

  • Sri Vaishnavas do chant this mantra. It is commonly chanted during the Raksha Bandhana ceremony which is done before every major function such as a wedding. – hashable Feb 12 '19 at 22:42
  • @hashable pl check this answer. If Sri Vaishnavas utter it than it IS very surprising : https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/21632/is-it-true-mahamrityunjaya-mantra-is-not-dedicated-to-lord-shiva/21636#21636 –  Feb 17 '19 at 07:43
  • you are assuming that answer is the only valid interpretation. There are no doubt mantras in the Vedas that are addressed to other deities but according to Visistadvaita philosophy, the results are always given by Vishnu who is the indweller of all those deities who are all jivatmas. Srivaishnavas chant all Vedic mantras without sectarian exclusion for this reason. Like I said, this particular mantra is chanted in the Raksha bandhana ritual. – hashable Feb 17 '19 at 16:46
  • @hashable I wish this is how all Sri Vaishnavas interpreted and included The Vedas. But I will have to differ based on how you stated (unless you can qualify it saying not all Sri Vaishnavas take this position). The question posed by OP is hard to answer because that requires answering & speaking for "all vaishnavas" (not restricted to Sri Vaishnavas). I have come across Tamil Sri Vaishnavas who tend to avoid some parts of The Vedas because according to them they glorify anya dEvatas (like for example, Sri Durga Suktam of Sri Maha Narayana Upanisad, part of which also appears in The Rg Veda) – Vidyarthi Apr 12 '20 at 02:36
  • I am also interested in understanding the origins of this (Tamil) Vaishnavite theology claiming Lord Rudra cannot grant mOksha (which I don't personally agree with), but I would have stated this question differently. As stated, this question is too broad, seeking an answer that applies to all vaishnavas. It is easier to answer with precision if it is qualified & restricted for Sri Vaishnavism or applied to some institution (like how do the followers of Sri Ahobhila Matam interpret this Mrtyunjaya Mantra?). Such questions restrict the scope, promoting the possibility of precision in the answer. – Vidyarthi Apr 12 '20 at 02:45
  • @Vidyarthi Nobody can say "all X take this position" for any value of X. There is wide variance in the individual behaviour of people and therefore I do not dispute that some individual Srivaishnavas may not recite Rudram due to being misguided. I will however state that if you go to any Srivaishnava scholar or Mutt and ask them if Srivaishnavas can chant the Rudram the reply you will get is - All Srivaishnavas can/must chant all portions of the Vedas. – hashable May 23 '21 at 18:53
  • @Vidyarthi Continuing.... there is also the issue of 'pATha-bhedas' which is a completely different story. There are several pATha bhedas in the Mahanarayana Upanishad. As far as the Durga Suktam is concerned, the first six of the seven verses are common between the Andhra (Smarta) and Dravida (Vaishnava) paThas. You will find Srivaishnavas reciting those six as part of the Mahanarayana Upanishad. You can find a recitation of the Vaishnava pAtha here with the Durga Suktam starting at 11:02 https://youtu.be/bHEmlwzd2tI?t=662 – hashable May 23 '21 at 19:03