9

In the Bala Kanda of the Ramayana, the sage Vishwamitra tells Rama and Lakshmana the famous story of the descent of the Ganga river to Earth. As described in this chapter of the Bala Kanda, Rama's ancestor Sagara once conducted an Ashwamedha Yagna (horse ritual), and Indra, fearing that the yagna would make Sagara too powerful, stole the sacrificial horse so that Sagara couldn't complete the ritual. So Sagara sent his sons to look for the horse, and they scoured the earth trying to find it. As described in the next chapter, Sagara's sons finally found the horse near the ashram of Kapila, a great sage and incarnation of Vishnu. They accused Kapila of stealing the horse, and he was so enraged that he burned them all to ashes. It was the quest to scatter the ashes of Sagara's sons in a holy body of water that motivated Sagara's descendant Bhagiratha to bring the river Ganga from Devaloka to Earth.

But my question is about how the sage Kapila is referred to in the passage. For instance, here is what Brahma says when he tells the gods that Kapila is going to burn Sagara's sons to ashes:

To whom this Mother Earth belongs in all her entirety, he is that prescient Vāsudeva, and she is also the consort of that Maadhava, and that Vishnu eternally props up Mother Earth. Hence, that reverential Vishnu donning the semblance of Sage Kapila will burn down the sons of emperor Sagara to ashes in a fire of fury.

And here is the description of Kapila when he is seen by the sons of Sagara:

But all those great-souled and great-mighty ones with terrible dash have seen the Infinite Vāsudeva in the form of sage Kapila there in the northeast, and oh, descendant of Raghu, they have also seen the ritual-horse moving nearby that sage Kapila, thus all of the sons of Sagara obtained a matchless delight.

I'm interested in the fact that Vishnu is referred to by the name "Vāsudeva". Now when people today refer to Vishnu as Vāsudeva, they mostly do it because it's a name of Vishnu's incarnation Krishna, since his father was named Vasudeva. Yet this is a passage in the Ramayana, which was composed long before Krishna was even born, and it's talking about events that happened long before Rama was even born! This could be because Brahma and Vishwamitra already foresaw Vishnu being born as Vasudeva's son in the future, or it could be that the name "Vāsudeva" is being used literally, to mean "Lord of the Vasus"; the Vasus are a group of 8 Vedic gods associated with various slements of nature.

In any case, my question is, is the Ramayana the earliest Hindu scripture which refers to Vishnu as Vāsudeva, or are there even earlier scriptures? Is he called Vāsudeva in the Vedas?

Say No To Censorship
  • 30,811
  • 17
  • 131
  • 257
Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853

1 Answers1

5

The name Vasudeva appears in Vedic times it self and it refers to Lord Vishnu/Narayana.

The famous hymn known as Vishnu Gayatri appearing in the Taittiriya Narayana Upanishad (Which is part of Taittiriya Aranyaka) states:

"Om nArAyaNAya vidmahe, vAsudevAya dhImahi, tanno viShNuH pracodayAt".

"We endeavour to Narayana, we meditate on Vasudeva and let Vishnu bestow wisdom on us"

This Vedic statement evidently reveals the identity of all the three deities.

In the post vedic period, the agamas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the vaishnava puranas have used these names repeatedly to denote the same one reality of the upanishads.

The term Vasudeva (derived from the root verb "vas" meaning to reside) is interpreted by the Vishnupurana as one who abides everywhere and who is also the source of everything emphasizing the all pervasive character of reality as stated in the Taittriya Narayana Upanishad. The suffix "deva" added to "vasu" implies that he shines forth untouched by any defects though he abides in everything. It also signifies he enjoys himself with creation of universe which is a sport to him and the celestial beings always sing his glory.

Thus all the terms Vishnu, Vasudeva, Narayana bear the same import and denote the same one ultimate reality.

Also, naturally, Lord Vasudeva being the Supreme being, is Lord of not only the 8 vasus but also, all Adityas, Vasus, Rudras etc...But, the other way is not correct, i.e. just because he is head of Vasus he is called Vasudeva.

The name 'Vasudeva' brings out the meaning that all are 'in Him' ('Sarvam vasathi- Vasudeva") and not just the 8 Vasus

For more details please read the book "Vaishnavism: Its philosophy, theology and religious discipline" by Dr. SMS Chari

Also, naturally, Lord Vasudeva being the Supreme being, is Lord of not only the 8 vasus but also, all Adityas, Vasus, Rudras etc...But, the other way i.e. just because he is head of Vasus, hence he is called Vasudeva may not be correct.

The name 'Vasudeva' brings out the meaning that all are 'in Him' ('Sarvam vasathi- Vasudeva") and not just the 8 Vasus

Also, in the Vasudeva Upanishad (which talks about the application of Urdhva pundra) the name Lord Vasudeva appears.

The name Lord Vasudeva appears in Mudgala and other upanishads also (i don't have the list)

Community
  • 1
  • First of all, Vyasa compiled the Vedas into four books at the end of the Dwapara Yuga. And the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads are commentaries on Vyasa's Samhitas, and thus would presumably have been added on to the Vedas in the beginning of the Kali Yuga at the earliest. So any reference to Vasudeva in the Mahanarayana Upanishad would be far newer than the reference I found in the Ramayana, which was composed in the Treta Yuga. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 29 '14 at 08:20
  • So do you know of any reference to Vasudeva that's older than the Taittirya Aranyaka? The Mahabharata and the Puranas are all younger than the Ramayana. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 29 '14 at 08:24
  • I am, sorry, i don't have an answer to that. My understanding that Brahmanas and Samhitas form the Purva or Karma Khada of the Vedas. Brahmanas relate to holy performances while `Samhitas' to holy dictates. Aranyakas (Ritual interpretations) and Upanishads (Metaphysical Dialogues) the Uttara or Brahma Khanda of the Vedas. So, i think, they are part of the Vedas...Sorry, in case it doesn't answer your question. –  Oct 29 '14 at 09:39
  • You see, the thing is that the term "Veda" has two uses. One use is the body of mantras which were heard from the gods by sages called Dhrishtas. These mantras were compiled by Vyasa into a set of books we call the Samhitas. Now after the Samhitas were compiled by Vyasa, supplementary texts were added, in particular Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads. So the term Vedas is often used to refer to Samhitas along with those supplementary texts. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 29 '14 at 14:39
  • So if you want to find the ages of things, Samhitas are the oldest, Brahmanas are younger, Aranyakas are even younger, and Upanishads are the youngest. So most Upanishads (other than Isha, Brihadaranyaka, and Chandogya) are far younger than the Ramayana. So to find a reference to Vasudeva older than the Ramayana, you have to look at only Samhitas and Brahmanas. I can give you links to them if you want. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 29 '14 at 14:43
  • In any case, it looks like the Vishnu Gayatri mantra is a later interpolation to the Taittirya Aranyaka: http://books.google.com/books?id=VviBAEtT-JgC&lpg=PA13&ots=v7T8b4Wf5u&dq=vasudevaya%20vidmahe%20aranyaka&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 29 '14 at 16:36
  • But, one cannot dismiss that Vishnu Gayatri is interpolation. Going by the same standard all the Gayatri's whether it Vishnu, Siva, Durga etc can be considered as interpolations. I, think, for this one has to approach their respective achraya/guru to know more. –  Oct 30 '14 at 06:55
  • Also, many of the books translated into english are dangerous, as they give wrong translation at many places. It could by Ralph griffths, Max muller, HH Wilson etc... It is always better to approach well renowned Acharyas to understand more. –  Oct 30 '14 at 07:05
  • The same is applicable to many of the Indian authors who translate the sanskrit verses and make their own observations based on their biases. For example Srimad Valmiki Ramayana, english translation by Gorakhpur press is really good. But, the author says calls Laksmana, Bharata and Satrughna half brothers of Raama. No where in the main text it is mentioned as half brothers. There are many such instances...So, it is better to approach an Acharya and get clarifications #Thanks#Krishna –  Oct 30 '14 at 07:10
  • If look at the page 28 of the books.google.com/ link provided by you, the author says "SriVaishnavism of south India which energed around 11 century A.D....". This absolutely wrong. The author either is ignorant of Srivaishnavism or he is misrepresenting facts...So, need to watch out for such english translations or opinions. BTW, we all know, Sri Vaishnavism existed much before Shankara and even before BC even by moderate estimates... –  Oct 30 '14 at 07:25
  • I'm not saying that the Vishnu Gayatri mantra is an interpolation in general; it's probably there in several Puranas. I'm just saying that it's an interpolation to the Taittirya Aranyaka. In any case, like I said the Taittirya Aranyaka is younger than the Treta Yuga, so a reference to Vasudeva in the Ramayana would be older no matter what. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 30 '14 at 14:06
  • Well, Rama is definitely half-brothers with Lakshmana and the like; they have the same father and different mothers. As far as Sri Vaishnavism goes, the Sri Vaishnava sect definitely did not exist at the time of Adi Shankaracharya. The Sri Vaishnava Guruparampara goes from Vishnu to Lakshmi to Vishwaksena to Nammalwar to Nathamuni. So the first human who was even in the Lakshmi Sampradyam was Nammalwar. But he didn't found his own sect of Hinduism. Only Nathamuni did that. And Nathamuni lived long after Adi Shankaracharya. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 30 '14 at 14:12
  • Now, you can call Lakshman, Bharata and Satrughna as Half brother. I understand the logic as they have separate mothers but same father. But, what i trying say is that this half brother is term doesn't appear in the Srimad Valmiki Ramayana. I beg to differ from your views that, Sri Vaishnavism is after Adishankara. –  Oct 31 '14 at 06:07
  • In his Brahma Sutra bhasya there is clear reference to Pancharatra followers by Shankara. So, Sri Vaishnavas are Pancharatra followers and specifically get marked by the Shanka and chakra symbols (Taptha). If, you look at other followers of Pancharatra they don't exact follow the taptha Shankha , chankra like Sri Vaishnavas. So, your view that Sri Vaishnavism is post shankara is not correct. –  Oct 31 '14 at 06:07
  • The Guruparampara need not always have all the achrayas. If that is the case the followers will not even be able to recite list. Whether you look at both the sects of Sri Vaishnavas, there is only a limited number of acharyas when they recite their respective Guruparampara. Only the more prominent ones figure in the list..If, that is the case why no other Alwars are part of the Guruparamapara though they all are strict worshippers of Lakshmi and Narayana? Nathamuni received all the 4000 verses of all the alwars and not just tiruvamozhi of Nammalwar. –  Oct 31 '14 at 06:09
  • But only Nammalwar and Nathamuni figure in the guruparampara. So, just because Nammalwar , Nathamuni figure in the guruparampara doensn't mean that there was no acharya in between. Now, Hypothetically, let us take your own stand that after Nammalwar it was Nathamuni. Even Nathmuni was around 8-9 th century even as per modern historians. So, the book on google.com/ link saying Srivaishnavism was estbalished in 11 th century is still invalid. Please read the book Vaishnavism by Dr SMS chari. It might provide more information to you.# Thanks# Krishna –  Oct 31 '14 at 06:14
  • Going by same logic of yours then the advaita Guru parampara after Suka is Gaudapada. So, does it mean advaitha thought was lost?...All these Advaitha, Dvaitha and Visistadvaitha were existing from time in memorial...Infact, Pancharatra texts say that they belong to Ekayana Veda i.e when the Vedas were undivided. # Rgds#Krishna –  Oct 31 '14 at 06:42