7

The Mahabharata opens with this famous verse:

nārāyaṇaṃ namaskṛtya naraṃ caiva narottamam |

devīṃ sarasvatīṃ caiva tato jayamudīrayet ||

Om! Having bowed down to Narayana and Nara, the most exalted male being, and also to the goddess Saraswati, must the word Jaya be uttered.

Nara and Narayana were two ancient sages who were twin sons of Yama god of death and famously meditated in Badrikashrama. Nara was the previous birth of Arjuna, whereas Narayana was an incarnation of Vishnu and thus the previous birth of Krishna.

But my question is about the word "narottamam", which means "the best of men" or as the translation puts it, "the most exalted male being". Why is it that "narottamam" is referring to Nara and not to his brother Narayana? After all, in the Udyoga Parva of the Mahabharata, Vishnu's incarnation Parashurama says "Narayana, again, became superior to Nara in consequence of many more qualities." Also, a common name of Vishnu is Purushottama, which also means "best of men", so it seems like a logical epithet of Vishnu's incarnation Narayana.

Is it possible that Ganguli (the translator) made an error, and that narottamam actually does refer to Narayana and not Nara?

Community
  • 1
Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
  • 1
    Narayana means Lord specifically the Supreme Lord. Best among men, or King, is Narendra. – Swami Vishwananda Nov 13 '14 at 10:31
  • You are saying sage Narayana was the previous birth of Krishna? If Narayana was incarnation of Vishnu then he must be ansh avatar, now if Krishna was purna avatar and sage Narayana = Krishna, then how did ansh avatar became purna avatar? – Pinakin Oct 27 '15 at 14:49
  • @ChinmaySarupria What makes you think Narayana was only an Amsha Avatara? – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 14:56
  • If he was purna avatar then he must be incarnated to do some big things. People hardly know him, if you ask to people who is Narayan, they will say he is Vishnu but if you ask about Sage Narayan, people hardly know about him. – Pinakin Oct 27 '15 at 15:02
  • 1
    @ChinmaySarupria That's just because Nara and Narayana lived in the Chakshusha Manvantara, so they're not as well-known now. But in ancient times they were famous. In any case, they did do big things. They defeated the Asuras after the churning of the ocean, they defeated Karna's previous birth Sahasrakavacha, they created the Apsara Urvashi, they originated the Pancharatra system, they revealed the Purusha Sukta, etc. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 15:09
  • @KeshavSrinivasan So being a purna avatar, he still didn't attain Moksha? – Pinakin Oct 27 '15 at 15:14
  • @ChinmaySarupria Well, the Shatapatha Brahmana of the Yajur Veda says that the sage Narayana became everything, which I suppose is a poetic expression for Moksha. In any case, incarnations of Vishnu have no need for Moksha, because they're not bound by Samsara in the first place; Vishnu descends to the Earth out of compassion for living beings, and he can enter or leave the world whenever he likes. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 16:29
  • @KeshavSrinivasan That's what I am saying, if he attained Moksha, then then that same being won't come again, Vishnu could take another incarnation. – Pinakin Oct 28 '15 at 02:34
  • @ChinmaySarupria Well, Narayana and Krishna may have shared the same sukshma sharira (the sukhma sharira is made of shuddha sattva rather than karma in the case of incarnations of Vishnu). – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 28 '15 at 03:12
  • @KeshavSrinivasan You mean astral body? – Pinakin Oct 28 '15 at 03:16
  • @ChinmaySarupria Yeah, the astral body or subtle body. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 28 '15 at 03:16
  • @KeshavSrinivasan The soul is only in astral body if karmas and desires are left, otherwise they progress one step further - casual body. – Pinakin Oct 28 '15 at 03:18
  • @ChinmaySarupria In the case of incarnations of Vishnu, neither the gross body nor the subtle body has anything to do with karma. They are shuddha sattva bodies. So Vishnu can remain in such a subtle body for as long as he likes and can depart whenever he likes. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 28 '15 at 03:21
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Well if both of them were purna avatars, both of them had nothing to do with karma, then how this can be said that Krishna was sage Narayana? – Pinakin Oct 28 '15 at 14:00
  • @ChinmaySarupria It can be said that they're the same if they have the same subtle body. Like I said, in the case of incarnations of Vishnu, the subtle body has nothing to do with karma, so it can remain in existence as long as Vishnu wants it to exist. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 28 '15 at 14:11
  • @KeshavSrinivasan If both of them have same subtle body then every other purna avatar since time immemorial is also the same. So why only sage Narayan is Krishna? – Pinakin Oct 28 '15 at 14:20
  • @ChinmaySarupria No, just because Narayana and Krishna share a subtle body doesn't mean all incarnations of Vishnu share a subtle body. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 28 '15 at 14:38
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Is it written somewhere that no one other than sage Narayana share the same subtle body as Krishna? – Pinakin Oct 28 '15 at 14:40

3 Answers3

4

The root words (namas) to consider here are nārāyaṇa, nara, devī and sarasvatī. All of them are used in the above verse in dvitiya(second case) serving as an object or as a qualifier to an existing object. Devīm is the qualifier for sarasvatīm. Now narottamam in the above case is applied to nara as a qualifier. I don't think it is a translation error while philosophical reasoning may differ.

Now, because of your great question I looked up previous acaryas commentaries. Indeed Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura (VCT), commenting on verse 1.2.4 of Srimad Bhagavatam (that is exactly same as this but one word differs in some editions and VCT addresses this below), says narottamam means Lord Sri Krishna. The Sankrit scanned copy of VCT and other commentaries is available here

One translation of VCT commentary (Sarartha-darsini) into English is done by Bhanu Swami (only hard copies available) and what I type below is from his book. So VCT says:

Having offered respects to guru, SUta offers respects to devatA, presiding deity, etc. Nara-nArAyaNa are designated as the presiding deities of this work since they have authority over the place. The devatA or subject of the BhAgavatam is KRSNa (narottamam). SarasvatI is the Shakti. The word ca indicates the RShi (sage) of the work, VyAsa. Some editions have the word vyAsam instead of caiva. That makes the meaning clear.

So, according to VCT, it seems Narayana and Nara refer to the presiding deities in Badikasrama where Vyasa first compiled Bhagavatam. Narottamam refers to Krishna and Devim to Sarasvati.

Say No To Censorship
  • 30,811
  • 17
  • 131
  • 257
srinivasacarya dasa
  • 1,966
  • 14
  • 17
  • Thanks for your answer! I'm not a Gaudiya Vaishnava, so I don't take Visvanatha Chakravarthi Thakura's commentary as gospel, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless. (I'm not sure I buy it though, because the Mahabharata is older than the Bhagavatam.) By the way, as far as the grammar goes, why is it that narottamam can't serve as a qualifier to the noun narayanam? Is it because of the proximity of the words? – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 13 '14 at 01:32
  • And by the way, another reason I'm somewhat skeptical is that the sort of document for which you would start out by listing a rishi, devata, shakti, etc. is a document consisting of mantras. But the Bhagavatam amd the Mahabharata consist of shlokas, not mantras. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 13 '14 at 01:50
  • @KeshavSrinivasan, for your first question, yes the location. – srinivasacarya dasa Nov 13 '14 at 03:19
  • @KeshavSrinivasan, on you speculation about the prayer it's strange how you brush things off! This verse of Bhagavatam is spoken by Suta Gosvami just before addressing the sages as a sort of mangalacarana and there is nothing unusual about it. – srinivasacarya dasa Nov 13 '14 at 03:22
  • Well, if Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura just meant that Ugrashrava is paying respects to various people he should pay respects to, that's plausible. (Although there's still the matter of the Mahabharata being older than the Bhagavatam.) But how I interpreted Thakura was that Ugrashrava was indicating things like the "rishi of the work" and the "shakti of the work", which is terminology usually used in the context of a Nyasam of a mantra. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 13 '14 at 04:36
  • As far as the grammar goes, are you saying that because the location of narottamam, it's more likely to be a qualifer for naram than narayanam? Or are you saying that it absolutely must go with naram as a matter of grammar due to its location? I ask because in Latin, if you have two nouns then an adjective doesn't necessarily have to go with the noun that it's closer to. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 13 '14 at 04:39
  • @KeshavSrinivasan, I meant the first part of what you said. If it absolutely must go with naram I wouldn't have cited VCT commentary. My intent was to show you an alternate interpretation to Ganguly on narottamam. Ganguly took it as a qualifier for naram where as VCT took it as a different word altogether. At the same time if it is qualifier then naram is more suitable due to location (may not be philosophically). Other discussion may be better for a chat session. – srinivasacarya dasa Nov 13 '14 at 08:19
  • Narayana also means one with an evolved nervous system – Amit Saxena May 19 '16 at 20:37
  • @AmitSaxena Where in the world did you get such an absurd idea? Hindu scripture is abundantly clear about the various etymologies of the word Narayana, and none of them involve a nervous system. – Keshav Srinivasan May 19 '16 at 22:59
  • @KeshavSrinivasan It need not be absurd just because you have not heard of it before. :) I am not talking from the point of view of Hindu scriptures, but from the point of view of Sanskrit etymology. The word nerve is derived from the root Nara. Although, I do not remember where I read it the first time. – Amit Saxena May 20 '16 at 10:35
  • @AmitSaxena Sanskrit is a divine language, and the etymology of Sanskrit words is discussed in great detail in Yaska's Nirukta. So I'm quote sure that Narayana has no connection to the nervous system. And in any case, the English word nerve comes from the Proto-Indo-European root (s)neu, which is connected to the Sanskrit word Snavan, not the Sanskrit word Nara; see here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nerve – Keshav Srinivasan May 20 '16 at 13:07
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Well, I will quote the reference if I find. Also, these Western etymological dictionaries are highly biased. They avoid acknowledging the Sanskrit root of most English words. – Amit Saxena May 20 '16 at 13:17
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Btw, where can I find Yaska's Nirukta? I downloaded one called 'Nighantu and Nirukta' but it does not have etymology of words. – Amit Saxena May 21 '16 at 10:58
  • @AmitSaxena Yes, "The Nighantu and the Nirukta" is the right book: https://archive.org/details/nighantuniruktao00yaskuoft And it does have etymologies, in fact etymology is the entire subject of the book. – Keshav Srinivasan May 21 '16 at 15:11
1

Here the extract from the Mahabharata tatparya nirnaya by Sri Madhvacharya for this verse from mahAbharata. Adiparva. 1.1

jayo nAmetihAso.ayaM kR^ishhNadvaipAyaneritaH | vAyurnarottamo nAma devIti shrIrudIritA ||

nArAyaNo vyAsa iti vAchyavaktR^isvarUpakaH | ekaH sa bhagavAnuktaH sAdhakesho narottamaH ||

upasAdhako narashchokto devI bhAgyAtmikA nR^iNAm | sarasvatI vAkyarUpA tasmAnnamyA hi te.akhilAH ||

kR^ishhNau satyA bhImapArthau kR^ishhNetyuktA hi bhArate ||

I shall proceed to narrate the (Bharatha) story called Jaya, after saluting Narayana, Sesha called Nara, Vayu who is referred as narotthama, the Devi (Universal mother Lakshmi), Saraswathi and Vedavyasa.

This Bharatha Itihasa composed by Krishna Dwaipayana is named Jaya. Vayu is called Narothama. Sri Lakshmi is described as Devi. The one and the same Lord is known both as Narayana and Vyasa in his two aspects of the author and the subject described. Vayu is the highest of the exponents of this work and next to him in this task is Nara. Devi is the goddess of prosperity to all jivas.

Saraswathi is the presiding deity over this work.

Therefore all of them named in the Bharatha as also the two Krishnas (Yadava Krishna and Vasishta Krishna), Universal mother Lakshmi/Satyabhama, consort of Lord Narayana/Krishna (Devi), Bheema and Arjuna (Nara and Narothama) Krishna (Draupadi) deserve to be saluted.

  • Does Madhvacharya give any reason why Narottama is a name of Vayu? I haven't heard Vayu referred to as the best of men before. By the way, out of curiosity, what sect of Vaishnavism do you belong to? Are you a follower of Madhvacharya? – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 13 '14 at 16:26
  • i am not a follower of Madhva sampradayam. But if you see as per madhvas, Bramha and mukhya prana (Vayu) are first servants of Lord and Goddess lakshmi. Also, if you see Mahabharata tatparya nirnaya, Madhva gives Bhima more importance than Arjuna, as bheema is amsa of Vayu.. ithink, that may be the reason for the definition, but i i am not sure # thanks# Krishna –  Nov 14 '14 at 06:06
0

As I begin the study of Mahabarata a few things come to mind in this opening passage...

It seems to me Vyasa is paying respect, saluting and acknowledging all the realms of God manifestation from Om down to individualized consciousness and through the fundamental energy (Shiva Shakti) that runs through all things.

Narayana is God in all pervading form or supreme purusha. Nara is all living entities, or individual purusha. Exalted male being is Shiva or masculine principle, consciousness. Saraswati is female principle, or energy, Shakti, prana.

By acknowledging all the realms of God manifested concsiousness then the Lila can begin. But with the held knowledge that all Lila happens inside God manifested and ultimately in God.

Ben C
  • 1