7

The Venkatachala Mahatmya of the Skanda Purana describes how Venkateshwara (the Vishnu deity in Tirupati, AKA Balaji or Srinivasa) meets Padmavathi for the first time. He saves Padmavathi from an elephant, and when Padmavathi and her friends ask him who he is, he says this (from page 24 of this excerpt):

Those conversant with ancient traditions say that our family is that of the Sun. Our names are innumerable. They sanctify learned men. By colour and name the ascetics say that I am Krishna. My discus instills fear in the minds of the enemies of Suras and those who hate Brahmanas. On hearing the sound of my conch enemies become confounded. Even among immortal beings there is no bow equal to mine.

My question is, why does Vishnu say his "family is that of the Sun"? Vishnu is actually an ancestor of Surya the sun god, not a descendant; Surya is the son of Kashyapa, who is the son of Marichi, who is the son of Brahma, who is the son of Vishnu. So I don't see how it makes sense to call Vishnu a member of the family of the Sun.

There are two possible reasons that I see:

  1. He could be referring to his incarnation (avataram) as Vamana the dwarf, who is one of the sons of Aditi and Kashyap. (Surya the sun god is another one of the sons of Aditi.)

  2. He could be referring to his incarnation as Rama, who was a member of the Solar dynasty.

Can anyone shed light on what Vishnu meant?

Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853

1 Answers1

2

Lord Srinivasa uses the word Divakarakula. [Skanda Purana, Vaishnav Khanda, Venkatachalamahamatmaya, 4.47]

Divakarakula means "lineage/clan/dynasty of Surya". The translation provided in the question chooses "family" for kula, but it's more appropriately understood as "lineage", i.e. the Solar Dynasty or the Suryavanshi descendants of Ikshvaku. Lord Srinivasa is alluding to Lord Rama.

Consider that wherever the word kula occurs in scripture. In almost all of those cases, it's used in the sense of "vamsha", the greater clan or lineage, rather than the immediate family. The fruit of the Dinakarakula is Lord Rama. (Raghuveera Gadyam, Ramacharitmanasa)

Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
Valarauko
  • 1,303
  • 7
  • 12
  • This answer is just pure speculation. The whole point of my question was that I was unsure about whether family of the sun referred to Vamana, Rama, both or something else. So it does no good to say "some claiming Suryavanshi (Lord Vamana and Lord Rama)". I'm trying to find confirmation that that is in fact the reason that they're calling him a Suryavanshi. – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 01 '14 at 15:09
  • Well, now that you mentioned it, Lord Vamana would be an Aditya, but not Suryavanshi. The Solar race are descendants of Ikshvaku. – Valarauko Jul 01 '14 at 15:14
  • Well, technically the translation doesn't say even Solar Dynasty, it just says his "family is that of the Sun". He's one of the Adityas, who are considered solar deities, so someone might call the Adityas "the family of the Sun". – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 01 '14 at 15:17
  • I seriously doubt it. Adityas derived their name from Aditi, not the Sun. It's an awkward translation to turn Aditya into the family of the sun. I think the original text is required here. – Valarauko Jul 01 '14 at 15:19
  • The point is, I don't know for sure what family of the Sun is a reference to, so a good answer to my question would provide evidence confirming or refuting my guesses. It does no good to just say you agree with one or the other of my guesses. – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 01 '14 at 15:20
  • If you can read Sanskrit, here is the Venkatachala Mahatmya of the Skanda Purana: http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/puranas/skanda_purana/skanda_purana_02vaishnava_01venkata.pdf – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 01 '14 at 15:25
  • The text says "Divakarakula", which does mean family of the Sun. I can find no other reference to this phrase, but I do feel it refers to Lord Rama because:

    1. The list of Adityas (whether 12 or 8 or 7, depending on the text) don't include Lord Vamana. While he is a son of Aditi, I doubt he was ever referred to as an Aditya. One of the Adityas is Vishnu, but not Vamana.

    2. The only other time I find "Divakara" and "kula" occurring together is in the Raghuveera Gadyam, by Vedanta Desika, where he says "Dinakara kula kamala divakara" (the lotus opened by the Sun in the clan of the Sun).

     – Valarauko Jul 01 '14 at 16:22
  • Vamana is definitely an Aditya. When they list Vishnu as an Aditya, they mean Vishnu in his Vamana incarnation. Vishnu himself is not a son of Kashyapa and Aditi. – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 02 '14 at 08:07
  • The Srimad Bhagavatam clearly says that Vamana is an Aditya: http://vedabase.com/en/sb/8/13/6 – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 02 '14 at 08:15
  • It is simply not true that the Adityas who are solar deities are different from the Adityas who are the sons of Aditi. There are no scriptures that say anything like this. And when Krishna says "Of Adityas I am Vishnu", he means Vamana; see the purport here: http://vedabase.com/en/sb/11/16/13 In any case, if you take out those questionable assertions, I'm happy to accept your answer. – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 02 '14 at 21:25
  • 1
    I disagree with that purport. The text is sacrosanct, not the translation or the purport. In the latter SB verses I quoted, it specifically distinguishes the Adityas mentioned as Adityas of the solar disc. It makes no sense to say that Lord Vishnu among Aditi's sons is only Vamana, and then later call Mitra, Varuna, Indra, etc as non different from Vishnu as well. The purports from that canto that extensively describe the solar Adityas never mention Aditi. I stand by my assertions. In any case, I have devoted as much time and effort to this matter as I care to. Do as you see fit. – Valarauko Jul 03 '14 at 02:16
  • You didn't quote any verses from the Srimad Bhagavatam that distinguish the Adityas as Aditya's of the sun globe. The only place that phrase is used is in a purport. And it makes perfect sense to say that Vishnu took an avatara as Vamana, but to also say that the other sons of Aditi are manifestations of Vishnu in a deeper sense, since all created beings are: vanisource.org/wiki/SB_12.11.29. – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 04 '14 at 04:29
  • In any case, since your claims about there being two groups of Adityas have nothing to do with my question, would you object if I edited your answer myself and took all those assertions out? – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 04 '14 at 04:31
  • The point I'm making is that the word Aditya is used in two forms: as an adjective, "of Aditi", which applies to all sons of Aditi. In the Mahabharata, the Vasus are sons of Aditi, and are therefore Adityas as well. While Surya is the source of celestial light, the Vasus are the elemental activity & regulation of light & energy on earth. Indra, the Aditya, is chief of the Vasus, ie, he is the 'Vasu' of the Gods (Shatapata Brahmana 1.6.4.2). Surya, lord of planets, is also necessarily a Vasu (Shatapata Brahmana 11.6.3.6). – Valarauko Jul 04 '14 at 05:14
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Valarauko Jul 04 '14 at 05:21
  • Thanks for making the change! By the way, are you going to post the stuff about there being two sets of Adityas in a new question as I suggested? – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 05 '14 at 00:30
  • @KeshavSrinivasan 1/2 1. It is a mistake to expect literal references to many Hindu concepts.Almost all scripture, in addition to literal meaning,also have a "dhvani" with yOgic, tAttvic/vedAntic & mantra import which can only be explained by someone who has realised them through various methods including tapas and anushTAna 2.Specifically in this case, dinakarakula and its synonyms have always historically referred to Sun dynasty & Rama as the scion.vEnkatEswara also declared that his name is "Krishna". How would you reconcile that? –  Jan 14 '15 at 01:50
  • @KeshavSrinivasan 2/2 It is for point no. 1 that we need to tailor the rules of SE specifically for Hinduism and moderate this SE with some balance between adherence to rules and our own wisdom. –  Jan 14 '15 at 01:52
  • @moonstar2001 "It is a mistake to expect literal references to many Hindu concepts.Almost all scripture, in addition to literal meaning,also have a "dhvani" with yOgic, tAttvic/vedAntic & mantra import which can only be explained by someone who has realised them through various methods including tapas and anushTAna" Well, I'm more of a literalist than you are, but I agree that it's useful to refer to the commentaries and writings of acharyas and the like. But I still think that we shouldn't allow "recognized" people on this site to just spout off their opinion without references. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 14 '15 at 02:47
  • @moonstar2001 "How would you reconcile that?" I'd reconcile it by noting that Rama and Krishna are both incarnations of Vishnu. So Vishnu is referring to his various incarnations. This is consistent with how Venkateshwara is described in other scriptures as well; see my question here: http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/3143/36 – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 14 '15 at 02:49
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Correct. Therefore, divakarakula refers to Sun dynasty - the dynasty of rAma. –  Jan 14 '15 at 03:07
  • @KeshavSrinivasan I get your hesitation regarding recognized people but literal-ism is inadequate when it comes to higher order knowledge. Limiting oneself to its is a disservice to this SE and its intent. –  Jan 14 '15 at 03:08
  • "Correct. Therefore, divakarakula refers to Sun dynasty - the dynasty of rAma." Yeah I agree, that's why I accepted Valarauko's answer. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 14 '15 at 03:28
  • "I get your hesitation regarding recognized people but literal-ism is inadequate when it comes to higher order knowledge. Limiting oneself to its is a disservice to this SE and its intent." Let's seperate two different issues. I'm saying that I personally subscribe to a fairly literal interpretation of Hindu scriptures: I think the events of Hindu scripture literally occurred the way they're described. That doesn't mean everyone on this site has to rely on a literal interpretation of scripture. It's fine to give a metaphorical interpretation of a verse, as long as you provide sources for it. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 14 '15 at 03:32
  • @KeshavSrinivasan That is where you are mistaken. Metaphorical interpretations do not always have written /literal sources. That is exactly the meaning of "dhvani". –  Jan 14 '15 at 06:51
  • @moonstar2001 What I think should be discouraged is someone just giving his own interpretation on the site unsubstantiated by any references. Now on the other hand, if someone else has already given a metaphorical interpretation of the text, perhaps using "dhvani", then citing it would be fine. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 14 '15 at 07:14