True Text of Mahanarayana Upanishad

[Guest guest]

 

At present, 2 different renderings of MahaNarayana Upa. are found - Andhra Pata and Dravida Pata.

 

There are differences in various lines and sizes of these texts.

 

Some differences are starking like those of Narayana Sukta and mantras for consecration of Linga.

 

The Dravida Pata does not have the mantras for consecration of Linga and the Narayana Sukta is read as :

 

"....devam aksharam paramam prabhum"

 

and

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sendraH, so(a)kshara parama svarAT" etc...

 

 

While the Andhra Pata contains the mantras on consecretion of Linga and Narayana Sukta is read as:

 

"......paramam padam"

 

and

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sa hariH sendraH ......" etc....

 

 

 

Now the question is : Which of these is the true Rendering?

 

The Advaitins of the present age follow the Andhra pata.

 

While VishishtAdvaitins follow Dravida Pata.(I don't know about the TattvavAdins as I have not met a scholar of that sect yet).

 

But the ancient Advaitins have followed only the Dravida Pata.

 

Anandagiri's TIka upon the vArtika on Sankara's BrihadAranyaka Upanishad commentary(3-7-3) says:

 

"na kevalam purANAgamAbhyAmeva so(a)dhigamyate| kintu srutyakSarairapItyAha etameveti| '''sahasrashIrSam devam vishvAksham vishwa shambhuvam| vishvam nArAyaNam devam aksharam paramam prabhum|''' "

 

 

From the above, it can be noted that Advaitins were following the Dravida pata in earlier days('paramam prabhum'). the Andhra pata is comparatively very new and has not been quoted/cited by ancient Advaitins themselves.

 

 

we can see some other proof as well. all such proof are from non - VishishtAdvaita sources.

 

Sayana a.k.a Vidyaranya was a great Advaitic Scholar who was a Sankaracharya of Sringeri peetam and he has written a commentary on Vedas.

 

Mahanarayana Upanishad forma the Tenth prapataka of Taittiriya Aranyaka and Sayana has written a commentary upon it.

 

Sayana Bhashya on Taittiriya Aranyaka has been published by Anandashrama press of Pune in 1898 A.D.

 

Sayana has followed only the Dravida Pata which is even today followed by Sri VaiSnavas.

 

In Narayana Sukta, the text reads as:

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sendras...."

 

note: 'sa hariH' is not there. hence it is a later addition made by some ViSnu dveSi and does not belong to the original text.

 

Sayana's commentary upon the above line reads as:

 

"brahmA caturmukhaH, shivo gowrIpatiH, indraH svargAdhipatiH"

 

 

 

Similarly, Bhatta bhaskara has also written a commentary on Taittiriya Aranyaka. In fact he is the oldest commentator on Vedas.

 

His commentary was published in Mysore Government's Oriental Library Series in 1902 A.D.

 

Bhatta bhaskara also follows only the Dravida pata.

 

once again, in Narayana Sukta, the text reads as:

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sendras...."

 

 

Bhatta Bhaskara'S commentary upon it is as follows:

 

"sa brahmeti dvipadA|

sa eva brahmA - sa eva sraStA, sa eva shivaH - rudraH, sa eva indraH - devarAjaH.."

 

 

 

Thus both the commentators follow the DRavida pata only. This is an ample proof in itself that Dravida pata is the original text of MahaNarayana Upanishad. also the Narayana Sukta,in particular, is also the same as the SriVaishnavas' rendering. This Narayana Sukta is an important basis for Srivaishnavas' philosophy as Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja says in his work - Vedartha samgraha.

 

 

Once again, the mantras for consecretion of Linga is NOT FOUND in the commentaries of these commentators keeping with Dravida pata. hence those mantras do not form a part of the Mahanarayana Upanishad.

 

the case ends there.

 

also, there is another glaring mistake in the Narayana Sukta of Andhra pata:

 

Andhra pata says:

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sa hariH sendraH, so(a)kshara parama svarAT"

 

now this Rk is in dvipadA gAyatrI chandas. each . must have only eight syllables.

 

but "sa brahmA sa shivaH sa hariH sendraH" has 11 syllables while "sa brahmA sa shivaH sa hariH sendraH" has 8 syllables.

 

It seems that the person(s) who meddled with the original text did not care about this. but this is a glaring defect as every Rk of Vedas will be in conformity with a particular chandas.

 

while the Dravida pata exactly follows the Chandas rules:

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sendraH, so(a)kshara parama svarAT"

 

here both the padas have exactly eight syllables each.

 

infact, the phrase 'sa indraH' is read as 'sendraH' by Veda PuruSa to abide by the Chandas rule or else there would be nine syllables in the .. Thus it is very clear from the above that Dravida Pata is the true rendering of Mahanarayana Upanishad. Let us follow the original text alone and not some text which is adulterated with human intervention.

 

(note:'sa indraH' is read as 'sendraH' by following the grammar rule:

"so(a)ci lope chetpAdapUraNam" )

 

 

[Guest guest]

Stop trying to dig the vedas till you get to interpret your view point. This is nothing unique to you. Sometimes we choose a subject with a strong bias and dig the internet till we find our own view point.

 

I want to hear of Bakthi, if you are good at it, but only Nitya leela. I care two hoots for the wasteful course one takes to reach nitya leela... the bhava, the pain, the yearning etc.

 

For example, I met in several of vishista advaitha schools of temples and satsang, so much negativity on nithya leela. 99.99% of time you hear cynicism from them to explain what nithya leela is not. There is little spirituality in the air, and nithya leela is the only one which illumines one with spirituality and render the other stages of bakthi and its course a complete waste.

 

You reach the Nithya Leela and meet a good guru, and you may be taught how to see the jivatma and paramtma are non-different.

[Guest guest]

 

Stop trying to dig the vedas till you get to interpret your view point. This is nothing unique to you. Sometimes we choose a subject with a strong bias and dig the internet till we find our own view point.

 

 

Are you afraid TRUTH will come out, proving advaitis are number one frauds even manipulating Srutis.