1

Hari-Hara abheda and Trimurti aikyam in ‘Narayaneeyam’

The famous work ‘Srimannarayaniyam’ of Melpathur Narayana Bhattathiri is well known for its
depiction of Krishna Bhakti. Even though the author is looked upon as an ardent devotee of Lord
Krishna of the Guruvayur temple, yet, he reveals that this Krishna is Nirguna Brahman in the 95th
dashakam of the work. We know this from the aikyam as mukti that he is talking about/praying for.
He is also saying that ‘Brahman alone became all the jivas, both Samashti and vyashti.’ All this is
admissible only with Nirguna Brahman and not saguna, formed, deity. See article here on this topic:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2111906648822685&set=a.697484646931566.107374
1827.100000101118270&type=3&theater

In the 90th dashakam, Sri Narayana Bhattatiri is delving on ‘Nishkala-Sakala’ Brahman. This
translates to ‘Nirguna-Saguna’ Brahman.

In the first verse of the 90th dashakam the author says:

http://www.narayaneeyam-firststep.org/dashaka90.html

O Supreme Being! The episodes of Vrikaasura, Sage Bhrigu, Thy

Mohini Avataar and the Ambareesha episode only prove, here,
that Thy majesty and superiority supersedes over all other deities
like Shiva and others.Thou are non-different from Thy Nishkala
(partless) form and Thy Sakala (part) forms like Shiva,
Brahamaa, and shine in an indescribable manner as the essence
of all.

The commentary’Bhaktapriya’ of Desamangalam Varya (DV) says:

 2

[The term ‘Paramatman’ indicates that it is Nirupadhika svarupa, also known as ‘nishkala’ svarupa.
The latter means ‘one without parts/differences’. All the forms seen in the sakala rupa of Brahman
such as Brahma, Vishnu and Girisha (Shiva) are the Paramatman’s (nishkala’s) forms alone.
…Brahma, etc. are only different forms/states of Vishnu. Therefore among Trimurti-s, the Nishkala
form is that of Vishnu alone. (the non-difference among the Trimurti-s is brought out by saying that
the Nishakala alone is appearing as sakala.]

The Sayana Bhashya for the Narayana Suktam says that the ‘Narayana’ of the sukta is not any murti
vishesha; the entity is not any particular formed god. He goes on to cite the Chandogya Upanishad
to say that the entity here is nirguna Pure Consciousness.

The next verse is introduced by the commentator thus:

Objection: According to a smrti statement ‘Thus, One Mahadeva alone by the guna-laden maayaa
appears to be different through the variety of names-forms-actions’ – the Trimurtis are only states
of Shiva alone and He alone is the ‘Supreme’ among the Trimurtis.

To this objection the reply is stated in the following verse with the purport // the difference (among
trimurtis and between Hari and Hara) is only in name and in the One that is behind the name, which
is the Truth, there is no difference//:
 3

Translation of the above Narayaniyam verse:

The Shaivaas speak of five aspects with Brahmaa Vishnu Shiva

Ishwara and Sadaashiva. Here Sadaashiva is Thy own self the
Supreme Being. Thou alone are Ishwara the Lord of Vaikuntha.
The three forms of Trinity, Thou alone assume in the three parts
of Satyaloka.
 4

The commentary clarifies: In the Shiva-pentad consisting of ‘Brahma, Vishnu……Sadashiva’, the last
one indicates the Paramatma svarupa, which is the same ‘Vishnu’ in the Vishnu-pentad (विष्णुं
पञ्चात्मकुं िन्दे ) where Vishnu is the Paramatman. You, Krishna (Vishnu), are the one that takes up
the Trimurti-form in the three divine loka-s, commonly called Satyaloka, constituting the Brahma,
Vishnu, Shiva loka-s.

The commentary cites a Harivamsha verse:

अहं त्वं सववग देव त्वमेवाहं जनादवन ।

आवयोरन्तरं नास्तत शब्दैरर्थैजवगत्रये ॥ (3.88.60)

[O, the all-pervading one, I am Thee, and Thou are me alone. There is no difference
between the two of us either by word or meaning in all the three worlds.]

[This above verse is cited by Shankaracharya in the Vishnu Sahasra Nama Bhashya] The Vishnu
Purana too has this kind of Hari-Hara abheda verse, there, uttered by Vishnu. [The above
Harivamsha verse is uttered by Shiva.]

In this verse Narayana Bhattathiri brings out the idea of Hari-Hara abheda and Trimurti aikya,
together. By admitting that ‘sadashiva’ and ‘vishnu’ are only different in names but the Truth (which
bears the name) is one only, the author accepts there is non-difference between Shiva and Vishnu.
The author brings out Trimurti aikya, once again, after the earlier verse, by saying that the One
Truth, called ‘Vishnu’, is assuming the three forms of the Trimurits who reside in the three worlds
within Satya loka.

Another commentary of the Narayaniyam, ‘Baalabodhini’ of Konath Krishna Variyar (KKV), too says:

[In the pentad-form applicable to both Shiva and Vishnu, the term ‘sadashiva’ in the former and the
term ‘Ishvara’ in the latter, both refer to Parabrahman, represented by the ‘Lord Krishna’. The terms
‘vidhi (brahma), hari and hara’ too refer to Sri Krishna alone.] Thus, the trimurti-s are actually one
entity alone appearing in different names/forms. This vedic idea is completely antithetical to the
bigoted Vaishnava set up. Only Veda Vyasa, Gaudapada, Shankara, Sureshwara and all other
Advaitins can accept this Veda-based concept. Anandagiri has stated in the Sureshwara’s Vartika
commentary that if Puranas state the three murtis are different, then, being only a subsidiary
pramana, with authority on the Veda, the former, purana, is a weaker pramana, durbala.

The third verse of this dashakam is introduced by DV thus:

 5

[If Vishnu and Shiva are non-different, then how is the supremacy of Vishnu being stated? Reply:
True, even though essentially there is non-difference (hari-hara), yet there is a guna-based
difference, and ‘high-low’ distinction between the two, hari and hara, does exist:]

Translation: The
form of Vishnu, among the Trimuti, is a
manifestation of pure Sattva. Brahmaa is the manifestation of
abundance of Rajas with a trace of Sattva. Whereas, Thy form
known as Shankara has an abundance of Sattva but Tamas
expresses itself in its activities.

The author accepts the trimurti abheda once again: He says ‘O Krishna, among Your three forms,
Your Vishnu form is saattvika, Your Brahma form is a manifestation of excessive rajas and Your Shiva
form is a manifestation of abundance of sattva and a little of tamas.’ From this it is clear that the
author holds the trimurtis as only guna-based manifestation of one Brahman, named here ‘Krishna’.
This is the idea present in the Vishnu Sahasra Nama names ‘Bhutakrit….’ etc. and Shankara’s
commentary there. Sridhara Swamin too, in the commentary to the Srimadbhagavatam, very clearly
says ‘brahma rupena, Vishnu rupena, rudra rupena…’ thereby stating that One entity alone takes
three forms. Only an Advaitin can say this openly that ‘One Brahman alone takes up various guna-s
to perform the, cosmic functions of creation, etc.’ Non-Advaitins are averse to this idea of the
absolute abheda of the trimurtis. The Vishnu Purana too has this concept.

Thus, there is nothing that even remotely suggests that there is a real ‘high-low’ difference between
Hari and Hara since it is one entity alone that bears the ‘high’ and ‘low’ guna-s. If someone wants to
hold Vishnu as Brahman, it is inevitable that that Vishnu assumes rajas and tamas also in the cosmic
functioning. It is impossible for Vishnu to avoid these two guna-s; for he will cease to be
jagatkaaranam without these two gunas also in his assumed forms. The Vishnu Purana explicitly
says that ‘when rajas in its ascendence at creation, Vishnu manifests as Brahma’ thereby teaching
 6

that rajas is a guna that Vishnu assumes. There are no separate entities called Brahma and Shiva and
Vishnu apart from that One Jagatkaranam Brahman. DV cites a verse here:

This only reiterates the Trimurti aikyam. One Unborn entity alone creates, protects and annihilates
by the instrumentality of the three forms/names/gunas. Actually that One unborn entity is even
beyond sattva as sattva is also a guna of prakriti and Brahman is completely untouched by prakriti:
gunatita, nirguna.

KKV says while introducing the next verse of Narayaniyam:

Objection: ‘Ishvara (in the Vishnu panchakam) is Vikunthapada, Vishnu’ is incorrect since there is a
powerful statement about Shiva, ‘Ambikapati Ishana, Shiva, is fit to be meditated upon by the guna-
forms. He is Ishvara, Paramatma, One only, by Maya He appears as three (trimurtis).’ Reply: Not so:

Translation: Thou
do transcend the Trinity and are the Supreme
Being. Thou are the essence of all and Shaivas worship Thee
alone as Shiva with worshipping norms, as described. That too is
Thy form alone. We have many proofs in support of this truth.
The author is of the firm view: That Supreme Brahman is the one that transcends the trimurti-s. The
Sadashiva whom shiva bhakta-s meditate upon is also the one that transcends the trimurti-s. It is
not that they confine their meditation to someone who is merely the cause of laya, annihilation, just
one of the three cosmic functions. On the other hand, their object of meditation is the one who
transcends the trimurti-s, verily Parabrahman. The author says that this Para Brahman of Shiva
bhaktas is verily Krishna, the Parabrahman that transcends the trimurtis. Similarly, the Vishnu that
 7

the Vishnu-bhaktas consider as Supreme is not the one who is merely the cause of sthiti,
preservation, but the one who transcends the trimurti-s. Thus, one can see the abheda at the
transcendent level.

The KKV commentary says:

The Supreme that transcends the trimurtis is Turiya. In Vedanta, the Turiya is not any person, with
form, attributes, etc. He is the Nirguna Tattvam of the Mandukya Upanishad 7th mantra. The
Supreme brahman of the Shiva Bhaktas is this Turiya. And this Turiya is Krishna for the author (and
Vishnu Bhakta-s).

Shankaracharya, in the VSN Bhashya, for the term ‘Keshava’ has given an
etymological meaning, alternatively, as ‘He under whose control exist
Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.’ It is this ‘Turiya Vishnu/Keshava’ that is
taught by Veda Vyasa in the Mahabharatha as "Satyam Satyam punah Satyam
Uddhrtya bhujam uchayate . Vedaat Sastram Param naasti na daivam
Kesavaat param" It is the Brahman beyond the Trimurti-s, Turiya,
Nirguna Brahman, called by the name ‘Keshva’ of the above etymological
meaning. Evidently, this ‘Keshava’ is non-different from Shiva and if
he is different he will be tainted by vastu-pariccheda defect and will
cease to be Brahman.

Continues the KKV commentary:

[Meditating on Parabrahman as Sharva (shiva) is quite in order. Even

this form of Shiva, as Sharva, is also of Sri Krishna alone, as there
 8

are several evidences for that. There are scriptural statements, etc.
for this.]

DV in his commentary enumerates a sample of the ‘evidences’:

Purushasukta, etc. teach that it is one Brahman (Sri Krishna) alone

appears as all other forms/gods, etc. There are Purana statements too.
The vishvarupa darshana that Arjuna, etc. had is also proof of Sri
Krishna being the Universal Purusha who is all the other god-forms too.

Just as Vishnu-Bhakta-s cite the above instances as pramana, Shiva

Bhakta-s too have their repertoire. The Atharva Shira, Atharva Shikha,
Shvetashvatara, Sri Rudram, Kaivalya, Jabala, etc. the host of Shiva
Purana statements that Shankara and Sridhara swamin have cited for
Shiva paratva, the Vishvarupa of Shiva that Rama beheld in the Shiva
Gita of the Padma Purana, etc. are some of these pramanas. There are
several upabrhmana-s, annotations, of the above texts in various texts
like the Mahabharata, Kurmapurana, etc. which explicitly or implicitly
say that the above texts are addressed to Shiva alone. That several
Vedic/Upanishadic mantras are applied to Shiva-paratvam is stated by
the Kurmapuranam by the term ‘shaankaraih mantraih’ by giving the
adjective of ‘shankara’ to the mantras.

From the statements of the Narayaneeyam that have been seen so far, we
understand that the author has no animosity or objection to Shiva
paratvam. This will be clearly expressed by him in the subsequent
verses.

The 5th verse of this Dashakam:

Translation:Bhagavatapaada Shree Shankaraachaarya also,

among all the Sakala forms, honours Thy form alone. He who is
not of the nature of favouring any one deity has commented on
the Sahasranaama etc., reffering to Thee alone. In the end he
attained samaadhi singing Thy praises.
 9

Contd…
Says the commentary of DV:

Sri Shankaracharya too, even though the Vishnu sahasra Nama and the
Bhagavad Gita could be explained as having Shiva as the Supreme
Brahman, did not do that but showed You, Krishna, alone as the Supreme.

The KKV commentary says:

// Even though Shankaracharya was born with Rudramsha he held You,

Krishna, alone among the formed entities such as Brahma, Vishnu and
Shiva, as the Supreme and even worshiped. He was not partial (to any
god). …though he was born with Shiva-amsha, he was free from Shiva-
Vishnu bheda buddhi.//

One can verify this by perusing the Vishnu Sahasra Nama Bhashyam where
he has cited innumerable verses from the Smriti, etc. to show Hari-
Hara, Trimurti aikya. He has cited the Kaivalyopanishad and said:
since the Upanishad teaches abheda across the deities Brahma, Shiva,
Indra, Vishnu, etc., all these names of Shiva, etc. are praising Hari
alone. Shankara’s prasthana traya bhashya too is evidence for his not
differentiating across deities such as Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra, Prana,
 10

etc. by endorsing that all these deities can be worshiped / meditated

upon as Para Brahman.

What has been stated in the foregoing that among the formed deities
Krishna (Vishnu) alone is the Supreme, is being elaborated in the next,
6th, verse:

Translation: In
his famous work of Mantra Shastra, known as
Prapanchasaara, Shri Shankara has described Thee as
transcending the Trinity - Brahmaa, Vishnu and Mahesh. He has
described Thee as a beautiful blue lily and the Lord of all. When
he describes the meditation on Nishkala, while dealing with
Pranava, he also propounds Thy Sakala form, and of no other
deity, Thee as the object of meditation.
KKV commentary:

The reference is to the mantra shaastra work called ‘Prapanchasara’ of Shankaracharya. Sri
Amalananda, the author of Kalpataru (a commentary on the Bhamati), has specified this work as that
of Adi Shankara and also cited a verse therefrom. When it comes to prescribing the Omkara dhyana
for realization of the Nirguna Brahman (Nishkala) Shankara has stated the saguna rupa of Krishna
(Vishnu). In fact in the whole work Shankara has prescribed meditation with elaborate
methods/rituals on a variety of deities namely Saraswati, Shiva, Dakshinamurti, Ganapati, Aditya,
Gayatri, etc., for attaining liberation. There is another special verse on Hari-Hara abheda by
Shankara in this work. It is in the last chapter 33, verse 5:
 11

This chapter is about the devotional practices to be followed to obtain progeny. There Shankara
says:

Those who do not worship the Lotus Feet of Hari and Shankara, those who censure their wives, and
those who are inimical to the world (society) and the gods…(will not have the blessing for obtaining
progeny.)

In the Prapanchasara itself Shankara is depicting Shiva as the Turiya, the progenitor of the Trimurtis.

Now, the 7th verse of this dashakam:

Translation: In
the text of Puraana Sangraha where there is the gist of
all the Puraanas,Thy supreme greatness alone is unequivocally
described. The Trimurti occupying the Satyaloka in three parts
has been depicted. But Thy abode, Vaikuntha has been described
as distinct and superior to and so transcending Satyaloka. No
reference is made to the abode of Shiva.
It is evident that the ‘abode’ that transcends the entire created realm, of which the Satyaloka is the
ultimate, has been named ‘Vaikuntha’. In the 95th Dashakam, the very first verse states that
Narayana Bhattathiri is aiming at the ‘aikyam’ with the Nishkala/Nirguna Brahman that is named
‘Krishna’. Just as in the Srimadbhagavatam, it is the Advaita mukti that is stated in the
Narayaneeyam. It is well known that in Vedanta, as Shankara has stated in the Mundakopanishad
Bhashya, that moksha is not going to any loka/abode but realizing one’s infinite nature which is
Brahman. Shankara has categorically stated there: ‘If moksha is becoming confined to a place, it is
inevitable that the Brahman there is finite, created, inert, perishable, etc. The Vedanta does not
teach such a Brahman.’ He has given the explanation ‘brahmaiva lokah brahmalokah’ [‘Brahman
alone is the loka’] Thus, specifying ‘Vaikuntha’ as the ‘abode’ transcending the created worlds, is
quite fitting for the Nishkala/Nirguna ‘Krishna’ that the author is holding as the Parabrahman, which
is beyond the ‘vishnu’ of the Trimurtis.

The eighth verse:

 12

Translation: O Lord! Here, at the time of Braahmakalpa, Thou had

revealed Thy form to Brahmaa, which is described in the second
Skanda of the Bhaagavatam. Maadhavaachaarya, who was
himself a votary of Shiva, has reffered to that same form with the
names Hari, Shiva etc., in Puraanasaara.
Even though the ‘Puranasara’ accepts that it was Vishnu that revealed Himself in His form to Brahma
at the beginning of the kalpa, from the fact that such ‘Vishnu’ has been named ‘Hari, Sharva (Shiva),
etc.’ the author of the Puranasara holds that Vishnu to be non-different from Shiva. Once again, this
Vishnu is not the one within the trimurtis but the one that is Parabrahman, admitted by Narayana
Bhattathiri himself in an earlier verse in this section itself as the one the Shiva Bhakta-s too hold as
being beyond the trimurtis as Parabrahman.

The next two verses are introduced by the commentary DA thus:

Objection: From the Puranic statements meaning ‘Vishnu, the protector (of the triad of cosmic
functions) is by himself taamasic but in his actions he is sattvic’, ‘Hari is verily subservient to (Shiva)’,
‘He (Shiva’s) whose Lotus Feet are borne on their head in reverence by Vishnu and Brahma…’ we
 13

find that Veda Vyasa himself is portraying Hari as of a lower order.’ The reply, expounded by the
next two verses of the Narayaneeyam, is based on the concept of ‘arthavada and nahi ninda nyaya’.

Translation: People
who by their natural inclination are devoted to
worship Shiva, for them, the results (liberation) are achieved by
their firmness in their devotion only. In the Skanda and other
Scriptures, sage Vyaasa has asserted this, for the benefit of such
devotees, with statements that belittle Thee which are to be
taken as eulogy.
The commentary continues:

By the maxim ‘Let one be devoted to that deity for which one gets a natural inclination’, owing to
one’s practices in earlier lives, one gets to be devoted to one or the other deity. In order to cater to
such a natural phenomenon, Veda Vyasa has devised the Puranas that glorify one deity and in the
passing appear to denigrate another deity. This is called arthavada and nahi ninda nyaya. The praise
of one deity is done at the cost of portraying another deity (that claims supremacy or attention) in
an apparently poor light. This is done in order to nurture the taste one has developed for one deity.
By doing this one becomes even more devoted and takes the devotion to its logical end: moksha.
Thus the idea is not to really put down another deity. Veda Vyasa has done this alone in the various
puranas that glorify one or the other deity extremely and in the passing show other deities as
subservient to the glorified deity. Thus, the statements/events showing Vishnu in poor light while
portraying Shiva in great glory (in the Skanda, Shiva, Kurma, etc. puranas) are not any real
denigration of Vishnu. This is the purport of the above verse. The ultimate, global, picture,
 14

however, is that it is One Brahman that appears as various deities. For those who are unable to grasp
that Ultimate reality, the conception of deities is resorted to by the Puranas.

The next verse:

Arthavaada has three methods- 1) statements where

Translation:
existing facts are exaggerated, 2)statements are in accordance
with experience, 3)statements are contrary to experience. These
are used to make the subject matter interesting. In the Skaanda
Puraana and other scriptures there are many contrary
statements, reffering to Thy Taamasic nature, Thy defeat or Thou
being instructed by others etc., which are in the category of the
third method.

The commentary DV explains:

Arthavada takes three forms: 1. Stating the facts. 2. Restating a fact by using non-contradictory
extolling. 3. Stating that which is contradicted by other pramanas. All these three methods are to
 15

enchant, allure a person to the cause that is being highlighted. In this scheme, that which has been
stated regarding Vishnu (as subservient to Shiva) is contradictory to other statements about Vishnu
while glorifying him in other puranas. This is done with a view to glorify Shiva as someone who is
venerated by even Vishnu. Certainly it is not to denigrate Vishnu. Hence the greatness of Vishnu, as
Krishna, whom the author is holding as Para Brahman, is by no way vilified.

What is to be especially noted is the extremely dignified way Narayana Bhattathiri handles this. He
is by no means, in complete contrast to bigoted vaishnavas, evoking the unvedic idea of ‘tamasa
purana’. This is because the idea of ‘tamasa purana’ cannot coexist with the shaastraic idea of ‘nahi
ninda nyaya’. The two are poles apart and will never meet. Those who, in delusion, subscribe to the
unvedic idea of tamasa purana have no right to invoke the nahi ninda nyaya. Sureshwara’s Vartika
that says ‘One Ishwara alone is spoken of variously as Hari, Brahma and Pinaki’ is explained by
Anandagiri by saying that the distinction among the three deities is not Vedic. If puranas try to show
they are absolutely distinct from each other, then such puranas are not pramana; they are durbala
pramana. Narayana Bhattathiri, who later in his life, composed a stotra on Devi ‘Sri paada saptati’ (
https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/a-vai%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%87ava-matures-into-a-
devi-bhakta/ ) emerges as an exalted Vishnu bhakta before whom the bigoted vaishnavite is
nowhere.

This is the most important lesson one learns from the Narayaneeyam. In fact Veda Vyasa has said in
the Mahabharata that the worship of Vishnu or Shiva leads to the same result:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/worship-of-shiva-or-vishnu-lead-to-the-same-result-
mahabharata/

The Taittiriya Aranyaka gives a list of ‘Gayatri-s’ that can be chanted with devotion by an aspirant
after moksha. Both the ‘Vishnu Gayatri’ and the ‘Rudra Gayatri’ are equally part of this list.

Om Tat Sat