By Shri Prasanna Tadipatri

Painting by Smt.Vani Rao, Baton Rouge,LA

Verse I:

OM | sahasrashIrShA puruShaH sahasrAkSha sahasrapAt |

sa bhUmim vishvatho vR^itvA.atyatiShThaddashAngulam ||

puruSha

sahasrashIrShA

sahasrAkSha

sahasrapAt

vR^itvA

bhUmim vishvataH

sa atyatiShThat

dashAngulaM

Meaning:

Verse 2:

puruSha evedam sarvam yadbhUtam yacca bhavyam |

utAmR^itatvasyeshAno yadannenAtirohati ||

Here is what Bannanje says, referring to works by Vadiraja & Rayaru:

purusha eva

idam sarvam

yadbhUtam

yaccabhavyam

utAmR^itatvasya

yadannena

Bhagavad Gita:





yasmAt kSharamatItoham aksharAdapi cottamaH |

ato.asmi loke vede ca prathitah purushottamaH ||

Meaning:

Moving on to the third verse





Verse3:

etAvAnasya mahimAto jyAyAMshcha pUruShaH |

pAdo.asya vishvA bhUtAni tripAdasyAmR^itaM divi || 3 ||

etAvAn

asya mahimA

ato

jyAyan cha

pUrushaH

asya

pAda

vishvA bhUtAni

asya pAda:

vishvA bhUtAni

asya tripAt

amR^itam

divi

Translation:

Verse4:

tripAdUrdhva udaitpuruShaH pAdo.asyehAbhavaatpunaH |

tato viShvaNG vyakrAmat saashanaanashane abhi || 4 ||

tripAt

Urdhva

udait

puruShaH

Raghavendra Swami gives the following meaning for the next part:

punaH pAdaH

asya

abhavat

iha

asya pAda

abhavAt

iha

puna

tata

vyakrAmat

viShvaNG

saashananaashane

abhi

Translation:

Verse5:

tasmAdvirADajAyata virAjo.adhi pUruShaH |

sa jAto.atyaricyata paschAdbhUmimatho puraH || 5 ||

tasmAd

virAD

ajAyata

virAjaH

adhi pUrushaH

[ajAyata]-

or this can be interpreted as follows (Raghavendra Swami's commentary)





virAjaH

pUrushaH

adhi

saH

jAto

atyaricyata

paschaat

[add sasarja

bhUmiM

athO

puraH

Translation:

Verse6:

yatpuruSheNa haviShaa devaa yajJNamatanvata |

vasanto. asyaasIdaajyaM grIShma idmaH sharaddhaviH || 6 ||





yat

puruSheNa

haviSha

puruSheNa

puruSheNa-

haviSha

devaa

atanvata

yajJNam

asya

Ajyam

Asit

vasanto

asya

idmaH

Asan

grIshma

asya

haviH

AsIt

sharat

Translation:

sharaNAgati, not physically throwing themselves in a sacrifical fire) as a

Verse7:

tam yajJNaM barhiShi praukShan puruShaM jaatamagrataH |

tena devaa ayajanta saadhyaa R^iShayashcha ye || 7 ||

ijyate yajvibhiriti yajJNaH

ijyate aneneti yajJNaH

tam yajJNam

tam yajJNam

agrato jaatam

puruSham

barhiShi

praukShan

tena

saadhya

deva

R^sayashcha

ayajanta

Verse8:

tasmaat yajJNaat sarvahutaH sambhR^itam pR^iShadaajyaM |

pashUntaamschakre vaayavyaanaaraNyaan graamyaascha ye || 8 ||

tasmaat yajJNaat

tasmaat yajJNaat

sarvahutaH

pR^iShadaajyam

pR^iShadaajyam

sambhR^itam

vaayavyaa

naaraNyaa

graamyaa

taan cakre

vaayavyaan

aaraNyaan

graamyaa ca

pashuun

Translation:

Verse9:

tasmaadyajJNaatsarvahuta R^icaH saamaani jaJNire |

chhandaansi jaJNire tasmaadyajustasmaadajaayata || 9 ||

tasmaat yajJNaat

sarvahuta

jaJNire

R^ca

saamani

chhandaansi jaJNire

tasmaat

yajuH

Translation :

Verse10:

tasmaadashvaa ajaayata ye ke cobhayaadataH |

gaavo ha jajJNire tasmaattasmaajjaataa ajaavayaH || 10 ||

tasmaat

ashvaa

ajaayata

ye ke ca ubhayadataH

gaavo-gacchatiiti gauH

ha

jaJNire

tasmaat tasmaat

ajaavayaH

jaata

Translation :

Verse 11 :

yatpuruShaM vyadadhuH katidhaa vyakalpayan |

mukhaM kimasya kau baahuu kaa uuruu paadaa ucyate || 11 ||





yat

puruSham

vyadaDhuH

katiDhaa vyakalpayan

mukham kim-

asya kau baahuu

kau uuruu

asya mukham kim ucyate

ucyate

Translation:

Verse12:

braahmaNo.asya mukhaM aasiidbaahuu raajanyaH kR^itaH |

uuruu tadasya yadvaishyaH padbhyAM shuudro ajaayata || 12 ||

asya

muham aasiikt

brahmaNaH

baahuu raajanyaH kR^itaH

uuruu tadasya vaishyaH

Verse13:

chandramaa manasaa jaatashchakShoH sUryo ajaayata |

mukhaadindrashchaagnishcha praaNaadvaayurajaayata || 13 ||

chandramaa

manasaa

jaataH

chakSho

suurya

ajaayata

mukhaat

indra cha

agni cha

praaNaat

vaayu

ajaayata

vaati aayuHpradascha

Verse14 :

naabhyaa aasidantarikSham shIrshNo dyauH samavartata |

padbhyaam bhUmirdishaH shrotraattathaa lokanakalpayan || 14 ||

naabhyaa

aasit

antarikSham

shIrShno

samavartata

dyauH

padbhyaam

bhoomiH

shrotraat

dishaH

tathaa lokaan akalpayan

The verses until now were in anushtup. The last 3 verses are Trishtup.

Verse16:

vedaahametam puruSham mahaantaM aadityavarNam tamasastu paare |

sarvaaNi ruupANi vicitya dhiiraH naamaani krtvaa.bhivadan yadaaste || 16||

veda

purusham mahaantam

aadityavarnam

tamasastu paare

tamaso maa jyotirgamaya

vicitya

sarvaaNi rUpANi--

dhIraH [puruShah]

naamaani krtvaa

aaste

abhivadan

Translation:

Verse17:

dhaataa purastaad yamudaajahaara shakraH pravidvaan pradishashchatasraH |

tameva vidvaan amR^ita iha bhavati naanyaH panthaaH ayanaaya vidyate || 17||

yam

dhaataa

udajaahaara

purastaat

shakraH

pravidvaan

chatasraH

pradishaH

yaH

vidvaan

tam

evam

iha

bhavati

amR^ta

anyaH

panthaaH

na vidyate

Translation:

Verse18:

yajj~nena yajj~nam ayajanta devaastaani dharmaaNi prathamaanyaasan |

te ha naakam mahimaanaH sacanta yatra puurve saadhyaaH santi devaaH || 18||

devaaH

ayajanta

yajj~naM

yajj~nena

taani

aasan

prathamaani

dharmaaNi

sarvadharmaan parityajya maamekam sharaNam vraja |

aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo moksha ishyaami maa shucaH ||

taani

aasan

prathamaani dharANmi

te

sachanta

naakam

ha

mahimaanaH

yatra

pUrve

saadhyaaH

devaaH

santi

Translation:

The Purusha Sukta is recited very frequently in pUja-s, and occupies a very prominent place, since it is found in the Vedas (both the Rig & Yajur), which are considered unauthored since though they have been meticulously preserved throughout India via an oral tradition, no author is associated with it. I'm going to try and translate it from Bannanje Govindacharya's book (which is in Kannada), adding some of my own comments along the way in a series of postings. PLEASE, if there is anything which is not right, do correct me.The Purusha Sukta appears in the Yajur and Rig Veda. Though there are small differences in stress and sandhi, and some verses occurring in different places, the sequence of syllables is the same in both. The 1st 15 mantras are in Anushtup Chandas, and the last is Trishtup. The Rishi is Antaryami Narayana who though dwelling within us is different from us. The devata is Narayana as well, and as we go one can see the unique attributes ascribed to Purusha in the Purusha Sukta with Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. The Rishi, Devata, and Chandas are important to know before reciting any Vedic Mantra.(note: there are stress marks on syllables which I have not put, so please consult a book or better yet, learn the recitation from someone who knows it--and I think there have been discussions on VedAdhikAra not being there for women)--man. It comes from either "puru sa", he who was there before (creation) or "pUrvameva Asa", he who is perfect. Either way it can only refer to Narayana.--thousand-headed. The head is the abode of various organs such as eyes, ears, nose etc. Narayana has infinite attributes, so this is the significance of saying thousand (infinite) heads. Also, just as the Shruti 'nEha nAnAsti kincana' says, there are NO differences here, meaning that though possessing infinite attributes, they are all the same.--thousand-eyes. Eyes are sense organs. Through them we are aware. Because Narayana is omniscient, the attribute 1000-eyes fits perfectly. Again 1000 stands for infinite.--thousand feet. Our feet are karmEndriya: through them we perform actions. Because Narayana is capable of doing anything, he has an infinite number of Karmendriyas.--having pervaded (although I think it can also mean 'grown', refer to the Nabhikamala part below)--bhUmi normally means earth, but here it means the whole (vishva) universe, including Lakshmi.-- he(Narayana) stands surpassing it.--10 fingers. Some translators take it literally and after saying that this being Purusha who possesses thousands of eyes, heads, and feet pervades the universe, being **10 finger's length** bigger than it!! This is absurd. Dasha like sahasra can stand for infinite, so he stands far beyond the universe. But there is also another meaning for this. The heart is 10 finger's length above the navel. He resides in the hearts of everyone, just like He says in the Bhagavad Gita (sarvasya cAham HRDI sanniviShto). Why the navel? Because that is where the Nabhikamala is (lotus flower in the navel) out of which the BrahmAnda (the primordial egg) came. This also justifies the meaning of bhUmi as universe as mentioned above, because the universe came out of the BrahmAnda.note:Also in the same Bhagavad Gita verse, Krishna says "Vedaischa sarvairahameva vedyo"--he alone is praised in all the Vedas. So it makes sense that Purusha refers to Vishnu, since the Purusha Sukta is from the Vedas.Narayana, bearing the name Purusha, possesses infinite attributes, has infinite jnAnendriya (sense organs) and infinite karmEndriya (action organs). He pervades the entire universe and stands far beyond it. Or He pervades the universe which 'grew' out of his navel (though the universe, being insentient, is distinct from Him) , and resides 10 finger's length above that, namely in everyone's heart.This is a much more sensible explanation than provided by most translators who simply look up words in a dictionary, without tying it in to other works, and even the work itself. Unfortunately a translation found in most places would describe some sort of 1000-appendaged man that's 10 fingers bigger than the earth!!! The next verse is a good example of what can go wrong when you translate without a commentary.A translation in one of my textbooks, which I *swear* am not making up goes like this:"The primordial man is all this whatever was there before and what is to be. He is the lord that stands beyond immortality and food (sacrificial food?) "Aside from whatever significance "standing beyond food" has, just look at it: the first half says that Purusha is the SAME as everything, then the second half says that he stands BEYOND food--a total contradiction!! I'm sure that scholars analyzed the scriptures to give the intended interpretation and prevent disasters like this!--only Narayana **atyatiShThat**--stands beyond. Take this from the previous verse, NOT IshvarajaDa aikya: identity between God & matter!!!--everything--that existed--and that which will existDoesn't it make more sense for Purusha (one who is perfect & was there before creation) to be BEYOND everything in the past & future, rather than the same as everything? Still this is probably the (Advaitic) interpretation given by most 'scholars'.--and even for moksha (or those who are immortal--gods, or Lakshmi) IshAnah --he is the controller. In other words it is only through Narayana that one attains moksha, as Krishna says "aham tva sarvapApebhyo moksha ishyAmi mA shucaH" (I don't think I spelled that correctly, sorry). Or you can say that he is 'Shrisha', the lord of Lakshmi. This specifically ties in to a verse from the Bhagavad Gita, as I'll mention later.--and likewise for 'anna', that which gets destroyed, the souls. Not food, but souls are referred to as anna here since their bodies get destroyed, as EVERY soul undergoes samsara, even those in Moksha had their bodies destroyed. 'annena' means annam. Apparently this usage is there in Kannada as well: "Martyavannu dhATi achegiddane" means the same as "Martyadinda dhATi achegiddane". Unfortunately I don't have a clue as to what either of those mean, but Bannanje says that "with Anna" can mean "for Anna"Atirohati --standing beyond them he controls them (both amrtatva & anna, that which does not get destroyed and that which does get destroyed)This is almost the spitting image of the verse from Chapter 15 of the"Since I(Krishna) am superior to that which is *indestructible* and that which is *destructible*, i am known in the world and the *vedas* as the highest *Purusha*."amR^itatva & anna, given the meanings above, match the akshara & kshara in the Gita verse. Plus the word Purusha is used and a reference is made to the Vedas. And of course, even if you tried you probably could not give an Advaitic interpretation to either the verse from the Purusha Sukta OR the verse from the Bhagavad Gita. Why call Lakshmi as amR^itatva or Akshara and ordinary souls as anna/kshara? Because unlike other souls which get 'destroyed' in the sense that though their soul itself doesn't get destroyed, the physical body that they're in does (because they are or were in Samsara), Lakshmi is nityamuktaLu, forever free from Samsara.Vishnu [stands beyond ] everything that existed before and will exist (meaning He possesses infinite attributes, and is unlimited with respect to space & time). He is the lord of that which does not die (Lakshmi--no svarupanAsha, destruction of the body) as well as other souls (which do undergo svarupanAsha). Being above both He controls them.It might seem strange that "standing beyond" is repeated so often, but still it shouldn't surprise us--there's an entire school of philosophy which whereas its followers recite the Purusha Sukta, it upholds a philosophy which is exactly the opposite of what's in the Purusha Sukta!!Also, though Western scholars claim that the Bhagavada Gita teaches a different philosophy from the Vedas, and the Purusha referred here is not the same as Krishna referred there, I hope the various connections made show that both the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita match up.The infinitude of Purusha (Narayana) (verse I) and overlordship of Vishnu over Lakshmi, jIva-s, and the universe (verse II) have been described.The first few words can be interpreted either as a statement or as a question which is immediately answered--all this--is the glory of him (Narayana)--thus or futhermore--and/only the highest"All this is the glory of Narayana, thus only He is the highest"or"Is the glory of Narayana just this? No, He's also the highest"--purushottamaH, the supreme being, paramAtama=Vishnu. The 'u' is lengthened for emphasis. This is done in Kannada as well, bahAALa has a stronger meaning than bahaLa.Now, some translators saw the pAda & tripAda and proceeded to divide Purusha into quarters. So their meaning goes along the lines of "1/4 of Purusha is all beings. The remnants of Purusha, ie, 3/4 consists of immortality & the heavens."As usual not only is the translation absurd, but "chopping up" the supreme being into fractions is a grave injustice, as well as equating Narayana with both jaDa and jiva. Clearly, a better meaning is needed.Bannanje Govindacharya gives the following meaning, in accordance with commentaries by Dvaita scholars.--Purushasya/Narayanasya: Narayana's--a fraction, in the sense of bhinnAmsha. This is similar to comparing a drop of water to a river. They both share similar properties yet are totally distinct from each other.--the beings in the worldThis again matches up exactly with a verse in the Bhagavad Gita "MamaivAmsho jiva loke jIva bhutaH sanAtanaH". All the beings are amsha-s of me (Krishna), meaning they are *bhinnAmsha-s*. Though separate from Narayana, they are fractions of him in the sense that compared to Him, they are so insignificant (bringing out the infinite nature and the supremacy of Krishna/Purusha). Why can't we take pAda or amsha as a fraction, literally?Because according to verses like "pUrnAmadaH pUrnamidam..." any portion of perfection is perfection itself. So if the souls themselves such as you and me are portions of a perfect being, then we too must be perfect (and have attributes like infinite indriyas and being the controller of Lakshmi!) , which we clearly are not!! One does not even have to go that far. If we look at the previous pAda, the word "jyAyAn" which (I believe) is a comparative adjective. It says Purusha is **higher**. If He is identical to jIvas, then where is the question of higher and lower?Clearly pAda/amsha cannot mean a part of Purusha/Krishna LITERALLY. It means a fraction in the sense that though all these other beings are beginningless and endless and possess awareness, bliss, will,etc, compared to Purusha/Krishna who is like a river, we are like a drop of water (not part of the river but distinct from the river).or another interpretation:one form of Narayana [asR^ijat] : created (add this word)--the beings in the worldSo one form of Narayana created all the beings in the world.You can also take pAda in different cases: pAdena, pade--All the beings were born by one form of Narayana or all the beings reside in the form of Purusha. You can even equate bhUtAni with Narayana: "sR^iShtisthityAdi hetudvAt bhUtAni harirucyate" since He is the cause and preserver of the various beings(though He didn't create beginningless entitities), he can be called bhUtAni, just the way if a mother allows her child to unlock the door/give the money to a storeowner, etc. even though it is done through the child, it's true that only the mother is doing that.--His (Vishnu's) 3 forms which are identical : Naryana, VaikunTha, VAsudeva. I don't know why only 3 forms are referred to here.-- eternal, without destruction--are in the heavens ( svarga? moksha?)All this (mentioned in the previous 2 verses) is his glory, thus Vishnu is supreme. Or is this all this the glory of Vishnu? No, he's also the supreme. All the beings of the world are like fractions compared to Him (metaphorically) or all the beings were created through one of His forms. Purusha's 3 eternal forms are in the heavens.Could someone possibly elaborate on these forms which are in AnantAsana, shvetadvIpa and vaikunTha and the significance of these 3 in particular?TripAt is again mentioned in the next verse: Purusha possessing 3 forms.--Purusha possessing 3 forms, as mentioned earlier--as jyAyAn, the highest.--shines forth. Even though it's in the past tense, it should be takencas being true for all time. This is because there are no such time restrictions to the attributes of Narayana; they are co-eternal with Him.-- Vishnu, the puruShottama--another form--of Purusha-- is worshipped by people of all 4 Ashrams (stages in life: youth, bachelorhood, householder, forest-dwelling)--in the Sun , vaishvAnaraloka (which is near Indraloka), in the Meru mountain, and in DhruvalokaI don't understand this meaning, because I haven't heard of half of those places. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on this as well?The straightforward meaning given is:--His form--is controlling. (abhavAt is used for abhavat for emphasis.)--here, among the souls--and also--exists everywhere (does tata mean everywhere?)--He controls--the souls in the world, those below Him--saashana means those who eat. anaashana means those who don't eat. This can either mean sentien beings who do reap the fruits of their actions and insentient beings that don't. Or it can alsomean those unliberated who reap the fruits of their actions and those who are liberated, who are no longer bound in samsara.--everywhere (I know abhi means toward, but I don't know how it means everywhere)Narayana, who possesses 3 forms(in the heavens, in the previous verse), shines forth as the supreme. His form exists among all the souls (as antaryAmi) controlling them or he exists being worshipped by people of the 4 Ashrams in 4 locations. He is also omnipresent. He is the controller of both those below him that eat the fruits of their karma and those that don't (either jiva and jada or amukta & mukta)Now, the process of Creation from Purusha is described.(in the book, there is no avagraha, but shouldn't there be an avagraha after jaato & virAjo?)--from Him (Purusha, Vishnu)-- the BrahmaanDa, primeval egg, from which all creation arose. Perhaps this ties into the Western idea of the whole universe being created out of the Big Bang: all the galaxies of stars were once packed in a brilliant ball, then it spread outward--was born, arose[virAd can also mean Caturmukha Brahma. So from Purusha, Brahma arose as well. ]Now according to Dvaita Siddhanta, Vishnu is only nimittakAraNa, not upAdanakarana. That is when we say He is the cause of the universe, He is not the physical substance out of which the universe was transformed, but only the efficient cause, the being that enabled this to happen. Obviously an insentient and finite Brahmanda cannot be the same as the sentient and infinite Vishnu! And when it is said that Brahma arose, it neither means that Brama's Atma was created, nor that part of Vishnu became Brahma (souls are anAdi and being Brahma is a position which in each kalpa is occupied by the Vayu from the previous kalpa). I'm not sure what it means exactly when it is said that Brahma was born from Vishnu. Can someone expound on this?--from the Brahmanda--the supreme among all souls, Brahma. Though we say Vayu sarvottama, he is only the supreme among all souls except Vishnu, Lakshmi, and Brahma (and also the Brahma-s and Vayu-s from previous Kalpa-s?).-was born.--from Brahma-- Vishnu--adhika, supreme. That is in Brahma, Vishnu's sannidhAna or special presence is the greatest.There is also one other interpretation, where pUrushaH can be interpreted as Vishnu, virAD as Brahma, and adhi as Shiva (since he is higher than the devas). Thus Brahma & Shiva both arose from Vishnu (again, I don't understand what this means, whether their physical bodies are created or whether these 2 worthy souls are given the position of Brahma & Shiva)--he, this refers to Chaturmukha Brahma, not Vishnu--having been born--stood above [other beings, except Vishnu]--afterwards, after creating other divine beings--created]--the world--and--the bodies (of the various beginningless souls)or, without sasarja, one can interpret this as after having been born, Brahma stood above the world and the bodies of souls (or the various worlds).puraH is given as both bodies & worlds. The point to be emphasized here is that even that Brahma, who is far superior to ordinary souls, the world around us, etc. , even he arose from the Brahmanda that Vishnu created (thus Vishnu is far superior to even Brahma) .From Purusha (Vishnu), the Brahmanda, or cosmic egg, arose. From the cosmic egg, Brahma, who was supreme among all beings, arose. [or add Shiva arose from Brahma] . After having been born, Brahma stood above the world and, afterwards, the bodies of the various souls (or Brahma subsequently created the earth and the various worlds)the next verse is very cryptic:This verse refers to puruShamedha, which is translated by modern scholars as human sacrifice, but this is absurd in a society where even animals are treated with respect!! Though human sacrifice does exist in some remote corners of India it can't be sanctioned by the Vedas, and it is EXTREMELY inappropriate in this context (since all the previous verses talk about the greatness of Purusha, and the process of creation is being described).puruSha refers to ourselves. We 'sacrifice' ourselves to Him in the sense that we dedicate our actions to him. This is the kind of sacrifice that is referred, a mental state, where we understand who is the real motivating force behind our actions (clearly, I cannot make matter, my body, move as per my will. Another superior force is needed. And my body being insentient, cannot know I even exist, let alone move my various limbs as per my will!!) So we must sacrifice ourselves (not literally!!), in the sense that without acting selfishly we dedicate our actions to the real Doer that's behind everything.This is just my interpretation , I don't know if it's right. Can Purushamedha mean PuruShaaya medha? A sacrifice for Purusha? That is we dedicate our karma to that being who is pUrna, who was there before--Vishnu.Is this a valid padaccheda?--when--by their form. Here puruSha refers to the forms of the various deities, that, continuing what was mentioned in the previous were created by Brahma.--by means of sacrificial offeringor--Vishno prasAdena-- through the grace of Vishnu-by each deity's form.--by means of sacrificial offering--the deities--performed--this mental sacrificeSo this describes how the divine beings understood Narayana as the cause and motivation behind their actions and they offered themselves to him, as a form of worship. then, when they did this:--the sacrifice's--thuppa, ghee--was--vasanta rtu: spring.--the sacrifice's--sticks--were]--grIshma rtu: summer.--the sacrifice's--sacrificial offering--was]--sharadrtu-winterAt first glance, there appears to be no connection between the seasons and the sacrificial implements. But there is a symbolism behind this. In spring, the fresh grass is eaten by cows, which then produce milk.Since ghee is made from milk, this part of a sacrifice is associated with spring. In summer, the trees grow rapidly (in the Kannada book, it says, paseyingi besageya, 2 words I've never heard of). Thus sticks are associated with summer. Finally, after the crops are harvested, and their sold, when winter approaches, a household is full of wealth acquired throughout the year. Thus one can offer a lot during the sacrifice. So sacrificial offering is associated with winter.These 3 seasons are mentioned because they are the times when a sacrifice should be performed (not during Varsha rtu? What is the significance of this?). Again, it is to be emphasized that a MENTAL sacrifice is what is being discussed. It is simply metaphorically compared to an actual sacrifice.What is the significance of these deities surrendering themselves to Vishnu (offering themselves as a sacrifice in this type of maanasika yajna)?It's intended to show that we too must realize that since we were created by Vishnu, since Vishnu is the only Indpendent preraNa, cause, for all our actions, we too must perform this type of Nishkaama Karma. Rather than performing actions with selfish motives, we must surrender ourselves to Vishnu, and though still performing our duties, they should be done with a clear understanding of the Independant cause behind all of it--Narayana.When the deities created by Brahma offered themselves (in the sense ofsacrificial offering (havis) in their mental sacrifice, then the sacrifice's ghee was Spring, the sacrifice's sticks were Summer, and the sacrifice's offering was Winter.I had hoped that there would be some discussion around what I had posted, especially since I had posed some questions (myself, not the book). Perhaps I should distinguish the rhetorical questions asked in the book from my own doubts. I'll put an asterisk before my own questions, in hopes that someone can answer them, or at least discuss them.After associating parts of the mental yajna with different seasons, *What significance do the seasons (and only 3 of them) have to do with sharaNaagati? the Purusha Sukta continuesyajJNa can mean 2 things in this verse, either Vishnu or that which issacrficed, depending on context. The etymologies are:-- he who is the object (Vishnu) of the sacrificers.--the item (pasu) by which sacrifice is done[can someone verify the translations of the 2 etymologies? it's not given in the book. thanks]--to that YajJNa puruSha, Vishnu--the sacrificial (symbolic) item--Brahma's 1st son:--here this means Shiva, not Vishnu, that is Shiva was thesacrificial item--in the mental sacrifice mentioned earlier--'prokShaNe' was done, that is, water was sprinkled on Shiva and he was purified.Except, again since this is a mental sacrifice done by the gods, water was not sprinkled, but mantras, symobolizing water, were 'sprinkled' on Shiva, thus making him purified, similar to the way in which during a pooja, water is sprinkled on the prasaada, the guests present, etc. making them pure.agrato jaatam can also refer to the first being created, Brahma, who was also purified by the mantra-s. **so does this mean that that the various deities were reciting mantra-s addressed to Vishnu to purify themselves?--then (I don't know why this meaning is given for "by him")--those fit for being created (that is given form) and doing saadhana:--deities--and sages--performed the mental sacrifice, from the root yaj.ye--??? (sorry, Bannanje doesn't give any meaning for this, and I don't knowhow 'those who' ties into this)Here's my best effort at decrypting the Kannada translation of the Sanskrit text:During this mental sacrifice (I imagine instead of physically happening), starting with the first-born Brahma (or Shiva), each deity and sage offered themselves to yajJNanaamaka paramaatma (Narayana), using themselves as the sacrificial animal. They became purified by prokshaNa in the form of reciting mantras. By sacrifice, what is meant is total surrender to Vishnu, in the sense of Sharanaagati. That is, they understand that everything they possess, they owe to Narayana. Out of spontaneous devotion they do this sort of mental yajJNa addressed to Narayana.**The translation in the book seems to indicate that each deity offered _some higher_ deity as sacrifice. Why would they offer someone else as sacrifice? What does this mean? Shouldn't each deity/seer offer himself asan act of devotion?[note that is not a typo: it is pashUntaan, NOT pashUnstaan, because of Vedic grammar--of which i know nothing about]Now, yajna can either mean yajJNA puruSha NaarayaNa or the common meaning of the word--sacrifice--from Narayana, since it is from Him that everything functions,--from that sacrifice--in which everything was offeredThere are 2 meanings for pR^iShadaajyaM-- yogurt & thuppa. Vadirajaru clarifies the meaning of this.Thuppa stands for jiiva-s, sentient souls. Yogurt stands for jada, insentient matter.**Why this derivation for thuppa & mosaru? Any thoughts?-- another meaning for pR^ishad is deer.aajyam can be interpreted as a collection of aja-s, or goats. So taken together, wild animals and tamed animals, which for human purposes are the 2 classifications of the animals around us.--arose. In other words, the living and nonliving entities became manifest, or wild & tamed animals were created.depending on how you split up the vaayavyaanaaraNyaa,--the animals that go by 'vayu' air, ie, birds--the animals that live in the water, such as fish--those animals that are household, tamed--all those above were createdor--the beings in whom Vayu is present:--those dwelling in the forest, ascetics--householders, those of us like you and me--creatures, here humans.ye--???From that sacrifice arose what was sacrificed. If you remember from a previous posting, thuppa & mosaru were offered into the fire, and they came back. Except the meaning is different. Before it stood for the various seasons. Now it stands for the result of the deities & sages' sacrifice to Vishnu--either creatures both tamed and wild, or the world around us consisting of sentient and insentient beings. All this arose from yajJNanaamaka paramAtma. Out of Vishnu's being pleased with the sacrifice, souls were given bodies of flying and marine animals, as well those around our household.Interesting note: when we say Vishnu was pleased with the sacrifice, it is not that he gains something from _others_ worshipping Him. In fact He is the antaryami who makes even those sages & deities perform the sacrifice! So in a sense it is all just leela, or play for him. Of course, since He is just, He will allow souls to do saadhana. That is the purpose of creation--not some arbitrary whim after waiting around for an infinite period of time as in Judeo-Christian theology, but enabling beginningless souls (who exist under the controlling agency of Vishnu) to each do their saadhana as per their nature. It is just that He chooses to do it this way through deities doing maanasayajna, so that again, those souls can earn the merit of propitiating Vishnu.In the previous posting the fruits of the maanasika yajna done by the deva-s were described. Remembering that yajJNa can mean the sacrifice itself (a sort of sharaNaagati, surrendering themselves), or yajJNa naamaka paramaatma.--from that being known as yajJNa (Vishnu)--whatever was offered (the ingredients for the sacrifice--milk, butter, curds)--aroseor, sarvahuta can be taken as an adjective modifying Vishnu "he to whom everything was offered". In the case, what arose follows:-- Rig Veda hymns, as well as the bodies of the abhimani devata-s for these hymns--Sama veda hymns, as well as the bodies of the abhimani devata-s [jaJNire--arose.]It's interesting to note that what is meant by the Rks and saamans is not just the actual mantra-s but the deity associated with them. And of course, since they're anaadi, by arose, it is important to understand that they became abhivyakta (manifest ?). But unfortunately, Bannanje doesn't give any scriptural support for this interpretation: I would certainly be interested in seeing them.*My question is: if they're always there, then what is meant by becoming 'abhivyakta' or i think the equivalent 'manifest'? Aren't the words in the Veda-s eternally the same? Can someone shed light on this?--the Chandas (meters) as well as their abhimani devata-s arose. These meters are 7 in number: gaayatri, ushnik, anushtup, brhati, pankti, triShtup, and jagati. The abhimani devata-s for them are respectively, the wives of Agni, Surya, Chandra, Brhaspati, Mitra- Varuna, Indra, and the wives of all the demigods (jagat means world, so this sounds appropriate for jagati chhandas).Each meter consists of a particular sequence of light & heavy sounds (laghu & guru). A light syllable consists of either a short vowel or consonant followed by a short vowel, *provided* the next syllable is not a conjunct consonant. A heavy syllable is anything else. So for example in the word:naaraayaNa, the 1st 2 syllables are 'guru', and the next 2 are 'laghu' light. In the word 'agni', both syllables are heavy='guru'. Because the Indian writing system is based on syllables and combining vowels & consonants, it is easy to pick out the 'guru' and 'laghu' sounds. Still, considering the very rigid rules for Chandas as to which syllables are laghu & guru, as well as the complex nature of Sanskrit grammar, it is amazing to see such vast quantities of poetic literature, and that too dense philosophical literature in meter!! The most widely used meters are anushtup and trishtup. In the Bhagavad Gita, for example, Anushtup occurs for most of the verses, but the longer verses are in Trishtup. Gayatri chandas is used in Sandhyavandana for the gaayatri mantra (Gaayatri chhandah praaNaayaame viniyogaH...)--from Vishnu. That is, this emphasizes that it is through Vishnu that all these abhimaani devata-s obtained their bodies, as well as these hymns, meters, became available to us.--yajur Veda hymns. Surya is the abhimani devata for these ajaayata-arose. Again, since the Veda-s are not paurusheya=authored, they arose in the sense that they became available, or hopefully someone can clear this up later --"became manifest"Even Western scholars do agree that the Veda-s have been preserved meticulously by word of mouth; that is, nothing has been lost Thus it seems extremely unlikely that there were composers for the Vedas, but somehow later, they were "forgotten", even though the entire work was preserved. Since we have works which are taken as a standard authority (if they were authored, they would reflect the author's opinions), and we don't have an author, there's no need to assume the existence of them.There is a reference in the Vishnu puraaNa "R^NGmaya saamamaya, yajurmaya", saying that Vishnu is made of all these Vedas. I think there might be some connection between the manifestation of the Vedas in the Purusha Sukta, and references to Vishnu consisting of these hymns.*Can someone elaborate on this? What does it mean when it is said that Vishnu is *made of* these Vedas?From that yajJNapuruSha (that is, through His grace and His power, but not physically from His body!), to whom everything was offered, or alternatively, all the sacrificial ingredients used were created (milk, butter, curds--though all these come from a cow, he created those cows and enables such ingredients to be produced the way they are), the Rig, Saama, Yajur Veda-s all became manifest. Also, the Abhimani devata-s obtained their bodies due to Vishnu. The 7 types of meters or Chandas were produced, as well as the wives of the demigods who are the controlling deity of the meters.Next, creation of animals is described:--from Vishnu--horses (aashu vaati gacchatiiti aashuvaH --that which serves as a vehicle when we want to go fast is a horse--considering supersonic jets, concordes, and the like weren't around then)--were born--as well as those with teeth on 2 sides. Apparently this applies to the following animals as well. I don't quite understand the significance of this...--that which goes is a cow. (sidenote: go and come in English sound similar to 'gam'= go in Sanskrit. To say come in Sanskrit, you add the prefix aa. aagamana = coming. It's really strange that 2 languages so far away on a map sound similar, and this has puzzled many historians, in fact to the extent of coming up with the notion that Indians came from near Europe!!)--indeed--were born--repeating a word means emphasizing it. Here it should be known that all these creatures came from Vishnu, and Vishnu alone.--goats and 'kuri's whatever that means in Kannada. I'm really bad at naming animals in Kannada, so if anyone can tell me what is meant by kuri, I would like to know.-were bornOne can also interpret the creation of cows as the creation of revered animals such as kaamadhenu.Here various types of animals (all only mammals--I wonder why no other types of animals are mentioned?) are being created from Vishnu. All these animals are used on a regular basis in India, so in recognizing who made them, we should feel grateful. All the animals mentioned here have jaws: teeth on 2 sides. Horses, cows, goats, and 'kuri's were created. As mentioned earlier, the souls in them are anaadi, it is only the bodies that are created.In the previous verse, the creation of household and forest-dwelling animals was mentioned. The creation of all the different kinds of animals found today and those long-gone are not mentioned, but it seems as though only the animals found commonly in India are mentioned(cows and horses).Now, the creation of humans is described.In this mantra, Narayana himself (remember, also the Rishi for the PurushaSukta) answers the questions posed by the devata-s worshipping him.--when- that Purusha Narayana--was meditated upon (by the devata-s in the maanasa yajna that happened at the time of creation, who were themselves created by Narayana. )--in how many ways did they worship Him?- "what was his face?" meaning what was the significance of Narayana's face and what arose from it?-- "what were his arms?" what were the qualities of his arms that were worshipped and what arose from them?-- "what were his thighs?" meaning what was the significance of Narayana's thighs and what arose from it?[kau] paadaa-- "what were his legs?" what were the qualities of his legs that were worshipped and what arose from them?It is very important to understand at this point that though different "body parts" of Narayana are mentioned, they are not finite (as the sukta starts out--sahasrashiirshaa...). More importantly, according to shruti statements like "neha naanaasti kincana", there is NO internal difference here. In other words, his arms are not inanimate organic molecules, nor are they superior/different from legs or other parts of Vishnu. They are only called by different names (through the power of visesas), but they are all identical. The same holds for all Vishnu's avatars.Another interesting interpretation of the verse is to take the words kim and kau as standing for aananda and bliss. Thus, by attributing kim/kau with each body part mentioned, and adding ucyate at the end, it describes Vishnu's form as being made of bliss.--his mouth is made of aananda.Unfortunately Bannanje does not give any reason why kim or kau can be taken to mean this *is it ok to take a word in a mantra and arbitrarily assign any meaning we want to it? what is the backing for this?--is said. (will be said, in the next verse. ) That is, the answer will be supplied in the next verse.When the devata-s meditated upon the object of the mental sacrifice they performed--namely Narayana, in how many ways did they concentrate on Vishnu?They thought of the various limbs (made of aananda and absolutely identical to each other) and asked the following questions:What are the qualities of the face of Vishnu and what arose from it?What are the qualities of the arms of Vishnu and what arose from them?What are the qualities of the thighs of Vishnu and what arose from them?What are the qualities of the feet of Vishnu and what arose from them?These will be answered in the next verse.The next verse is somewhat well-known as it describes the castes arising from Vishnu.--Vishnu's. Does this refer to Vishnu? Yes, because Krishna himself says in the Bhagavad Gita "chaaturvarNyam mayaa sR^iShTam". The creation of the 4 castes is attributed to Krishna, who is only different from Vishnu by name (through Visesas--thus Vishnu & Krishna are one and the same). This creation is attributed to Brahman here, thus since the Vedas and Mahabharata are held to be part of the same tradition THROUGHOUT India (unless I'm mistaken?), it's safe to assume that the Bhagavad Gita and Purusha Sukta go together.-- from his face arose: In Vedic grammar, there is a rule "saptasu praThamaa", which means the 1st case can express ANY of the 7 cases. So instead of saying "from his mouth there was..." you can say "his mouth was..." and it means the same thing. Here, we can take it to be in the 5th case--the Brahmin or priestly caste.--The Kshatriya or warrior caste arose from the arms of Vishnu, again taking the 1st case baahuu as 5th case baahubhyam.--From his thighs, the vaisya or merchant caste arose.padbhyaam shuudro ajaayata--Shudra or working caste arose from his feet.Now, Bannanje says that the body parts refer to the abhimani devata-s of those castes. Thus when it says that Brahmins arose from the mouth, it means that from the mouth of Brahman arose the abhimani devata for Brahmin caste(Caturmukha Brahma).I have several questions:*Didn't the abhimani devata-s already get created at this point?*Do all souls belonging to a certain caste arise from a symbolic body part of Vishnu?*Does this refer to our creation as well?*Is it the creation of bodies or souls or both that is described?As mentioned earlier, saying that different castes arose from different parts of Vishnu does not mean that some parts of Vishnu are inferior and we should treat the people coming from them as being inferior. But unfortunately, it does happen--though I can go on a rant about how there are Brahmins ill-treat Shudra-s I'll refrain from doing that :) Also, the castes arising from Vishnu does not mean that the members of those castes are identical to Vishnu, just the way products being produced from a factory does not mean that the products are identical to the factory (just don't stretch the analogy too far!! A factory is jada and asvatantra but Vishnu is cetana and svatantra).Bannanje says that this division of castes does not apply to saatvik devata-s nor does it apply to taamasic asuras. It only applies to those in the middle, the raajasaa-s, namely us humans. Moreover, among raajasa-s, this only applies to saatvikaraajaasas, those humans eligibile for moksha. Neither the nityasamsarins nor those fit for Tamas fall under this classificationAlso, the definition of caste is not for the body, since it is simply made by society. It refers to the jiivasvabhava. Thus, though a son has the caste of his father, since their jiivasvabhava-s are different they may be of different castes. Brahmins are those souls innately interested in the quest for knowledge. Kshatriyas are those innately interested in protection of society and interested in warfare. Vaisyas are those souls interested in business. Shudra-s are those interested in serving others and working. Since the face consists of eyes and mouth which are needed for reading and teaching, it is associated with the Brahmins. Since the arms immediately go to a part of the body when there is pain and since it is used in wielding weapons, the Kshatriya class is associated with them. Merchants need to travel a lot and thus need strong thighs (quadriceps muscles!)for going from place to place, thus they are associated with thighs. The feet are the support for our whole body, thus they stand for the basic Dharma of mankind--service to community. Also one does 'paadaseva', worship of another's feet as an act of service. The feet are associated with the Shudra caste.This verse describes the creation of abhimaani devatas. The part of Vishnu from which they arise is also the organ they are associated with in the human body.--Chandra, moon (being, not the planet!)--from the mind (of Purusha), which is identical to all of Vishnu's other organs. Though they differ in name, Vishnu does not consist of 'parts' such as limbs, mind, etc..--was born(Chandra is also the abhimani devata for hearing--meaning one hears due to the presence of Chandra, which is due to the presence of Vishnu)--from the eyes of Purusha--the sun--was bornSince one sees with the eyes, and light is needed for seeing, perhaps that is why Surya is associated with the eyes.--from the mouth (of Purusha)--Indra and--Fire (atti iti agni--that which consumes is agni. Fire 'eats' fuel, thus the connection with the mouth)--from the breath (of Purusha)--vaayu (either naasikya or praana vaayu)--was born.--he who goes everywhere and gives life (breath)Notice that the last deity mentioned is Vaayu and the first one is that of the mind-Chandra. Whenever we perform an action, we first think about it. Thus the mind is mentioned first. Our body cannot function without a life breath. Since Vayu is the fundamental basis for everything, it is mentioned last.Not only were the various abhimani devatas, the different castes, the different animals, the meters for verses created, but also the worlds--places for them to stay.--From Purusha's (Vishnu's ) navel--was--the sky and the abhimani devata for the sky--From Purusha's (Vishnu's ) head--were created--the heavens and the abhimani devata for the heavens--From Purusha's (Vishnu's ) feet--the earth and the abhimani devata for the earth (were created)--From Purusha's (Vishnu's ) ears--the directions and the abhimani devata for the directions (were created)--likewise, He thought all worlds were createdSo, now we've completed the creation of various entities, from Vishnu. Again, it is important to emphasize that1)the nimittakaaraNa or efficient cause is Vishnu. He is not the material cause2)Neither matter nor souls are actually created *out of nothing*. Inanimate things such as earth, sky, etc. are made out of Prakriti, which is beginningless (but it owes its existence to Vishnu since time immemorial--it is not independent). Since the soul's nature (whether that of a deva, manushya, or asura) is responsible for its actions, Vishnu does not arbitrarily make some souls divine & some demonic; they too are eternal.3)Such a creation does not occur once, but repeatedly. Since time stretches endlessly in both directions, there are several cycles of creation & destruction.4)The purpose of the creation is so that souls can do their saadhana and achieve their destiny. Thus Vishnu has no selfish motive to achieve from it, but does so because he is karuNaaLu--just.5) There are deities associated with almost everything. This doesn't mean that, for example the earth itself is the abhimani devata for the earth, but rather that this matter functions under the control of the abhimani devata, under the control of Vishnu. Also, though it is said that for example, Chandra is the abhimani devata for the mind, it is not Chandra that is held accountable for various thoughts one might think--Chandra simply enables you to think as per your nature.Here is a recap: The Purusha Sukta opens up with a description of the greatness of 'Purusha' : he who is pUrna--complete, he who dwells in the body (pUra--city, used to refer to body. This is not uncommon. For example, our body is often called the city of nine gates, navadwara). He has sahasra (thousand, infinite) jnaanendriya-s (sense organs: sahasraaksha) & karmendriya-s (action organs: sahasrapaat). In case one should get a doubt as to whether he is identical to the individual soul residing in the body, such quotes as "vishvato vrtvaatyatishtat"--surpassing the world. It's interesting to note a parallel in the second verse with the Gita: This purushottama surpasses both kshara & akshara.(**amrtatvasya** Ishana yad **annena**aatirohati). So Purusha, or Vishnu, is "sarvam" or "everything" in the sense that1)he is all that truly matters. In other words we should seek him to the exclusion of laukika, worldy objects.2)He is infinite.3)Everything else (there are other entities like "amrtatva", "vishvam", "anna", etc.) is paratantra, that is depends on this one Purusha [Though the actual wording above isn't in the sukta, such an interpretation is uch more sound than identifying this Purusha with jada=the world, or the jIva, bound in samsara=individual souls. We are his amsha-s or paada-s only to the extent that we bear some similarity to Him, not physical parts of Purusha.]After describing the glory of Purusha, creation is described. Purusha(Vishnu) creates the Brahmanda (out of prakriti, the material cause for the world). Caturmukha Brahma arises from it, as well as various beings. A maanasika yajna (mental sacrifice) is performed by the various gods, where they offered themselves to the Purusha, who created all sentient & insentient things.Then the actual objects created (as well as their Abhmaani devata-s) are described: rg, yajur, saaman, as well as meter(chandas)--the Vedas, though beginningless were revealed by Vishnu. Animals (horses, birds, cows, etc. ) were created. Where did the 4 castes arise from? From his head, Brahmins, from the arms, kshatriyas, from the legs, Vaishyas, from the feet, Shudras. Chandra arose from Purusha's mind, Surya from his eyes, from his mouth Indra, and from his breath Vayu. The sky arose from Vishnu's navel, the heaven(swargaloka) from his head, the earth from his feet, the directions from his ears.Though all the various parts of Purusha are identical, the reason that certain organs are mentioned is merely symbolic (for example, based on the occupation of the castes or the Abhimani devata-s). Also both matter & souls are **ANAADI**, beginningless. They arose from Purusha and exist because of Purusha, but were not created out of nothing. Finally, this creation is not a one-time event but goes in cycles.There is a very deep meaning to this verse. It appears to be saying that 'I', some ordinary soul, know this Purusha. Let's analyze this closer aham-- I. Though one of the first words people learn in Sanskrit, there are many other meanings to this.1)'a' is the first letter of the Sanskrit. 'ha' is the last. Also, when studying Panini grammar, the letters of the alphabet are categorized based on their sound (with letters used to mark off sections along the way). Here too, 'a' is the first letter, and 'ha' is the last letter. All the sounds that are possible are contained within 'a' and 'ha'. Likewise Narayana (Purusha) contains all these objects, both sentient and insentient (each and every single one of which can be described by some combination of the letters between 'a' and 'ha'). It goes even deeper: if one analyzes the etymology of those words according to Sanskrit grammar, in the primary sense it can only denote Vishnu (Purusha, ordinarily meaning man, has the meaning given above, among others)2)'aheyam' means that which cannot be discarded. One can discard any object one possesses. In the kind of world we live in today, one can even discard close relations such as a spouse. However, is it possible to discard he who makes us exist? Is it possible for one to decide to be svatantra--to act without prerana from Hari? We may **think** that we act independantly, but the plain and simple fact is that we know nothing of what goes on inside in our body, we don't know how we got into this body, how this body moves as per our will, how we experience what happens to our body, or how long we stay in this body. It is only because of our Ajnana (paramaacchadika--paramAtma is "concealed" from us) that we forget about Purusha naamaka Paramaatma. Hariprerana is essential for everything that we do, thus he alone is 'aheyam' =undiscardable, thus he can be called aham.3)an interesting parallel to the Purusha Sukta is found in the Ishaavasya Upanishad. yo.asaavasau so.aham asmi. He who exists in 'asu' or the life breath (Mukhya prAna), that Purusha is known as 'aham' and 'asmi'. There are references to Mukhya Prana in the Purusha Sukta: "praanaadvaayurajaayata". The word Purusha is specifically used in the Ishaavasya Upanishad. Such a being that has been so extensively described cannot mean "I" --embodied soul, in the ordinary sense of the term. Thus 'aham' has to be taken as a name for Parmaatma, not jIvaatma.--understood-- this great Being. Someone who has understood Purusha, who is infinite, can only be Purusha Himself!Also, the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says 'tadaatmaanamamavet...aham brahmaasmIti",Purusha =Brahman=Vishnu knew himself. [could someone elaborate more on this famous aham brahmasmi passage?]--he who has the briliance of the sun (Narayana). Arjuna uses this analogy in the Gita as well, comparing Krishna's vishvarUpa to the brightness of 1000 suns--drives away darknessThe analogy here is, just the way the sun "drives away" the darkness of night when it rises, Bhagavaan Naarayana drives away the darkness of ignorance, with the light of knowledge (in another mantra--I'm not sure from where--: lead me from darkness to light)--having createdall the forms. Here forms refers to various objects in theworld--the omniscient Narayana--having given names to everything created.--he stands--[normally means addressed but...]as the cause for the world**Q: why does abhivadan have that meaning?That is, Narayana, as described throughout the Purusha Sukta creates everything, gives a name for everything, and makes them all function. [without him, nothing in this world exists, let alone has a name or functions]'aham', he who is undiscardable and within whom everything is contained, this great Purusha understood himself. [that is, not you or me, or some ordinary being, since we are finite and he is infinite]. Just the way the sun drives away darkness, so too Narayana, who is brilliant like the sun drives away this ignorance. The omniscient Purusha created all the objects in the world (meaning modified them from prakriti, which is forever dependent on Purusha), he gave each of those object a name as well as a form, and makes all of them function.In the previous verse, Narayana creating and giving a name to everything, then making them function was described. In the next verse, Brahma worships such a Narayana [who is like a sun that causes darkness to go away].--he[Narayana] whom--the creator, chaturmukha Brahma--called by all these names [in the previous verse, Narayana gave a name to everything. Narayana is the antaryami for all that: he makes them all function. Also, the words for those ordinary objects denote Narayana in the primary sense]--before creation--"shata kratu", he who performed tapas, or penance, for 100 years. Brahma did such a penance meditating on Purusha. As a result he acquired divine knowledge, which is elaborated further...Note: Shakra can also be taken in the more common usage of Indra, or Mukhya Prana.--understood well--the 4--directionsChaturmukha Brahma has a face facing each of the 4 directions (N, S, E, W). Through the anugraha of Purushanaamaka Paramaatma, he understood those directions as well as the objects in each of those directions. With the exception of Narayana & Lakshmi, he knows everything there is to (everything in all the directions)[I don't know how this can be interpreted taking Shakra as Vayu or Indra]--he who]--is a knower of--Bhagavan Purusha=Narayana--likewiseThat is, he[for example, us] who knows Purusha/Narayana the way Brahma did...--here, while in this life itself--becomes--na mR^itaH=immortal=achieves mokshaNow, as per Madhva Siddhanta, there is no such things as jIvanmukti. That is, while alive, one cannot achieve moksha, since living involves so many attachments, which cause fleeting happiness and sorrow when one parts with them. Moksha is **only** achieved after death, that too after several lifetimes. So this passage should be understood that one becomes **fit** for moksha if one meditates on Vishnu the way Brahma did. One need not do the saadhana that Brahma did. Each individual has his own potential. Moksha is experiencing one's own innate bliss. Obviously none of us is capable of doing "shata kratu"--penance for 100 years. What is prescribed is following a similar path--manana(thinking), nidhidhyasana (meditating )on Narayana, to our maximum capacity.--another--path [notice the similarity: path=pantha]--doesn't existThat is, only through j~nana [knowing Narayana the way Brahma did] and bhakti [devotion, such as enance] does one achieve moksha, not another way. The anugraha(grace) of Vishnu is essential, as he is the one that gives moksha. The jnaana-marga, bhakti-marga, and karma-marga (nishkaama karma, doing one's duty dedicating it to Narayana. For example, Brahma creates with the full understanding that Narayana is the doer behind it), expressed in the Gita is the same as what is expressed here.The stress is that such a liberation from samsaara is not possible through some other means (one can't simply "realize" that the world is illusory and attain moksha, moksha is not possible through dvesha or hatred as is advocated by some schools). Only devotion and a correct understanding (to one's max ability) will result in moksha.Before creation, the 4-headed (one in each direction) Brahma did penance meditating on Narayana, reciting his various names, for 100 years (shakra). As a result, Brahma acquired divine knowledge, and understood everything in each of the 4 directions (with the exception of course of Narayana himself, as no one can fully comprehend him). Whosover understands Vishnu/Purusha the way Brahma did, he will be fit for moksha in this lifetime itself. No other path to moksha is possible. That is, only through Vishnu's grace can one attain moksha. And one can only attain Vishnu's grace through j~nana & bhakti.Q1: If one attains moksha by doing what Brahma did, how come Brahma hasn'tattained moksha yet?Q2: Are we supposed to that sort of tapas in some future life to attain moksha?The next verse refers to the mental sacrifice performed by the gods.--the gods--worshipped. yaj doesn't have to mean sacrifice in the literal sense. It can also mean worship of any sort. That is, one 'offers' oneself to Vishnu-he to whom the (symbolic) sacrifice is made, Narayana.--by the mental sacrifice. That is the various gods meditated on Narayana (see verse 6) --also, by the grace of yajJna=Narayana, they worshipped NarayanaQ3: yad means that. Jnaa means to know. Can yajna mean he who knows?--those [sacrifices, penances done by the gods]--became the--foremost--dutiesThat is, the acts of devotion and worship done by the gods surpassed all other duties that can be done, in terms of greatness and reward [moksha]. One is reminded of the verse in the Gita--Having abandoned all (inferior) duties--that is one cannot abandon the responsibilities in life!!--surrender to me alone I will free you from all sins and grant moksha.Sharanaagati: offering oneself to Vishnu, like that done by the devata-s is the greatest among duties.-or---those [gods who did such a mental sacrifice]--became--foremost upholders of Dharma. Dhr means to support. So Dharma can be used to refer to the gods themselves, since among those who are unliberated, they are the greatest.That is, because of their devotion to Narayana, they became the greatest upholders of Dharma (and not otherwise! The various abhimaani devata-s don't support the world through their own will. Because of their devotion to Narayana they achieved such a position, and even then Narayana's prerana is needed for them to function )-they [devata-s]--obtain--moksha (??)-full of happiness (??)--as great beings-where (in such a liberated state-moksha)--previously (in a prior kalpa)--those who have done sadhana. Those who have worked to achieve moksha (and have achieved it)--gods-existAt the end of each kalpa, those souls who have done the sadhana for attaining moksha achieve it. In this state of happiness, they join those who had achieved moksha in the prior kalpa (since time is anaadi, there is always a prior kalpa)These gods worshipped (offered themselves to) Narayana through meditation (a mental sacrifice). It was this act of worship that resulted in the creation of the world. Such an act of meditation, out of which the everything around us was created by Purusha/Narayana, is the foremost among all duties. Because of what they did, the deva-s obtained the position of abhimaani-devatas. By fulfilling their duties, these gods will eventually attain moksha, full of happiness, where they will join those who had done similar saadhana in the previous kalpa.Shri KrishnaarpanamastuNote: Not proof read yet..