-- Thread on the Tryambaka Offerings in the Veda --
Tryambaka Ishti is an ancillary rite of Sakamedha Yajna, 1 of the 4 Yajnas comprising Chaturmasya. Housed in Vājasaneyi samhita of Yajur Veda, it contains “tryambakaṃ yajāmahe…” mantra.+
However, even good scholars have not been able to decipher the mantra in this section, “rudra bʰāgáḥ sahá svásrā́mbikayā” – which declares Ambikā as sister of Rudra. Many queries about this are on the internet (eg Hinduism Stack Exchange) .+
I am giving the interpretation, which those with dispassionate minds can appreciate. To understand why Ambikā is mentioned as a sister of Rudra, one must accept that parts of Veda talk in metaphors and common terms denote many things.+
Intent is clear. To ensure one gains progeny and uses it for veda-kāryas without attachment, one pledges to act according to Brahman called “Soma” as he is full of nectarine attributes. This is achieved by focusing the mind (manas) in the forms of Brahman+
rudam dadati iti rudra” – previous mantra already declared intent – to place the mind in Brahman, ie control the mind. Then, it makes sense to refer to the mind as “rudra” – that which bestows good. What good? - experience of Brahman, metaphorically “Ambikā”+
Experience of Brahman is referred to metaphorically as woman in śāstra. In Mbh, Rudra describes how he gained 4 heads when Tillottama came to him. Tilottama signifies experience of Brahman. I have attached a screenshot to this tweet explaining that incident.+
In addition, Bhāgavataṃ itself has a story wherein Narada meets a woman called bhakti devi. Thus, experience of Brahman is personified as a woman in the texts. More pramāṇās for the obvious meaning. Now, for “sister”+
svasrā – svayaṃ saha utpannā vā prajā – Experience of Brahman, arises from the mind during its’ contemplation of Brahman. Thus, the “experience of Brahman” arises in association with the mind. “sister” is appropriate.+
Why is experience of Brahman personified as a woman? Because a strī attracts a man, and hence “woman” signifies an object of enjoyment, this case being the experience of Brahman (Note to SJWs: No objectification here, just a metaphor)+
Gist: As the share belongs to it (mind) together with a pleasing experience of Brahman (stri), mind is called “Tryambaka” - perceiver of the 3 abodes. By this, we relinquish experiences of sense objects (prajā) that sprung from power of desire called “Rudra”.+
The three abodes are bhogya sthāna, bhoga sthāna and bhogopakaraṇa sthāna (object, place and instrument for experiencing Brahman). Thus, “Tryambaka” here refers to the mind, not to śūlapāṇi rudra.+
"rudríyātprámuñcati” in the end refers to desire as “rudra”. Mbh uses the term for lust in Aila-Kashyapa samvāda. See how confusingly the Veda uses same term for different things, little wonder great scholars get confused.+
Let the women circumambulate, thinking, “May we attain prosperity”! That associate of mind (Rudra) called Ambikā (experience of Brahman) is the dispenser of happiness (bliss of brahmānubhava), so, women circumambulate thinking, “May we attain prosperity (via husbands)”+
Mahīdhara, a commentator, remarks reg “Ambikā”, that the Taittiriya Brahmana (TB) refers to her as the autumn, and thus she signifies onset of fever, ills etc. He is wrong, as shown below+
TB says “Sarad vai asya ambikā svasā́ tayā vai eṣá hinasti” – Ambikā (experience of Brahman), is verily the autumn, with whom it (the mind) kills (the experience of sense objects).+
Significance of autumn season is that it is conducive for clarity of mind for upāsaṇa. Rāsa leela was performed in Sarad Rtu. Bhāgavataṃ 10.20.33 compares autumn to the minds of the yogis getting purified, which exactly fits this context. Moving on+
eṣá te rudra bʰāgá ākʰús te paśúḥ \\
This is your (mind + exp of Brahman) portion, this thief (of knowledge about the self), ie, attachment/anger, is your sacrificial animal.+
Mahanārāyaṇa Up. refers to anger or attachment as the sacrificial animal. Anger is sacrified to the mind (Rudra) united with experience of Brahman (Ambikā).+
This thread, thus, clarifies exactly what is meant by “Rudra, Sister of Ambikā”. Will look at the succeeding mantras in a separate thread as Part 2 of the discussion which I will get to soon.//
In part 1 (Link: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1288228…), we clarified “Rudra” signified mind, and “Ambikā” experience of Brahman. In this thread, let us finish interpreting mantras of the Tryambaka rite that come after this+
We have satisfied mind that bestows good (rudram), that shines out auspicious qualities of Brahman (devam), perceiver of 3 abodes – place, object & instrument for brahmānubhava (tryàmbakam).+
You, mind w/ experience of Brahman, are medicine (for Saṃsāra). You are medicine for (use of) cows, horses & offspring. You bring bliss (by proper use) to rams and ewes.+
So far, all self-explanatory. These are all articles to be used in kāmya karmas. The mind, being detached, can now use them in karma-yoga to Bhagavān without getting attached to them+
….having residences of food, ie, meditating on forms of the Lord (krttivāsā), not causing hurt to the self by indulging in sense objects (áhim̐san), agreeable to the self (śivó), cross over (attachments of prakrti).+
The bow signifies knowledge of the Upanishads. Untied bowstring means there is lack of self-effort, ie, ego in thinking one’s efforts are a cause of success. As one can see, makes no sense to interpret this as “śūlapāṇi rudra, cross over”.+
"pínākāvasaḥ” – Note “pínākā” is in plural and hence cannot denote Shiva’s bow. Senses are abodes (nāka-s) the self resides in, to drink (experience) .Terms like “pínākā”, “krttivāsā” etc are used on the basis of etymology here+
Next, we come to the mṛtasañjīvanī mantra (tryambakaṃ yajāmahe…). As everyone knows the mantra, I give the meaning without sanskrit text to save space+
Mind which is the perceiver of bhogya sthāna, bhoga sthāna and bhogopakaraṇa sthāna (Tryambakam)! We worship (meditate; yajāmahe) on you, as that which is full of fragrances, ie, associated with all auspicious things (sugandhim)…+
…Who augments nourishment, ie, jnāna-vairāgya (puṣtivardhanaṃ). As a gourd (severed) from its’ stem (urvārukamiva bandhanād), may we be freed (mukshīya) from the attachment to sense objects that cause death, ie, rebirths (mrityor) +
…But not from meditation on Brahman, ie, lead us not astray from upāsaṇa by indulging in sense objects (māmṛtāt)
Next mantra is minor modification of the same for added emphasis: Tryambakām yajāmahe sugandhim pativedanam urvārurkamiva bandhanād ito mukshīya māmuta +
Same meaning, except, it says “Mind, which acquires for us the Supreme Brahman called “pati” (pativedanam) as per patiṃ visvasya ātmesvaraṃ (nārāyaṇa sūktaṃ)"+
(Superficial level, "pati" refers to gaining good husband. Inner (true) meaning - Supreme Lord.)
As a gourd (severed) from its’ stem, may we be freed from this, ie, the attachment to sense objects (ito mukshīya), but not from the attachment to that, ie, Brahman (māmuta)+
A gourd is severed from its’ stem when it is ripe. Likewise, when mind is filled with jnāna-vairāgya, attachments to sense objects are severed. But attachment to Brahman, once acquired, should not be relinquished for sense objects again+
Q arises - how can one meditate on the insentient mind? The brahma sūtrās clarify that anything pure is a pratīka or symbol for meditation, superimposing the view of Brahman on it. Sanatkumara tells Nārada, “meditate on the mind” (Chan.Up)+
Qs will arise now – How can “tryambakaṃ yajāmahe”.. mantra be interpreted as referring to the mind when well-known interpretations take it as Shiva pratipādya? Why do some texts (Shiva/Linga Ps) attribute it to Shiva? Will be answered in the final “Part 3” thread//
[If a person even accidentally sees the form of Hari in temples, all of his following sinful thoughts perish – ]
Explaining these "sinful thoughts" below+
कुबुद्धि - Incorrect consideration of the body as the self like chArvakas.
कुतर्क - Incorrect inference that the self is what it is not, ie, like claiming it is tainted by prakR^itic guNAs, shUnyatva of buddhists, the arguments of Jains that it has different shapes etc+
[This great secret explains the purport of the four Vedas harmoniously. It is based on the knowledge of the individual self - “सांख्य” & performance of desireless action - “योग” & called “pAncharAtra”]+
[Mankanaka was pierced by kusha grass. From the wound, vegetable juice came out (instead of blood). Seeing that, he was joyous & started dancing]+
Mankanaka was pursuing j~nAna yoga, meditating on the true nature of the jIvAtma.
He had subsisted on roots as part of his austerities and to indicate his vairAgya was meritorious and successful, his blood had become vegetable juice+
However, there are 2 aspects to this - 1) anga-prapatti is done by bhakti Yogis to first proceed to bhakti yoga, 2) Some yogIs give up bhakti yoga, feeling incapable of proceeding on that path and resort to sharaNAgati.
The vedavati/mAyA-sIta tattva is related to this+
Vedavati was trying to attain bhagavAn by her own effort. She had the ahamkAra that she could attain him. Hence, she failed to attain him. Note, this is just a leela; in reality, lakshmI has no ego.
In contrast, sIta practiced sharaNAgati & attained rAma by the latter's efforts+
Some purANAs carry the story that sIta herself was not abducted by rAvaNa, and that agnideva protected her while a “mAyA-sIta” spent the time in ashoka vana.
I did some reading+
Firstly, it is not possible for sIta to *not* be abducted. The vAlmiki rAmAyaNa refers to itself as “सीतायाः चरितम् महत्” – the great story of sIta.
Hence, removing her abduction would nullify many tattvArthAs+
Secondly, the abduction was not by force, but of her own volition. Recall that during the battle, rAvaNa could not even move an unconscious lakShmaNa, then how could he lift sIta away?
Purely because she herself willed it to. She kidnapped him, not vice-versa!+
Interesting fact - many believe that Krishna instructed Arjuna to continue the fight with karNa when he was on the ground, and asked for a reprieve to extricate his chariot.
In reality, when karNa asks for time out in consideration of yuddha-dharma, bhagavAn sort of accepts it+
Krishna stops the fighting, but reprimands karNa by reminding him of his past sins, and how he can remember dharma now, when he wasn't aware of dharma earlier.
bhagavAn only reprimands him, but does not resume the fight. This indicates he had given karNa the reprieve he wanted+
Then look what happens,
क्रोधात्प्रस्फुरमाणौष्ठो धनुरुद्यम्य भारत
[karNa, his lips quivering with rage (on hearing vAsudeva’s words), lifted up his bow]
karNa, incensed by bhagavAn’s speech, actually took up his bow and initiated the fight again from the ground+