जृम्भितं तद्धनुर् दृष्ट्वा शैवं विष्णुपराक्रमैः।
अधिकं मेनिरे विष्णुं देवाः सर्षिगणास्तदा॥
jṛmbhitaṁ tad dhanur dṛṣṭvā śaivaṁ viṣṇu-parākramaiḥ
adhikaṁ menire viṣṇuṁ devāḥ sarṣi-gaṇās tadā
jṛmbhitam = was stretched; tad dhanuḥ = bow; dṛṣṭvā = having noticed that; śaivam = Lord Śiva’s; viṣṇu-parākramaiḥ = by Lord Viṣṇu’s prowess; adhikam = is greater [than Lord Śiva]; menire = concluded that; viṣṇum = Lord Viṣṇu; devāḥ = the devas; sarṣi-gaṇāḥ tadā = and ṛṣis.
Having noticed that Lord Śiva’s bow was stretched by Lord Viṣṇu’s prowess, the devas and ṛṣis concluded that Lord Viṣṇu is greater [than Lord Śiva].
1 The trustworthy here is Lord Brahmā.
2 The word viṣṇu-parākramaiḥ is in the plural form. According to rules of Sanskrit grammar, the plural form can be used to refer to a singular person or object when such a reference is made with respect.
3 The former statement appears in Kṛṣṇa Yajur Veda, Taittirīya-saṁhitā 1.8.6.1. The latter appears in Ṛg Veda Saṁhitā 4.30.1.
4 In Rāmāyaṇa 6.44-45, it will be described that Indrajit once became invisible using antardhāna-vidyā, a mantra-based technique for that purpose, shot arrows at Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa and bound Them up.
5 These are weapons which seek and attack their targets on the basis of the sounds made by those targets.
6 There is no use in presenting the argument that the devas considered Lord Viṣṇu to be superior to Lord Śiva at that time alone and that too because of an increase of the external impression of tamo-guṇa on Lord Śiva. The context makes it clear that the devas wanted to know who among the two was superior; they did not want to know who was superior at that point in time. Therefore, they approached Lord Brahmā because he is the best of the knowers of the truth.
7 The devas had Varuṇa give charge of it to Janaka.
Thus, the devas and ṛṣis came to the same conclusion as Paraśurāma’s conclusion. They realized that Lord Śiva’s bow had destroyed Tripura when Lord Viṣṇu had presided over it. And when Lord Viṣṇu ceased to preside over it, it was stretched [by His uttering huṁ]. The devas and ṛṣis saw this for themselves; they didn’t come to this conclusion [merely] by hearing about the same from a trustworthy authority.1 They realized that [the famous] bow of Lord Śiva was merely considered to be his.
Viṣṇu-parākramaiḥ indicates that Paraśurāma was very respectful while referring to the prowess of Lord Viṣṇu, for He stretched Lord Śiva’s bow merely by uttering huṁ.2
Sarṣi-gaṇāḥ: This conclusion regarding the superiority of Lord Viṣṇu over Lord Śiva was not due to [the devas’] partiality towards Lord Viṣṇu, for the ṛṣis who were capable of perceiving the reality beyond [material] sense perception also came to this conclusion. These were sages such as the Vaikhānasas and Vālakhilyas. Bhūyasāṁ balīyastvam: By the strength of the majority [of authoritative observations in this regard], it should be understood that the conception that was formed by those sages was neither due to their partiality towards Lord Viṣṇu nor due to their delusion.
Therefore, statements in the Śruti such as eka eva rudro na dvitīyāya tasthe (“Rudra alone stands unrivalled [in supremacy]”) should be understood to be like nakir indra tvad-uttaraḥ (“O Indra, no one is superior to you!”). They are meant to be understood contextually, in a restricted sense as being supreme among some, [and not ultra-literally].3 [On the other hand,] in statements in the Śruti such as eko ha vai nārāyaṇa āsīt (“Nārāyaṇa alone was existing”), the Nārāyaṇa should be understood to be the same as Viṣṇu. The supremacy of this Lord Viṣṇu has been described [thus in this portion of the Rāmāyaṇa].
In this regard, an idea has been propounded by some [commentators on Rāmāyaṇa] that (1) due to an increase of tamo-guṇa [externally impressed upon him], sometimes Lord Rudra becomes overcome [by Lord Viṣṇu in duel], and that (2) that should not be understood to be intrinsically defective on his part. The above discussion refutes this idea because, as a rule, being overcome by tamo-guṇa [even temporarily] is itself indicative of not being the Supreme Being.
[One cannot counter-argue that similarly Rāma was overcome by Indrajit as described in Rāmāyaṇa 6.44-45 because of a similar increase of tamo-guṇa externally impressed upon Him.]4 Rāma decided to become overcome by Indrajit [under those circumstances] in order to propagate the rule of [kṣatriya] dharma that a person who has made himself invisible should not be attacked through śabda-vedha weapons.5 After all, the Supreme Lord appears in this world in order to establish dharma.
In this context of Lord Śiva being defeated by Lord Viṣṇu, [the fact is that] Lord Śiva has been defeated simply on account of his constitutional position [and not due to any external impression upon him or a compulsion to adhere to any external obligation]. If Lord Rudra had been defeated due to an increase of tamo-guṇa externally impressed upon him, the devas would not have come to the conclusion that Lord Viṣṇu is superior.6
Previously it was noted that Lord Rudra had given his bow to the devas at the end of Dakṣa’s sacrifice. Again, it was stated that he had given his bow to Devarāta. And earlier on, the sages at Viśvāmitra’s āśrama had said that the devas gave it to Janaka. Later on, it will be told by Sītā in the presence of Anasūyā that it was given by Varuṇa to Janaka. How can all of this be reconciled?
[All of this can be reconciled in the following manner:] Formerly, in order to destroy Tripura, the devas had the bow constructed by Viśvakarmā and they gave it to Lord Rudra. At the end of Dakṣa’s sacrifice, when there was a quarrel between Lord Rudra and Lord Viṣṇu, by Lord Viṣṇu’s sounding huṁ, the bow was stretched. By the prayers of the devas, Lord Rudra then deposited it with Devarāta. From that time, it was in Mithilā, entrusted [to the kings of Mithilā]. The devas, considering it their property, had Varuṇa give it to Janaka.7 This is the sequence of events pertaining to Lord Śiva’s bow.
NOTE. That the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears in this world in order to establish dharma is clearly noted in Bhagavad-gītā 4.8:
paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām
dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge
“To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.”