rAma-krishna-shiva-durga etc. are not same in shAstric vyavahAra!!!

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

When you agree dvaita in vyavahAra why not agree bedha in devata in shAstric vyavahAra ??  I humbly ask my fellow advaitins.  Yes in paramArtha when there is no bedha even jeeva and brahma no question of bedha whatsoever.  But when we are dealing with vyAkruta jagat in vyavahAra where upAdhi visheshaNa holds sway why and what is the necessity to think all devata-s are one!!??  If that is the case even in vyavahAra also why only abedha among ONLY devata-s why not abedha between jeeva and Ishwara!!??.  But in vyavahAra we the tiny jeeva-s would strive to get jnana, we have our ishta devata and the particular upAsana and archana vidhi and more interestingly different gods have different family, different legacy and different stories behind them.  So, IMHO, when we consider upAdhi veshesha brahma or sOpAdhika brahma or guNa vishesha brahma there is absolutely no problem in holding them as different.  Seeing the difference does not anyway mean we are scaling them like one upAdhi is superior to another or one upAdhi is inferior or incapable to do certain things.  All upAdhi veshesha kArya brahman is equally capable to give everything to their respective upAsaka-s and ArAdhakas.  But with the paramArtha drushti in mind we should not mix these different gods and do girija kalyANa to rAma and seetha kalyANa to shiva since shiva and rAma have their own family in shastric vyavahAra.  When the ‘shape’ is different and shaping of these deities have their own history why mix it unnecessarily ??  rAma is rAma only and krishna is krishna only rAma is eka patni vratastha and krishna is nitya and shuddha brahmachAri!!  Shiva is having ganga and shakti on his left whereas rAma is with seeta and his parivAra.  ekaM sat viprA bahudA vadanti, tattva is ONE and vyAkruta rUpa of that ONE tattva with the association of upAdhi is definitely different in shAstric vyavahAra.  shArda is shArada and chandramouleeshwara is chandramouleeshwara only upAsana, archana vidhi, mantra viniyOga all are different keeping upAdhi vishesha in mind.  And keeping the upAsya, upAsana and upAsaka triad in mind. 

 

Just my few thoughts.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar  

 

Bhaskar YR #4A, 5 & 6 2nd Phase Peenya Industrial Estate Bangalore 560058, Karnataka, India Phone: +91808395181 E-mail: bhask...@hitachienergy.com www.hitachienergy.com

 

[Ganesh B]

Namaste 

Sharing some humble thoughts on the subject. 

Either we see difference or we do not see any difference.There cannot be both simultaneously.

In the Gita Bhashya, Shankara -
"साङ्‍ख्यबुद्धिं योगबुद्धिं च आश्रित्य द्वे निष्ठे विभक्ते भगवतैव उक्ते ज्ञानकर्मणोः कर्तृत्वाकर्तृत्वैकत्वानेकत्वबुद्ध्याश्रययोः युगपदेकपुरुषाश्रयत्वासम्भवं पश्यता ।"

Either one engages in karmas ordained by the Shrutis for the purpose of

1. Sattva Shuddhi - leading to Jnana Buddhi.

"अथ न ते तत्त्वविदः ; ईश्वरसमर्पितेन कर्मणा साधनभूतेन संसिद्धिं सत्त्वशुद्धिम् , ज्ञानोत्पत्तिलक्षणां वा संसिद्धिम् , आस्थिता जनकादय.."

Or, 

2. Loka Sangrahartham - "ते लोकसङ्ग्रहार्थम् ‘गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते’ (भ. गी. ३२८) इति ज्ञानेनैव संसिद्धिमास्थिताः, कर्मसंन्यासे प्राप्तेऽपि कर्मणा सहैव संसिद्धिमास्थिताः, न कर्मसंन्यासं कृतवन्त इत्यर्थः ।"

If we consider that from Paramatha there is no difference but in Vyavahara there is difference then we are looking it from the eyes of a Jnana-Karma Samuchchaya stand point which Shankara refutes all through in the Gita Bhashya. 

एवमेवार्थं वक्ष्यति भगवान् ‘सत्त्वशुद्धये कर्म कुर्वन्ति’ (भ. गी. ५ । ११) इति । ‘स्वकर्मणा तमभ्यर्च्य सिद्धिं विन्दति मानवः’ (भ. गी. १८ । ४६) इत्युक्त्वा सिद्धिं प्राप्तस्य पुनर्ज्ञाननिष्ठां वक्ष्यति — ‘सिद्धिं प्राप्तो यथा ब्रह्म’ (भ. गी. १८ । ५०) इत्यादिना ॥

Namaskarams 

[Bhaskar YR]

If we consider that from Paramatha there is no difference but in Vyavahara there is difference then we are looking it from the eyes of a Jnana-Karma Samuchchaya stand point which Shankara refutes all through in the Gita Bhashya

 

praNAms Sri Ganesh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I don’t know how you have sighted jnana-karma samucchaya in my thoughts.  First of all kindly let me know what is jnana-karma samucchaya vAda in shankara’s bhAshya and how it is relevant to the topic of pravrutti mArga in shAstric vyavahAra.  I was just talking about the upAsana archarAdi mArga for the krama mukti wherein triputi (jnAtru, jneya and jnana) pertinent.  When you are doing the karma / upAsana / bhakti to ishta devata / or Ishwara praNidAna we knowingly or unknowingly cling to some upAdhi vishesha upAsya devata.  And then there is obviously bedha in upAsya devata, upAsana vidhi and upAsaka,  This is very much valid and acceptable in shAstric vyavahAra and for this dharma jignAsa shAstra is the ONLY pramANa.  Yat shAstra vidhimutsrujya vartate kAmakArataH no mOksha and no siddhi for him.  So, what I was trying to say in my previous mail when you hold you are tiny self identifying yourself within the compartment of your own BMI, the upAdhi visheshaNa and its difference do exist in different deva-devata-s.  And there is no problem in having this bedha drushti in different upAsya devata-s.  bhagavatpAda too in sUtra bhAshya says you will get different result when you do upAsana of shAstrOkta devata.  So difference between shiva-vishNu (other devata-s) definitely there in this shAstra permitted daiveeka vyavahAra.  There is stipulated procedure to do paNchayatana devata pooja, each and every paNchaayatana devata has to sit in particular direction and different sAligrama, Pratima, symbol used to worship these devata-s and viniyOga mantra too different.  I am not talking anything about paramArtha jnAni-s and their samyak or Atmaikatva drushti here…I am just talking about where shiva cannot have seeta as his spouse and where rAma or vishNu cannot (or supposed to) wear gaNga on his head 😊 Hope what I am discussing here is clear to you. 

[Ganesh B]

"I am just talking about where shiva cannot have seeta as his spouse and where rAma or vishNu cannot (or supposed to) wear gaNga on his head."

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

I just felt it was too obvious a question for an answer - isn't it so? We definitely follow the dictates of the Shastras and any thing done with slight modifications surely results with appropriate results - good or bad. But anyway, if your post was just meant at asking only this then my response was redundant.

----

In the context of Panchayatana Puja. As we may know that the word भगवान् is attributed to a one has the following 6 qualities and each quality represents the Devatas respectively. Thought this might be an interesting information to share. 

ज्ञानम् - विष्णुः

ऐश्वर्य - शिवः

शक्ति - उमा

बलम् - गणपतिः

वीर्य - कुमारः

तेजः - सूर्यः

Namaskarams

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

There is bheda accepted in shAstra vyavahAra in advaita. Each devatA has His or Her own pUja, japa, mantra vidhi, etc which cannot be mixed up.

What Advaita does not admit is tAratamyatA between one form of Ishvara and the other. That is not tantamount to acceptance of abheda in vyavahAra.

Has anyone espoused such a view for you to question it?

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581F3494AE49923C187358084D79%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Extending the discussion, just for enjoying the Advaita Siddhanta. Who knows, it may throwup  some interesting and important ideas.

If tAratamyatA is considered in its aspect of phala, then Advaita  Siddhanta certainly  does  admit of tAratamyatA between one form of Ishvara and the other. Would it be wrong to say so?

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DWVop-uNfPtP2BgLPDCXAJEQTWfPmnPPJRV6qZTAwfJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ganesh B]

Namaste

When we say Advaita Siddhanta, it is absolutely Jiva-Brahma-Aikyatvam. There is absolute Abheda. "वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्" 

Anything prior to the realisation of this truth everything is bheda and doesn't come under the scope of Advaita Siddhanta. These Bheda is also only due to Ajnana.

Those who engage perfectly according to the injunctions of Shastras are also only perpetuating Samsara.

The Dharma Shastras are also prescribed here only here and it is also limited just here - "अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा" ane Bheda is definitely admitted here. And this bheda is due to Avidya. 

स्वधर्मे प्रवृत्तानामपि तेषां वाङ्मनःकायादीनां प्रवृत्तिः फलाभिसन्धिपूर्विकैव साहङ्कारा च भवति । तत्रैवं सति धर्माधर्मोपचयात् इष्टानिष्टजन्मसुखदुःख़ादिप्राप्तिलक्षणः संसारः अनुपरतो भवति ।

"Even when they live according to the proper law of their life (svadharma), the activities of their speech, mind and body are surely impelled by their desire for the fruits of those very activities which emanate from egoism. In these circumstances, owing to an accumulation of righteousness and unrighteousness, transmigratory life continues unabated." ~ (Shankara Bhashya Gita) 

Unless and untill there is a dawn of Jnana, there is only Bheda due to Avidya ~ अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा where all Bheda begin to cease. 

सर्वकर्मसंन्यासपूर्वकादात्मज्ञानात् नान्यतो निवृत्ति।

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOERrx1vALfBeu9kb%3DhDFR-jghxPJ%2B9%3D2ffbXjTRNM%2BQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Can it be said sAdhana does not form part of Advaita Siddhanta? That would be taking a very narrow perspective of the Siddhanta as a whole. Surely it can be said that the Final Conclusion of the Siddhanta is Jiva-Brahma-Aikyatvam. However sAdhana does not fall outside the scope of the  Advaita Siddhanta. If it were to be held so, then it would also be no better than a postulate without conclusive proof. But Advaita Siddhanta has it that the conclusion can and is realizable here and now, in this life itself.

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEdNSk9EBXSK-1p8TEyqivgN%3DcBje8fFEKg31Y3u4kStKpzK6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ganesh B]

Namaste

If we go deeper and even deeper, we will see that there is no Sadhya-Sadhaka Bhava also. The final beatitude is not a Sadhya Vastu at all.

Even the effort - the Sadhana is also for Chitta Shuddhyartham only. This Sadhana also is due to Avidya only - Jiva Bhavam. The effort made to reach the final Beatitude is also part of the Ajnana because, according to Advaita Siddhanta Atma is Nithya Labdha - ever attained.

Infact some acharyas even don't admit a process of "Realisation" or "Attainment" for there is nothing to attain or realise.

So Shankara said somewhere in some Bhashya - अवगतिरेव गतिः - Understanding alone is the only way.

So he sang, in his Brahmajnanavalimala - 

सकृच्छ्रवणमात्रेण ब्रह्मज्ञानं यतो भवेत्।

ब्रह्मज्ञानावलीमाला सर्वेषां मोक्षसिद्धये ॥

"That from which the knowledge of Brahman may be obtained by listening just one time, (this) Brahma Jananavali Mala (is being composed), for the accomplishment of the everyone’s liberation." (Translation - internet source). 

********

Muruganar had seen devotees come before Bhagavan who were distraught and who shed tears about their life. They would sit before Bhagavan, morose in their grief, hoping Bhagavan might relieve their distress. The poet addressed them in a verse: ‘You are like ones digging a well on the bank of the Ganga crying out in thirst.’ 

Then, in the following line, he corrected himself: ‘No, you are like ones neck deep in the Ganga crying out in thirst’.    

When Muruganar showed the verse to Bhagavan, Bhagavan said, ‘You forgot one further correction: “It is not that you are neck deep in the Ganga, rather, you are GANGA HERSELF, crying out in thirst.”’      

Upon hearing and understanding the implication of these words from the Master, anyone in the hall suffering anguish at that moment would have found their difficulty dramatically diminished.

Namaskarams

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOLS9Rdrzku1JbR%3DMb-6-oHmuTjLvYmfewPz3S7QS%3DCmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

 Reg  <<  अवगतिरेव गतिः - Understanding alone is the only way>>  

Katha Up 1-3-12  <<  सर्वस्य प्रत्यगात्मत्वादवगतिरेव गतिरित्युपचर्यते । >> 

Yes. But sAdhana is prescribed by the Shruti only, for  ** Understanding **. 

To  **Attain or Realize ** the  ** Siddha Vastu **,  impediments need to be overcome. By prescribed sAdhanAs. Yes. All in the ajnAna dasha only. 

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEdNSk8r1aOFd%3DeVeOsYo0RtP6JdyfLx8oFYuHGxWSmBHD84nQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

Sure.

The tAratamyatA (gradation) of the phala (result) is not because of the tAratamyatA of the upAsya devatA but because of the tAratamyatA of the sankalpa and sAdhana. As stated in the upaniShad यदेव विद्यया करोति श्रद्धयोपनिषदा तदेव वीर्यवत्तरं भवति.

If the sankalpa of a karma is for a material result, it will naturally produce a result which will be of lower value than a karma done for chittashuddhi. Similarly a karma done in combination with upAsana will produce a superior result than a karma done without upAsana. Similarly the depth, duration and focus of the upAsana will also determine the superiority of the result. Thus, we cannot conclude that the tAratamyatA of the result is because of the tAratamyatA of the upAsya devatA.

As bhagavAn says in the gitA,

येऽप्यन्यदेवता भक्ता यजन्ते श्रद्धयाऽन्विताः।

तेऽपि मामेव कौन्तेय यजन्त्यविधिपूर्वकम्।।

Whosoever worships other deities with faith, they worship Me (Ishvara) only, without knowing.

This implies that even those that worship exalted jIva-s such as hiraNyagarbha, Indra etc with faith, ultimately worship Ishvara only. Because such a worship is done without knowing that it is Ishvara that is being worshipped, the result will naturally be inferior to the worship knowing that the object of worship is Ishvara Himself.

That being the case, what to talk of one form of Ishvara (Shiva Vishnu, Parvati etc), or the other? 

How that worship is to be performed will depend on and differ based on Agama / shruti / smRti vidhi, but that it is Ishvara that is ultimately being worshipped is our siddhAnta.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOERrx1vALfBeu9kb%3DhDFR-jghxPJ%2B9%3D2ffbXjTRNM%2BQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  <<  The tAratamyatA (gradation) of the phala (result) is not because of the tAratamyatA of the upAsya devatA but because of the tAratamyatA of the sankalpa and sAdhana >>,

In the prescribed  sankalpa and sAdhanAs  for different pUjAvidhAnAs,  the upAsya devatA  is also prescribed. Is it not ?  Hence the tAratamyatA of the upAsya devatA is also covered.

Reg  << As bhagavAn says in the gitA,

येऽप्यन्यदेवता भक्ता यजन्ते श्रद्धयाऽन्विताः।

तेऽपि मामेव कौन्तेय यजन्त्यविधिपूर्वकम्।।

Whosoever worships other deities with faith, they worship Me (Ishvara) only, without knowing >>,

This is not disputed. 

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnF4yWSFakwQD4ZmOBde8G7Q7CkBOu%3DazJuSdZx1FgvxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 10:52 AM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  <<  The tAratamyatA (gradation) of the phala (result) is not because of the tAratamyatA of the upAsya devatA but because of the tAratamyatA of the sankalpa and sAdhana >>,

In the prescribed  sankalpa and sAdhanAs  for different pUjAvidhAnAs,  the upAsya devatA  is also prescribed. Is it not ?  Hence the tAratamyatA of the upAsya devatA is also covered.

How so? I know you know this, but for the sake of clarity, tAratamyatA = gradation. 

Suppose we perform a gAyatrI japa for the attainment of wealth. Suppose also that we perform another gAyatrI japa for chittashuddhi. The upAsya devatA is the same, the karma is the same, but the desired result is different. 

How then can we say that the results being superior or inferior implies that the object of worship is superior or inferior, when as I have shown in the previous email, the cause of the superiority or inferiority of the results can be for factors other than the superiority or inferiority of the object of worship.

To prove the presence of A by the presence of B, one will have to necessarily demonstrate that B cannot be present unless A was present.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

I was thinking of, say, ** To attain Swarga Loka . one needs to perform Jyotishtoma **. Now Jyotishtoma needs to be performed only with the prescribed devatAs. No other alternate devatAs can be invoked. Also, for some specific results like attainment of swarga loka etc, only limited options are prescribed in respect of devatAs capable of leading to such results. Not all devatAs have such capabilities. Hence my earlier conclusion.

It is not that there are only one unique way to attain a particular result, say wealth. There could be alternate ways. But still in each prescribed way, the particular devatA needs to be invoked. Any devatA is not permitted. That is what I meant by saying tAratamyatA is admitted amongst the devatAs.

Regards

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmr8p%3D2_cBp%3DncEBxTp%2Bh%3DgV8KnPyDzYLQVBHQ_JYnCNw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

This verse of the Gita 7.16 says:

चतुर्विधा भजन्ते मां जनाः सुकृतिनोऽर्जुन। 

आर्तो जिज्ञासुरर्थार्थी ज्ञानी च भरतर्षभ।।

Here different aspirants 'worship' the same Bhagavan for their desired ends. This is applicable to any deity of our Sanantana dharma pantheon.  Hence alone the Shanmata system. And this is an upalakshana: any devatA could fit in here, provided the aspirant regards that deity as Supreme.  Bhagavatpada in the Kenopanishad bhashya 1.5 says: Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra, Prana - all could be Brahman, the upasya.  This is a purvapaksha who wants to say: The upasaka can't be Brahman. In the siddhanta the mantra says: तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते  and the Acharya says: the mantra affirms 'know only that to be Brahman which the upasaka does not consider it as 'this', anAtmA'.  

In the PratardanaadhikaraNa, Indra is Brahman who teaches the Brahmavidya. In Chandogya 7th ch. Sanatkumara is Brahman and so on and in the Mundaka, a Jnani is Brahman, when worshiped, the aspirant is liberated.      

regards

subbu

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 5:11 PM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkat Ji,

I was thinking of, say, ** To attain Swarga Loka . one needs to perform Jyotishtoma **. Now Jyotishtoma needs to be performed only with the prescribed devatAs. No other alternate devatAs can be invoked. Also, for some specific results like attainment of swarga loka etc, only limited options are prescribed in respect of devatAs capable of leading to such results. Not all devatAs have such capabilities. Hence my earlier conclusion.

It is not that there are only one unique way to attain a particular result, say wealth. There could be alternate ways. But still in each prescribed way, the particular devatA needs to be invoked. Any devatA is not permitted. That is what I meant by saying tAratamyatA is admitted amongst the devatAs.

Regards

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 4:40 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Chandramouliji,

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 10:52 AM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  <<  The tAratamyatA (gradation) of the phala (result) is not because of the tAratamyatA of the upAsya devatA but because of the tAratamyatA of the sankalpa and sAdhana >>,

In the prescribed  sankalpa and sAdhanAs  for different pUjAvidhAnAs,  the upAsya devatA  is also prescribed. Is it not ?  Hence the tAratamyatA of the upAsya devatA is also covered.

How so? I know you know this, but for the sake of clarity, tAratamyatA = gradation. 

Suppose we perform a gAyatrI japa for the attainment of wealth. Suppose also that we perform another gAyatrI japa for chittashuddhi. The upAsya devatA is the same, the karma is the same, but the desired result is different. 

How then can we say that the results being superior or inferior implies that the object of worship is superior or inferior, when as I have shown in the previous email, the cause of the superiority or inferiority of the results can be for factors other than the superiority or inferiority of the object of worship.

To prove the presence of A by the presence of B, one will have to necessarily demonstrate that B cannot be present unless A was present.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmr8p%3D2_cBp%3DncEBxTp%2Bh%3DgV8KnPyDzYLQVBHQ_JYnCNw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdNdB3KFZr1JiNjYWZ9JNgeYGk8%3DwF13RO26t1huOAf5cQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Subrahmanian Ji,

Yes. They have all taught BrahmavidyA. But as per the Ananda mImAmsa of Tai. Up and Br. Up, let alone the *ajnAni devatAs*, even amongst the *jnAni devatAs* there is tAratamya as regards the Ananda experienced by Indra, Brihaspati, PrajApati.

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3%3Dt4HmoHBLsiBVxyVSc0gnATvqs0BhM-4c8ydcaH_viA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

Thank you. Yes there is tAratamyatA among the deva-s - ie agni, indra, all the way up to hiraNyagarbha - because they are all ultimately jIva-s.

However there is no tAratamyatA among various forms of Ishvara. The devI being worshipped during navarAtrI is equal to Shiva being worshipped during shivarAtri who is equal to the Rama being worshipped during rAmanavamI - both are forms of Ishvara only, but a particular name and form of the Ishvara is being worshipped there, for ease of worship.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 11:41 H S Chandramouli, <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkat Ji,

I was thinking of, say, ** To attain Swarga Loka . one needs to perform Jyotishtoma **. Now Jyotishtoma needs to be performed only with the prescribed devatAs. No other alternate devatAs can be invoked. Also, for some specific results like attainment of swarga loka etc, only limited options are prescribed in respect of devatAs capable of leading to such results. Not all devatAs have such capabilities. Hence my earlier conclusion.

It is not that there are only one unique way to attain a particular result, say wealth. There could be alternate ways. But still in each prescribed way, the particular devatA needs to be invoked. Any devatA is not permitted. That is what I meant by saying tAratamyatA is admitted amongst the devatAs.

Regards

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 4:40 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Chandramouliji,

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 10:52 AM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  <<  The tAratamyatA (gradation) of the phala (result) is not because of the tAratamyatA of the upAsya devatA but because of the tAratamyatA of the sankalpa and sAdhana >>,

In the prescribed  sankalpa and sAdhanAs  for different pUjAvidhAnAs,  the upAsya devatA  is also prescribed. Is it not ?  Hence the tAratamyatA of the upAsya devatA is also covered.

How so? I know you know this, but for the sake of clarity, tAratamyatA = gradation. 

Suppose we perform a gAyatrI japa for the attainment of wealth. Suppose also that we perform another gAyatrI japa for chittashuddhi. The upAsya devatA is the same, the karma is the same, but the desired result is different. 

How then can we say that the results being superior or inferior implies that the object of worship is superior or inferior, when as I have shown in the previous email, the cause of the superiority or inferiority of the results can be for factors other than the superiority or inferiority of the object of worship.

To prove the presence of A by the presence of B, one will have to necessarily demonstrate that B cannot be present unless A was present.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmr8p%3D2_cBp%3DncEBxTp%2Bh%3DgV8KnPyDzYLQVBHQ_JYnCNw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdNdB3KFZr1JiNjYWZ9JNgeYGk8%3DwF13RO26t1huOAf5cQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 8:56 PM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subrahmanian Ji,

Yes. They have all taught BrahmavidyA. But as per the Ananda mImAmsa of Tai. Up and Br. Up, let alone the *ajnAni devatAs*, even amongst the *jnAni devatAs* there is tAratamya as regards the Ananda experienced by Indra, Brihaspati, PrajApati.

The Ananda mimamsa is about the loka/position one attains by karma/upasana samucchaya.  Hence the ananda taratamya. But as Jnani's the ananda is the 'same' Brahmananda of all of them. There is no taratamya there, unless one would bring in the four categories of Brahmavit-s.  And the devatAs in those positions are not considered Jnani's in the mimamsa scheme of the Tai.up. That's why, in contrast, the shrotriya, akAmahata, is said to have the ananda of all those gods in those lokas, even without his being in that loka. 

regards

subbu    

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOuBPes8DGH78fCFy1qDUtpDmN8xjgPQs00xmqLPueiYw%40mail.gmail.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Venkatraghavan-ji,

<

Yes there is tAratamyatA among the deva-s - ie agni, indra, all the way up to hiraNyagarbha - because they are all ultimately jIva-s.

However there is no tAratamyatA among various forms of Ishvara.

>

The above sounds like Dvaita to me as they accept abheda/samanatva in all the forms of Ishwara/Vishnu.🙂

They even consider Ishwara as sarvanAma vAchya and sarva roopa vedya which essentially points to the indwelling Self/paramAtma only.

IMHO Advaita when "unfolded" yields Dvaita as the entire world is a reflection of the Atman/Brahman. Every particular name/form is an "integral part" of the Self (as if). The same non-dual Self due to the power of mAya mysteriously divides/multiplies itself into infinite forms/varieties appearing as the Vishwaroopi Brahman/Ishwara.

IMHO one's own Ishtadevata must be identified with the Vishwaroopi Ishwara in order to remain within the Vedic/dhArmic fold. 

While Vishwashareeratva yields V.Advaita - all the many varieties in particular name/forms supports tAratAmya/Dvaita. But still the witnessing Self/Brahman always remains non-dual.

Dvaita and V.Advaita actually helps to bring out the glory of Advaita Brahman! Atattvamasi helps to eliminate vAchyArtha (kartrutva/jivatva, bhoktrutva/Ishwaratva). Both tattvamasi and atattvamasi must be considered in order to arrive at the lakshyartha. 

As dharma/guruparampara is also sanAtana, there is a need to consider Brahma shareeratva and bheda/tAratamya due to karma/trigunas, in the vyAvahAric world. So IMHO all the three systems are not closed compartments but are complimentary to each other.

Here is one bhAshya vAkya (prashnopanishad 6-8) that supports Brahma shareeratva that helps to establish the glory/eternality of the guruparampara.

ते तमर्चयन्तस्त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकमविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसीति । नमः परमऋषिभ्यो नमः परमऋषिभ्यः ॥ ८ ॥

ततः ते शिष्या गुरुणानुशिष्टाः तं गुरुं कृतार्थाः सन्तो विद्यानिष्क्रयमन्यदपश्यन्तः किं कृतवन्त इत्युच्यते — अर्चयन्तः पूजयन्तः पादयोः पुष्पाञ्जलिप्रकिरणेन प्रणिपातेन च शिरसा । किमूचुरित्याह — त्वं हि नः अस्माकं पिता ब्रह्मशरीरस्य विद्यया जनयितृत्वान्नित्यस्याजरामरणस्याभयस्य ।

 

My apologies for my rantings. Look forward to your corrections/comments.

Namaste

Suresh

 

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 5:25 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] rAma-krishna-shiva-durga etc. are not same in shAstric vyavahAra!!!

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0hbYMETTYHJqL963Fhr5D%3DVebTcdAs8OT7oQCKi0Q1BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  <<  However there is no tAratamyatA among various forms of Ishvara. The devI being worshipped during navarAtrI is equal to Shiva being worshipped during shivarAtri who is equal to the Rama being worshipped during rAmanavamI - both are forms of Ishvara only, but a particular name and form of the Ishvara is being worshipped there, for ease of worship >>,

Yes. My understanding is also generally the same.

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DEVg-tZfr%3DYrcHohEgNEgZ4VdyWo8%2B494U%2BFEF63R4SA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Suresh ji,

Responses in line.

Regards

Venkatraghavan

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 21:10 suresh srinivasamurthy, <sure...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkatraghavan-ji,

<

Yes there is tAratamyatA among the deva-s - ie agni, indra, all the way up to hiraNyagarbha - because they are all ultimately jIva-s.

However there is no tAratamyatA among various forms of Ishvara.

>

The above sounds like Dvaita to me as they accept abheda/samanatva in all the forms of Ishwara/Vishnu.🙂

They even consider Ishwara as sarvanAma vAchya and sarva roopa vedya which essentially points to the indwelling Self/paramAtma only.

If that were indeed the case, they would be most welcome within the Advaita fold. However, they do not hold Shiva / Parvati as forms of Ishvara. In fact, in their credo of hari sarvottama, vAyu jIvottama means that apart from Hari there is no Ishvara and Shiva is a jIva who occupies a lower position compared to vAyu. That being the case, what I have written above cannot be dvaita, unless you are willing to overlook the fundamental viewpoint of Advaita that the Ishvara takes on different names and forms for the purpose of blessing devotees. स्यात् परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात् मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम्

IMHO Advaita when "unfolded" yields Dvaita as the entire world is a reflection of the Atman/Brahman. Every particular name/form is an "integral part" of the Self (as if). The same non-dual Self due to the power of mAya mysteriously divides/multiplies itself into infinite forms/varieties appearing as the Vishwaroopi Brahman/Ishwara.

Correct. We go on to say that those names and forms / divisions are not ultimately real.

IMHO one's own Ishtadevata must be identified with the Vishwaroopi Ishwara in order to remain within the Vedic/dhArmic fold. 

While Vishwashareeratva yields V.Advaita - all the many varieties in particular name/forms supports tAratAmya/Dvaita. But still the witnessing Self/Brahman always remains non-dual.

Dvaita and V.Advaita actually helps to bring out the glory of Advaita Brahman! Atattvamasi helps to eliminate vAchyArtha (kartrutva/jivatva, bhoktrutva/Ishwaratva). Both tattvamasi and atattvamasi must be considered in order to arrive at the lakshyartha. 

I am not sure I understand what you mean by this. There is negation of the vAcyArtha by neti neti, on the grounds that the guNa-s of the jIva and Ishvara are on account of mithyA upAdhi-s. How you would equate neti neti to atattvamasi is unclear to me.

As dharma/guruparampara is also sanAtana, there is a need to consider Brahma shareeratva and bheda/tAratamya due to karma/trigunas, in the vyAvahAric world. So IMHO all the three systems are not closed compartments but are complimentary to each other.

There are various aspects in vyavahAra where the three systems do agree with each other. However in one fundamental aspect they differ in vyavahAra - the supremacy accorded to one form of Ishvara - Vishnu - over Shiva / Parvati etc in vishiShTAdvaita and dvaita, is not acceptable to advaita - for us they are all various names and forms of Ishvara, and equally worthy of worship and reverence. That one would consider Shiva to be any different to Vishnu in His aspect as Ishvara is anathema to us. The frankly insulting language employed by dvaita and vishiShTAdvaita in connection with the divine dampati - Shiva / Parvati - pains us.

Here is one bhAshya vAkya (prashnopanishad 6-8) that supports Brahma shareeratva that helps to establish the glory/eternality of the guruparampara.

ते तमर्चयन्तस्त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकमविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसीति । नमः परमऋषिभ्यो नमः परमऋषिभ्यः ॥ ८ ॥

ततः ते शिष्या गुरुणानुशिष्टाः तं गुरुं कृतार्थाः सन्तो विद्यानिष्क्रयमन्यदपश्यन्तः किं कृतवन्त इत्युच्यते — अर्चयन्तः पूजयन्तः पादयोः पुष्पाञ्जलिप्रकिरणेन प्रणिपातेन च शिरसा । किमूचुरित्याह — त्वं हि नः अस्माकं पिता ब्रह्मशरीरस्य विद्यया जनयितृत्वान्नित्यस्याजरामरणस्याभयस्य ।

 

Here the term brahma sharIra - is used figuratively to justify the usage of pitA in the mantra त्वं हि नः पिता - the student extols the teacher as his father, because like the father is the cause of the physical body of his progeny, the teacher is the cause for the student to identify himself as Brahman (the term brahmasharIra is karma dhAraya samAsa, not shaShThI tatpuruSha). As he is the cause for the student to take on the body that is Brahman (as it were) by imparting him with knowledge, the student extols his teacher as his father - 

नित्यस्याजरामरणस्याभयस्य ब्रह्मशरीरस्य विद्यया जनयितृत्वात्, त्वं हि नः पिता.

My apologies for my rantings. 

No apologies necessary.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

Look forward to your cosrrections/comments.

Namaste

Suresh

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB451607C677E6D0A42735711CA9D49%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan ji,

What I mean to say is - Advaita has given a general framework which when particularized yields Dvaita. It is true that Vaishnavas hold Shiva as a jiva and the converse is the belief among Shaivas. I don't see any problem there as Ishwara can only be ONE. But what is common is the acceptance of Vishwaroopatva and antaryAmitva of Ishwara and bheda /tAratamya in vyavahAra. That makes Ishwara sarvanAma vAchya which technically should integrate all differences. 🙂 

IMHO atattvamasi helps in negating identification with the SarvAntaryAmi Ishwara on whom all name/forms depend. (sadAyatanAha satpratishTaha). As the sAndhi can split in both ways somehow both must be considered to arrive at the lakshyArtha. Identifying the Guru as Ishwara/Brahman and oneself as his servant/student would help to accomplish both interpretations 🙂

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 12:01 PM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEksN%2BqGwyBkXH1eyOF2akA6ZcVV8AAq6OL7RYZNws7sOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste,

My whole point is that atattvamasi could be re-interpreted to support Advaita as it helps to eliminate vAchyArtha/Ishwaroham bhAva. Accepting bheda in vyavahAra supports sanatanatva of dharma and also helps to bring out the glory of advaitic guru parampara.

Best Regards,

Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 6:09 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516E2EDDC7FD5EE78ED9CFDA9D59%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

My whole point is that atattvamasi could be re-interpreted to support Advaita as it helps to eliminate vAchyArtha/Ishwaroham bhAva.

 

• I don’t think to validate bheda in vyavahAra we have to twist and turn the Upanishad siddhAnta or shruti vAkya.   I don’t think even Sri rAmAnujaachArya interpret tattvamasi as attatvamasi to uphold vyavahArika bheda.  ( has he discussed this anywhere in Sri bhAshya?? ) As a matter of fact upanishad/shruti siddhAnta is all about paramArtha satya i.e. AtmaikatvaM and point to be noted shruti does not put extra effort to highlight bheda in vyavahAra as it is quite evident and lOkAnubhava. 

 

Accepting bheda in vyavahAra supports sanatanatva of dharma and also helps to bring out the glory of advaitic guru parampara.

 

Ø     Yes and Advaita sampradaya does accept this vyAvahArika satya or bheda vyavahAra, hence there is lot of emphasis on karma, karma phala, karmAnushtAna, janmAntara sAdhana, guru-shishya Parampara, prArabdha karma phala etc.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thank you. Yes there is tAratamyatA among the deva-s - ie agni, indra, all the way up to hiraNyagarbha - because they are all ultimately jIva-s.

 

Ø     Ultimately jeeva-s!!??  kindly elaborate.  The Rigveda mantra ekaM sat viprA bahudA vadanti continues to say that : agni, yamaM mAtarishwAnamAhuH, those who have been addressed as : indra, mitra, varuNa, agni etc. behind all these there is only one reality.  So, I think your statement :  ultimately jeeva-s needs bit elaboration. 

 

However there is no tAratamyatA among various forms of Ishvara. The devI being worshipped during navarAtrI is equal to Shiva being worshipped during shivarAtri who is equal to the Rama being worshipped during rAmanavamI - both are forms of Ishvara only, but a particular name and form of the Ishvara is being worshipped there, for ease of worship.

 

Ø     The upasiddhAnta that I can draw from this is ( I may be wrong here) Ishwara’s form or vyAkruta rUpa is restricted to some specified celebrities in celestial abode like devi, rAma, Krishna, shiva etc. but not IndrAdi devata.  If that is the case this difference between indrAdi devata (ultimately jeeva-s) and other main deva-devata  not something related to upAdhi but something else!!??  Or am I missing something here??  Please clarify.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 11:45 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thank you. Yes there is tAratamyatA among the deva-s - ie agni, indra, all the way up to hiraNyagarbha - because they are all ultimately jIva-s.

 

Ø     Ultimately jeeva-s!!??  kindly elaborate.  The Rigveda mantra ekaM sat viprA bahudA vadanti continues to say that : agni, yamaM mAtarishwAnamAhuH, those who have been addressed as : indra, mitra, varuNa, agni etc. behind all these there is only one reality.  So, I think your statement :  ultimately jeeva-s needs bit elaboration. 

That these devatA-s are all jIva-s are known from several places from the shruti and the bhAShya  - hiraNyagarbha is called prathamajah (first born) in many places. The ekam sat viprA bahudhA vadanti calls these devatA-s as sat, not in their devatAsvarUpa, but in their kAraNa svarUpa as Brahman. So SAyaNAchArya in his bhAShya for this rig mantra says : कथं एकस्य नानात्वमुच्यते - अमुमेवादित्यम् एकं एव वस्तुतः सन्तं विप्राः मेधाविनः देवतातत्त्वविदः बहुधा वदन्ति | तत्तत्कार्यकारणेन इन्द्राद्यात्मानं वदन्ति ...सूर्यस्य ब्रह्मणोऽनन्यत्वेन सार्वात्म्यमुक्तं भवति |

So indra etc are not Ishvara as indra, but in the kAraNa svarUpa of indrAdi devatA-s. As indrAdi they are jIva-s only.

 

 However there is no tAratamyatA among various forms of Ishvara. The devI being worshipped during navarAtrI is equal to Shiva being worshipped during shivarAtri who is equal to the Rama being worshipped during rAmanavamI - both are forms of Ishvara only, but a particular name and form of the Ishvara is being worshipped there, for ease of worship.

 

Ø     The upasiddhAnta that I can draw from this is ( I may be wrong here) Ishwara’s form or vyAkruta rUpa is restricted to some specified celebrities in celestial abode like devi, rAma, Krishna, shiva etc. but not IndrAdi devata.  If that is the case this difference between indrAdi devata (ultimately jeeva-s) and other main deva-devata  not something related to upAdhi but something else!!??  Or am I missing something here??  Please clarify.

It is definitely possible to worship indrAdi devatAs in their kAraNa svarUpa as Ishvara (where the shruti enjoins so), and in doing that, such an upAsana is not indra upAsana - it is Ishvara upAsana only. That is why when we are worshipping devI, rAma, Krishna, shiva, while we are worshipping the names and forms, we are not worshipping them as names and forms, but as names and forms of Ishvara. 

The shAstra is giving us these names and forms as "tools" to be able to conceptualise that which is beyond conceptualisation. Which form of Ishvara is to be worshipped and how that form is to be worshipped is not something that we can take up independently - it has to be something that is enjoined in the shAstra-s. There will be differences in the manner of worship for each name and form - because the shAstra-s gives us those differences.

So the siddhAnta is not that only some forms are Ishvara and others are not (because Ishvara is sarvAtmakah), but rather, what the shAstra says that one should accept as a form of Ishvara fit to be worshipped, is to be worshipped as Ishvara, not as a name and form.

 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Suresh Srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Bhasker ji,

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 5:58:50 AM UTC-5 Bhaskar YR wrote:

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

My whole point is that atattvamasi could be re-interpreted to support Advaita as it helps to eliminate vAchyArtha/Ishwaroham bhAva.

 

• I don’t think to validate bheda in vyavahAra we have to twist and turn the Upanishad siddhAnta or shruti vAkya.   I don’t think even Sri rAmAnujaachArya interpret tattvamasi as attatvamasi to uphold vyavahArika bheda.  ( has he discussed this anywhere in Sri bhAshya?? ) As a matter of fact upanishad/shruti siddhAnta is all about paramArtha satya i.e. AtmaikatvaM and point to be noted shruti does not put extra effort to highlight bheda in vyavahAra as it is quite evident and lOkAnubhava. 

 

It is true that Sri rAmAnuja also split the sandhi as tattvamasi only. But I think shruti vAkya is still needed to establish the jiva-jIvAntaryami ishwara bheda. (Atmano antaro yamAtmA na veda yasya AtmA shareeram). Otherwise how to do you eliminate vAchyArtha that may lead to the Ishwaroham/Asura bhAva? So I don't think Dvaita/atattvamasi is a poorva paksha for Advaita at all. It helps to clear the way towards the lakshyArtha.

 

Accepting bheda in vyavahAra supports sanatanatva of dharma and also helps to bring out the glory of advaitic guru parampara.

 

Ø     Yes and Advaita sampradaya does accept this vyAvahArika satya or bheda vyavahAra, hence there is lot of emphasis on karma, karma phala, karmAnushtAna, janmAntara sAdhana, guru-shishya Parampara, prArabdha karma phala etc.

The above gains credibility if if it is suppported by shAstra/upanishads. Just accepting bheda without shAstra may either lead to nirIshwara bhAva or Ishwaroham bhAva.

Namaste

Suresh

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 8:38 PM Suresh Srinivasamurthy <sure...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Bhasker ji,

My whole point is that atattvamasi could be re-interpreted to support Advaita as it helps to eliminate vAchyArtha/Ishwaroham bhAva.

Dear Suresh ji,

Ishwaroham/Asura bhAva  of the 16th chapter of the BG is not the ahankara of claiming oneself to be the Ishwara, the jagat kaaraNam. It is rather the egoistic idea that 'I am the lord' in the manner of 'koTyAdhiSha, lakShAdhIsha, etc.'  It is an expression of evil pride. Madhvacharya mistook / misapplied this to the aham brahmasmi of the Advaita and thought Vedavyasa/Krishna are censuring Advaitins.  

In the 18th chapter we have the Kshatriya dharma as 'daanam Ishvabhaavascha..' as a positive dharma of a Kshatriya: he should have the feeling of being the owner/lord of the kingdom he rules. Here too it is not the Bhagavan Ishvara bhaava. 

Ishvara means 'samartha'.

regards

subbu

 

• 
  

[Suresh Srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Subbu-ji,

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 12:09:57 PM UTC-5 v.subrahmanian wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 8:38 PM Suresh Srinivasamurthy wrote:

Namaste Bhasker ji,

My whole point is that atattvamasi could be re-interpreted to support Advaita as it helps to eliminate vAchyArtha/Ishwaroham bhAva.

Dear Suresh ji,

Ishwaroham/Asura bhAva  of the 16th chapter of the BG is not the ahankara of claiming oneself to be the Ishwara, the jagat kaaraNam. It is rather the egoistic idea that 'I am the lord' in the manner of 'koTyAdhiSha, lakShAdhIsha, etc.'  It is an expression of evil pride. Madhvacharya mistook / misapplied this to the aham brahmasmi of the Advaita and thought Vedavyasa/Krishna are censuring Advaitins.  

In the 18th chapter we have the Kshatriya dharma as 'daanam Ishvabhaavascha..' as a positive dharma of a Kshatriya: he should have the feeling of being the owner/lord of the kingdom he rules. Here too it is not the Bhagavan Ishvara bhaava. 

Ishvara means 'samartha'.

I completely agree with what you said Subbuji, and infact I have mentioned it myself in my other posts earlier.

But still there is a chance that untrained non-traditional jivas can misunderstand "tattvamasi" and "aham brahmAsmi"

as "I am the Lord". There is also jIveshwara samAna bhAva (AnandasAmya) in V.advaita which can be misunderstood 

as "I am equal to the Lord". IMHO MadhwachArya's interpretation helps to eliminate both.

 

Likewise taking "atattvamasi" alone leads to "aham a-brahmAsmi" which goes against veda :)

Hence the need to consider both to arrive at the correct lakshyArtha.

Ultimately all the traditions have to accept BrahmAtmaikatvam based on many pramANAs and dharma as the means to

attain the same.

  

regards

subbu

 

• 
  

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

 

But still there is a chance that untrained non-traditional jivas can misunderstand "tattvamasi" and "aham brahmAsmi"

as "I am the Lord". There is also jIveshwara samAna bhAva (AnandasAmya) in V.advaita which can be misunderstood 

as "I am equal to the Lord". IMHO MadhwachArya's interpretation helps to eliminate both.

 

Ø     Quite interesting!!  When some untrained non-traditional jiva taking the shelter under madhva’s interpretation to understand ahaM brahmAsmi and tattvamasi etc. why don’t they refer to Advaita interpretation to understand the same vAkya-s!!??  Those who refer to Advaita vedAnta to understand these vAkya-s would get the impression that he is lord himself??  That is the question.  If the answer is yes, then it would be legible to as them to go to tattvavAda way of interpretation.  But as you know that is not the case in Advaita.  Moreover madhwa’s way of interpretation not only says you are NOT that but it also propagates the eternal paNcha bheda as well and gradations in jeeva-s as well where unfortunately for some jeeva-s there is absolutely no chance of any sort of mukti and certain set of jeeva-s would be permanent residents of naraka 😊

 

Likewise taking "atattvamasi" alone leads to "aham a-brahmAsmi" which goes against veda :)

 

Ø     For that matter when Advaita says tattvamasi means you are that, it is not saying you are god/samartha like Ishwara etc. If Advaita says / interpret this vAkya like that then ONLY maadhva’s interpretation is required to say jeeva is NOT bhagavanta.  Is it not?? 

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

But I think shruti vAkya is still needed to establish the jiva-jIvAntaryami ishwara bheda. (Atmano antaro yamAtmA na veda yasya AtmA shareeram). Otherwise how to do you eliminate vAchyArtha that may lead to the Ishwaroham/Asura bhAva?

 

• By understanding the Advaita perspective through shankara bhAshya, for advaitins there is absolutely no need to dvaita interpretation to know that jeeva is not Ishwara or god and there is no danger of getting the asura bhAva or getting a syndrome like paudraka in bhAgawata 😊  The point to be noted here Advaita does not explain only tattvamasi vAkya in shruti to prove ahaM brahmAsmi.  bhagavatpAda shankara explained and clarified other aspects of jeeva/Ishwara/jagat as well.  Those who study Advaita under the guru would not get mundane ideas like : when I myself God why should I worship other gods etc.  Those who are still wondering where bhAshyakAra explaining jeeva-Ishwara bheda??  Should religiously study the PTB to know the Advaita position.  Just one example from bhAshya : visheshO hi bhavati shAreera (jeeva) paramEshwarayOH ekaH kartA bhOktA dharmAdharma sAdhanaH sukhaduHkhAdimAMscha, ekaH tad vipareetaH apahatapApmAditvAdiguNaH, etasmAdanayOH visheshAdekasya bhOgaH netarasya.  It is just because in vyavahAra : jeeva is shAreera hence shAreera iti shareere bhavaH ityarthaH but Ishwara is not only in shareera but he is AkAshavat sarvagatascha nityaH,  nanu IshwarOpi shareere bhavati??  Satyam, shareere bhavati na tu shareere eva bhavati.  And we have to accept this because in lOka vyavahAra this bheda darshana is quite conspicuous.  And smruti also (unlike) shruti presents the bheda between shAreeri and paramAtma clarifies bhAshyakAra.  So accepting bheda between Ishwara and jeeva in vyavahAra prapancha / shAstra vyavahAra not at all ignored by Advaita Vedanta and its mUlAchArya. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am still not clear about categorizing some devata’s upAdhi as jeeva upAdhi and some main deities upAdhi as Ishwara upAdhi.  My contention is very simple and clear, as per Advaita Chaitanya is one which is birthless, deathless but still appears in nAnA rUpa (ajAyamAno bahudA vijAyate), in that case how can we differentiate some upAdhi sahita chaitanya as devata gaNa (mere tiny jeeva) and some upAdhi sahita Chaitanya as omni potent, omni scient sarveshwara like rAma krishna.or vishNu-shiva!!??  If we ignore the upAdhi what remains is kevala Chaitanya is it not??  And here the main question is, in shAstra vyavahAra whether the names and forms (upAdhi-s) prescribed by shAstra-s to do upAsana are different or not??  shAstra and bhAshya say yes it is different and result of upAsana of these different devata-s are also different.  Under these circumstances though upAdhi-s in its kAraNa swarUpa is ekam eva adviteeyam and we doing the upAsana not to mere names and forms but Chaitanya  the ‘chaitanya’ in its personification form sOpAdhika rUpa is different only and that difference is equally applicable to main deities like shivAdi gods and indrAdi devata-s and sakala sthAvara jaNgama-s.  In this scenario the upAdhi of shiva is entirely different from vishNu, devi’s upAdhi entirely different from that of vinAyaka, rudra gaNa, shaNmukha or sUrya.  And this bheda vyavahAra is obvious in shAstra / vaidika vyavahAra where there is jnAtru, jneya, jnana triputi hold sway.  And ultimately, from the paramArtha view point what is there is kevala nirupAdhika Chaitanya and there is no jeeva, nor deva gaNa and nor Ishwara.  As long as we don’t realize this what is the problem in accepting bheda among different deva-devata-s and what is the problem in expecting different fruits (phala) from doing upAsana to different devata-s??  IMO, doing the upAsana to particular form (ishta devata) keeping it separate from other forms of deities is not the problem but problem starts only when we start screaming “my daddy is strongest” and other should surrender to him or inferior to him.  This hierarchical treatment is dangerous and leads to fanaticism. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

Bhaskar YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Venkatraghavan S
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 5:47 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] rAma-krishna-shiva-durga etc. are not same in shAstric vyavahAra!!!

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DwWiQmGiPL5YOvBee0PdRhCawAV4BQ2Di7BPocK7N3zA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

The answer to your question can be found in the bhAshya sentence स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापीच्छावशान्मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम्.

The difference in the upAdhi-s in the case of jIva-s like indrAdi devatA-s and Ishvara avatAra-s is as follows:

1) Cause: the sharIra-s (upAdhi) that jIva-s such as indrAdi-s have is  because of karma phala, a result of their karma-s, whereas in the case of Ishvara avatAra-s such as Rama Krishna, Devi etc the form they take is merely a result of Ishvara sankalpa (इच्छावशात् in the bhAShya vAkya), not due to Ishvara's karma phala - Ishvara has no karma, and no karma phala.

2) Nature: the nature of the upAdhi-s in the case of jIva svarUpa-s is sthUla/sUkshma sharIrarUpa whereas in the case of Ishvara avatAra-s it is mAyAmaya sharIra (मायामयं रूपम् in the vAkya). That is why it is possible for Ishvara to take the form of Narasimha simply inside the pillar in an instant - the moment Prahlada says that He is present there.

3) The purpose: the birth of jIva-s as Indra etc is to exhaust the karma phala through experience, whereas the bodies taken by Ishvara avatAra-s is for the purpose of blessing the sAdhaka / loka kalyANa (साधकानुग्रहार्थम् in the vAkya).

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581DE1140BADBD205DE5EBB84DB9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Would it not be ok to understand forms Iswara takes, Rama/Krishna/Devi etc,  is without upAdhIs (other than His own upadhi, mAyA), **  mAyAmaya sharIra (मायामयं रूपम् in the vAkya) **, while the other devatas etc are  Iswara with upAdhIs which are creations of mAyA ?

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DK__ZHLJ8bRe30mUbJKPuQSvZJubGdfu1y2OgX1pOYsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Of course this is, in essence,  the same as what you have said, in my understanding.

Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Kaushik prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

They are ultimately jeevas because they have temporary posts.

 

• I am not talking about temporary posts that would be earned through puNya  by ‘some’ jeeva-s, but I am asking about the declaration of ‘they are ULTIMATELY jeeva-s.  Is there any concept in Advaita that would tell us about the ultimate existence of ‘some’ jeeva-s apart from one Chaitanya??  If it is argued that one Chaitanya is from the paramArtha view point and multiple jeeva-s exisence is in vyavahAra then we have to accept that bheda vyavahAra is quite valid and deva-devata bheda too valid in shAstra vyavahAra drushti.  So what exactly we are defending and arguing in shiva-vishNu abheda?? 

 

Once they complete their karma of being Indra, Brahma etc another jeeva attains that post. 

 

Ø     I have read somewhere 100 brahma years is equal to vishNu-s 1 day and 100 vishNu years is paramashiva-s one day or something like that with regard to life span of trimurthy-s.  😊 So in that sense the forms of trimurthy-s not ever lasting it is only long lasting forms when compared to other forms. 

 

Such is not the case for isvara. Isvara is eternal and unchanging not a post to be attained through punya karma unlike the others. In the gita bhasya acharya mentions that isvara has the control of all the bhutas starting from blade of grass to hiranyagarbha (the first born). Hence in vyavahara the isvara and jeeva bheda is verily present.

 

Ø     Yes that is exactly my point.  Jeeva Ishwara bheda is verily present and IshvarOpAdhi whether it is through his own saMkalpa, mAyA shareera or otherwise are also different.  When the purpose of this shareera dhAraNa  is dushta shikshaNa, shishta rakshaNa and dharma saMsthApana he assumes nAnA rUpa each rUpa entirely different from one another and serves different purpose and worship of it will be done by jeeva-s/bhakta-s are also different in different way.  Can we dispute this??

 

This type of question was clarified by jagadguru abhinava vidyatirtha swamin.

The indradi devatas aren't forms of isvara.

 

• ??  then what are they apart from Ishwara who is upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa for this charAchara jagat??

 

Once again they are jeevas only.

 

• TatsrushtvA tadevAnuprAvishat, mamaivAmshO jeevalOke jeevA bhUtO sanAtanaH…

 

It's not that "krishna" and "rama" are celebrated dieties rather they are the forms of isvara. Various are his forms. 

 

Ø     Yes it is not only restricted to some specified and noted names and forms of some popular deities.  He is ONE is all and All in one.  As long as we don’t realize this as you said above jeeveshara bheda is quite evident.  And jeeva’s Aradhana / upAsana to different gods and goddesses too evident.  This is what I am sharing.  When bheda accepted in vyavahAra why don’t we accept bheda in paramAtma’s personified forms?? 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023, 10:23 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

• I am not talking about temporary posts that would be earned through puNya  by ‘some’ jeeva-s, but I am asking about the declaration of ‘they are ULTIMATELY jeeva-s.  Is there any concept in Advaita that would tell us about the ultimate existence of ‘some’ jeeva-s apart from one Chaitanya?? 

I think you are putting more emphasis on the word "ultimately" than was intended by me. I didn't use the phrase "they are ultimately jIvas" to mean their paramArtha astitva is as jIva-s. I only meant that they are only jIva-s in vyavahAra, they are not Ishvara. 

• If it is argued that one Chaitanya is from the paramArtha view point and multiple jeeva-s exisence is in vyavahAra then we have to accept that bheda vyavahAra is quite valid and deva-devata bheda too valid in shAstra vyavahAra drushti. 

Yes, I didn't deny that.

• So what exactly we are defending and arguing in shiva-vishNu abheda?? 

Just because we accept there is jIveshvara bheda and jIva-jIva bheda in vyavahAra, why should we accept  bheda between one form of Ishvara and another form of Ishvara in all respects? The bheda between Shiva and Vishnu that we are willing to accept is only in their name, form, pUja vidhi, mantras etc. We do not accept any bheda in their status as Ishvara. 

In fact, if we accept bheda between two forms of Ishvara in all respects in vyavahAra then it is as good as saying there are two Ishvara-s, which would be absurd. But to avoid that we do not have to admit there is atyanta abheda between two forms of Ishvara in vyavahAra either. Nor do we have to say only one of the two is Ishvara either, as vishiShTAdvaita / dvaita say.

We instead say both Shiva and Vishnu are Ishvara only, they have just taken different names and forms for our benefit.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[V Subrahmanian]

And what Veda Vyasa has said in the Mahabharata:

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्त्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्। 

लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। 12-350-27a 12-350-27b. 

[Rudra and Narayana are only two manifestations of One Principle.......]  

regards

subbu 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkugEgKDKRHVGd-EB%3D2vRS5uqMZkwkQq-AXL-gwE3UWoA%40mail.gmail.com.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Subramanian,

Do you agree with this fact you are also a manifestation of Brahman,

like  rama, krishna and host of other puranic dieties?

Have you realized this fact within yourself by yourself?

This is what Upanishads are pointing out.

With namaskars,

Sreenivasa Murthy

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te17zycovum-oHMd7533Tq42rDfksYgx6weofwVieBeVqg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ganesh B]

Namaste 

Just generally contributing to this thread. 

Advaita Acharyas are striving to enlighten us about Jiva-Brahma Aikya. What to talk about the Devata-Devata Aikyatvam?

Maya Upahita Chaitanyam is Ishwara - He is Sarvajna

Ajnana Upahita Chaitanyam is Jiva - He is Alpajna

Alpajnas that we Jivas are are striving to prove or disprove the Aikyatva or Binnatvam or Taratamyatva of Devatas.

We should strive to understand the Ekavta rather than striving to prove Naanaatva. We should strive to understand the Samatva rather than striving to prive Taratamya. This is the spirit of the our Rishi Margam.

Some extracts from Vishnu Sahasranama Shankara Bhashya.

'एकमेवाद्वितीयम्' (Ch. 6.2.1) 

There is only one without duality. 

'एकं सन्तं बहुधा कल्पयन्ति।' 

'द्यावाभूमी जनयन्देव एकः।' 

'एको दाधार भुवनानि विश्वा।' 

'एक एवाग्निर्बहुधा समिद्धः। 

That alone which exists, is imagined to be many. 

The creator of heaven and earth, is one only. 

Only one upholds the whole universe. 

The one Agni is kindled as many. 

Rige Veda

Question - ननु कथम् एको देवः? जीवपरयोर्भेदात् ! 

Answer - 'तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्' (तै.उ 2.6) 

Having created it, he entered along with it. 

'स एष इह प्रविष्ट आ नखाग्रेभ्यः' (बृ.उ 1.4.4)

He entered thither to the very tips of the finger nails. 

'एकः सन् बहुधा विचारः' (तै.आ 3.11)

The one Deva became many. 

'त्वमेकोऽसि बहूननुप्रविष्टः' (तै.आ 3.14)

One only is considered as many. 

अग्निर्यथैको भुवनं प्रविष्टो
रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव ।
एकस्तथा सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा
रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बहिश्च ॥ ९ ॥

As the one fire, after it has entered the world, assumes different forms according to whatever it enters, so the one Self within all things assumes diferent forms according to whatever it enters, and exists also without.

वायुर्यथैको भुवनं प्रविष्टो
रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव ।
एकस्तथा सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा
रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बहिश्च ॥ १० ॥

As the one air, after it has entered the world, assumes different forms according to whatever it enters, so the one Self within all assumes different forms according to whatever it enters and exists also without.

सूर्यो यथा सर्वलोकस्य चक्षुः
न लिप्यते चाक्षुषैर्बाह्यदोषैः ।
एकस्तथा सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा
न लिप्यते लोकदुःखेन बाह्यः ॥ ११ ॥

As the sun, the eye of the whole world, is not contaminated by the external impurities seen by the eyes, so the one Self within all creatures is never contaminated by the misery of the world, being himself without. 

एको वशी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा
एकं रूपं बहुधा यः करोति ।
तमात्मस्थं येऽनुपश्यन्ति धीराः
तेषां सुखं शाश्वतं नेतरेषाम् ॥ १२ ॥

There is one Ruler, the Self within all creatures, who makes one form manifold. The wise who perceive him within their Self, to them belongs eternal happiness, not to others. 

नित्योऽनित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानाम्
एको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान् ।
तमात्मस्थं येऽनुपश्यन्ति धीराः
तेषां शान्तिः शाश्वती नेतरेषाम् ॥ १३ ॥

There is one eternal thinker, thinking non-eternal thoughts, who, though one, fulfils the desires of many. The wise who perceive bim within their Self to them belongs eternal peace, not to others.

(कठोपनिषद् 2.2.9-13)

Quoting these can go on endlessly, but we can see the and understand tthr spirit of Bhagavatpada here and conclude.

Namaskarams 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/159321738.1213082.1675826445890%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Yes this is the view of sampradaya. The distinction of forms of isvara is only different in forms and names. Not in their isvartva.

praNAms
Hare Krishna

Same is the case with jeeva, jeevatva or parichinnatvaM as such is not there. It is due to ignorance (mUdha-s) Kalpana or the ignorants due to identifying Chaitanya with upAdhi. Para eva Atma dehendriya manObuddhyupAdhibhiH paricchidyamAnaH 'bAlaiH' shAreera ityupacharyate, clarifies bhAshyakAra in sUtra. If you exclude IshwarOpAdhi or jeevOpAdhi what remains is Chaitanya. So bheda is with regard to this chaitanya's projections through different types of upAdhi-s. tattvawise all are ekaM eva but when this tattva's manifestations or vyAkruta rUpa is bhedAtmaka only due to upAdhi saMbandha.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Bhaskar YR

-----Original Message-----
From: Advaita-l <advaita-...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> On Behalf Of Kaushik Chevendra via Advaita-l
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:51 AM
To: Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com>
Cc: Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com>; Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rAma-krishna-shiva-durga etc. are not same in shAstric vyavahAra!!!

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook.
See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

>

> In fact, if we accept bheda between two forms of Ishvara in all
> respects in vyavahAra then it is as good as saying there are two
> Ishvara-s, which would be absurd. But to avoid that we do not have to
> admit there is atyanta abheda between two forms of Ishvara in
> vyavahAra either. Nor do we have to say only one of the two is Ishvara either, as vishiShTAdvaita / dvaita say.
>
> We instead say both Shiva and Vishnu are Ishvara only, they have just
> taken different names and forms for our benefit.
>

Namaste sir.
Yes this is the view of sampradaya. The distinction of forms of isvara is only different in forms and names. Not in their isvartva.

>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cbhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7C962a5e3d6a5b4030325108db09944ed3%7C7831e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638114304802477512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0Ks9HhSpIxMI1yi6PlJqLAIXY6dOCuLwcJOMBU8ZhqY%3D&reserved=0

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.advaita-vedanta.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C01%7Cbhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7C962a5e3d6a5b4030325108db09944ed3%7C7831e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638114304802477512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VCkqcheR1%2BtnyG%2F10XQo7AWuAW8xksreR6jMyCzEuH8%3D&reserved=0

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• It seems upAdhi sahita brahman making more noise here than nirupAdhika brahman 😊

 

I only meant that they are only jIva-s in vyavahAra, they are not Ishvara. 

 

Ø     And IshvarOpAdhi, his sarvajnatva, sarvashatitva too valid in vyavahAra only due to limited adjuncts is it not??  ( vide reference ArambhaNAdhikaraNa bhAshya) If the upAdhi of Ishwara is his own iccha/saMkalpa/ sAdhakAnugrahArthaM why bhAshyakAra said its due to ignorance valid only in vyavahAra?? And he also clarified elsewhere Ishwara’s / brahman’s sarvajnatvam sarvashaktitvaM etc. is svabhAva of brahman (itareya intro) Just wondering. 

 

Just because we accept there is jIveshvara bheda and jIva-jIva bheda in vyavahAra, why should we accept  bheda between one form of Ishvara and another form of Ishvara in all respects? The bheda between Shiva and Vishnu that we are willing to accept is only in their name, form, pUja vidhi, mantras etc. We do not accept any bheda in their status as Ishvara. 

 

Ø     IMO, it is because we are differentiating based on upAdhi-s.  Ignoring the upAdhi and concentrating and realizing ONLY  Ishwaratva (or paramArtha tattva) does not stop us to see Ishwaravtva ONLY in Ishwara upAdhi.  And when we are saying Ishwaratva being worshipped behind names and forms we knowingly or unknowingly clinging to upAdhi-s only and in that upAdhi pradhAna upAsana prakriya, upAsya devata is different so no need to see the abheda and argue the sameness even though in their kAraNa svarUpa it is Ishwara since Ishwaratva is one and the same behind ‘everything’. 

 

 

 

In fact, if we accept bheda between two forms of Ishvara in all respects in vyavahAra then it is as good as saying there are two Ishvara-s, which would be absurd.

 

• Yes this would be absurd and the same rule is applicable to jeeva-jeeva bheda, Jeeva-Ishwara bheda, deva-Ishwara bheda in vyavahAra.  For us, the advaitins, it would be shAtra permit way to think like that.  Now the question is what are the upAdhi-s that are exclusively worn by Ishwara by his own eccha/saMkalpa to bless the sAdhaka-s??  Can we say upAdhi-s ( names and forms) exclusively attributed to ONLY paNchAyatana devata, ok we can include shaNmukha also and nothing else??  I don’t think that would be restrictions that we can impose on IshwarOpAdhi, yO yO yAm yAm tanum bhaktaH ….tAm eva vidadAmyahaM says lord in geeta.  It might be varAha, it might be Narasimha, it might be fish, he might be dwarf (vAmana) or gigantic (trivikrama) what not??  So there is no limitations or exclusiveness to his attire (upAdhi-s) and at the same time the power exhibited by the same Ishwara through different upAdhi-s why not he is different in different names and forms??  The power behind oven and refrigerator one and the same but serve different purpose through different devices.  Hence upAsya devata, upAsana vidhi, upAsaka all are exclusive and different in their own sphere in the kArya brahmOpAsana.  This is what I am trying to say.  Please let me know where I am erring in this understanding. 

 

We instead say both Shiva and Vishnu are Ishvara only, they have just taken different names and forms for our benefit.

 

Ø     Interestingly when we are trying to prove shiva vishNu abheda we are not so particular to prove along with devi, sUrya, gaNapati abheda.  And bhAshyakAra too interestingly makes the categorization of some devata-s as tAmasi (vinAyaka, mAtru gaNa,sapta mAtruka etc.) and arAdhana of it restricted to only some set of upAsaka-s. 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

I am afraid I do not understand what your main contention is, or how it is different to what I am saying. 

I thought I was addressing what was your main issue, but I must confess I may have got it wrong.

Are you saying:

1)  Chaitanya in association with only one name and form is Ishvara? Or

2) Chaitanya in association with all names and forms is Ishvara? Or

3) Chaitanya in association with some names and forms is Ishvara? Or

4) Chaitanya in association with no names and forms is Ishvara?

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581F14A03FD2BB88D50189484D89%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• Kindly allow me to clarify :

 

Are you saying:

 

1. Chaitanya in association with only one name and form is Ishvara?

•   No, IshwarOpAdhi might be many not restricted to ONLY either shiva or vishNu.  However it is not clear to me when upAsaka when doing the upAsana doing the same to IshwarOpAdhi or karma/puNya phala janita devatOpAdhi.  As you know most of the sUkta-s / hymns / mantra-s are about indra, agni, varUna, sUrya etc. 
•  

2. Chaitanya in association with all names and forms is Ishvara? Or

>  when Ishwara is the Chaitanya that Chaitanya should be one without second, and as per shruti this Chaitanya thought of becoming many (so kAmayata, satyancha anrutaNcha satyamabhavat yadidaM kincha) and also nAma rUpa in vyAkruta rUpa and avyAkruta rUpa must be this chaitanya only since he is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  vishwarUpa darshana comes to my mind to substantiate my thought that all nAma & rUpa is Ishwara only and there is nothing apart from IT. 

  

3. Chaitanya in association with some names and forms is Ishvara? Or

• Frankly I think this is what you are saying by differentiating the IshwarOpAdhi which is mAyA rUpa and which is through his own saMkalpa and devatas’ upAdhi and jeeva upAdhi which is karma phala janita. 

 

4. Chaitanya in association with no names and forms is Ishvara?

• This is called nirupAdhika, nirvishesha, niravayava para brahman.  Ishwara when taken in the sense of samartha / ruler / lord etc. then he is sOpAdhika but  as per my understanding upAdhi cannot be restricted to some specified forms like ONLY vishNu or shiva’s specific features (like third eye in forehead of shiva or ksheera sAgara shesha shaayi vishNu) he can assume any form any time …but it is again force us to conclude that in vyavahAra there is some Chaitanya that has the capability of wear anything as per it’s sva-eccha and bless some other Chaitanya/s in some karma janita shareera.  In this scenario though Chaitanya is one we are seeing the bheda in Ishwara Chaitanya and jeeva Chaitanya and former is capable of uplifting the later. 

Now kindly clarify where there is mixing of vyavahArika and pAramArthis satya in my stand here. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkateswaran prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Namaskaram, I remember to have seen a YouTube video wherein Puri Shankaracharya states that as per advaitins only the Panchayatana devatas and their shastra authorised avatars can be considered as Ishvara.

> If this is really a traditional stand then we have to exclude Subramanya / shaNmukha as he is not included in paNchAyatana pooja but considered in shaNmata 😊 And sUrya one of the paNchAyatana devata is follows some orders of some other higher Chaitanya as per taittireeya like agni, indra and vAyu ( bheeshAsmAvAtaH pavate, bhishOdeti sUryaH etc. ) so he must be having karma/puNya janita temporary shareera / post. And devi's avataara like mAtru bhagini,sapta mAtruka vinAyaka ( bhUta gaNa in shiva parivAra) etc. also to be ignored though from the tip of the devi's nails nArayANAdi dashaakruti emerging ( karAnguli nakhOtpanna narAyaNa dashAkrutiH). Avatara is Ishwara and which is mentioned in shAstra is bit confusing further as shAstra says yadA yadAhi dharmasya glAnirbhavati I will be assures lord so his avatAra might be Ananta sahasra....how to reconcile as this and still to particular name and form of ONLY five devata!!??

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkateswaran prabhuji
Hare Krishna

> previous mail not worded properly, hence resending.

Namaskaram, I remember to have seen a YouTube video wherein Puri Shankaracharya states that as per advaitins only the Panchayatana devatas and their shastra authorised avatars can be considered as Ishvara.

> If this is really a traditional stand then we have to exclude Subramanya / shaNmukha as Ishwara as he is not included or listed in paNchAyatana pooja but considered only in shaNmata 😊 And sUrya one of the paNchAyatana devata-s has been following the orders of some other higher Chaitanya in fear !! as per taittireeya, like other devatas agni, indra and vAyu ( bheeshAsmAvAtaH pavate, bhishOdeti sUryaH etc. ) he too obey the order of his boss. So sUrya must be having karma/puNya janita temporary shareera / post. And devi's avataara like mAtru bhagini bhaginyAdi devata),sapta mAtruka and vinAyaka ( bhUta gaNa in shiva parivAra) etc. also to be ignored as they are taamasi devata. And though from the tip of the devi's nails nArayANAdi dashaakruti emerging ( karAnguli nakhOtpanna narAyaNa dashAkrutiH) devi's other avatAra like chandi, chAmundi, Bhadra kAli etc. not fit to be worshipped considering them in IshvarOpAdhi. When it comes to avatara of Ishwara and which is mentioned in shAstra, is bit confusing since shAstra says yadA yadAhi dharmasya glAnirbhavati I will be there to protect dharma, shishta rakshaNa, dushta shikshaNa assures lord, so his avatAra might be Ananta sahasra not restricted to ONLY dashAvatAra....how to reconcile all this and still stick to particular name and form of ONLY five devata-s and conclude ONLY panchAyatana devata-s as Ishwara!!??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023, 09:05 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

1. Chaitanya in association with only one name and form is Ishvara?

•   No, IshwarOpAdhi might be many not restricted to ONLY either shiva or vishNu.  However it is not clear to me when upAsaka when doing the upAsana doing the same to IshwarOpAdhi or karma/puNya phala janita devatOpAdhi.  As you know most of the sUkta-s / hymns / mantra-s are about indra, agni, varUna, sUrya etc. Chaitanya in association with all names and forms is Ishvara?

Depends on the upAsana - there are some upAsana-s which shAstra enjoins where the upAsya is the indrAdi devatA, and some upAsana-s which shAstra enjoins where the upAsya is  Ishvara. So the answer is dependent on what the shAstra says for each upAsana.

• 
  

2. Chaitanya in association with all names and forms is Ishvara? 

>  when Ishwara is the Chaitanya that Chaitanya should be one without second, and as per shruti this Chaitanya thought of becoming many (so kAmayata, satyancha anrutaNcha satyamabhavat yadidaM kincha) and also nAma rUpa in vyAkruta rUpa and avyAkruta rUpa must be this chaitanya only since he is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  vishwarUpa darshana comes to my mind to substantiate my thought that all nAma & rUpa is Ishwara only and there is nothing apart from IT.

Yes, Ishvara as abhinna-nimittopAdAna, is in and as everything.

  

3. Chaitanya in association with some names and forms is Ishvara? Or

• Frankly I think this is what you are saying by differentiating the IshwarOpAdhi which is mAyA rUpa and which is through his own saMkalpa and devatas’ upAdhi and jeeva upAdhi which is karma phala janita. 

This is also correct, on the basis of the shruti कार्योपाधिरयं जीवः कारणोपाधिरीश्वरः. The name and form for Ishvara is not karma phala janita - so none of Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, etc are karma phala janita upAdhi, they are all mAyAmaya upAdhi / kAraNopAdhi. 

Note - this does not mean that Ishvara is not present in kAryopAdhi - Hw is present everywhere, but when it is said कारणोपाधिरीश्वरः, the kAraNa upAdhi is Ishvara's alone, not the jIva's. The kArya upAdhi is jIva's, but Ishvara is present there also.

Why are only some upAdhi-s worthy of worship as Ishvara and not upAdhi-s of indrAdi? Because, the shAstra says that some particular names and forms are suitable for worship as Ishvara (तस्माच्छास्त्रं प्रमाणं ते कार्याकार्यव्यवस्थितौ)

- in doing such a worship, there is an adRShTa phala which is not otherwise obtainable when Ishvara is worshipped in other forms. This does not mean that Ishvara is not present in indrAdi upAdhi-s also (He is, as the antaryAmi of indrAdi), but worshipping Ishvara as Shiva, Vishnu, Devi etc is enjoined by shAstra and thus there is a particular adRShTa to be obtained in doing so.

4. Chaitanya in association with no names and forms is Ishvara?

• This is called nirupAdhika, nirvishesha, niravayava para brahman.  Ishwara when taken in the sense of samartha / ruler / lord etc. then he is sOpAdhika but  as per my understanding upAdhi cannot be restricted to some specified forms like ONLY vishNu or shiva’s specific features (like third eye in forehead of shiva or ksheera sAgara shesha shaayi vishNu) he can assume any form any time …but it is again force us to conclude that in vyavahAra there is some Chaitanya that has the capability of wear anything as per it’s sva-eccha and bless some other Chaitanya/s in some karma janita shareera.  In this scenario though Chaitanya is one we are seeing the bheda in Ishwara Chaitanya and jeeva Chaitanya and former is capable of uplifting the later. 

We are still in vyavahAra, so let us not go to nirguNa brahma - even with saguNa brahma, He (Ishvara) can be said to be associated with no names and forms also. As antaryAmi, Ishvara is associated with all jIva-upAdhi-s, but He is also distinct from them. 

Now kindly clarify where there is mixing of vyavahArika and pAramArthis satya in my stand here. 

You are bringing paramArtha satya in the last option. All four options are being considered in the realm of vyavahAra only.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658144CDEE6F63AACCD5512F84D89%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

This is also correct, on the basis of the shruti कार्योपाधिरयं जीवः कारणोपाधिरीश्वरः. The name and form for Ishvara is not karma phala janita - so none of Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, etc are karma phala janita upAdhi, they are all mAyAmaya upAdhi / kAraNopAdhi. 

 

• Just I was thinking of closing this discussion since on most of the terms we are in agreement.  But this shruti reference I am not able to find it in dashOpanishat ( I might have missed it)  Kindly share up. Reference and shankara bhAshya on kAryOpAdnirayaM jeevaH kAraNOAdhireeshwaraH.  When it comes to upAdhi I think bhAshyakAra said upAdhi is avidyAkruta.  This is not about kAryOpAdhi, this is about kAraNOpAdhi of Ishwara, shankara explicitly says : evamavidyAkrutanAmarUpOpAdhyanurOdhi IshwarO bhavati…subsequent observations of bhAshyakAra substantiate this i.e.  even IshrOpAdhi is mere avidyAkruta hence his sarvajnatvaM, sharvashatitvaM etc. valid only in avidyA kshetra.  And in samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya bhAshyakAra talks about apekshitOpAdhisambandhaM.  (ekamekamapi brahma  apekshitOpAdhisambandhaM nirastOpAdhi sambandhaM cha upAsyatvena jneyatvena cha vedAnteshUpadishyate.  What is apekshti upAdhi here of upAsaka??  And how it is not kAryOpAdhi but kAraNOpAdhi of Ishwara??  Please clarify.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023, 07:50 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

• Just I was thinking of closing this discussion since on most of the terms we are in agreement.  But this shruti reference I am not able to find it in dashOpanishat ( I might have missed it)  Kindly share up. Reference and shankara bhAshya on kAryOpAdnirayaM jeevaH kAraNOAdhireeshwaraH. 

It is not in the dashopaniShad. It is found in the shuka-rahasyopaniShad in the following mantra:

कार्योपाधिरयं जीवः कारणोपाधिरीश्वरः।
कार्यकारणतां हित्वा पूर्णबोधोऽवशिष्यते॥

I also recall finding this statement in one of the pUrva / uttara nRsimha tApini upaniShad-s a few years back. I don't recall which - but I could be mistaken also.

If it is ok, let us leave this discussion where it is for now - the rest of your comments below require a detailed discussion I think, which I do not have the time at present to participate in.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

• When it comes to upAdhi I think bhAshyakAra said upAdhi is avidyAkruta.  This is not about kAryOpAdhi, this is about kAraNOpAdhi of Ishwara, shankara explicitly says : evamavidyAkrutanAmarUpOpAdhyanurOdhi IshwarO bhavati…subsequent observations of bhAshyakAra substantiate this i.e.  even IshrOpAdhi is mere avidyAkruta hence his sarvajnatvaM, sharvashatitvaM etc. valid only in avidyA kshetra.  And in samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya bhAshyakAra talks about apekshitOpAdhisambandhaM.  (ekamekamapi brahma  apekshitOpAdhisambandhaM nirastOpAdhi sambandhaM cha upAsyatvena jneyatvena cha vedAnteshUpadishyate.  What is apekshti upAdhi here of upAsaka??  And how it is not kAryOpAdhi but kAraNOpAdhi of Ishwara??  Please clarify.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581BF316D5F51CE87C6781184DE9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Here is a composition of the present Jagadguru of the Sringeri Peetham on Subrahmanya: 

सुब्रह्मण्यं सदा वन्दे
चिन्तितसकलेष्टदानदीक्षं तम् ।
दुष्टदैत्यविनाशनं देवसेनानायकं
दीनरक्षणतत्परं दयापारावारम् ॥

subrahmaṇyaṃ sadā vande
cintitasakaleṣṭadānadīkṣaṃ tam ;
duṣṭadaityavināśanaṃ devasenānāyakaṃ
dīnarakṣaṇatatparaṃ dayāpārāvāram .

भवभीतिनिवारणं भवानीप्रियतनयं
भुक्तिमुक्तिफलप्रदं भारतीतीर्थसेवितम् ॥

bhavabhītinivāraṇaṃ bhavānīpriyatanayaṃ
bhuktimuktiphalapradaṃ bhāratītīrthasevitam .

Here the Lord is said to confer Mukti too.  Similar is Shankaracharya's famous Subrahmanya Bhujangam which says the Lord is the one hidden in the Mahavakya:

मयूराधिरूढं महावाक्यगूढं
मनोहारिदेहं महच्चित्तगेहम् ।
महीदेवदेवं महावेदभावं
महादेवबालं भजे लोकपालम् ॥३॥

Shankara's famous Ganesha Pancharatnam begins with the verse:

मुदा करात्तमोदकं सदा विमुक्तिसाधकं  He is always conducive to provide Mukti.
कलाधरावतंसकं विलासलोकरक्षकम्।
अनायकैकनायकं विनाशितेभदैत्यकं
नताशुभाशुनाशकं नमामि तं विनायकम्॥१॥

The present Jagadguru of Sringeri composed a song on Lord Ayyappa when he had visited the place with his Guru:

ज्ञानं षडास्यवरतातकृपैकलभ्यं
मोक्षस्तु तार्क्ष्यवरवाहदयैकलभ्यः ।
ज्ञानं च मोक्ष उभयं तु विना श्रमेण   The Lord confers both Jnanam and Moksha with ease...
प्राप्यं जनैः हरिहरात्मजसत्प्रसादात् ॥ ६ ॥

There are many other stotras of Shankara and other Acharyas of the Peetham here: https://sringeri.net/stotras  on many deities where one can see Moksha as a component in many of them. 

regards

subbu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnmqBcGTJPoh_sYg0JuBXev%3DrC7dHX6M9FbYYCCuMD9mg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

The implication in Advaita is: If a deity is accepted to be able to confer mukti, that deity is Jagatkaranam Ishwara for that bhakta. This is the underlying principle of Shan mata. 

subbu  

[V Subrahmanian]

I agree with you. But in the Puranas for Skanda, Surya, etc. they have been portrayed as Jagat srishti sthiti laya karanam and sometimes the source from which the Trimurtis emerge. It is not just praying for mukti but the stuti or some other statement which says 'this deity x is capable of granting mukti'.  That is the indication of that deity being Para Brahman, Saguna Brahman, Ishwara, for the one who composed that stuti.  

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 9:45 AM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste sir.

Even in the vedas indradi devatas are asked for mukthi but they aren't verily isvara himself.

In the case of Surya and skanda, both are jeevas only. Because in acharyas bhasya itself Surya is said to have end of term and attain nirguna mukthi after his prarbdha karma. But in the case of isvara there is no karma to be exhausted.

Further isvara is "unchanging", "eternal" and "unborn". 

The reconciliation i find is that they can be worshipped as non different from isvara. Because Shruthi has stated that saguna upasana includes Surya. 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 12:55 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste sir.

The only reason i am contending diffence between isvara and Surya devata etc is that they have specifically been stated to be jeevas attaining the post due to punya karma.

Dear Kaushik,

There are statements that are hard to reconcile within the Bhashya, etc. texts.  While generally there is a thinking that Hiranyagarbha/Brahmaa is a jiva, there is a contradicting statement also:

In the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya Vartika, Sureshwaracharya, a direct disciple of Shankaracharya, has said:

यः पृथिव्यामितीशोऽसावन्तर्यामी जगद्गुरुः ।

हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ॥

[The Br.Up. ‘he who, stationed in the pṛthvī devatā impels the mind-body-organs of that devatā….’ who is the antaryāmī, jagadguru, even though one, is variously spoken of as Hari, Brahmā and Pinākī (Śiva).]

Anandagiri: कथं श्रुत्यवष्टम्भेन ईश्वरस्य कारणत्वं, मूर्तित्रयस्य इतिहासादौ सर्गस्थितिलयेषु यथायोगं कर्तृत्वश्रुतेः, अत आह । यः पृथिव्यामिति । प्रकृतो हि ईश्वरः स्वरूपेण एकोऽपि मूर्तित्रयात्मना बहुधा उच्यते पृथिव्यादौ तस्यैव अन्तर्यामित्वेन स्थितिश्रुतेः, न च तद्विरोधे पुराणादिप्रामाण्यं सापेक्षत्वेन दौर्बल्यादिति भावः । स पूर्वेषां गुरुरितिन्यायेन अन्तर्यामी इत्यस्य व्याख्या जगद्गुरुरिति ।

 Anandagiri says: How is it that while Isvara  is the jagatkāraṇam according to the Shruti,  the itihāsa, etc. say that there is the causehood as appropriately assigned to the trimūrti-s in creation, sustenance and dissolution? [the idea is: while the shruti says Brahman, Ishvara, is the jagatkāraṇam, we find the itihāsa, purāna, etc. distributing that to three different entities functionally?] The above verse of Sureshvara is answering this question: Even though Ishwara is one only, he is spoken of as many, Hari, Brahmā, Pinākī. Why is it that Ishwara is admitted to be one only? Since it is one Ishwara alone (not many) that is taught in the shruti as the antaryāmin. If the purāṇa-s, etc. say something different (three different individuals performing distinct functions), then since these texts are dependent on the Shruti for their prāmāṇya, they do not enjoy the status of the shruti; they are durbala, weak, only when they say something contradictory to the Shruti. Since He, Ishwara, is the Guru of everyone (including devatā-s) this antaryāmin, Ishwara, alone gets the epithet of ‘Jagadguru’.

In the Samanvayadhikaranam (tat tu samanvayaat) sutra bhashya, Shankara cites  the famous mantra of the Shvetashvataropanishad: 

तथा ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा । कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च’ (श्वे. उ. ६ । ११) इति, ‘स पर्यगाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम्’ (ई. उ. ८) इति, च —   

Anandagiri, in the gloss Nyayanirnaya, explains the mantra in his own words:

निर्गुणत्वान्निर्दोषत्वाच्च ब्रह्मात्मनि द्विधापि संस्कारो नेत्युक्तम् । इदानीं तस्मिन्गुणदोषयोरभावे मानमाह — 

तथाचेति ।

मूर्तित्रयात्मना भेदं प्रत्याह — 

एक इति ।

यथाहुः - ‘हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ‘ इति अखण्डजाड्यं व्यावर्तयति — 

देव इति ।

What is very interesting is that Anandagiri, while explaining the word 'EkaH' in the mantra, raises an objection: Is not Brahman endowed with threefold  difference on the basis of the Trimurti-s? The word 'Ekah' is in refutation of such a difference. Anandagiri cites a line: 'One alone is spoken of as many as Hari, Brahmaa and Pinaaki.'

We recognize this line to be from the Vartika of Sureshwaracharya on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya. 

For the gloss on the Bhashya for the Bhagavadgita verse:

देवद्विजगुरुप्राज्ञपूजनं शौचमार्जवम् ।
ब्रह्मचर्यमहिंसा च शारीरं तप उच्यते ॥ १४ ॥

Anandagiri says, for 'deva' it is brahma vishnu shiva, etc. 

तत्र शारीरं तपः निर्दिशति -

 

देवेति ।

 देवाः - ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवादयः  Here we observe that the 'Deva' is specified to mean the Trimurti-s, and 'etc'. 

It is interesting to look at some verses of the Anubhuti Prakasha of Swami Vidyaranya for the Shvetashvataropanishat:

In verse 99 he says:

विष्ण्वादीनाम् ईश्वराणां परमं तं महेश्वरम् |

देवानां परमं देवं विदामोऽस्य प्रसादतः ||

Let us realize that Divine Being, by its own grace, who is the god of gods, who is the Supreme Lord of lords such as Vishnu.

In  103  he says:

सर्वप्राण्यतरात्माऽसौ अध्यक्षः सर्वकर्मणाम् |

सर्वभूताश्रयः साक्षी निर्गुणः शुद्धचिद्वपुः ||

He is the innermost self of all beings, the supervisor of  all actions. He is the support of all beings, the Witness, Nirguna, Pure Consciousness.

Then the author goes on to say: those who realize this (stated above) are blessed and are liberated. The sage Shvetashvatara (after whom this Upanishad is named) realized this Entity and communicated this vidya to other sannyasins. 

So, from the above we know that it is Nirguna Brahman that is the ultimate God. All other deities including Vishnu were discounted from this status. 

If we are to hold that Shankara has not accepted any other deity as Ishwara (which means jagatkaranam), then we will have to say the popular stutis like Ganesha Pancharatnam, Subrahmanya Bhujangam, etc. that Sringeri peetham holds as that of the Acharya, are not authentically so. 

Actually there is a popular name of Surya as Hiranyagarbha. https://www.wordzz.com/12-names-of-lord-surya/

We cannot also say that Swami Vidyaranya is not in our sampradaya; he was a pontiff f the Sringeri Peetham.   

So, no finality can be arrived at in this regard.  

warm regards

subbu

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 12:20 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is a problem here: Hiranyagarbha, the Lord of that 14th loka, where saguna upasaka's go for krama mukti, is stated by Shankara in that Br.Up. bhashya as the one who is independently capable of creation, etc. This H is someone who has attained that status through upasana, and in that section alone Shankara says about his capacity.

 ज्ञानकर्मभ्यां समुच्चिताभ्यां प्रजापतित्वप्राप्तिर्व्याख्याता ; केवलप्राणदर्शनेन च — ‘तद्धैतल्लोकजिदेव’ इत्यादिना । प्रजापतेः फलभूतस्य सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारेषु जगतः स्वातन्त्र्यादिविभूत्युपवर्णनेन ज्ञानकर्मणोर्वैदिकयोः फलोत्कर्षो वर्णयितव्य इत्येवमर्थमारभ्यते । तेन च कर्मकाण्डविहितज्ञानकर्मस्तुतिः कृता भवेत्सामर्थ्यात् ।

By resorting to samucchaya of jnana and karma Prajapati status is to be attained. ....The fruit of that sadhana is Prajapati who is the cause of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the world independently.  This is one of the vibhutis of Prajapati.  This is in the section of the vaidika jnana karma samucchaya.  

How can Prajapati be endowed with the above stated capacity, which is reserved for the nitya siddha Ishwara in the Brahma sutras? 

 

 

That's because isvara only is creating through prajapati as i had explained before. Jeevatmas are only "instruments". The independent Shakthi itself is granted by isvara.

If Ishwara alone is creating through Prajapati, the sustenance and destruction  are also stated by Shankaracharya as that of Prajapati, independently, and so Prajapati has to be doing the role of Vishnu and Shiva, on behalf of Ishwara. Then the Trimurtis will come under the category of 'the Vayu, Surya, Indra, Agani and Yama are all functioning under the fear of Ishwara' as per the Taittiriya Up. which Shankara cites in the case of Surya. This is because it is admitted in the siddhanta that Ishwara does the sustenance function through the instrumentality of Indra etc. Thus Vishnu and Shiva, along with Prajapati/Brahma/Hiranyagarbha will have to be admitted to be under the control of Ishwara. I think that is the reason that the Parasara Smriti, etc. admit of the beginning and end of the Trimurtis in every creation cycle. This does not imply the absence of an Ishwara during pralaya since that Ishwara alone manifests as the Trimurtis, Indra, etc. in every cycle. This will validate the idea of Turiya Vishnu/Shiva in the Vishnu and Shiva Purana, Mahabharata, etc. 

In the Panchadashi 10th chapter, Swami Vidyaranya says:

परमात्माऽद्वयानन्दपूर्णः पूर्वं स्वमायया ।
स्वयमेव जगद्भूत्वा प्राविशज्जीवरूपतः ॥ १०.१ ॥

Paramatman, Brahman, through His own Maya, became the world Himself and 'entered' as 'jiva' in all the bodies created.

विष्ण्वाद्युत्तमदेहेषु प्रविष्टो देवताभवत् ।
मर्त्याद्यधमदेहेषु स्थितो भजति मर्त्यताम् ॥ १०.२ ॥

In exalted bodies such as that of Vishnu, He became 'devataa'. In the lowly bodies of the humans, etc. He experiences human etc. states. 

The second cited verse has a variant reading: 

देवाद्युत्तमदेहेषु प्रविष्टो देवताभवत् ।
मर्त्याद्यधमदेहेषु स्थितो भजति देवताम् ॥ १०.२ ॥

But the first mentioned reading alone is taken up by the commentator Sri Ramakrishna Pandita for commenting. 

In the scheme of Panchadashi, Vishnu, etc. are 'jivas' in whom Brahman has 'entered' and posing as these deities. Here we see a distinction between the Ishwara/Brahman and the deities such as Vishnu.  

So, we have apparently conflicting views in Advaitic/Smriti/Puranic texts regarding the status of Vishnu, etc.

regards

subbu  

   

[V Subrahmanian]

(Since this post is likely to be disallowed for its length in Advaita l, I am copying this to Advaitin Google groups too where such length issue is not there. So I request members to access this post of mine in Advaitin (under the same header) in case this post does not appear here.)

Thanks a lot Venkat ji for the detailed clarification.  I had always felt there is a need for a clarification of the idea of Hiranyagarbha/Virat/Prathamashariri.  Here is another instance from the Mundaka Bhashya which I had made a post before;  https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2017/08/02/vishnu-is-samashti-jiva-shankara-in-mundaka-bhashya/

In the Mundakopanishat 2.1.4 there is the description of the Virāt puruṣa:

अग्निर्मूर्धा चक्षुषी चन्द्रसूर्यौ दिशः श्रोत्रे वाग्विवृताश्च वेदाः ।
वायुः प्राणो हृदयं विश्वमस्य पद्भ्यां पृथिवी ह्येष सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा ॥ ४ ॥

4 The heavens are His head; the sun and moon, His eyes; the quarters, His ears; the revealed Vedas, His speech; the wind is His breath; the universe, His heart. From his feet is produced the earth. He is, indeed, the inner self of all beings (pancha bhūta-s).

Shankara's commentary is:

सङ्क्षेपतः परविद्याविषयमक्षरं निर्विशेषं पुरुषं सत्यम् ‘दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । २) इत्यादिना मन्त्रेणोक्त्वा, पुनस्तदेव सविशेषं विस्तरेण वक्तव्यमिति प्रववृते ; सङ्क्षेपविस्तरोक्तो हि पदार्थः सुखाधिगम्यो भवति सूत्रभाष्योक्तिवदिति । यो हि प्रथमजात्प्राणाद्धिरण्यगर्भाज्जायतेऽण्डस्यान्तर्विराट् , स तत्त्वान्तरितत्त्वेन लक्ष्यमाणोऽप्येतस्मादेव पुरुषाज्जायत एतन्मयश्चेत्येतदर्थमाह, तं च विशिनष्टि —

The Supreme Brahman, Akṣaram, free of all attributes, that is the subject matter of the Parā vidyā, was stated concisely as 'divyo hyamūrtaḥ puruṣa...' Mundaka 2.1.2. Now, in the sequel, with a view to present that Puruṣa alone along with attributes, in an elaborate manner, the Upaniṣad proceeds. This manner of consice-elaborate presentation, like sutra-bhāṣya, will enable one to grasp the tattva easily. He who is born of the First-born Hiraṇyagarbha, within the Cosmic Egg (Golden Egg), who is called 'Virāt', even though shown as born once-removed (that is, through the medium of Hiranyagarbha), is actually born of the Supreme Puruṣa alone and thus is of that content alone. With a view to state this, the current mantra describes him (virāṭ)-


अग्निः द्युलोकः, ‘असौ वाव लोको गौतमाग्निः’ (छा. उ. ५ । ४ । १) इति श्रुतेः । मूर्धा यस्योत्तमाङ्गं शिरः, चक्षुषी चन्द्रश्च सूर्यश्चेति चन्द्रसूर्यौ ; यस्येति सर्वत्रानुषङ्गः कर्तव्यः अस्येत्यस्य पदस्य वक्ष्यमाणस्य यस्येति विपरिणामं कृत्वा । दिशः श्रोत्रे यस्य । वाक् विवृताश्च उद्घाटिताः प्रसिद्धा वेदाः यस्य । वायुः प्राणो यस्य । हृदयम् अन्तःकरणं विश्वं समस्तं जगत् अस्य यस्येत्येतत् । सर्वं ह्यन्तःकरणविकारमेव जगत् , मनस्येव सुषुप्ते प्रलयदर्शनात् ; जागरितेऽपि तत एवाग्निविस्फुलिङ्गवद्विप्रतिष्ठानात् । यस्य च पद्भ्यां जाता पृथिवी,

[The cosmic Puruṣa, Virāṭ's description is: His head is the heavenly region, his eyes are the sun and moon, etc. ]

 एष देवो विष्णुरनन्तः प्रथमशरीरी त्रैलोक्यदेहोपाधिः सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा । स हि सर्वभूतेषु द्रष्टा श्रोता मन्ता विज्ञाता सर्वकरणात्मा ॥

This god Viṣṇu, Ananta, is the first-embodied one with the three worlds as his upādhi and is the self of all beings (pancha bhūta-s). He is the seer, hearer, etc. in all beings. [Anandagiri says for the bhāṣya passage: त्रैलोक्यदेहोपाधिः सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा । ...self of pancha bhūta-s]

There are similarities between this Mundaka bhashya and the Brihadaranyaka bhashya:  the 'prathamashariri/prathama jiva/anDaja', savishesha/saguna brahman, Hiranyagarbha, etc. 

In the Prashnopanishat bhashya we have: 

इन्द्रस्त्वं प्राण तेजसा रुद्रोऽसि परिरक्षिता ।
त्वमन्तरिक्षे चरसि सूर्यस्त्वं ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥ ९ ॥

The Bhashya:

किञ्च, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, तेजसा वीर्येण रुद्रोऽसि संहरन् जगत् । स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः सौम्येन रूपेण । त्वम् अन्तरिक्षे अजस्रं चरसि उदयास्तमयाभ्यां सूर्यः त्वमेव च सर्वेषां ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥

The sense/motor organs do a stuti of Prana whom they have now accepted to be their 'leader':

They say Prana, you are Parameshvara, you as Rudra destroy, as Vishnu protect.  (This translation is based on Shankara's bhashya and Anandagiri's gloss on it.) That Prana is the creator is already stated in an earlier mantra. So the Trimurtis are this Hiranyagarbha. 

From this we get the idea that the Trimurtis are this Prana/Prajapati/Hiranyagarbha/Prathamashariri.

That in Advaita the saguna brahma upasakas go to Brahma loka which is called Hiranyagarbha loka.  It is here, I understand from the wordings of the last section of the Brahma sutra bhashya that the upasakas, having become muktas there, attain 'Ishvara saayujyam' as Shankara says.  And this 'Ishwara' has to be this head of this loka: the Prajapati/Hiranyagarbha/VirAt.  That this person is said to ultimately attain videha kaivalya at the end of that loka in maha pralaya also points to the fact that the Trimurti loka in Advaita is this one Satya loka and no distinct vaikuntha, kailasa is admitted beyond creation in Advaita.  

I would like the above conclusions of mine are reviewed.

warm regards

subbu 

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 8:07 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Resending, as it sounds like the previous message was held up due to size constraints.

Namaste Subbuji,

Thank you very much for bringing this up.

I have a different view to this section - while normally sRShTi sthiti laya in the Shruti is a brahma linga, there are very specific jIva linga-s here that indicate that the one performing these activities is the prathamaja jIva, not Ishvara.

You had asked: 

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, 00:12 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

In that case, is the Viraj a jiva who has attained that state by the
sadhana of jnana-karma samucchaya? 

Yes, I believe the bhAShya pretty conclusively answers in the affirmative.

1) In the beginning bhAShya of 1.4.1 shankarAchArya comments on the word Atma, not as paramAtma but as a sharIri, jIvAtma:

आत्मैव आत्मेति प्रजापतिः प्रथमोऽण्डजः शरीर्यभिधीयते ।

The reference to the virAT prajApati as "sharIri" in the bhAShya indicates that the bhAShyakAra considers him as a jIva indeed - he also calls him a prathama-anDaja. 

2) The bhAShya says - the very same prajApati alone is born, a result of jnAnakarma samuccaya. The next sentence is: वैदिकज्ञानकर्मफलभूतः स एव — किम् ? इदं शरीरभेदजातं तेन प्रजापतिशरीरेणाविभक्तम् आत्मैवासीत् अग्रे प्राक्शरीरान्तरोत्पत्तेः ।

The Atma, who is prajApati (आत्मेति प्रजापतिः), was alone present, undifferentiated into any body other than prajApati, in the beginning, i.e. prior to the creation of any other body.

3) The bhAShya then says he saw himself and wondered who he was, and he didn't see anyone else - स एव प्रथमः सम्भूतोऽनुवीक्ष्यान्वालोचनं कृत्वा — ‘कोऽहं किंलक्षणो वास्मि’ इति, नान्यद्वस्त्वन्तरम् , आत्मनः प्राणपिण्डात्मकात्कार्यकरणरूपात् , नापश्यत् न ददर्श । Shankaracharya uses a phrase for his body आत्मनः प्राणपिण्डात्मकात्कार्यकरणरूपात्  - his body, being of the nature of a mass/lump of prANa (prANa piNDa), ie kArya-karaNa-rUpa. Again, the use of the phrase kArya-karaNa-rUpa as opposed to mAyAmaya-rUpa is a jIva linga, because it is a jIva whose body is kAryakaraNa rUpa (in the brahma sUtra Shankaracharya describes the body of Ishvara as a mAyAmaya rUpa  स्यात् परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात् मायामयंरूपं).

4) He then goes on to say that the entity in question recalled his nature, as a result of the purification due to karma and upAsana undertaken in his previous life. तथा पूर्वजन्मश्रौतविज्ञानसंस्कृतः ‘सोऽहं प्रजापतिः, सर्वात्माहमस्मि’ इत्यग्रे व्याहरत् व्याहृतवान् । 

This indicates two things - he had a prior life in which he had performed jnAna (upAsana) and karma and his present birth was a result of that - ie he was a kartA, as a result of which he became a bhoktA too. Such a being cannot be Ishvara, for Ishvara sharIra is taken इच्छावशात्, not कर्मवशात्, and He neither performs karma nor is he subject to karma phala.

The second thing this indicates was that his knowledge of his nature was a result of samskAra undertaken in a previous birth - ie he was a jIva whose body mind complex needed samskAra for it to manifest knowledge. Such a being cannot be the Ishvara whom the brihadAraNyaka will later go on to describe as - for whom the very Vedas are effortless creations, emerging as though like breath - अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसः.

Moving on, the bhAShya then describes why his first secret name is "aham" and every being born from him refers to itself as aham (as the cause, so the effect).

5) What are these defects that this entity previously possessed?  In talking about the second name, auShat, the bhAShyakAra says: 

स च प्रजापतिः, अतिक्रान्तजन्मनि सम्यक्कर्मज्ञानभावनानुष्ठानैः साधकावस्थायाम् , यद्यस्मात् , कर्मज्ञानभावनानुष्ठानैः प्रजापतित्वं प्रतिपित्सूनां पूर्वः प्रथमः सन् , अस्मात्प्रजापतित्वप्रतिपित्सुसमुदायात्सर्वस्मात् , आदौ औषत् अदहत् ; किम् ? आसङ्गाज्ञानलक्षणान्सर्वान्पाप्मनः प्रजापतित्वप्रतिबन्धकारणभूतान् ; 

That prajApati who in his prior birth had adequately performed karma and upAsana as a sAdhaka (again, a sAdhaka, meaning a jIva, not a nityasiddha Ishvara), was the first of the prajApati-s (in a kalpa, hiraNyagarbha himself is born as the first prajApati). Such a first among the prajApati-s burnt (auShat). Burnt what? - all manner of evils - attachment and ignorance (आसङ्गाज्ञानलक्षणान्) which were obstacles preventing him from being the prajApati in his past life (प्रजापतित्वप्रतिबन्धकारणभूतान्). Again we get three indicatory marks of being a jIva - 1)  he was a sAdhaka in his previous birth. 2) He suffered from attachment and ignorance (which Ishvara can never suffer from) 3) these defects prevented him from being a prajApati back in his previous life itself (again Ishvara is nitya, He does not become Ishvara with effort).

The nature of the defects which needed samskAra in the previous sentence are elaborated in the above sentence.

6) That is the reason he gets the third secret name - puruSha - because he burns off the one before him - पूर्वमौषदिति पुरुषः - pUrvam auShat iti puruShah. Who does he burn? He burns the one before who wanted to be prajApati. कम् ? योऽस्माद्विदुषः पूर्वः प्रथमः प्रजापतिर्बुभूषति भवितुमिच्छति तमित्यर्थः ।

But isn't the desire to be a virAT dangerous, if it means getting burnt by the one who knows how to be prajApati? नन्वनर्थाय प्राजापत्यप्रतिपित्सा, एवंविदा चेद्दह्यते. No, this is not a defect, for the burning only refers to the burning of the flaws that prevented him from the first prajApati - नैष दोषः, ज्ञानभावनोत्कर्षाभावात् प्रथमं प्रजापतित्वप्रतिपत्त्यभावमात्रत्वाद्दाहस्य ।

7) The one possessing of the superior means to the knowledge attains the post of prajApati, and the one who does not so possess does not so attain, and so the former is figuratively said to burn the latter. It is not as though he really burns someone:

 उत्कृष्टसाधनः प्रथमं प्रजापतित्वं प्राप्नुवन् न्यूनसाधनो न प्राप्नोतीति, स तं दहतीत्युच्यते ; न पुनः प्रत्यक्षमुत्कृष्टसाधनेनेतरो दह्यते.

Again, plenty of clues that prajApatitva is a post to be attained through some means. He was not a prajApati first because he lacked the means. Later he acquired the means, put those means into practice and then acquired the post.

Shankaracharya then makes it even more clear by giving the example of a race when he says - the winner of a race can be figuratively described as burning the competition, because the winner has effectively shorn the competition of their strength - यथा लोके आजिसृतां यः प्रथममाजिमुपसर्पति तेनेतरे दग्धा इवापहृतसामर्थ्या भवन्ति, तद्वत्.

Therefore, while we can certainly acknowledge that the performance of sRShTi sthiti laya are the domain of Ishvara, the prajApati in question who performs these activities is a jIva in reality because of various indicatory marks in the shruti text that are clarified in the bhAShya.

So, in my view, the bhAShya proves that the entity is in reality a jIva only for all the reasons enumerated above.

But isn't the kartA of sRShTi sthiti laya a brahmalinga, which the sUtrakAra uses as a taTastha lakshaNa in janmAdyasya yatah? You had said doesn't this (taking this prajApati to be a jIva) contradict elsewhere in the sUtra where it was said jIva-s cannot perform this function?

The bhashyam says:

*प्रजापतेः फलभूतस्य* सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारेषु जगतः

स्वातन्त्र्यादिविभूत्युपवर्णनेन ज्ञानकर्मणोर्वैदिकयोः फलोत्कर्षो वर्णयितव्य
इत्येवमर्थमारभ्यते ।

Prajapati is a 'phala', result, of a certain sadhana. Does someone with a
sadhana attaining the status of Prajapati/Virat have the power to create,
etc. independently? Also, is it not a contradiction with the Brahma Sutra
'Jagatvyapara varjyam..' which is stated to be the 'sole' domain of nitya
siddha Ishwara?  That is the point I was making.

regards
subbu

I believe the above doesn't rule out a jIva performing these functions - I think the above only refers to the sAdhaka-s who as a result of brahma jnAna have become mukta-s - they are Brahman, but they cannot fulfil roles as the Creator, Preserver and Sustainer of the universe, because they do not possess the instruments / body mind complex with which to perform such roles.

To be the Creator prajApati, requires the performance of karma and upAsana as stated in 1.4.1 - jnAni-s are Brahman because they have brahma jnAna but in order for them to perform the functions of creating, preserving and destroying, they also need a body mind complex purified by karma-upAsana samuccaya. Even then, they are performing the roles not as Ishvara, but as prajApati, under the blessing of Ishvara (mRtyurdhAvati pancama iti). The svAtantrya in the bhAShya must be interpreted here to mean without the help of anybody else, not independently of Ishvara. 

Such beings are exalted, no doubt, but when their creation, preservation and destruction of universe is being talked about, this is a function that they uniquely / independently perform - like the CEO of a company. The CEO is the first and most senior employee in the company, but he is only fulfilling a temporary role on behalf of someone. Once his job is done, he will retire and someone else will take up the job. They are managers for the real boss, the owner (the shareholders in the case of a CEO, Ishvara in the case of hiraNyagarbha).

In many places we use the presence of these functions as a brahmalinga, but we have to add a corollary - if there are mitigating factors to Ishvara being the one being talked about, we have to revisit that original conclusion. These jobs alone cannot be the conclusive indicatory mark of Ishvara - it has to be the presence of that, in the absence of mitigating factors indicating of jIva - and 1.4.1 is a good example of where that occurs.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Venkatraghavan S]

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Raghav ji,

No, I actually am not saying that Vishnu or Shiva are jIva-s, I consider them to be forms of Ishvara only - primarily because the shAstra teaches worship of Ishvara with those forms. Therefore, the Shiva or Vishnu that I worship are not the entity that only dissolves the universe or only protects the universe. They are verily Ishvara, the source of all the five functions of sRShTi, sthiti, laya, tirodhAna and anugraha. I see no spiritual merit to be obtained in considering them to be jIva-s. 

Therefore, where the birth or dissolution of Shiva or Vishnu are spoken of in certain purANa-s, it is with some other purpose - such as conveying something about Ishvara tattva or for glorifying some other form of Ishvara so that the listener is motivated to use Ishvara with that form as an upAsya devatA. Further, there are other shruti / smRti / purAna / itihAsa-s where Shiva or Vishnu are spoken of as supreme - again because these texts have the purport of conveying that form of Ishvara as an object of upAsana. If we take Shiva or Vishnu as jIva-s, such texts will lose their prAmANya.

However one must ultimately realise that Ishvara is beyond those forms also.

On the other hand, hiraNyagarbha is a jIva, primarily because it is the very same shAstra that says so and tradition in the form of the bhAShya, guru paramparA, shiShTAchAra, kulAchAra etc also support it.

Finally, the usage of terms such as brahma linga/ jIva linga etc is in the context of the exegesis (mImAmsa) of vedic texts - these are indicatory marks found in the text that help us understand the meaning of the passage and not qualities of the jIva or Ishvara.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, 19:57 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Venkat ji
I understand you to be saying that the trinity (brahmA, viShNu, maheshvara
with their names taken together as a triàd) are exalted jeevas sharing
jeeva-linga-s with upAdhis which invite the label of kArya-brahman.

On the other hand, Ishvara shares the brahma-linga with mAyopAdhi and a
mAyamaya sharIra. This Ishvara has no specific default "form" etc., in
contrast to the trinity who have been taught in shAstra with some 'default'
form with associated upAsanA vidhi like tulasI and bilva etc.


In the mRt, mRtpiNDa and ghaTa-paTAdi example, i would take them to be
Ishvara, Prajaapati, Indaraadi-devatAs.

Ishvara is nirAkAra but not without an upAdhi.

Om
Raghav



On Tue, 14 Feb, 2023, 8:07 am Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <

adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Resending, as it sounds like the previous message was held up due to size
> constraints.
>

> Again, plenty of clues that prajApatitva is a post to be attained through

> To be the Creator prajApati, requires the performance of karma and upAsana
> as stated in 1.4.1 - jnAni-s are Brahman because they have brahma jnAna but

> in order for them to perform the functions of creating, preserving and
> destroying, they also need a body mind complex purified by karma-upAsana

> samuccaya. Even then, they are performing the roles not *as* Ishvara, but
> *as
> prajApati*, *under the blessing of Ishvara (*mRtyurdhAvati pancama iti).

> The svAtantrya in the bhAShya must be interpreted here to mean without the
> help of anybody else, not independently of Ishvara.
>
> Such beings are exalted, no doubt, but when their creation, preservation
> and destruction of universe is being talked about, this is a function that
> they uniquely / independently perform - like the CEO of a company. The CEO
> is the first and most senior employee in the company, but he is only
> fulfilling a temporary role on behalf of someone. Once his job is done, he
> will retire and someone else will take up the job. They are managers for
> the real boss, the owner (the shareholders in the case of a CEO, Ishvara in
> the case of hiraNyagarbha).
>
> In many places we use the presence of these functions as a brahmalinga, but
> we have to add a corollary - if there are mitigating factors to Ishvara
> being the one being talked about, we have to revisit that original
> conclusion. These jobs alone cannot be the conclusive indicatory mark of
> Ishvara - it has to be the presence of that, in the absence of mitigating
> factors indicating of jIva - and 1.4.1 is a good example of where that
> occurs.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan

> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:

> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

In the bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad bhAShya vArttika of this brAhmaNa, there is an interesting verse (verse 16 of the puruShavidha brAhmaNa chapter):

तेन तेनाऽऽत्मकार्येण स्वात्माभासतमोवधिः।

विशिष्टः ससृजे विष्णुस्तेजोबन्नादि मायया॥

vishNu delimited by the darkness in which consciousness is reflected, endowed with his own product (hiraNyagarbha), creates the universe consisting of fire, water and earth, using mAyA.

In Anandagiri AchArya's gloss, this somewhat complex verse is explained thus:

स्वातमनश्चिद्धातोराभासो यत्र तेन तमसाऽवधिशब्दितोपाधिनोपहितः परः सूत्राद्यात्मना स्वकार्येण विशिष्टः भूतभौतिकं जगदुत्पादितवानित्यर्थः । ब्रह्मा स्रष्टा पालयिता विष्णुरीशः संहर्तेत्यर्थभेदं परिहर्तुं विष्णुरित्युक्तम् ।

The supreme one (parah), delimited by the darkness adjunct (denoted by the word avadhi) - in which is reflected the consciousness self element - endowed with His own product, the sUtrAtma, creates the universe consisting of the elements and their products. The word viShNu is used in the verse to negate any possible distinction such as Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is the sustained and Shiva is the destroyer.

In the above passage - the supreme is nirguNa brahma. The supreme delimited by darkness is Ishvara. Ishvara's product is sUtrAtma / hiraNyagarbha.

Two things can be discerned from this verse and its gloss - 

One, even if creation happens through the medium of hiraNyagarbha (sUtrAtma) who is the product of Ishvara, it is Ishvara who is the creator.

Two, the trimUrti-s are not three distinct entities. As there is an apparent distinction in the functions of creation, preservation and dissolution, the performer of the functions is sometimes spoken of as though different. To avoid any value being placed on the notion that the act of creation is performed by one deity, preservation by another deity, destruction by another deity, the vArttikakAra uses the term viShNu.

Therefore, in my view, I think there is no  merit in seeking to separate the trimUrti-s. I think it is perhaps better to say that it is the one Ishvara who performs all functions, through the medium of the first born sUtrAtma. 

From that perspective, each of kailAsha, vaikunTha, brahmaloka etc can be said to be really one satyaloka, to which all upAsaka-s go after their time on earth comes to an end. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks Venkat ji, for the inputs from the Vartika and Anandagiri Acharya.  There is a similar statement by Sureshwaracharya in the Br.Up.Bh.Vartika and a very illuminating gloss of Anandagiri.  I shall copy the entire discussion from an old post of mine: 

In the Samanvayadhikaranam (tat tu samanvayaat) sutra bhashya, Shankara cites the famous mantra of the Shvetashatara Upanishad: 

तथा ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा । कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च’ (श्वे. उ. ६ । ११) इति, ‘स पर्यगाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम्’ (ई. उ. ८) इति, च —

Anandagiri, in the gloss Nyayanirnaya, explains the mantra in his own words:

निर्गुणत्वान्निर्दोषत्वाच्च ब्रह्मात्मनि द्विधापि संस्कारो नेत्युक्तम् । इदानीं तस्मिन्गुणदोषयोरभावे मानमाह —

तथाचेति । मूर्तित्रयात्मना भेदं प्रत्याह — एक इति । 

यथाहुः – ‘हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ‘ इति अखण्डजाड्यं व्यावर्तयति —

देव इति ।What is very interesting is that Anandagiri, while explaining the word ‘EkaH’ in the mantra, raises an objection: Is not Brahman endowed with threefold difference on the basis of the Trimurti-s? The word ‘Ekah’ is in refutation of such a difference. Anandagiri cites a line: ‘One alone is spoken of as many as Hari, Brahmaa and Pinaaki.’

We recognize this line to be from the Vartika of Sureshwaracharya on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya on the Antaryami Brahmanam.

यः पृथिव्यामितीशोऽसावन्तर्यामी जगद्गुरुः ।

हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ॥

[The Br.Up. ‘he who, stationed in the pṛthvī devatā impels the mind-body-organs of that devatā….’ who is the antaryāmī, jagadguru, even though one, is variously spoken of as Hari, Brahmā and Pinākī (Śiva).]

Anandagiri: कथं श्रुत्यवष्टम्भेन ईश्वरस्य कारणत्वं, मूर्तित्रयस्य इतिहासादौ सर्गस्थितिलयेषु यथायोगं कर्तृत्वश्रुतेः, अत आह । यः पृथिव्यामिति । प्रकृतो हि ईश्वरः स्वरूपेण एकोऽपि मूर्तित्रयात्मना बहुधा उच्यते पृथिव्यादौ तस्यैव अन्तर्यामित्वेन स्थितिश्रुतेः, न च तद्विरोधे पुराणादिप्रामाण्यं सापेक्षत्वेन दौर्बल्यादिति भावः । स पूर्वेषां गुरुरितिन्यायेन अन्तर्यामी इत्यस्य व्याख्या जगद्गुरुरिति ।

Anandagiri says: How is it that while Isvara is the jagatkāraṇam according to the Shruti, the itihāsa, etc. say that there is the causehood as appropriately assigned to the trimūrti-s in creation, sustenance and dissolution? [the idea is: while the shruti says Brahman, Ishvara, is the jagatkāraṇam, we find the itihāsa, purāna, etc. distributing that to three different entities functionally?] The above verse of Sureshvara is answering this question: Even though Ishwara is one only, he is spoken of as many, Hari, Brahmā, Pinākī. Why is it that Ishwara is admitted to be one only? Since it is one Ishwara alone (not many) that is taught in the shruti as the antaryāmin. If the purāṇa-s, etc. say something different (three different individuals performing distinct functions), then since these texts are dependent on the Shruti for their prāmāṇya, they do not enjoy the status of the shruti; they are durbala, weak, only when they say something contradictory to the Shruti. Since He, Ishwara, is the Guru of everyone (including devatā-s) this antaryāmin, Ishwara, alone gets the epithet of ‘Jagadguru’.

So, the srishTyAdi kArya is happening through the three upadhis of the same Ishwara.  In order to be in line with the Br.Up. Bhashya on Prajapati that we have discussed, his having the capacity to create, sustain, destroy, independently, we have to say that this one Prajapati alone does all the three functions through those three upadhis. In that case the Trimurtis will be non-diff from this Prathama shariri who is in turn 'under' the Ishwara.. This, again is in tune with the many Puranic passages that I have cited here:  https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2020/01/11/how-does-brahman-become-jagatkaaranam-shiva-and-vishnu-purana-non-difference/

Vishnu Purana and Shiva Purana both have this common idea: One Vishnu/Janardana or One Rudra/Shiva takes the form of the Trimurtis based on the Three gunas sattva, etc. for the three functions of creation, etc.  There is the Atharva Shikha Upanishad too which says: Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra, Indra, etc. are born from Shambhu.  In all these cases we have a Turiya Vishnu/Shiva from which the three murtis emerge.  This scheme is in my view in tune with the Bhashya that we have discussed on the Prathamaja/prathama shariri.  Here the Vishnu, Shiva of the Trimurtis will be diff from the Vishnu / Shiva from which the trimurtis emerge.  About Brahma too there can be a reconciliation based on a Shiva Purana and Kalidasa's statement: In every Kalpa the Three will alternate to assume superior-inferior bhaava among themselves.  

warm regards

subbu 

 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbu ji,

I agree with everything you say except I would de-emphasise one aspect:

"In that case the Trimurtis will be non-diff from this Prathama shariri who is in turn 'under' the Ishwara."

I think that there is no spiritual benefit (and possible spiritual harm) in considering the trimUrti Shiva / Vishnu separate from the turIya Shiva / Vishnu (terms used in the sense that you do below) - especially if it is done with the purpose of reconciling durbala purANa pramANa-s. Doing so can get in the way of the upAsana of the turIya Shiva / Vishnu etc as Ishvara - leading to questions / confusions of whether such a worship is of Ishvara or of a jIva etc - which affects the stronger pramANa enjoining a worship of such forms.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Subrahmanian Ji.

Reg  various observations from different posts 

<<  Bhashya for Br.Up. mantra 1.4.1:

 ज्ञानकर्मभ्यां समुच्चिताभ्यां प्रजापतित्वप्राप्तिर्व्याख्याता ;

केवलप्राणदर्शनेन च — ‘तद्धैतल्लोकजिदेव’ इत्यादिना । प्रजापतेः फलभूतस्य
सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारेषु जगतः स्वातन्त्र्यादिविभूत्युपवर्णनेन
ज्ञानकर्मणोर्वैदिकयोः फलोत्कर्षो वर्णयितव्य इत्येवमर्थमारभ्यते । तेन च
कर्मकाण्डविहितज्ञानकर्मस्तुतिः कृता भवेत्सामर्थ्यात् । >>,

  <<  In order to be in line with the Br.Up. Bhashya on Prajapati that we have discussed, his having the capacity to create, sustain, destroy, independently  >>,

<<  Hiranyagarbha, the Lord of that 14th loka, where

saguna upasaka's go for krama mukti, is stated by Shankara in that Br.Up.
bhashya as the one who is independently capable of creation, etc. This H is
someone who has attained that status through upasana, and in that section

alone Shankara says about his capacity  >>,

The context of the Bhashya cited above is the sambanda between the three preceding BrAhmaNAs of BU, dealing with jnAna karma samucchaya sAdhanAs, and the succeeding BrahmaNAs dealing with jnAna. Creation requires extraordinary knowledge concerning the same and associated ability to recreate using such knowledge. The sAdhanAs prescribed in the three preceding BrAhmaNAs enable the sAdhaka to achieve such a level of knowledge and capability on his own. He does not need any other help in such an activity. That is stated to be his **स्वातन्त्र्या (independence)**. It is glorification of the sAdhanAs , considering that  they  lead to such **independent** capability. It is only Isvara, through such an intermediary,  creates the universe.

However it is also intended to convey the limitations of such sAdhanAs. The highest benefits resulting from the same, mentioned by the term  **स्वातन्त्र्या (independence)** is still within the realms of samsAra  only, with all its limitations highlighted elsewhere. They cannot lead to mOksha. For that, jnAna is the only solution, which forms the subject matter of succeeding BrAhmaNAs. This is the tAtparya of the sambanda bhAshya here.

Reg  <<  That in Advaita the saguna brahma upasakas go to Brahma loka which is called Hiranyagarbha loka.  It is here, I understand from the wordings of the last section of the Brahma sutra bhashya that the upasakas, having become muktas there, attain 'Ishvara saayujyam' as Shankara says.  And this 'Ishwara' has to be this head of this loka: the Prajapati/Hiranyagarbha/VirAt  >>,

My understanding is different. The upAsakAs, who gain jnAna in this lOka and become muktAs, enjoy all the benefits enjoyed by Prajapati/Hiranyagarbha/VirAt except the power relating to Creation. This is my understanding.

Regards

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnWrbCnzuGXy0hoDxhkkGWZ%2Bt%2BhNBuFC38cUrf83CZDoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 10:34 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbu ji,

I agree with everything you say except I would de-emphasise one aspect:

"In that case the Trimurtis will be non-diff from this Prathama shariri who is in turn 'under' the Ishwara."

I think that there is no spiritual benefit (and possible spiritual harm) in considering the trimUrti Shiva / Vishnu separate from the turIya Shiva / Vishnu (terms used in the sense that you do below) - especially if it is done with the purpose of reconciling durbala purANa pramANa-s. Doing so can get in the way of the upAsana of the turIya Shiva / Vishnu etc as Ishvara - leading to questions / confusions of whether such a worship is of Ishvara or of a jIva etc - which affects the stronger pramANa enjoining a worship of such forms.

Panchadashi: 

2. Entering the superior bodies like that of Vishnu, He became the deities; and remaining in the inferior bodies like that of men He worships the deities.  Panchadashi 1

Here the Brahman/Ishwara that is the jagatkAraNam is stated to have entered bodies like that of Vishnu that are created. The subject-object difference is there. 

उपासकस्तु सततं ध्यायन्नेव वसेदिति । 

ध्यानेनैव कृतं तस्य ब्रह्मत्वं विष्णुतादिवत् ॥  Panchadashi 9.116

116. On the other hand, a meditator should always engage himself in meditation, for through meditation his feeling of identity with Brahman arises, as a devotee has it by meditating on Vishnu.

117. The feeling of identity, which is the effect of meditation, ceases when the practice is given up; but the true Brahmanhood does not vanish even in the absence of knowledge.

From the above it looks like one 'attains' Vishnuhood by meditation, which, however, is not absolute; it ceases when the effect of dhyana ceases. But not so with regard to Nirguna Brahman.

This I think can be mapped with the PrajApatitva/Hiranyagarbhatva that one attains through meditation/jnanakarma samucchaya. 

Here Vidyaranya seems to make a difference between the deity Vishnu and Brahman. The rule 'tam yathAyathOpAsatE...

Turiya Vishnu/Shiva could very well be meditated upon by holding the generally attributed sthiti/laya kartrutva as aupaadhika and not svAbhAvika to that Vishnu/Shiva which is the ultimate JagatkAraNam saguNa vastu. 

The idea of Turiya Shiva is apparently highlighted for the first time by Sri Appayya Dikshitar, based on the shruti and purana vakyas, and this is severely criticized by Madhwas like Vijayendra Tirtha, his contemporary. By that they feared that the taratamya they hold between Shiva and Vishnu is sought to be obliterated and hence the criticism.  

regards

subbu

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:51 AM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subrahmanian Ji.

Reg  various observations from different posts 

<<  Bhashya for Br.Up. mantra 1.4.1:

 ज्ञानकर्मभ्यां समुच्चिताभ्यां प्रजापतित्वप्राप्तिर्व्याख्याता ;
केवलप्राणदर्शनेन च — ‘तद्धैतल्लोकजिदेव’ इत्यादिना । प्रजापतेः फलभूतस्य
सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारेषु जगतः स्वातन्त्र्यादिविभूत्युपवर्णनेन
ज्ञानकर्मणोर्वैदिकयोः फलोत्कर्षो वर्णयितव्य इत्येवमर्थमारभ्यते । तेन च
कर्मकाण्डविहितज्ञानकर्मस्तुतिः कृता भवेत्सामर्थ्यात् । >>,

  <<  In order to be in line with the Br.Up. Bhashya on Prajapati that we have discussed, his having the capacity to create, sustain, destroy, independently  >>,

<<  Hiranyagarbha, the Lord of that 14th loka, where
saguna upasaka's go for krama mukti, is stated by Shankara in that Br.Up.
bhashya as the one who is independently capable of creation, etc. This H is
someone who has attained that status through upasana, and in that section
alone Shankara says about his capacity  >>,

The context of the Bhashya cited above is the sambanda between the three preceding BrAhmaNAs of BU, dealing with jnAna karma samucchaya sAdhanAs, and the succeeding BrahmaNAs dealing with jnAna. Creation requires extraordinary knowledge concerning the same and associated ability to recreate using such knowledge. The sAdhanAs prescribed in the three preceding BrAhmaNAs enable the sAdhaka to achieve such a level of knowledge and capability on his own. He does not need any other help in such an activity. That is stated to be his **स्वातन्त्र्या (independence)**. It is glorification of the sAdhanAs , considering that  they  lead to such **independent** capability. It is only Isvara, through such an intermediary,  creates the universe.

However it is also intended to convey the limitations of such sAdhanAs. The highest benefits resulting from the same, mentioned by the term  **स्वातन्त्र्या (independence)** is still within the realms of samsAra  only, with all its limitations highlighted elsewhere. They cannot lead to mOksha. For that, jnAna is the only solution, which forms the subject matter of succeeding BrAhmaNAs. This is the tAtparya of the sambanda bhAshya here.

Yes, this is agreed. This is in the Bhashya itself.

 

Reg  <<  That in Advaita the saguna brahma upasakas go to Brahma loka which is called Hiranyagarbha loka.  It is here, I understand from the wordings of the last section of the Brahma sutra bhashya that the upasakas, having become muktas there, attain 'Ishvara saayujyam' as Shankara says.  And this 'Ishwara' has to be this head of this loka: the Prajapati/Hiranyagarbha/VirAt  >>,

My understanding is different. The upAsakAs, who gain jnAna in this lOka and become muktAs, enjoy all the benefits enjoyed by Prajapati/Hiranyagarbha/VirAt except the power relating to Creation. This is my understanding.

The basis of my statement is this Bhashya 4.4.17:

ये सगुणब्रह्मोपासनात् सहैव मनसा ईश्वरसायुज्यं व्रजन्ति, किं तेषां निरवग्रहमैश्वर्यं भवति, आहोस्वित्सावग्रहमिति संशयः । 

//Those saguna brahma upasakas who attain Ishwara saayujya with the manas, do they have unlimited aishwarya or limited - this is the question.//

The reply is as you have stated. 

regards

subbu

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:14 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Vishnu Purana and Shiva Purana both have this common idea: One
Vishnu/Janardana or One Rudra/Shiva takes the form of the Trimurtis based
on the Three gunas sattva, etc. for the three functions of creation, etc".

If one reads or listens to the complete purana. This is not at all the tatparya being expounded. 

In both Shiva Purana and Vishnu Purana verily it's said one janardana or Shiva takes various roopas. 

But then again if one takes time to read the entire purana it's very clear that this "turiya" Vishnu/Shiva is non-different from the roopas they have assumed and not in control of some nirakara isvara having control of them. 

It's a genuine cherry picking of verses which is giving such problematic conclusions.

The gita bhasya is very clear . Acharya says bagavan Vishnu(in this case because it's gita) is "eternally" possessing the control of Maya and Aishwarya independently, while in the BSB suryadi devatas are said to be given the Aishwarya by the lord.. He is"unborn" but appears to be born due to his own Maya(which is further explained by anandagiri). Rejecting any nonsense that at beginning of kalpa he is born.

Both the puranas have said that the control of Maya rests with shiva\vishnu.

If the intention is that advaita has no default form for isvara so that all the upasakas can worship their ishta let it be so. But saying statments that bagavan is under the control of someone, or he is born due to karma is ridiculous and veda virodha and more importantly shankara bhasya virodha

Actually, the bhashya concept of PrajApati status being attainable due to sadhana, where the powers to create, sustain and dissolve, not just the first, but the two also,  and the idea that such prajApati's loka is Satya loka and that he is called Ishwara for with whom saguna upasakas going to that loka attain sAyujya and enjoys the powers of that Prajapati except the creation, etc. powers, gives credence to the conclusion: This PrajApati is none other than the Vishnu and Rudra who have been assigned the powers to sustain and dissolve. The creation power is with the prajapati/brahmaa himself. That loka is also called Brahma loka by Shankara.  And the idea that all upasakas go to that loka only also strengthens the idea that prajapati is non-different from the trimurtis. That is why I had originally asked: Is there an Ishwara above Prajapati? But Shankara says the Ishwara Sayujya happens in Brahma loka and that loka will perish in maha pralaya and that Prajapati will attain videha mukti.  Where will that supreme Ishwara be if not in the Brahma loka? Will there be two Ishwaras there?  

So, these questions are not yet clear for me. Hence I initiated this topic.    

regards

subbu

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 1:58 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

2. *Entering the superior bodies like that of Vishnu, He became the deities*;

and remaining in the inferior bodies like that of men He worships the
deities.  Panchadashi 1

There is no entering of isvara in anything. He is what is present everywhere. It's the nirguna brahman which is the akaryha chaitanyam present in all.

This is agreed but the Taittiriya vakya is: tat sruShTvA tadEvAnuprAvishat: He created it and entered it. For this the Bhashya is: there is no physical entering but only that the consciousness is 'available' there in the body (inside the buddhi) for realization.  There is no problem here. But the Panchadashi says:entered the superior bodies like that of Vishnu.  How does one explain this? The Upanishad did not say this. Should one say that Swami Vidyaranya does not know Vedanta?  How do we do the samanvaya of the Upanishad passage and what the Panchadashi says? 

regards

subbu

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, 2:15 pm Kaushik Chevendra, <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

But the Panchadashi says:entered the superior bodies like that of Vishnu.  How does one explain this?

What is there to explain in this context? The chaitanyam is what is present in all the devatas, humans etc.

The problem is: Brahman entering can happen only with reference to body-mind complexes. If it has to enter Vishnu, he must have a body that is created. Surely this is not about any avatara form. Have we heard anywhere that Vishnu was created along with the other jivas? 

The problem arises when we that due to this Vishnu becomes a jeeva. 

The Upanishad did not say this. Should one say that Swami Vidyaranya does not know Vedanta? 

The inference being pulled here that Vishnu is a jeeva is quite contrary to hundreds of statments made by madhushana Saraswati, sridhara swami, narayana bhatta, abhinava vidyatirtha swami, chandrashekhara Bharathi and finally our own bagavan shankaracharya.

Should we say they don't know vedanta?

Infact i had given numerous statments from gita bhasya, brahmasutra bhasya etc as to why the implication being bought about is not tenable. For which i haven't gita a response or an answer.

How do we do the samanvaya of the Upanishad passage and what the Panchadashi says? 

We must do it a way where it's not contradicting logic or shankara bhasya. If not we can prefer to take the variant slokha which doesn't contain "Vishnu".

The variant reading is erroneous since it gives the wrong word at the end: it aught to be martyatAm instead of devatAm. In any case the popular commentary takes the first reading alone.

देवाद्युत्तमदेहेषु प्रविष्टो देवताभवत् ।
मर्त्याद्यधमदेहेषु स्थितो भजति देवताम् ॥ १०.२ ॥

Regards

subbu 

regards

subbu

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, 16:02 V Subrahmanian, <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Panchadashi: 

2. Entering the superior bodies like that of Vishnu, He became the deities; and remaining in the inferior bodies like that of men He worships the deities.  Panchadashi 1

Here the Brahman/Ishwara that is the jagatkAraNam is stated to have entered bodies like that of Vishnu that are created. The subject-object difference is there. 

Please see the attached TIkAs for this verse (10.2):

विष्ण्वाद्युत्तमदेहेषु प्रविष्टः देवता भवेत्।

मर्त्याद्यधमदेहेषु स्थितो भजति मर्त्यताम्॥

After considering the possibility of the word viShNu in this verse to mean a jIva,  the TikAkAra of the panchadashi rejects that view by establishing that the viShNu spoken of here is Ishvara only.

Please note the sentence below in the panchadashI TIkA pages attached which interprets the samAsa विष्ण्वाद्युत्तमदेहेषु occuring in the verse - 

तथाच विष्ण्वादयः = श्रुत्यादिप्रसिद्धाः सर्वेऽपि परमेश्वरलीलाविग्रहा‌ उत्तमाः = सर्वोत्कटा येषामिन्द्रादीनां जीवानां व्यष्ट्यात्मकत्वेन प्रसिद्धानां तेषां ये देहा वज्रहस्तः पुरन्दर इत्यादिश्रुत्यादिप्रसिद्धाः कायास्तेष्विति विग्रहस्यैव स्वारसिकत्वेनाऽऽचार्यविवक्षितमवश्यं वाच्यम् ।   

That is, the TIkAkAra interprets the term विष्ण्वाद्युत्तमदेहेषु to mean Vishnu etc enters the superior bodies to become the devatAs such as Indra - and not Brahman enters superior bodies such as Vishnu. It is only the latter interpretation which you may be making that supports the view that Vishnu is a jIva. 

उपासकस्तु सततं ध्यायन्नेव वसेदिति । 

ध्यानेनैव कृतं तस्य ब्रह्मत्वं विष्णुतादिवत् ॥  Panchadashi 9.116

116. On the other hand, a meditator should always engage himself in meditation, for through meditation his feeling of identity with Brahman arises, as a devotee has it by meditating on Vishnu.

117. The feeling of identity, which is the effect of meditation, ceases when the practice is given up; but the true Brahmanhood does not vanish even in the absence of knowledge.

From the above it looks like one 'attains' Vishnuhood by meditation, which, however, is not absolute; it ceases when the effect of dhyana ceases. But not so with regard to Nirguna Brahman.

See the TIkA for these two verses, attached. The panchadashIkAra is not saying that Vishnuhood is attained by meditation. Rather, he is saying that the Vishnuhood so assumed is not real. यथा स्वस्मिन् ध्यानेन संपादितस्य विष्णुत्वादेः पारमार्थिकत्वं नास्ति।

In an ahamgraha upAsana, one takes oneself to be viShNu - and that state lasts for so long as the upAsana lasts. This does not mean that one attains vishNutva, whereas the brahmatva that one attains by jnAna does not so disappear because it is not an unreal assumption made for the sake of upAsana and lasts as long as the dhyAna vRtti lasts. Rather, that is the actual nature of the jnAni. That is why the next verse says:

ध्यानोपादानकं यत्तद्ध्यानाभावे विलीयते ।

वास्तवी ब्रह्मता नैव ज्ञानाभावे विलीयते॥

The status of vishNutA that one attains in upAsana disappears once the dhyAnavRtti ends, whereas the real brahmatA does not disappear when the jnAnavRtti ends.

This is a viparIta dRShTAnta that shows the difference between dhyAna and jnAna and only works if vishNutA is the same as / close to brahmatA. A viparIta dRShTAnta needs a common basis. The dArShTAnta is brahmatA and dRShTAnta is viShNutA. As this is a viparIta dRShTAnta, it can only work if there is a common basis between viShNutA and brahmatA. He is showing the difference between jnAna and dhyAna by showing how they differ with respect to the same / similar attained status. 

For example - If one wants to show the difference between understanding and rote memory, we will use a common basis to compare the two - we will say something like: it is better to understand a particular physics concept rather than simply memorise it, because even if one forgets it, one can always work it out. Whereas if you simply memorise that concept without any understanding, if you forget it, it is lost.  If we instead use a physics concept in the case of understanding and a poem in the case of memory, the comparison between understanding and memory wouldn't really stand out.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[V Subrahmanian]

Thank you Venkat ji, for the explanation based on Achyutarai Modak's commentary on the 10.2.  When one reads it, it is inevitable that one gets the feeling that it is a very convoluted interpretation.  He himself finds it so, it appears, when he gives that struggling vigraha for that samasa, and saying 'vaktum shakyatvaaccha'. 

 He first parses the samasa as viShNvaadi and makes it a plural विष्ण्वादयः . And uttama to apply to Indra etc. exalted ones. Does he mean Vishnu, etc. Ishwaras have 'entered' Indra, etc. exalted deities? When the previous verse says 'Brahman entered' in singular, how will it align with the plural Vishnu, etc. entered ...?  Who are meant by the 'Adi' after Vishnu?

The Ramakrishna commentary does not do all that.  It simply takes Vishnu, etc. as signifying exalted bodies.  The Tamil translation of Jnanananda Bharati Swamigal too says so. The Kalyanapiyusha commentary also says this alone: 

https://archive.org/details/Vedanta.Panchadasi.with.Kalyana.Piyusa.Vyakhya/page/n463/mode/2up

Also, the reading in the second line, last word, differs across the commentaries: Modak takes it as 'Devataam' and explains: The one who has entered in humans, etc.and worships (himself as) devatA.  In Ramakrishna's reading, it is 'martyatAm', Brahman, having entered human, etc. bodies, experiences itself as human. In this case, there requires an 'aadi' in the martyatAm too since each jiva in every non-human animal, etc. body experiences itself as that. Bhajati can mean 'experiences' and 'worships'.  In the Kalyanapiyusha the 'martyatAm 'is seen. In any case, there seems to be difficulty if martyatAm is taken. Overall the verse poses difficulty. 

I agree with the rest of your clarification regarding meditation, etc.  Thanks for that.    

warm regards

subbu

    

--

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

On Thu, 16 Feb 2023, 02:08 V Subrahmanian, <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Venkat ji, for the explanation based on Achyutarai Modak's commentary on the 10.2.  When one reads it, it is inevitable that one gets the feeling that it is a very convoluted interpretation.  He himself finds it so, it appears, when he gives that struggling vigraha for that samasa, and saying 'vaktum shakyatvaaccha'. 

It is a more involved explanation, compared to the other commentaries for sure, but I thought it is relevant because it is only this TIkA as far as I am aware that directly addresses the problem with the point that you had raised of Vishnu being taken to be a jIva. 

His point is that one cannot resort to taking Vishnu to be a jIva unless the mUla grantha cannot be interpreted otherwise (kimidam viShNorjIvatvam  mUlagranthAnyathAnupapattyocyate?). And then proceeds to give the two alternative explanations that don't resort to taking Vishnu to be a jIva.

The phrase ityapi vaktum shakyatvAt is because he is giving an alternative explanation to the first one - in the second interpretation, he is saying that the word devatA in the phrase "praviShTah san devatA(h) abhavat" cannot be used in the sense of devAs (pl), because the form would have to be daivatAni for masculine or devatAh for feminine (and why would the panchadashIkAra want to say he entered only exalted feminine devatA forms?) , and so as an alternative, the interpretation can be "praviShTah san Ishvarah abhavat". 

First explanation is Ishvara enters the various jIva bodies. Alternatively, the second explanation can also be Brahman enters exalted bodies such as Ishvara etc. As he is giving an alternative he is saying - ityapi vaktum shakyatvAt.

 He first parses the samasa as viShNvaadi and makes it a plural विष्ण्वादयः . And uttama to apply to Indra etc. exalted ones. Does he mean Vishnu, etc. Ishwaras have 'entered' Indra, etc. exalted deities? When the previous verse says 'Brahman entered' in singular, how will it align with the plural Vishnu, etc. entered ...?  Who are meant by the 'Adi' after Vishnu?

The Adi after Vishnu is Ishvara in his various forms that are well known in the shruti smRti purANa etc श्रुत्यादिप्रसिद्धाः सर्वेऽपि परमेश्वरलीलाविग्रहा‌ः. So the meaning can be - Ishvara, be he as Shiva or Vishnu or any other form described in shAstra, enters exalted jIva bodies.

The Ramakrishna commentary does not do all that.

  It simply takes Vishnu, etc. as signifying exalted bodies. 

Correct, but he does not take Vishnu to be a jIva either.

The Tamil translation of Jnanananda Bharati Swamigal too says so.

Can you send me this link please?

The Kalyanapiyusha commentary also says this alone: 

https://archive.org/details/Vedanta.Panchadasi.with.Kalyana.Piyusa.Vyakhya/page/n463/mode/2up

Yes, here the introduction to the verse seems to imply Vishnu being taken as a jIva.

Also, the reading in the second line, last word, differs across the commentaries: Modak takes it as 'Devataam' and explains: The one who has entered in humans, etc.and worships (himself as) devatA. 

Yes.

In Ramakrishna's reading, it is 'martyatAm', Brahman, having entered human, etc. bodies, experiences itself as human. In this case, there requires an 'aadi' in the martyatAm too since each jiva in every non-human animal, etc. body experiences itself as that.

Can't martyatAm be taken to mean mortal? Brahman having entered mortal bodies experiences itself as mortal? Why should there be another Adi?

Bhajati can mean 'experiences' and 'worships'.  In the Kalyanapiyusha the 'martyatAm 'is seen. In any case, there seems to be difficulty if martyatAm is taken. Overall the verse poses difficulty. 

Yes, it does for sure.

Regards

Venkatraghavan

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks for the response Venkat ji.  I give the Jnanananda Bharati Swamigal's Tamil here:

விஷ்ணு முதலான மேலான தேஹங்களில் ப்ரவேசித்துக்கொண்டு தேவதையாக ஆனார். மனிதன் முதலிய கீழான தேஹங்களில் இருந்து கொண்டு அந்த தேவதையை பஜிக்கிறார். 

Yet another translation here https://www.centreforbrahmavidya.org/acharyas/sri-bharathi-theertha-and-sri-vidyaranya/panchadasi-with-translation.html?v=1.2# on p. 606 of the pdf (p.466 of the printed book) gives the meaning as most others have given: Vishnu, etc. exalted bodies...

I am not asserting that the Panchadashi wants to take Vishnu as a jiva. If Brahman is stated to have 'entered' even the body of Vishnu, there is some principle other/higher than the Vishnu-body.  The Thyagarajar keertanai I cited earlier says: O Rama, you are in the lowest ant and in Brahma, Shiva and Keshava.  (cheemalo brahmalo shivakeshavAdulalo..  Rama nannu brovara..  in Harikambhoji raaga). Showing 'Rama' as distinct from Keshava is somewhat amusing. Shankara's VSN Bhashya for the name Keshava says: Keshava is the one in whose control are Brahma Vishnu and Shiva. यस्य वशे वर्तन्ते इति केशवः |

The purport of the verse I think is: Brahman enlivens all bodies from Vishnu onwards.  And a Pujya-Pujaka bhAva is there.  The pUjya entities include Vishnu, and Indra etc. and the Pujaka are humans. Indra etc. can in turn be pujakas of Vishnu, etc.   The Advaitic idea of the worshiped and the worshiper is the same Chaitanyam, in different upadhis, though is brought out.  

The word 'martya' generally is used to denote human.  I suggested aadi there because the shloka says:  मर्त्याद्यधमदेहेषु स्थितो भजति.. So, martya = human, Adi = other species. In the end if it is martyatAm then it would require the inclusion of other species too, in tune with Adi.  Translators have given human for martya. 

regards

subbu

[Bhaskar YR]

Acharya says one who drags his devotees mind with his beautiful form. So the supreme being praised here has a form which he takes(in this case
vishnu)

praNAms
Hare Krishna

After seeing lot of quotes / justification / defense with regard to some Chaitanya is having some karma janita deha and some exalted jeeva-s (indraadi devata) having much more superior body (when compared to ordinary jeeva) again on the virtue of good deeds of these jeeva and finally not karma janita but mayOpAdhi shareera which is ever lasting of the BEST Chaitanya ( like shiva - vishNu etc.) I am getting the doubt what exactly the difference between these Ishwara body and dualists claim of 'aprakrutika shareera' !!??

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Kaushik prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

The madwas hold that the lord is non different from his body. It's not made of triguna material. The lord's form is absolutely real and eternal. 

 

Ø     I don’t think mAdhwa’s think that body and Ishwara is one and the same, they only insist that lord’s body is NOT ordinary body like we have but it is something special and phenomenal and not subject to decay and death hence it is NOT prakrutika but aprAkrutika.  Yes, lord’s aprAkrutika shareera is real and eternal and I am just curious to know what exactly the difference between this apraakrutika shareera of dvaita and mayOpAdhi of Ishwara in Advaita??  Are we not considering that vishesha upAdhi of vishNu and shiva is mAyOpAdi ( Ishwara taking the help of mAya and assuming the form) and it is there to bless the upAsaka (sAdhakAnugrahArthaM) and everlasting!! Or we are considering the Advaita position that brahman with upAdhi is inferior (apara) sOpAdhika brahma who is valid ONLY when we consider ourselves as parichinna Chaitanya who are suffering in this jagat and praying the Lord for the blessings / mOksha / Ishwarya etc.??  If this is what the position of Advaita then how come shiva-vishNu forms (it is immaterial whether it is mAyOpAdhi or otherwise) are permanent and ever lasting?? 

 

But in advait Ms achary in gudartha Deepika  says that the lord and his body are different. The lord is niraka sudha chaitanya Murthy. But as he controls this Maya he makes it appear "as if" he has a form which is under his complete control. Being a product of Maya it isn't absolutely real and eternal.

 

Ø     Then there must be an ‘end’ to the product of mAya i.e.  rUpa of vishNu and shiva or any upAdhi which is the product of mAya.  Is it not??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Bhaskar YR]

The lord is niraka sudha chaitanya Murthy. But as he controls this Maya he makes it appear "as if" he has a form which is under his complete control. 

 

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Further, when it is said that Chaitanya is nirAkAra shuddha Chaitanya it is also nirvishesha and when we started talking about his control of mAya etc. we are already in the domain of dvaita where there is prior admission that there is a lord with some individuality who is controlling the entity called mAya etc.  and he ‘wish’ to appear (as if)  as many to bless the sAdhaka-s / upAsaka-s etc.  that means before assuming the mAyOpAdhi like shiva and vishNu, he must be having ‘some’ upAdhi through which he can assume to have control over mAya and appearing as sheshashayana chaturbhuja vishNu or kailAsavAsi, chitAbhasmadhAri, gaja charmAmbaradhara shiva.  Which upAdhi is that which is taking the control of mAya?? 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

What exactly the position of Ishwara ( the lord, sOpAdhika, kArya, upAsya, apara brahma) in Advaita ?? 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar YR

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

What exactly the position of Ishwara ( the lord, sOpAdhika, kArya, upAsya, apara brahma) in Advaita ?? 

 

Ø     Just further to this, it would be interesting to know as per advaita, whether shiva-vishNu with their respective forms and families are really there in their abodes (kailAsa / vaikunta) and waiting for their respective upAsaka-s to do upAsana and when the sAdhana is completely ‘pakva’ appear before them and fulfil the wishes of that sAdhaka and go back again and wait for another upAsaka’s sAdhana and sAkshAtkAra OR it is jeeva assumes some forms (ofcourse as per shAstra yukta devata divine form) and do the meditation / upAsana on some shAstrOkta form and with that ‘bala’ of upAsana,  some common shakti which is basically nirAkAra but ‘knowing’ the sAdhana of particular individual sAdhaka and appears in the form of upAsya devata even though not having its own form??  If it is later then we have to conclude that this power is basically nirAkAra but having the guNa / iccha shakti to take any form just to bless the upAsaka in the form of this sAdhaka’s upAsya devata. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Off the list some one said :  we can agree that para brahman is Ishwara/sOpAdhika/upAsya/jagat kAraNa but he (Ishwara) is NOT apara brahman!!??  But according to my understanding :

 

The same one and only brahman called as para/apara/Ishwara depending upon the context :

 

1. Brahman is Para brahman when it is made the subject of enquiry as reality (jneya brahma to be realized through vedAnta vAkya janita jnana). 
2. Brahman is apara or lower brahman when it is recommended in the shruti-s as an object of meditation or upAsana in the form of manOmaya, bhArUpa, prANa shareera etc.

(c ) Ishwara or the sarvashakta/sarvajna when it is said in the places, as the cause and ruler of the world in which individual souls like us also there.

 

Here IMHO the mAyOpAdhi forms of vishNu or shiva etc. either comes under the category of (b) or (c) since we the mortals do have the upAdhi vishesha vishNu or shiva for the upAsana and they are also the srushti, sthiti and saMhAraka.  ( both shiva and vishNu kindly pardon me for assuming your status with my little conditioned mind _/\_ ) And from the siddhAnta drushti this upAdhi is kevala avidyA kruta and nothing else as per bhAshyakAra it is just because in this scenario jeeva taking his upAdhi is and as reality and at the same time seeing jagat as different from him and obviously Lord is there to rule him.  bhAshyakAra in 2-1-27 :  And inasmuch as the special aspect of brahman factiously created by avidyA, is a mere play of words.  The fact of brahman being impartible remains uncontradicted. 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

Thanks for sharing jnAnanda bhArati svAmigal's Tamil translation. Sounds like he takes the last word in the verse to be devatAm too.

Re "I am not asserting that the Panchadashi wants to take Vishnu as a jiva."

I must have misunderstood what you were intending with the Panchadashi quote then. If you didn't intend to say that Vishnu / Shiva etc are jIva-s, I don't have any difference of views with the rest of your email below. There are many ways to reconcile Tyagaraja swami's views without reducing Vishnu and Shiva to jIva status.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te20_mXRuaY52C_Rj7pXtYJC0BZM097DvUXFo6Zi5poVfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

Ø     Just further to this, it would be interesting to know as per advaita, whether shiva-vishNu with their respective forms and families are really there in their abodes (kailAsa / vaikunta) and waiting for their respective upAsaka-s to do upAsana and when the sAdhana is completely ‘pakva’ appear before them and fulfil the wishes of that sAdhaka and go back again and wait for another upAsaka’s sAdhana and sAkshAtkAra OR it is jeeva assumes some forms (ofcourse as per shAstra yukta devata divine form) and do the meditation / upAsana on some shAstrOkta form and with that ‘bala’ of upAsana,  some common shakti which is basically nirAkAra but ‘knowing’ the sAdhana of particular individual sAdhaka and appears in the form of upAsya devata even though not having its own form??  If it is later then we have to conclude that this power is basically nirAkAra but having the guNa / iccha shakti to take any form just to bless the upAsaka in the form of this sAdhaka’s upAsya devata. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar YR

Dear Sir, 

I think there is no consensus opinion on this. 

I understand that from the perspective of drishti-srishti vAda and eka-jIva vAda, Ishwara himself (or herself) is also imagined (leave alone the forms and abodes of Ishwara). But I do not know whether Sri Adi Shankara would have approved of such a position. 

-Sri Krishnarpanam