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
|
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.
"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
--
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.
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?
RegardsTo view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DWVop-uNfPtP2BgLPDCXAJEQTWfPmnPPJRV6qZTAwfJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEdNSk9EBXSK-1p8TEyqivgN%3DcBje8fFEKg31Y3u4kStKpzK6Q%40mail.gmail.com.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEdNSk8r1aOFd%3DeVeOsYo0RtP6JdyfLx8oFYuHGxWSmBHD84nQ%40mail.gmail.com.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnF4yWSFakwQD4ZmOBde8G7Q7CkBOu%3DazJuSdZx1FgvxA%40mail.gmail.com.
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.
--
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.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3%3Dt4HmoHBLsiBVxyVSc0gnATvqs0BhM-4c8ydcaH_viA%40mail.gmail.com.
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.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOuBPes8DGH78fCFy1qDUtpDmN8xjgPQs00xmqLPueiYw%40mail.gmail.com.
ते तमर्चयन्तस्त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकमविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसीति । नमः परमऋषिभ्यो नमः परमऋषिभ्यः ॥ ८ ॥
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DEVg-tZfr%3DYrcHohEgNEgZ4VdyWo8%2B494U%2BFEF63R4SA%40mail.gmail.com.
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 cosrrections/comments.
NamasteSuresh
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB451607C677E6D0A42735711CA9D49%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My whole point is that atattvamasi could be re-interpreted to support Advaita as it helps to eliminate vAchyArtha/Ishwaroham bhAva.
My whole point is that atattvamasi could be re-interpreted to support Advaita as it helps to eliminate vAchyArtha/Ishwaroham bhAva.
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??
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?
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.
|
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581DE1140BADBD205DE5EBB84DB9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DK__ZHLJ8bRe30mUbJKPuQSvZJubGdfu1y2OgX1pOYsQ%40mail.gmail.com.
praNAms Sri Kaushik prabhuji
Hare Krishna
They are ultimately jeevas because they have temporary posts.
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.
Once again they are jeevas only.
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??
- 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??
And what Veda Vyasa has said in the Mahabharata:
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/159321738.1213082.1675826445890%40mail.yahoo.com.
praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
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.
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.
--
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.
praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Are you saying:
> 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.
Now kindly clarify where there is mixing of vyavahArika and pAramArthis satya in my stand here.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
निर्गुणत्वान्निर्दोषत्वाच्च ब्रह्मात्मनि द्विधापि संस्कारो नेत्युक्तम् । इदानीं तस्मिन्गुणदोषयोरभावे मानमाह —
तथाचेति ।
मूर्तित्रयात्मना भेदं प्रत्याह —
एक इति ।
यथाहुः - ‘हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ‘ इति अखण्डजाड्यं व्यावर्तयति —
देव इति ।
तत्र शारीरं तपः निर्दिशति -
देवेति ।
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.
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
इन्द्रस्त्वं प्राण तेजसा रुद्रोऽसि परिरक्षिता ।
त्वमन्तरिक्षे चरसि सूर्यस्त्वं ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥ ९ ॥
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
subbuI 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
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
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
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.
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
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.
"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
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.
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 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
regardssubbu
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 1Here 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 9.116116. 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.
--
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:
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.
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
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??
praNAms
Hare Krishna
What exactly the position of Ishwara ( the lord, sOpAdhika, kArya, upAsya, apara brahma) in Advaita ??
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
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.
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 :
(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.
--
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.
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