'Prana' as Brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Kenopanishad 1.5 bhashyam Shankara has said:

तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति, न त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात्  

Atma being a samsari, indeed is someone who is fit to perform karma or upasana and wishes to attain to the state of gods or heaven. Therefore the upaasya is different such as Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra or Prana could be Brahman but not the Atma who is only upasaka, since holding the upasaka and upasya as non-different contradicts what practice prevails in the world. 

About Vishnu and Shiva being Brahman, JagatkaaraNam, we have quite many evidences. But about Prana (and Indra) not many are seen.  Here is an instance, in the Prashnopanishat, where we have Prana being portrayed as Brahman.

There is a stuti by all the sense and action organs addressed to Prana, whom  they all accept as their 'leader':

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

 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 ॥

You are Parameshwara (not Shiva here), O Prana, by your veerya you destroy the creation as Rudra, in sustaining, you are (Vishnu as clarified by Anandagiri in the gloss) in soumya, benign, form.  (the malign form is Rudra, as stated in the mantra itself. The benign form, is not named, though, but supplied owing to its obvious nature: Vishnu). You are Surya, etc.  

Further the stuti goes on to give all the Ishwara lakshanas (lingas) that we can easily grasp from the mantras and the Bhashyas:

व्रात्यस्त्वं प्राणैकर्षिरत्ता विश्वस्य सत्पतिः ।
वयमाद्यस्य दातारः पिता त्वं मातरिश्व नः ॥ ११ ॥

किञ्च, प्रथमजत्वादन्यस्य संस्कर्तुरभावादसंस्कृतो व्रात्यः त्वम् , स्वभावत एव शुद्ध इत्यभिप्रायः । हे प्राण, एकर्षिः त्वम् आथर्वणानां प्रसिद्ध एकर्षिनामा अग्निः सन् अत्ता सर्वहविषाम् । त्वमेव विश्वस्य सर्वस्य सतो विद्यमानस्य पतिः सत्पतिः ; साधुर्वा पतिः सत्पतिः । वयं पुनः आद्यस्य तव अदनीयस्य हविषो दातारः । त्वं पिता मातरिश्व हे मातरिश्वन् , नः अस्माकम् अथवा, मातरिश्वनः वायोः पिता त्वम् । अतश्च सर्वस्यैव जगतः पितृत्वं सिद्धम् ॥

Shankara calls this Prana, Prathamaja, the term used in the Brihadaranyaka bhashya on Prajapati who attained that status through sadhana. 

Shankara identifies prathaja with prajapati, hiranyagarbha, prathamashariri...

या प्रथमजस्य हिरण्यगर्भस्य बुद्धिः, BSB 1.4.1

 मृत्युश्च अशनायालक्षणो बुद्ध्यात्मा समष्टिः प्रथमजः वायुः सूत्रं सत्यं हिरण्यगर्भः  Brihadaranyaka bhashya

प्रथमजं प्रथमजातम् , सर्वस्मात्संसारिण एतदेवाग्रे जातं ब्रह्म अतः प्रथमजम् ibid

There are many such instances.

So, this Prana of the Prashnopanishad is a very obvious candidate that can be an instance of being 'Brahman' (saguna) that Shankara mentions in the Kena Bhashya 1.5 along with Vishnu, Shiva and Indra.

In this context we can recall Shankara holding Vishnu to be this prathama shariri in the Mundakopanishad 2.1.4:

यस्य च पद्भ्यां जाता पृथिवी, एष देवो विष्णुरनन्तः प्रथमशरीरी त्रैलोक्यदेहोपाधिः सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा ।

From the 'from whose feet Prithvi, earth, was born' we can identify this with 'padbhyaam bhUmiH' of the Purusha suktam. The prathama shariri, Hiranyagarbha, epithet Shankara gives for Vishnu here is noteworthy. Hiranyagarbha is the one from whom all devatas emerge.  

So, there seems to be a pattern across the Bhashya:

The saguna brahman is prathamaja, mahat, prathama shariri, Vishnu, Hiranyagarbha, Prana, Rudra, etc. as borne out by the Prashnopanishat and many other references.  If one digs deeper many may surface. The context of the Kena bhashya is the diff between the upasaka and the upasya: clearly saguna brahman. The mantra there 1.5 comes to teach that the 'Brahman' of the Upanishad is NOT something that is different from the upasaka: tadeva brahma tvam viddhi, nedam yadidam upaasate.  

This brings to the fore the crucial difference in Advaita between the upasya brahman and the jneya brahman, the former is the one stated elaborately above and the latter is the one taught in the Kena:1.5 by distinguishing it from the Vishnu, Ishwara, Prana and Indra. The term prajapati, prathamaja, hiranyagarbha, etc. are there all over the bhashya in the saguna brahman contexts.  

One may search for the candidature of Indra.

Now (again) the question: If prathamaja, prathamashariri, is a post attained by jnana karma samucchaya sadhana as established in the Brihadaranyaka bhashya that we discussed recently, are all the deities Vishnu, Rudra, Brahma (creator) who are also mentioned above in various bhashyas, non-different or synonymous with the Prathamaja?  

Om Tat Sat

  

  

[V Subrahmanian]

In continuation, Advaita holds the saguna brahma upasaka as going to Brahma/prajapati/hiranyagarbha/satya loka for krama mukti.  We also learn that this is the only loka in Advaita that is the destination for all upasakas.  So, the upasakas of Vishnu, Rudra, Devi, Skanda, Surya, etc. have to go to this loka alone. The head of this loka, though, is chaturmukha brahma, though, named. It follows that  the head of this loka is that deity which that upasaka has for his Ishwara. This loka is subject to maha pralaya and the head of that loka, along with all the aparoksha jnanis there, will attain videha mukti.  The question is: how does this fit with the idea: the 'Ishwara' of any upasaka is the head of this loka?  What is the status of that deity who is Ishwara and lord of that ultimate 14th loka? The sayujya mukti is with this Ishwara in this loka. 

I think no direct answers are available in the Bhashyas. One has to derive the answer. I wish to get complete clarity on this and related questions. 

An allied question: The Sutra bhashya says: the mukta upasakas in that loka enjoy all bhogas/aishwarya/vibhutis with that Lord of that loka excepting the functions of creation, etc.  What are the bhogs that Ishwara enjoys there? Can anything specific be mentioned? 

warm regards

subbu

 

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

"यस्य च पद्भ्यां जाता पृथिवी, एष देवो विष्णुरनन्तः प्रथमशरीरी त्रैलोक्यदेहोपाधिः सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा ।"

"Now (again) the question: If prathamaja, prathamashariri, is a post attained by jnana karma samucchaya sadhana as established in the Brihadaranyaka bhashya that we discussed recently, are all the deities Vishnu, Rudra, Brahma (creator) who are also mentioned above in various bhashyas, non-different or synonymous with the Prathamaja?"

Dear Sir

I do not have as much knowledge as the esteemed members here, but let me venture to share some thoughts.

Even though प्रथमशरीरी  may be attainable by jnAna karma samucchaya, being अनन्त and सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा  cannot be attained by jnAna karma samuchhaya. Only brahman is truly अनन्त  as in (सत्यम् ज्नञम् अनन्तम् ब्रह्म ॥) and only brahman is सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा; both these cannot be used for hiraNyagarbha. 

Also, please note the further epithets used - यस्य च पद्भ्यां जाता पृथिवी, एष देवो विष्णुरनन्तः प्रथमशरीरी त्रैलोक्यदेहोपाधिः सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा । स हि सर्वभूतेषु द्रष्टा श्रोता मन्ता विज्ञाता सर्वकरणात्मा ॥

द्रष्टा, श्रोता, मन्ता, विज्ञाता are  not applicable to hiraNyagarbha, but to brahman only. These cannot be attained by jnAna karma samuchhaya.

This is my understanding. Thank you.

Sri Krishnarpanam

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 4:45 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the Kenopanishad 1.5 bhashyam Shankara has said:

तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति, न
त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात्

Atma being a samsari, indeed is someone who is fit to perform karma or
upasana and wishes to attain to the state of gods or heaven. Therefore the
upaasya is different such as Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra or Prana could be
Brahman but not the Atma who is only upasaka, since holding the upasaka and
upasya as non-different contradicts what practice prevails in the world.

Here it's "vishnorisvara" which is Vishnu who is isvara. Not Vishnu and isvara. Because if you are interpreting "vishnoranantha" in the mundaka upanishad bhasya as Vishnu who is called anantha then why is the "vishnorisvara" being split here?

It is Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra and Prana, four entities.  विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो  Those with Sanskrit sandhi knowledge will clearly see this: VishNuH, IshwaraH, IndraH, PrANa. There is upasaka upasya bhaava with regard to these four entities. That is what is being stated here.  On the other hand, in Mundaka it is  एष देवो विष्णुरनन्तः it is only one entity for whom the adjective anantaH is given. And he is called prathama shariri who has the three lokas as his body. There is no context of many entities here. In the Kena bhashya, there is. Hence the two cases are different.     

There is a stuti by all the sense and action organs addressed to Prana,
whom  they all accept as their 'leader':

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

You are Parameshwara (not Shiva here), O Prana, by your veerya you destroy
the creation as Rudra, in sustaining, you are (Vishnu as clarified by
Anandagiri in the gloss) in soumya, benign, form.  (the malign form is
Rudra, as stated in the mantra itself. The benign form, is not named,
though, but supplied owing to its obvious nature: Vishnu). You are Surya,
etc.
Further the stuti goes on to give all the Ishwara lakshanas (lingas) that
we can easily grasp from the mantras and the Bhashyas:

The word Vishnu is not mentioned here actually. The tika to it gives the name Vishnu.

The tika gives it because of the context: As I had explained: 'with veerya you (Prana) are Rudra. Shankara gives the meaning: samhartaa, the destroyer.  The mantra then says: parirakshitaa: sustainer. Shankara says: in opposition to veerya of the mantra, adds sowmyena, benign, paalayitaa. Now everyone knows that the paalana, sustaining function is that of Vishnu. So, seeing the commentary, the gloss says it is Vishnu, etc.     

 

But in either case here "prana" is identified with isvara and the supreme being. Just as we see such superimposition in surya worship we find that here as well.

Yes, that is fine. But Shankara says here that he is  Prathamaja, the epithet in synonym, he uses for Vishnu in Mundaka: prathamashariri.

 व्रात्यस्त्वं प्राणैकर्षिरत्ता विश्वस्य सत्पतिः ।

वयमाद्यस्य दातारः पिता त्वं मातरिश्व नः ॥ ११ ॥

किञ्च, प्रथमजत्वादन्यस्य संस्कर्तुरभावादसंस्कृतो व्रात्यः त्वम् , स्वभावत एव शुद्ध इत्यभिप्रायः । Says Shankara: Since you, Prana, are prathamaja, you have nobody else to give you samskara, you are pure by nature. 

regards

subbu 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 5:32 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

"यस्य च पद्भ्यां जाता पृथिवी, एष देवो विष्णुरनन्तः प्रथमशरीरी त्रैलोक्यदेहोपाधिः सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा ।"

"Now (again) the question: If prathamaja, prathamashariri, is a post attained by jnana karma samucchaya sadhana as established in the Brihadaranyaka bhashya that we discussed recently, are all the deities Vishnu, Rudra, Brahma (creator) who are also mentioned above in various bhashyas, non-different or synonymous with the Prathamaja?"

Dear Sir

I do not have as much knowledge as the esteemed members here, but let me venture to share some thoughts.

Even though प्रथमशरीरी  may be attainable by jnAna karma samucchaya, being अनन्त and सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा  cannot be attained by jnAna karma samuchhaya. Only brahman is truly अनन्त  as in (सत्यम् ज्नञम् अनन्तम् ब्रह्म ॥) and only brahman is सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा; both these cannot be used for hiraNyagarbha. 

Also, please note the further epithets used - यस्य च पद्भ्यां जाता पृथिवी, एष देवो विष्णुरनन्तः प्रथमशरीरी त्रैलोक्यदेहोपाधिः सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा । स हि सर्वभूतेषु द्रष्टा श्रोता मन्ता विज्ञाता सर्वकरणात्मा ॥

द्रष्टा, श्रोता, मन्ता, विज्ञाता are  not applicable to hiraNyagarbha, but to brahman only. These cannot be attained by jnAna karma samuchhaya.

In this case, as the context says, the drashta shrota, etc. are to be understood as: The Hiranyagarbha is the abhimani for the sukshma sharira of all the jivas in creation. Therefore he is the seer, hearer, etc.  This is distinct from the antaryami, Para Brahman, which is the ultimate seer, hearer, etc.

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/24686bc6-c9b4-4167-b8ae-7da50735d2fbn%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

In this case, as the context says, the drashta shrota, etc. are to be understood as: The Hiranyagarbha is the abhimani for the sukshma sharira of all the jivas in creation. Therefore he is the seer, hearer, etc.  This is distinct from the antaryami, Para Brahman, which is the ultimate seer, hearer, etc.

regards

subbu  

Dear Sir

While I do not want to question your interpretation of Hiranyagarbha being a द्रष्टा, श्रोता, मन्ता, विज्ञाता, I admit this is something new to me that I am hearing for the first time.

My understanding on this is more conventional and is based on बृहदारण्यक उपनिषद् 3.8.11 (and its corresponding भाष्य) - 

नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ, नान्यदतोऽस्ति श्रोतृ, नान्यदतोऽस्ति मन्तृ, नान्यदतोऽस्ति विज्ञातृ;

- Sri Krishnarpanam  

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Subramanian,

You write :

"In this case, as the context says, the drashta shrota, etc. are to be understood as: The Hiranyagarbha is the abhimani for the sukshma sharira of all the jivas in creation. Therefore he is the seer, hearer, etc.  This is distinct from the antaryami, Para Brahman, which is the ultimate seer, hearer, etc."

Can there be ever two seers?

Is it ever possible?

Is it not illogical?

Kindly clarify.

With namaskars,

Sreenivasa Murthy

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3KC-kZVMZ5d523H3yStfiV6QSAxR1V7_Uy5u3zWBi5oQ%40mail.gmail.com

.

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Mundaka context Shankara says:  स हि सर्वभूतेषु द्रष्टा श्रोता मन्ता विज्ञाता सर्वकरणात्मा  - the last epithet: sarvakaraNAtma =  he is the self of all indriyas and manas.  That shows that the draShTA, etc. in this case is the prathamashariri.    

You say: These cannot be attained by jnAna karma samuchhaya.

In the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya about the Prajapati, Shankara has said: this entity, who has attained this status due to jnanakarma samucchaya has 'independent capacity to create, sustain and destroy.'

regards

subbu 

- Sri Krishnarpanam  

--
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/82c1a489-706d-4c93-afcc-4d1f6cab96d7n%40googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 6:02 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb, 2023, 5:42 pm V Subrahmanian, <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra and Prana, four entities.  विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो  Those with Sanskrit sandhi knowledge will clearly see this: VishNuH, IshwaraH, IndraH, PrANa. There is upasaka upasya bhaava with regard to these four entities. That is what is being stated here.  On the other hand, in Mundaka it is  एष देवो विष्णुरनन्तः it is only one entity for whom the adjective anantaH is given. And he is called prathama shariri who has the three lokas as his body. There is no context of many entities here. In the Kena bhashya, there is. Hence the two cases are different.     

Yes. The two cases are verily different. There are multiple dieties being inferred in this context. But it's not "4". Even if we take vishnorisvara as 1, it will still be 3 dieties. And plural form of the the bhasya isn't affected. Hence it can verily be taken as vishnorisvara.

There is no reason to restrict it to 3 deities as it is extremely popular that Shiva (Ishwara) is also meditated upon by upasakas, just as Vishnu is and as Prana is (in Prana vidya, a sagunopasana). Why should the Bhashyakara leave out Shiva and include Prana and Indra? Also, there is no need to give an adjective only to Vishnu and deny that to the others.  Shankara says there: These deities can be Brahman but not the upasaka (who is always different from the upasya).  This mantra is there to teach that the Upanishadic Brahman is not something that is meditated upon as 'something different from the upasaka'.  Hence Shankara has proposed a case where there is clear difference in the upasana of various deities.. He says there: तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति, न त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात् । There is no need to say Vishnu who is Ishwara is Brahman since the adjective here 'Ishwara' itself means Brahman. So the meaning there is Vishnu is Brahman, Ishwara (Shiva - In Kenopanishat bhashya Shankara refers to Shiva as 'sarvajna Ishwara') is Brahman, Indra is Brahman and Prana is Brahman.         

The tika gives it because of the context: As I had explained: 'with veerya you (Prana) are Rudra. Shankara gives the meaning: samhartaa, the destroyer.  The mantra then says: parirakshitaa: sustainer. Shankara says: in opposition to veerya of the mantra, adds sowmyena, benign, paalayitaa. Now everyone knows that the paalana, sustaining function is that of Vishnu. So, seeing the commentary, the gloss says it is Vishnu, etc

.     

Yes the commentary isn't wrong in saying so, while again the sudhasattva upadhi given to Vishnu in tikkas is present as well.  So no problem arises here.

 

But in either case here "prana" is identified with isvara and the supreme being. Just as we see such superimposition in surya worship we find that here as well.

Yes, that is fine. But Shankara says here that he is  Prathamaja for Prana, the epithet in synonym, he uses for Vishnu in Mundaka: prathamashariri.

As i had explained before taking the gudartha Deepika ( shri ms)in context as well as other translations in mind. The vishnoranantha is an adjective for virat. Because he is all pervading and without beginning and end.

 व्रात्यस्त्वं प्राणैकर्षिरत्ता विश्वस्य सत्पतिः ।

वयमाद्यस्य दातारः पिता त्वं मातरिश्व नः ॥ ११ ॥

किञ्च, प्रथमजत्वादन्यस्य संस्कर्तुरभावादसंस्कृतो व्रात्यः त्वम् , स्वभावत एव शुद्ध इत्यभिप्रायः । Says Shankara: Since you, Prana, are prathamaja, you have nobody else to give you samskara, you are pure by nature. 

How does this contradict any of my statments?

In either case i had presented many problems with Vishnu being a jeeva from the shankara BSB bhasya, gita bhasya. And various other quotes can be given from the works of sridhar swamin, madhusudana Saraswati, abhinava vidyatirtha swamin, chandrashekhara Bharathi etc.

In all due respect i had raised many objections for which there have been no response. At this point i understand you have decided that Vishnu is a jeeva.

Dear Kaushik, I have not 'decided' Vishnu is a jeeva. The question is with respect to the status of Shiva too in the light of the Prashnopanishat mantra and the bhashyam. It says: Prana 'as' Rudra dissolves, 'as' .....sustains and goes on to say Prana is Surya, etc.  It is something like a Vishvarupa description of Prana in all those mantras there. While the Bh.Gita Vishvarupa has everyone else 'within' Bhagavan, here everything, including Rudra and Vishnu, is 'within' Prana.  And Shankara says clearly there: this Prana is prathamaja.  (And the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya about Prajapati who has attained that status through sadhana is stated to have independent capacity to create, sustain, etc. by Shankara.) 

I am only raising questions, all based on the various statements by the Bhashyakara, that give rise to that doubt.  I am seeking a samanvaya, reconciliation of the seemingly contradictory passages of the Bhashya. The questions have a bearing on the saguna brahma upasana, brahma loka, krama mukti, etc. How can a Shiva or Vishnu upasaka be in Brahma loka and get sayujya with Brahmaa (instead of with Vishnu or Shiva or any other)? It is very clearly stated in the BSB end that this Brahmaa, the head of that loka, will also get videha mukti when that loka perishes.  Then what will happen to the Vishnu or Shiva who are also there, if their presence there and sayujya with them is admitted?

It is necessary that these questions are answered.  If no one comes forward to answer these but want to avoid these just because they appear inconvenient, there will be no room for vichara. 

regards  

subbu
   

 

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Dear Sir

In this context, please allow me to present some portions from बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् on 1.4.6. The question raised is whether Hiranyagarbha is Supreme (Ishwara?) or transmigrating jIva.

Here, I am using the translation of Sri V. Panoli.

अत्र विप्रतिपद्यन्ते — पर एव हिरण्यगर्भ इत्येके ; संसारीत्यपरे ।

"Here is difference of opinion (among the learned). While one says that Hiranyagarbha is the Supreme, the other says that he is the transmigrating soul."

The भाष्य then acknowledges both points of view and concludes - 

हिरण्यगर्भस्तूपाधिशुद्ध्यतिशयापेक्षया प्रायशः पर एवेति श्रुतिस्मृतिवादाः प्रवृत्ताः । संसारित्वं तु क्वचिदेव दर्शयन्ति । जीवानां तूपाधिगताशुद्धिबाहुल्यात्संसारित्वमेव प्रायशोऽभिलप्यते । व्यावृत्तकृत्स्नोपाधिभेदापेक्षया तु सर्वः परत्वेनाभिधीयते श्रुतिस्मृतिवादैः ॥

"But, with reference to the limiting adjuncts of high purity, Hiranyagarbha is often spoken of as the Supreme in the srutis and smritis, but these texts present him as the transmigrating soul only very rarely. Generally, on account of an excess of impurity in the limiting adjuncts of the individual souls, they are spoken of as the transmigratory souls. But, when these different limiting adjuncts are got rid of completely, all are spoken of as the Supreme by srutis and smritis." 

With the above भाष्य in mind, I would suggest the following - 

1. When Hiranyagarbha is presented as transmigrating, it is a post that can be attained by Jnana karma Samuchhaya.

2. When Hiranyagarbha is presented as the Supreme (Ishwara), this is not a post that can be attained by a jIva.

-Sri Krishnarpanam

[V Subrahmanian]

Kaushik,

The quote of Sri Amalananda that you have cited is actually a refutation of Bhagavatpada by him.  While the BSB Pancharatra section holds that Veda Vyasa denounces this school for various reasons, the first being: It says the jiva has an origin.  Not only Shankara but Bhaskara and even Vallabha have taken the same stand as Shankara.  Only the Vaishnava schools differ as they hold Pancharatra dear.  Amalananda's opinion is a stark disagreement from Shankara. Srivaishnavas happily quote this and say: Look, while Shankara refuted this school on this point, his own descendent differs from him and has said what is supporting us.

regards

subbu  

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 6:18 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Because tika has been quoted in the prashnopanishad. 

Here is a statment of amalananda(our own acharya) on the panchatantra texts which hold narayana and his avataras as supreme and not a "jeeva" (which shankara himself says is in accordance with the vedanta).

जीवाभिन्नब्रह्मणो जगत्सर्गं वदतः समन्वयस्य जीवोत्पत्तिप्रतिपादकपाञ्चरात्रस्मृतिविरोधसंदेहे, अधिष्ठातैवेश्वर इति मते निरस्ते, प्रकृतिरपि स इति मतस्य वेदसंमतत्वाज्जीवोत्पत्तावपि प्रमाणत्वम् — एवंभूतावान्तरसंगतिलोभेन स्मृत्पादसंगतमप्यधिकरणमिह लिखितम् । तत्र — ईशोक्तं न पुराणेषु व्यामोहार्थमितीरितम् । पञ्चरात्रमतो जीवो विकार इति मीयते ॥ पञ्चरात्रकर्तुर्वासुदेवस्य वेदादेव सर्वज्ञत्वावगमात् कपिलपतञ्जल्यादीनां च जीवत्वात्, पञ्चरात्रस्य च पुराणेषु बुद्धादिदर्शनवत् व्यामोहार्थमीश्वरप्रणीतत्वाश्रवणात् ब्रह्मनिमित्तत्वप्रकृतित्वसंप्रतिपत्तेश्च जीवोत्पत्तावप्यद्वैताव्याघातात्तत्सिद्धजीवोत्पत्तिरबाध्या । अत एवागतार्था च । एवं प्राप्ते, अभिधीयते — “बुद्धिपूर्वकृतिस्तन्त्रं ब्रह्मनिःश्वसितं श्रुतिः । तेन जीवजनिस्तत्र सिद्धा गौणी नियम्यते ॥” यावद्ध्येकदेशे वेदाविरोधादीश्वरबुद्धेर्वेदमूलत्वं वेदाद्वा सर्वविषयत्वं प्रतीयते, तावदेव स्वतःप्रमाणवेदाज्जीवानुत्पत्तिप्रमितौ तादृशबुद्धिपूर्वकेश्वरवचनान्न जीवोत्पत्तिरवगन्तुं शक्यते । अतः प्रमाणापहृतविषये गौणं तद्वचनम्, न तु भ्रान्तं पूर्वोक्तयुक्तिभिरिति ।
Meaning: The adhikaraNa is begun as follows — there is a doubt as to whether the the origination of the individual soul (jIvotpatti) must be accepted literally from statements in the pAncarAtra Agama. This tantra was composed by the Omniscient Lord, and are in agreement with the Veda in terms of the oneness of material and efficient causes. It cannot be said that these statements are made in error, since they were uttered by the Lord Himself, compared to other darshanas like sAMkhya, yoga, etc. that were composed by jIvas like Kapila, Patanjali, etc. Moreover, we do not see anywhere in the Puranas that the pAncarAtra tantra was propagated by the Lord Himself for the sake of delusion not unlike the doctrine of the Bauddhas propagated again by Himself to delude the wicked. Such a doubt is raised here. The correct position, on the other hand , is as follows: “Since the Lord’s voluntary composition is the pAncarAtra tantra, and His involuntary breath is the shruti, statements of origination of the soul are secondary and figurative, not primary and literal”. The omnscience, benevolent nature, and infalliability of the Lord are all understood to be true only from the self-evident shruti. Hence, the pAncarAtra Agamas are dependent on the Veda for their authority. Hence, it cannot be said that they propagate the theory of origin of the individual soul literally, since it would contradict the shruti that says the individual soul is eternal. Therefore, such statements in the pAncarAtra are to be understood as secondary and conveying something else, and are not erroneous due to the reasons given in the prima facie position.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:13 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste sir

Kaushik,

The quote of Sri Amalananda that you have cited is actually a refutation of Bhagavatpada by him.

It would be a refutation of  shankaracharya if he would have contended that the jeevatma has an origination. But that's not what he says. Shankaracharya's problem with panchatantra is only the origination of souls. As he himself says "we don't object that the supreme narayana who is beyond avyakta takes various forms to grace...." . "Neither do we object that one pointed devotion to him must be established through prostrating before him, meditating on him etc"

If it was that narayana was a jeeva acharya wouldn't have said the above.

The Advaita scholars see this as a clear refutation of Shankara.  It is a subtle advisory to Shankara that it is to be taken in a secondary sense. He is expressing what the Vaishnavas say about this: it is in a secondary sense.  'Don't you even know this?' is the tone of his comment. 

 

Keeping this in mind amalananda says that the origination of souls have to be taken as an origination of souls in a secondary sense and not literal. Hence he does a "samanvaya" and doesn't refute acharya. 

In what way will our own acharyas refute shankaracharya?

There is a definition of a 'vartika': that which is said, not said and wrongly said is discussed in a vartika.  On these lines a commentator sometimes disagrees with the muula bhashya.  This is there in other schools too. Some people have pointed out Sureshwara too disagreeing with Shankara.  I don't remember the exact instances though. 

regards

subbu 

   Look, while Shankara refuted this school on this point, his own descendent differs from him and has said what is supporting us.

That's because they miss the point. Amalananda has done a reconciliation between shankaracharya and pancharatra. 

If we start saying that he refuted shankaracharya, what is the difference between us and them?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:23 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste sir.

While the Bh.Gita Vishvarupa has everyone else 'within' Bhagavan, here everything, including Rudra and Vishnu, is 'within' Prana.  And Shankara says clearly there: this Prana is prathamaja.  (And the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya about Prajapati who has attained that status through sadhana is stated to have independent capacity to create, sustain, etc. by Shankara.) 

In continuation here. It's a wrong statment to say that everything is within "prana" here.

1) In the gita bhasya acharya says that with one fourth of himself krishna has pervaded the entire universe (including various brahmanadas). It would be ridiculous to say that there is another jeeva "prana" who is above him etc ignoring the statments of acharya saying "none is equal or greater than you".

2) In the prashnopanishad acharya identified this prana as the Atman (brahman) in the 2.7 bhasya. Because there is a stuti of prana by other jeevas, here he is being identified as the Atman of all. Verily it is this Chaitanyam on whom all the upadhis of creation, sustenance etc are superimposed on. Hence the stuti is of Atman and not the diety prana. Because in the upanishad itself this prana is created by brahma.

Shankara calls this Prana 'prathamaja' an epithet for Brahmaa.  At the end of that section Shankara says: इत्येवं सर्वात्मतया वागादिभिः प्राणैः स्तुत्या गमितमहिमा प्राणः प्रजापतिरेवेत्यवधृतम् ॥   In the stuti it has been emphatically established that Prana is indeed Prajapati.  It is this Prana that was stated to pervade everything in the creation.

regards

subbu 

Namo narayana 

   

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:43 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste sir 

Shankara calls this Prana 'prathamaja' an epithet for Brahmaa.  At the end of that section Shankara says: इत्येवं सर्वात्मतया वागादिभिः प्राणैः स्तुत्या गमितमहिमा प्राणः प्रजापतिरेवेत्यवधृतम् ॥   In the stuti it has been emphatically established that Prana is indeed Prajapati.  It is this Prana that was stated to pervade everything in the creation.

Prana is not only called prajapati but also rudra, sun etc. Why the special emphasis on only "prathamaja". Here prana is taken be the Atman hence it's brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, sun etc. 

Shankara calls Prana prathamaja and says 'since he is the first-born, there is no one to give him samskaras.' Hence the mantra says 'vraatya' = 

1.

A

Brāhman,

or

man

of

the

three

first

classes,

in

whose

youth

the

customary

observances

have

been

omitted,

and

who

has

not

received

his

investiture

with

the

sacred

thread. This word has a negative sense. Here it is used not to denigrate Prana but as a stuti. But the first-born epithet is there for Prana = prathamaja.

regards

subbu

  

There is no contradiction or problem here.

regards

subbu 

Namo narayana 

   

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 2:29 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the upanishad 1.4 itself acharya says-

"being Hiranyagarbha born at the beginning of this Kalpa and being the lord of all created beings and things immoveable and moveable, revolved in his mind the knowledge acquired in the previous birth, the drift of which is revealed by the srutis. Having thus brooded over the knowledge, imparted by the srutis produced a pair, a couple—necessary for creation,—the moon, i.e., food and prana"

In the gloss Anandagiri Acharya clarifies:  

 “अहं वैश्वानरो भूत्वा प्राणिनां देहमाश्रितः । प्राणापानसमायुक्तः पचाम्यन्नं चतुर्विधम्॥”(भ. गी. १५। १४) इति स्मृतेरग्नेः प्राणसम्बन्धादग्निर्भोक्ता लक्ष्यत इत्याह – 

प्राणं चेति ।

By the word 'prana' in the Bhashya we aught to take Agni, the Bhokta, on the basis of the Bh.Gita 15.14 verse:  I, as, the fire cook the food in everyone's stomach'.  Since agni is connected with prana, agni, bhokta is indicated by the word prana. 

regards

subbu   

Here brahma and prana are differentiated again. Prana being created by hiranyagarbha.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

The kAryAdhikaraNam in the 4th chapter, 3rd pAda of the brahmasUtra establishes that wherever the Shruti talks of a travel to a loka it is travel to the world that is supervised by a kArya brahma, conditioned Brahman, only.

So, the first sUtra in this adhikaraNam, कार्यं बादरिरस्य गत्युपपत्तेः (4.3.7) established that that gati is possible only for kArya brahma (hiraNyagarbha), not kAraNa brahma (Parameshvara). The second sUtra, विशेषितत्वाच्च (4.3.8) with the help of the shruti ‘ब्रह्मलोकान्गमयति ते तेषु ब्रह्मलोकेषु पराः परावतो वसन्ति’ (बृ. उ. ६ । २ । १५) proves that it can only be a kArya brahma, where the use of the plural tense in ब्रह्मलोकेषु is used to justify that worlds in the plural can only apply in a literal sense with kAryabrahma.

A question is raised about why the term brahma is used in the shruti if it is referring to an apara brahma, to which the third sUtra  सामीप्यात्तु तद्व्यपदेशः (4.3.9), where because hiraNyagarbha is close to Ishvara, sometimes the term brahma is applied to the former as well for the purpose of upAsana.

The next sUtra settles the matter: कार्यात्यये तदध्यक्षेण सहातः परमभिधानात् (4.3.10) - where AchArya clearly says कार्यब्रह्मलोकप्रलयप्रत्युपस्थाने सति तत्रैव उत्पन्नसम्यग्दर्शनाः सन्तः, तदध्यक्षेण हिरण्यगर्भेण सह अतः परं परिशुद्धं विष्णोः परमं पदं प्रतिपद्यन्ते - when the world of the kArya brahma undergoes dissolution, all its residents who have attained jnAna, attain moksha (परं परिशुद्धं विष्णोः परमं पदं), along with the leader of that world, hiraNyagarbha. The sUtrakAra uses the term adhyaksha to denote the ruler of that world, and the bhAShyakAra explains that word to be hiraNyagarbha.

Finally in sUtra 4.3.11, स्मृतेश्च he quotes the smRti

 ‘ब्रह्मणा सह ते सर्वे सम्प्राप्ते प्रतिसञ्चरे । परस्यान्ते कृतात्मानः प्रविशन्ति परं पदम्’ इति ।, and concludes with the words तस्मात्कार्यब्रह्मविषया एव गतिश्रुतयः इति सिद्धान्तः ॥ - the siddhAnta is that every gati shruti only refers to travel to kAryabrahma - if it is an actual travel.

So, if we take going to kailAsha, vaikunTha occurring in the purANa-s as literal statements, then it is tantamount to taking Shiva and Vishnu as kAryabrahma, and any upAsakas who die without attaining jnAna and reach such loka-s would necessarily (because they would travel to such loka-s) have to attain jnAna in such loka-s. Instead, if we take the attainment of these loka-s in the figurative sense such as attaining विष्णोः परमं पदं, ie knowing the the highest Brahman through samyagjnAna, then that is moksha and the object of the jnAna, the true Shiva / Vishnu tattva is Parabrahman. In fact, in the bhAShya to the sUtra 4.3.14, in responding to the pUrva paksha position that gati is possible for Parabrahman, AchArya says: परविद्याप्रकरणेऽपि च तत्स्तुत्यर्थं विद्यान्तराश्रयगत्यनुकीर्तनमुपपद्यते — ‘विष्वङ्ङन्या उत्क्रमणे भवन्ति’ (छा. उ. ८ । ६ । ६) इतिवत् ।

It is possible for there to be a reference to gati in the context of Parabrahman too - where such a gati (travel) is mentioned as a eulogy (ie not literal) of paravidyA.

Now, Shankaracharya uses the term Ishvara with respect to hiraNyagarbha in various places in the bhAShya, but he does not mean hiraNyagarbha is Parameshvara, he only uses the term Ishvara to denote the supremacy of hiraNyagarbha amongst the jIva-s. See the bhAShya to 1.3.30:

सत्यपि सर्वव्यवहारोच्छेदिनि महाप्रलये परमेश्वरानुग्रहादीश्वराणां हिरण्यगर्भादीनां कल्पान्तरव्यवहारानुसन्धानोपपत्तेः । यद्यपि प्राकृताः प्राणिनो न जन्मान्तरव्यवहारमनुसन्दधाना दृश्यन्त इति, तथापि न प्राकृतवदीश्वराणां भवितव्यम् । यथा हि प्राणित्वाविशेषेऽपि मनुष्यादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तेषु ज्ञानैश्वर्यादिप्रतिबन्धः परेण परेण भूयान् भवन् दृश्यते ; तथा मनुष्यादिष्वेव हिरण्यगर्भपर्यन्तेषु ज्ञानैश्वर्याद्यभिव्यक्तिरपि परेण परेण भूयसी भवतीत्येतच्छ्रुतिस्मृतिवादेष्वसकृदनुश्रूयमाणं न शक्यं नास्तीति वदितुम् । 

Even though in the mahApralaya, when all activities have ceased, Ishvara-s such as hiraNyagarbha etc are able to recall, through the grace of Parameshvara, the activities undertaken in another kalpa. Even though ordinary creatures are not able to recall the actions in another kalpa, one cannot surmise that Ishvara-s (he means hiraNyagarbha etc) too will be so unable. It is observed that the capacity of the intellect is superior in some creatures compared to others. Similarly, starting from men, and culminating in hiraNyagarbha, the manifestation of intellect increases by species, as observed in a multitude of Shruti and smRti statements and therefore this cannot be denied.

Note the reference to hiraNyagarbha as Ishvara, in juxtaposition to Parameshvara, by whose grace he recalls his actions from another birth.

Not just hiraNyagarbha, the term Ishvara is used by the AchArya to refer to other great souls such as apAntaratamas (BSB 3.3.32):

एवम् अपान्तरतमःप्रभृतयोऽपीश्वराः परमेश्वरेण तेषु तेष्वधिकारेषु नियुक्ताः सन्तः सत्यपि सम्यग्दर्शने कैवल्यहेतौ अक्षीणकर्माणो यावदधिकारमवतिष्ठन्ते, तदवसाने च अपवृज्यन्त इत्यविरुद्धम् ।

Therefore, apAntaratamas and others, despite being divine (Ishvara-s), are assigned their respective tasks by Parameshvara even though possess the right knowledge that is the cause of liberation, continue with their bodies for so long as their task requires it and their activities are not completed.

The reference provided by you of AchArya using the term Parameshvara in the context of hiraNyagarbha (इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण) in the prashnopaniShad, must be interpreted only as Parameshvara a eulogy, along the lines of the nyAya from the सामीप्यात्तु तद्व्यपदेशः sUtra.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks Venkat ji, for this wonderful post.

While the kAryabrahmaloka prApti is there for the upasaka-s of various vidya-s of the Upanishads, in the present day context where the Upanishadic Vidya-s are sort of replaced by bhakti to various deities like Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Skanda and so on, would it be possible to map the 'journey' of these upasakas (who have not had samyag jnana here) with the kAryabrahmaloka prApti? If yes, how do we explain the 'Ishwara sAyujyam' the Upasakas attain as stated in the BSB? Will the upasakas merge in their respective upAsya devatas? If yes, in which loka? Can we substitute these in the place of the Hiranyagarbha loka gamanam?  In such a case the  ‘ब्रह्मणा सह ते सर्वे सम्प्राप्ते प्रतिसञ्चरे । परस्यान्ते कृतात्मानः प्रविशन्ति परं पदम्’  (Hiranyagarbha attianing videha kaivalyam at the end of his loka) will have to be substituted by the Shiva, etc.deities. 

I think the Puranic idea of Vishnu or Shiva or Devi....being the source of the Trimurtis could be interpreted as: the Source is the Parameshwara and the Trimurtis are kArya Brahman.  In that case those lokas can be accepted as the ones where their upasakas end up having sAyujyam with them. Then at the end of that loka the inmates along with the head of that loka (Shiva, etc.) will attain videha Kaivalyam.  In this scenario we have to accept this Shiva, etc. of the Triad are those who have attained to this position through upasana. The Turiya Shiva/Vishnu that is the source of the Trimurtis will be their Source and that Brahman is not attainable through sadhana. 

Is this scheme free from defects?  

warm 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/CAL34aEm7UYB4Yxs_0YgSkP0SJHAyH%2B24ViaM6Xy5tAexd%2BoyYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

The Turiya Shiva/Vishnu that is the source of the Trimurtis will be their Source and that Brahman is not attainable through sadhana.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Additional doubt after seeing above statement.  Is this tureeya brahma something different from parabrahma??  If yes, is he sOpAdhika or nirupAdhika or guNapUrNa but nirupAdhika??  jnana would fetch the knowledge to jnAni that he is brahman (tattvamasi or ahaM brahmAsmi) is this jnana sAdhana not able to realize the tureeya brahma??  Or we can realize the tureeya brahma but cannot be attained his/her status.  What is the difference between tureeya brahman’s upAdhi and the upAdhi-s of originated trimurthi-s ??  It seems order like this – parabrahman-tureeya brahman-trimurthi sOpAdhika brahman etc. is this right??  Where can I find the bhAshya reference for this??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

Bhaskar YR

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

And in this order parabrahman (jneya brahma) which is ultimately can be realized by jnAni through jnana and trimurthi-s blessings and krama mukti can be attainable/obtainable by upAsaka-s in upAsana mArga but in between tureeya brahman is not attainable by any means!!  Where can I find these details in PTB?? 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar YR

 

From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 3:42 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: RE: [advaitin] 'Prana' as Brahman

 

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/AM7PR06MB65817F59AAE652FAD2F8C90784A49%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji

An important distinction has to be drawn between the upAsya and the loka to which the upAsaka goes. Shankaracharya in the kAryAdhikaraNam had said: तस्मात्कार्यब्रह्मविषया एव गतिश्रुतयः इति सिद्धान्तः

What he is saying is that the loka to which the upAsaka travels is kArya brahma's loka. However, this is true whether the upAsya devata is kArya brahma or saguNa brahma (Ishvara). Even if the upAsaka does an upAsana of Ishvara, he goes to kArya brahma loka only. How can we know this subtle difference? We go back to the kAryAdhikaraNam only, specifically, to the last sUtra न च कार्ये प्रतिपत्त्यभिसन्धिः ॥ १४ ॥

This particular adhikaraNa is unique because the siddhAnta sUtra-s are mentioned first, and then the pUrvapaksha sUtra-s are mentioned - however, there is no sUtra which refutes the pUrva paksha afterwards. Therefore, the bhAShyakAra clarifies this to say that the siddhAnta sUtra-s only prevail. In doing so, the last sUtra 4.3.14 is a pUrva-paksha sUtra, and in commenting on this sUtra at the very end, Shankaracharya distinguishes this: 

यत्रापि ब्रह्म प्रकृत्य गतिरुच्यते — यथा ‘प्राणो ब्रह्म कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (छा. उ. ४ । १० । ४) इति ‘अथ यदिदमस्मिन्ब्रह्मपुरे दहरं पुण्डरीकं वेश्म’ (छा. उ. ८ । १ । १) इति च, तत्रापि वामनीत्वादिभिः सत्यकामादिभिश्च गुणैः सगुणस्यैव उपास्यत्वात् सम्भवति गतिः । न क्वचित्परब्रह्मविषया गतिः श्राव्यते ।....तस्मादपरविषया गतिः । तत्र परापरब्रह्मविवेकानवधारणेन अपरस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि वर्तमाना गतिश्रुतयः परस्मिन्नध्यारोप्यन्ते । किं द्वे ब्रह्मणी परमपरं चेति ? बाढं द्वे — ‘एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोंकारः’ (प्र. उ. ५ । २) इत्यादिदर्शनात् । 

Even where the shruti talks of travel in the context of Brahman - "prANa is Brahman, bliss is Brahman, space is Brahman", "Now, in this city of Brahman (the body) there is a small house (दहरं = small, वेश्म = house) which is the heart (पुण्डरीकं = lotus = heart)", travel is possible because the object of meditation is saguNa, because he is meditated as being endowed with qualities such as bestower of auspiciousness (वामनी:), etc and as one whose desires are ever fulfilled (सत्यकाम:), etc. There is no travel in the case of the Supreme Brahman (parabrahma here = nirguNa brahman).....Therefore travel is only when the object of meditation is not the Supreme Brahman (nirguNa brahman). It is because one fails to distinguish between Parabrahman and aparabrahman that the shruti-s that talk of travel in the case of aparabrahman, are superimposed onto the Parabrahman.  Are there two Brahman-s then - the Superior and the Inferior? Indeed there are two - "This verily, O Satyakama, the two Brahman-s - the Superior and the Inferior are verily the OmkAra".

किं पुनः परं ब्रह्म किमपरमिति, उच्यते — यत्र अविद्याकृतनामरूपादिविशेषप्रतिषेधात् अस्थूलादिशब्दैर्ब्रह्मोपदिश्यते, तत्परम् ; तदेव यत्र नामरूपादिविशेषेण केनचिद्विशिष्टम् उपासनायोपदिश्यते — ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूपः’ (छा. उ. ३ । १४ । २) इत्यादिशब्दैः, तदपरम् । 

What then is param brahma, and what is aparam? It is said - Where Brahman is taught using words such as "not gross" etc, as a result of the negation of all manner of specialisation of the nature of names and forms that are the result of ignorance - that is param. The very same entity when it is taught for the purpose of meditation as being endowed with certain qualities such as names and forms - with words such as "(meditate upon Ishvara as the) mind of all individual minds, having the prANa-s as His body, is of the nature of consciousness", that is aparam.

 

Now, Shankaracharya uses the following terms in this particular section which we will have to carefully parse through to understand his true intent.

1) kArya brahma

2) saguNa brahma

3) param brahma

4) aparam brahma

kArya brahma - here refers to the Brahman which has kAryopAdhi - hiraNyagarbha, who has the samaShTi manah as the upAdhi, to whose loka upAsaka-s travel, and attain krama mukti.

saguNa brahma - here he is actually referring to Ishvara, because elsewhere in the brahmasUtra he has clarified that the entity that is meditated as satyakAmAdi guNa vishiShTa, manomayah rUpah etc is Ishvara only, not a jIva. See the सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात् sUtra in 1.2.1 where Shankaracharya considers whether it is a jIva as a pUrvapaksha and concludes that it is Ishvara alone, endowed with attributes such as manomaya rUpam, satyAmAdi guNa-s etc. 

param brahma - in this context, he is referring to nirguNa brahma alone as param brahma. 

aparam brahma - in this context, can refer to either kArya brahma (hiraNyagarbha) or saguNa brahma (Ishvara). It is easy to understand that aparam braham can refer to kArya brahma. How can we conclude that aparam brahma can refer to Ishvara also? In the सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात् (BS 1.2.1) sUtra's bhAShya, Shankaracharya says परमेव ब्रह्मेह मनोमयत्वादिभिर्धर्मैरुपास्यम्. Here he is saying केनचिद्विशिष्टम् उपासनायोपदिश्यते — ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूपः’ (छा. उ. ३ । १४ । २) इत्यादिशब्दैः, तदपरम्. He is calling the same entity as aparam here in BSB 4.3.14, when he had called the entity referred to in the very same viShaya vAkya as param in BSB 1.2.1 We should be careful and take the contextual meaning. In BSB 1.2.1, by param brahma he meant Ishvara. Here in BSB 4.3.14, by aparam brahma, he does not mean kArya brahma, he means Ishvara, i.e. saguNa brahma.

Therefore, we have to draw a distinction here and note that in the upaniShad-s the upAsana of both hiraNyagarbha and Ishvara is taught. Even where the upAsya is Ishvara, and the shruti talks of travel, the travel is to a kArya brahma loka, where the jIva enjoys the benefits of being in brahmaloka, and is taught brahmavidyA by the lord of brahmaloka (kArya brahma) and attains krama mukti there. When that loka ends, it is not Ishvara who gets resolved, but the kArya brahma.

The question then becomes how to resolve the talk of sAyujya with Ishvara in the jagadvyApArAdhikaraNam (4.4.17 - 22)?

There, in the second sUtra of the adhikaraNa, प्रत्यक्षोपदेशादिति चेन्नाधिकारिकमण्डलस्थोक्तेः (4.4.18), Shankaracharya makes a statement: 

आधिकारिको यः सवितृमण्डलादिषु विशेषायतनेष्ववस्थितः पर ईश्वरः, तदायत्तैव इयं स्वाराज्यप्राप्तिरुच्यते, यत्कारणम् अनन्तरम् ‘आप्नोति मनसस्पतिम्’ (तै. उ. १ । ६ । २) इत्याह ; यो हि सर्वमनसां पतिः पूर्वसिद्ध ईश्वरः तं प्राप्नोतीत्येतदुक्तं भवति ;- the Ishvara, who assigns the duty to the deity that is resident in the solar orb, etc, the attainment of sovereignty is said to be dependent on Him, because of which, immediately afterwards, the shruti says "he attains the lord of the minds" - that pre-existent Ishvara, who is the lord of all minds, he attains Him - that is being said.

What this means is that the sAyujya that takes place in places like the solar orb, or kAryabrahma loka, is not with sUryadevatA or hiraNyagarbha, but with Ishvara himself who is also present there.

This is made even clearer in the ratnaprabhA vyAkhyA:

अधिकारे नियोजयत्यादित्यादीनित्याधिकारिकः, स चासौ मण्डलस्थश्च तस्य प्राप्यत्वोक्तेरित्यर्थः । मनसस्पतिः सूर्यमण्डलान्तःस्थः परमात्मा 'तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि । धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात्' इति श्रुतेः । तथा च यदि पूर्वं निरङ्कुशं स्वाराज्यमुक्तं स्यात्तर्हि ईश्वरस्याग्रे प्राप्यतां न ब्रूयात् ।

He assigns tasks to the Sun etc, hence He is called AdhikArika. The phrase आधिकारिकमण्डलस्थोक्तेः in the Sutra means, because of the statement of attainment of He who is resident in the world there. The lord of the minds who is resident in the solar arb is the ParamAtma - as known through the gAyatri mantra. Therefore, if the taittirIya shruti had meant the attainment of absolute sovereignty (in the statement आप्नोति स्वाराज्यं), then the attainment of unity with Ishvara later (in the statement आप्नोति मनसस्पतिं) would not have been said. 

Therefore, the meaning that we attain is as follows:

1) The upAsya is Ishvara only (as known through various mantra-s but clearly in the bhAShya to सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात्)

2) The travel is to kAryabrahma loka (as known through the bhAShya in the kAryAdhikaraNam, तस्मात्कार्यब्रह्मविषया एव गतिश्रुतयः इति सिद्धान्तः)

3) The sAyujya is with Ishvara only in kAryabrahma loka, not with kAryabrahma, through the clarification of the shruti statement आप्नोति मनसस्पतिम् as elucidated in the bhAShya to 4.4.18 (यो हि सर्वमनसां पतिः पूर्वसिद्ध ईश्वरः तं प्राप्नोतीत्येतदुक्तं भवति and statements like ये सगुणब्रह्मोपासनात् सहैव मनसा ईश्वरसायुज्यं व्रजन्ति). 

So where does this leave Kailasha and Shiva (or viShNu and Ishvara)? We have to draw a corollary based on the above conclusions and the tatkratu nyAya (the upAsaka attains the object of his meditation). 

So, to explain: The travel of the upAsaka is to Kailasha, which is kAryabrahma loka. The sAyujya there is with the the object of his upAsana, Paramashiva (tatkratu nyAya). There is no requirement that the sAyujya is only with kArya brahma, it can be sAyujya with Ishvara also. Therefore, the sAyujya for the one who worships Parameshvara as Shiva, is with Ishvara in the form of Lord Shiva - not a sAyujya with a jIva, as in the case of the hiraNyagarbha upAsaka.

However, as the upAsaka has not attained jnAna, Ishvara as Shiva will Himself teach the upAsaka brahmavidyA in kailAsha and the upAsaka attains videhakaivalya at the end of the kalpa. The laya that happens at the end of the kalpa is only to the loka,  not of the Lord himself, for he is nitya siddha Ishvara. However, in the case of hiraNyagarbha, the laya is of the kArya upAdhi of hiraNyagarbha - however as hiraNyagarbha is a jIvanmukta already, that dissolution of the kArya upAdhi is akin to Him attaining videhakaivalya. 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te24KdTWfpFwn%2BzXx5G7Y-%2BzU6CZvaAmbWhhi8N1GobO1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear friends,

                Clarion call of Upanishads:

ahamEvedagM sarvam || Chandogya 7-25-1

AtmaivEdagM  sarvam || Chandogya 7-25-2

sa AtmA advaitaH || Mandukya Mantra7

atrAyaM    puruShaH svayamjyOtirBavati || Bruhadarnyaka 4-3-9

Hence aham which is HERE & NOW is AtmA.

So I am advaitaH and svayaMjyOtiH  HERE & NOW.

This is a fact of everyone's life and it can be verified

in one's own anuBava within oneself by oneself .

How many participants in the ongoing discussions have cognized

this fact? If not done so why don't they apply themselves for attending

to this clarion call of Upanishads and become Atmavits?

With respectful pranams,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkuDMWHpi%2BL9u29hfNki%3DNw%3DhvmH7ryWrOnjE%2BERHO3XQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji

Thank you. What you have said below is consistent with my understanding.

I am very happy that you found support from the laghuchandrikA for the bhautikatva of vaikuNTha / kailAsha. Despite the laya of the loka, the continued existence of Ishvara with sakalakāryasaṃskāropahitamāyāvaccinnacinmātrasattā during pralaya is precisely what I wanted to convey.

I'm glad that you brought this topic up for discussion because in seeking to reply to you, I have developed a better understanding of the subtlety in this aspect of the bhAShya.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023, 06:15 V Subrahmanian, <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you very much Venkat ji for the elaborate explanation with copious citations from the BSB.

Regarding this part of your post:

//So where does this leave Kailasha and Shiva (or viShNu and Ishvara)? We have to draw a corollary based on the above conclusions and the tatkratu nyAya (the upAsaka attains the object of his meditation). 

So, to explain: The travel of the upAsaka is to Kailasha, which is kAryabrahma loka. The sAyujya there is with the the object of his upAsana, Paramashiva (tatkratu nyAya). There is no requirement that the sAyujya is only with kArya brahma, it can be sAyujya with Ishvara also. Therefore, the sAyujya for the one who worships Parameshvara as Shiva, is with Ishvara in the form of Lord Shiva - not a sAyujya with a jIva, as in the case of the hiraNyagarbha upAsaka.

However, as the upAsaka has not attained jnAna, Ishvara as Shiva will Himself teach the upAsaka brahmavidyA in kailAsha and the upAsaka attains videhakaivalya at the end of the kalpa. The laya that happens at the end of the kalpa is only to the loka,  not of the Lord himself, for he is nitya siddha Ishvara. However, in the case of hiraNyagarbha, the laya is of the kArya upAdhi of hiraNyagarbha - however as hiraNyagarbha is a jIvanmukta already, that dissolution of the kArya upAdhi is akin to Him attaining videhakaivalya. //

Regarding the nitya siddha Ishwara, if the name Vishnu or Shiva is assigned to that entity, here is an input: 

In the ‘Advaita Siddhi’ of Sri Madhusūdana Saraswati [Pariccheda 2, p.745 of the Edition published by MM Ananthakrishna Shastry] is stated:

//etena bhagavallokāderapi nityatvam apāstam. Na cha ‘ato hi vaiṣṇavā lokā nityāste cetanātmakaaḥ. matprasādāt parām śāntim sthānam prāpsyasi śāśvatam’ ityādyāgamavirodhaḥ, tasya avaAntarapralayasthatvaparatvāt. Tasmāt nirguṇam nirākāram brahma iti siddham. Iti advaita siddhau brahmaṇo nirākāratva siddhiḥ//

[Thus (in view of the foregoing arguments), the ‘eternality’ of divine/lordly/worlds too stands negated. One ought not to raise an objection that the following scriptural passage is contradicted by the above conclusion: ‘Therefore indeed the Vaiṣṇava loka-s are eternal and are sentient in nature. By My grace you shall attain the state of great and eternal peace.’ The ‘eternality’ stated in this passage has its purport in the ‘avāntara pralaya’, intermediary dissolution. Thus stands established that Brahman has no form in the work called ‘Advaita siddhi’.]

The ‘Laghuchandrikā’ gloss by Gaudabrahmānanda adds:

‘There is no pramāṇa for the existence of a Vaikunṭha loka which is not a product’ [abhautika-vaikunṭhaloke mānābhāvāt.’//

tasya uktāgamasthanityādipadasya । avāntareti ।

“ātmā vā idameka evāgra āsīnnānyatkiñcanamiṣat”,

“eko ha vai nārāyaṇa āsīt na brahmā neśāno nāpo nāgnīṣomau na ime dyāvāpṛthivī na nakṣatrāṇi na sūryaḥ”

ityādiśrutibhiḥ pralaye sakalakāryasaṃskāropahitamāyāvaccinnacinmātrasattāmuktvā

[The above shruti passages show that during pralaya just the ‘māyāvaccinnacinmātra’ exists. What qualifies the māyā? He says: sakalakāryasaṃskāropahita..the latent state of the entire created world (of the previous creation which has just got dissolved). So, during pralaya just the above qualified maya-associated Brahman (cinmātra) Pure Consciousness alone exists. That is, nothing else in the form of vyakta, exists that can be identified as ‘this is so and so’. ]

“sa īkṣata lokānnu sṛjā iti sa imān lokānasṛjat । so’kāmayat”

ityādinā tasya dhyānāntasthasyetyādi puruṣāścaturdaśā jāyantetyādi pañcatanmātrāṇi mahābhūtānītyādinā ca sarvalokaghaṭitaprapañcasṛṣṭeruktatvāt,

[The above means: based on the shruti cited, that mayavacchinna chinmātra Brahman deliberated, ikṣata, ‘let me create these lokas’ and thus desired. The creation of the universe consisting of all the lokas, sarvalokaghaṭita, takes place through the medium of the panchatanmātras, etc. By explaining thus, the laguchandrikā implies that there was no loka called by any name whatsoever during pralaya. ]

Thus, while the kAryabrahma loka resolves in Mahapralaya, the nitya siddha Ishwara remains over as mAyAvacchinna-chinmAtra during the maha pralaya and continues to bring out the next srishTi.

To sum up, from your detailed note:

The kAryabrahma loka is the abode which can be given the name of Kailasa/Vaikuntha where the upAsya Shiva/Vishnu resides. The sAyujya of the upasaka with that upAsya happens in that loka alone. In Mahapralaya the loka resolves and while Hiranyagarbha moves on to attain videha kaivalya, the Shiva/Vishnu personality (who is the nitya siddha Ishwara) remains over.  The name/form to this nitya siddha Ishwara is optionally available to the upAsaka on the basis of the shruti/puranas. This is because there can't be more than one nitya siddha Ishwara.  The aishwarya /bhoga the mukta jivas there share with Hiranyagarbha/Shiva/Vishnu excludes the power to create, sustain and dissolve the universe.      

Om 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

Yes, Venkat ji, this exercise was very needed and I had these questions for a while and wanted a threadbare analysis of the various aspects involved here, in the light of the BSB.  Thanks for making this so well.  These posts will be a very valuable addition to the archives of these groups. 

warm regards

subbu