No default form/body for Ishwara - Shankara says in Brihadaranyaka Bhashya

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Brihadaranyaka there is the famous AntaryAmi BraAhmaNam: 3rd chapter, 7th brahmanam.  Therein the Para Brahman is presented as the Antaryami of all beings with a view to finally establish that the jiva chaitanyam is non-different from the Antaryami chaitanyam.  A long list of 'beings' is given and the first one is Prithvi devatA. Shankara gives an elaborate commentary only here and the theme applies to the rest of the beings too.  Shankara says, in essence, that the AntaryAmi, inner controller/impeller of this Prithvi devatA is Brahman and it is the body-mind-organs complex of this Prithvi that is being impelled/controlled/activated by Brahman. And most importantly Shankara says: the body-mind-organ complex of the Prithvi devatA is that of this AntaryAmi which has no default body-organ-complex:  

  

Read Swami Madhavananda's English translation of the Mantra and the Bhashya here:

https://archive.org/details/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda/page/502/mode/2up

यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्पृथिव्या अन्तरो यं पृथिवी न वेद यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं यः पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ३ ॥

यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्भवति, सोऽन्तर्यामी । सर्वः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठतीति सर्वत्र प्रसङ्गो मा भूदिति विशिनष्टि — पृथिव्या अन्तरः अभ्यन्तरः । तत्रैतत्स्यात् , पृथिवी देवतैव अन्तर्यामीति — अत आह — यमन्तर्यामिणं पृथिवी देवतापि न वेद — मय्यन्यः कश्चिद्वर्तत इति । यस्य पृथिवी शरीरम् — यस्य च पृथिव्येव शरीरम् , नान्यत् — पृथिवीदेवताया यच्छरीरम् , तदेव शरीरं यस्य ; शरीरग्रहणं च उपलक्षणार्थम् ; करणं च पृथिव्याः तस्य ; स्वकर्मप्रयुक्तं हि कार्यं करणं च पृथिवीदेवतायाः ; तत् अस्य स्वकर्माभावात् अन्तर्यामिणो नित्यमुक्तत्वात् , परार्थकर्तव्यतास्वभावत्वात् परस्य यत्कार्यं करणं च — तदेवास्य, न स्वतः ; तदाह — यस्य पृथिवी शरीरमिति । देवताकार्यकरणस्य ईश्वरसाक्षिमात्रसान्निध्येन हि नियमेन प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती स्याताम् ; य ईदृगीश्वरो नारायणाख्यः, पृथिवीं पृथिवीदेवताम् , यमयति नियमयति स्वव्यापारे, अन्तरः अभ्यन्तरस्तिष्ठन् , एष त आत्मा, ते तव, मम च सर्वभूतानां च इत्युपलक्षणार्थमेतत् , अन्तर्यामी यस्त्वया पृष्टः, अमृतः सर्वसंसारधर्मवर्जित इत्येतत् ॥

Thus, as per Shankara, the bodies - organs complex of all the beings is that of the Antaryami, Brahman, which has no default body-organ complex of its own.  

Elsewhere, in the Brahma sutra bhashya  Shankara has said: "Brahman/Ishwara can and does take on a form, to bless/help an aspirant in his sadhana.: स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात् मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम् । (1.1.vii.20) (Ishwara, out of compassion, takes on, by His Maya, a form to grace the spiritual aspirant." 

This body taken out of compassion, is not the default body of Brahman.  Since, Brahman has to already be there in order to 'take' a body.

The above section of the Upanishad culminates in declaring that 'there is no seer other than this Antaryami in each body.'  

Thus when srishti, sthiti and laya of the creation happen, it is this body-less Brahman that is at the support on which these cosmic activities happen. 

The Aitareya Upanishad 3.5.3 statement:

………एष ब्रह्मैष इन्द्र एष प्रजापतिरेते सर्वे देवा इमानि च पञ्च महाभूतानि पृथिवी वायुराकाश आपो ज्योतींषीत्येतानीमानि च क्षुद्रमिश्राणीव । बीजानीतराणि चेतराणि चाण्डजानि च जारुजानि च स्वेदजानि चोद्भिज्जानि चाश्वा गावः पुरुषा हस्तिनो यत्किञ्चेदं प्राणि जङ्गमं च पतत्रि च यच्च स्थावरम् । सर्वं तत्प्रज्ञानेत्रं प्रज्ञाने प्रतिष्ठितं प्रज्ञानेत्रो लोकः प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठा प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म ॥ ३ ॥ 

says that it is this Brahman that is the four-faced Brahma, Indra, Prajapati and all other devas. By extension, all beings, species,,in creation are actually this Brahman alone. 

Shankara has cited the above Aitareya mantra in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad while determining the status of Hiranyagarbha:

Read the full post here:  

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2018/03/10/the-status-of-hiranyagarbha-as-per-shankara-and-others/

Thus, One Consciousness alone, called Ishwara, Brahman, takes on all the various forms in creation. There is no separate entity called Ishwra.  The forms of Rama, Krishna, etc. are incidental, contextual and not absolute. There is  no absolute default body mind complex for Brahman.  One Brahman alone takes on various forms, including all the life forms in creation.

subbu   

  

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Anirdeshya vapushe namaH is one of the names of Lord vishNu 😊 Yes, there is no fixed / default upAdhi to brahman, but brahman with name has certain upAdhi / identification mark 😊 hence we can easily identify who is vishNu and who is shiva.  For that matter jeeva being brahman too does not have any default upAdhi…is it not??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Antaryami Brahmanam, while specifying that the Antaryami is the one which activates the body mind organs of every devata, etc,. Shankara says, the body, etc. of those devatas, etc. are the body, etc. of the Antaryami.  The Antaryami itself has no body, mind, organs, etc.  This is the point made in the post. 

regards

subbu 

 

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66258E15BE062D5965DE4EAB84D22%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Bhaskarji

मया ततमिदं सर्वं जगदव्यक्तमूर्तिना। Gita 9.4.1

This whole world is prevaded by Me in My "unmanifest form".

There is no specific given form even for Bhagavan Krishna or Vishnu. 

Best Regards

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Kalyan-ji,

Actually, No specific form = All forms or Any form, right? 

Ultimately all differences get reconciled in Consciousness. 

Same unmanifest Advaita Brahman is verily the Vishwaroopi Ishwara. 

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Kalyan <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 12:38 PM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] No default form/body for Ishwara - Shankara says in Brihadaranyaka Bhashya

 

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/95c16631-82e8-4b35-976d-ebced9349476n%40googlegroups.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Suresh ji, Kalyan ji,

<< Actually, No specific form = All forms or Any form, right? >>

There is a distinction between "no default form" versus "no specific form" / "all forms" / "any form". The former is nirupadhika, whereas the latter is ananta sopadhika. Advaita says the former svarupa is satya whereas the latter sopadhikatvam of Brahman is mithya. Just calling this out since Subbu ji's post mentions "no default form" and not "no specific form".

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516A3BB302AAE955DA324B8A9D22%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Vikram ji. 

You may be right. But IMHO both Murtha and Amrtha forms of Brahman have to be accepted as real based on the BruhadArANyaka vAkya:

द्वे वाव ब्रह्मणो रूपे मूर्तं चैवामूर्तं च मर्त्यं चामृतं च स्थितं च यच्च सच्च त्यच्च ॥

The word "तदेव" in the bhashya vAkya below proves the oneness of Brahman with or without upAdhi

तत्र द्विरूपं ब्रह्म पञ्चभूतजनितकार्यकरणसम्बद्धं मूर्तामूर्ताख्यं मर्त्यामृतस्वभावं तज्जनितवासनारूपं च सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्ति सोपाख्यं भवति । क्रियाकारकफलात्मकं च सर्वव्यवहारास्पदम् । तदेव ब्रह्म विगतसर्वोपाधिविशेषं सम्यग्दर्शनविषयम् अजरम् अमृतम् अभयम् , वाङ्मनसयोरप्यविषयम् अद्वैतत्वात् ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. २ । ३ । ६) इति निर्दिश्यते ।

Yes, Brahman may not have any default form. But it also has the ability to take any form.

Namaste,
Suresh 

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Vikram Jagannathan <vikky...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 5:21 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLeHjC%2BgSeoQ%3D%3DnSzbtMSooffrPf5%3DJZDd%3DsaT%2BnhnkMsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Agreed Suresh ji. This is accepted, but purely within vyavahara-satya and is thus mithya. In paramarthika sense there are no forms or abilities or scope for Brahman to take any form. Brahman is as-is. It is no longer Advaita Siddhanta if we are to say that nirguna Brahman 'has the ability' to change.

Just my 2c.

prostrations,
Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45167AD05C59BC4D2968DE20A9D22%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Suresh-ji, Vikram-ji

I do not intend to turn this discussion into one of semantics, that too in the English language and not Sanskrit.

An unmanifest form beyond the range of sense organs is just another way of indicating formlessness. Several hymns to Bhagavan Vishnu do not dwell on the topic of His form. Example - Narayana suktam. The Bhagavad Gita also does not dwell much on this topic. The topic of Form is philosophically, perhaps considered secondary. 

Best Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 7:41 AM Kalyan <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Suresh-ji, Vikram-ji

I do not intend to turn this discussion into one of semantics, that too in the English language and not Sanskrit.

An unmanifest form beyond the range of sense organs is just another way of indicating formlessness. Several hymns to Bhagavan Vishnu do not dwell on the topic of His form. Example - Narayana suktam. The Bhagavad Gita also does not dwell much on this topic. The topic of Form is philosophically, perhaps considered secondary. 

In the Sayana Bhashya for Narayana Suktam, he says that this Narayana is not any formed one. And he goes on to give Upanishadic references, which Shankara holds very important, for the Nirguna Brahman svarupa of this Narayana.  

Regarding the Bh.gita, it would transpire upon deliberating that when Krishna says 'they will attain Me', 'I pervade the whole creation', 'I create,' etc.  he is saying that as Brahman/Ishwara and not as the now-generated Krishna form.  When Arjuna says: 'I behaved with you as a friend' etc. it is about the now-generated Krishna form. Hence alone, from the Advaitic doctrinal point of view, it would be fundamentally wrong for the non-Advaitins to say that 'when Shankara accepts or comments on 'They attain Me' in the BG, it is the Vishnu loka and Vishnu that is meant'.  They do not know this nuance of the different stand points in the Gita itself, that can be discernible from the statements of Krishna himself as stated above. There is the need for Advaitins to recognize this and point out to those who try to impose their views on Advaita. 

regards

subbu  

:

[Kalyan]

There is only one Bhagawan Narayana. There are no multiple Narayana-s.

There is only one Bhagawan Krishna. There are no multiple Krishna-s.

Best Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 10:30 AM Kalyan <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is only one Bhagawan Narayana. There are no multiple Narayana-s.

There is only one Bhagawan Krishna. There are no multiple Krishna-s.

True, but there are multiple identities.  

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/0ddf98c1-53d6-4c65-a0c3-414814bb0583n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan]

I am not sure what is meant by multiple identities in this context. 

Here is what I think - There is only One Bhagawan Krishna or One Bhagawan Narayana, for whom a form or forms are *incidentally* attributed (form is secondary, from a philosophical standpoint). I believe this is just the standard advaitic position of guNa-s being incidentally superimposed on brahman. 

Now to think that there is a separate Bhagawan Krishna with form and a separate formless Bhagawan Krishna, goes against my understanding. 

Best Regards

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

Disclaimer: The intent below is not to nitpick, but to call out a subtle nuance in Advaita, which is often overlooked or misunderstood.

The reason for my callout is precisely to avoid the misunderstandings of semantics in English. Nirupadhika and sopadhika are very clearly defined and differentiated terms in Advaita Siddhanta.

<< An unmanifest form beyond the range of sense organs is just another way of indicating formlessness. >>

This can refer to either nirupadhika or sopadhika wherein the upadhi is abstract or "not a specific form". Their distinction is critical.

<< There is only One Bhagawan Krishna or One Bhagawan Narayana, for whom a form or forms are *incidentally* attributed >>

This again can refer to either nirupadhika or sopadhika. In nirupadhika sense, the entity being referred to as "Bhagawan Narayana" or "Bhagawan Krishna" is pure nirguna Chaitanya. Name here is mere convention and doesn't imply anything beyond. On the other hand, in the sopadhika sense, "Bhagawan Narayana" or "Bhagawan Krishna" refers to the specific unique identities incidentally attributed such as Lakshmi-pathi or Govardhana-giri-dhari. Though the identities are each unique, there can be various identities (as called out by Subbu ji) such as Bhagavan Shiva / Ganapathi / Shakti / Surya etc.

<< Now to think that there is a separate Bhagawan Krishna with form and a separate formless Bhagawan Krishna, goes against my understanding. >>

Agreed that there is not a separate Bhagawan Krishna with form and a separate formless Bhagawan Krishna. It is one and the same entity, but there is a distinction between them. Clay and pot are not separate, but there is still a distinction. One does not call all clay as pots. If you believe that nirupadhika and sopadhika are one & the same and completely identical & interchangeable, then this is not Advaita Siddhanta.

With the point conveyed, I will stop belaboring further.

prostrations,
Vikram

[Kalyan]

Namaste Vikram-ji

Even in the sopAdhika sense, Krishna need not be the lifter of Govardhana hill nor is it necessary for Narayana to be the husband of Lakshmi.

Narayana has the name Krishna even before the Krishna-avatAra and Narayana was Narayana even before He married Goddess Lakshmi. Alternatively, figuratively, His Shakti is considered as His spouse Goddess Lakshmi. 

And yes, they all refer to the same entity.

Best Regards

[Kalyan]

Just to add, even the distinction - nirupAdhika or sopAdhika is purely superimposed due to the upAdhis. There is no such distinction in reality as the upAdhis are not real. I won't become a different person just because I wear a blue shirt in the morning and a white shirt in the evening. 

[Bhaskar YR]

Just to add, even the distinction - nirupAdhika or sopAdhika is purely superimposed due to the upAdhis. There is no such distinction in reality as the upAdhis are not real. I won't become a different person just because I wear a blue shirt in the morning and a white shirt in the evening. 

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, likewise, the Devadatta is same whether he is folding his limbs or stretching the same (bhAshyakAra gives this example somewhere).  When I put my mobile from my shirt pocket to hip pocket it is not called transaction (vyavahAra), for all nAma rUpa adhishtAnam is one and one is not dependent on nAma rUpa, but to know the true nature of nAma rUpa upAdhi, adhishtAnaM (Asare) is very much required.  When we know the true nature of this nAma rUpa we will come to know this nAma rUpa is not an adjunct but it is the vishesha darshana of that same adviteeya tattva.

[Bhaskar YR]

Yes, Brahman may not have any default form. But it also has the ability to take any form.

 

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am with you prabhuji.  Though mrut sAmAnya does not have any default form, it can appear in nAnArUpa.  ajAyamAna bahudhA vijAyate.  That is the reason why bhAshyakAra elsewhere clarifies that brahman who is bereft of all vishesha-s is still the very source of the jagat.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

This whole world is prevaded by Me in My "unmanifest form".

 

There is no specific given form even for Bhagavan Krishna or Vishnu. 

 

Ø     Yes, that is the reason why I referred the name : anirdeshya vapushe namaH.  However, in our mortal minds we have some specific form which can be used to call / identify different names of those forms.  We can hardly imagine rAma with nAgAbharaNa or shiva with peacock feather and flute in his hand or shiva holding the gOvardana hill in his little finger 😊 If at all it is there, we definitely point out the ‘error’ in it, is it not?? 😊 As per our books, it is always shesha shayana vishNu and nAgendra hAra shiva we donot want to interchange their respective attire and position, such is the state of  deeply programmed images of these deities in our minds.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar ji

You never cease to surprise me in a positive way. 😀  You say nAmarUpa is not an adjunct but it is vishesha darshana. I am ok with this. But I am not sure if this position can be defended in the advaitic framework.

Best Regards

[Kalyan]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji

Let us try a more modest approach for a start.🙂

Can we imagine Sri Rama lifting the Govardhana Hill or Sri Krishna killing Hiranyakashipu?

Best Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You never cease to surprise me in a positive way. 😀  You say nAmarUpa is not an adjunct but it is vishesha darshana. I am ok with this. But I am not sure if this position can be defended in the advaitic framework.

 

Ø     bhAshyakAra somewhere says the above and clarifies brahman is nirvikAra and because he is nirivikAri, he is the source of ALL vikAra-s 😊 ( don’t recall exact words here), I have given the mrut sAmAnya for this reason only.  Is not mrutsAmAnya can assume all sorts of forms but in itself ‘formless’??

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Let us try a more modest approach for a start.🙂

 

Ø     Sorry, you are just changing our deities roles and responsibilities, not acceptable 😊

 

Can we imagine Sri Rama lifting the Govardhana Hill or Sri Krishna killing Hiranyakashipu?

 

Ø     Not only we dispute their acts, their origin as well, if I say Narasimha taken birth in prison and Krishna playing flute comes out of pillar, the shAstra and sampradaya vida-s would laugh at my poor fund of ‘knowledge’ about these deities and biographies.  Let us maintain their respective legacy intact. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

 

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

<

In the Sayana Bhashya for Narayana Suktam, he says that this Narayana is not any formed one. And he goes on to give Upanishadic references, which Shankara holds very important, for the Nirguna Brahman svarupa of this Narayana.  

Regarding the Bh.gita, it would transpire upon deliberating that when Krishna says 'they will attain Me', 'I pervade the whole creation', 'I create,' etc.  he is saying that as Brahman/Ishwara and not as the now-generated Krishna form.  When Arjuna says: 'I behaved with you as a friend' etc. it is about the now-generated Krishna form. Hence alone, from the Advaitic doctrinal point of view, it would be fundamentally wrong for the non-Advaitins to say that 'when Shankara accepts or comments on 'They attain Me' in the BG, it is the Vishnu loka and Vishnu that is meant'.  They do not know this nuance of the different stand points in the Gita itself, that can be discernible from the statements of Krishna himself as stated above. There is the need for Advaitins to recognize this and point out to those who try to impose their views on Advaita. 

regards

subbu  

>

Actually, I am not trying to impose my personal views. But there is support for the oneness of murta and amurta form of Brahman in the Upanishad and Sri Shankara bhAshya. The following quote from Swami Krishnananda-ji's  book - "The Mandukya Upanishad" - provides a more explicit explanation and reconciliation.

"The Ātman is the sole Seer, Knower, Beholder, Experiencer, without a counterpart objective to it. It knows itself, not ‘others’, for the ‘others’ are also a part of itself. Hence, knowledge of the Ātman is the knowledge of the whole of existence. It is not knowledge of this Ātman, that Ātman, this Self, that self, this person, that person. It is the knowledge of The Ātman, which can only be One. The Ātman is single – ekātmapratyayasāram. The One Ātman is called the paramātman as distinguished from the multitudinousness of the so-called Ātmans, called jīvātmans. It is paramātman, because it is the Supreme Self. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavāniti śabdyat, says the ŚrimadBhāgavata. From the absolute, universal and personal standpoints, it is called Brahman, Paramātman and Bhagavān. In itself it is Brahman, the Absolute; and as the Supreme Creator, Preserver, Destroyer, it is the Paramātman; as the Beloved of devotees, it is Bhagavān. It is all this – Dvaita, Viśishtādvaita and Advaita points of view come together here in this Ātman, and the conclusions of the schools of thought merge into the single truth of a blend of various standpoints. Quarrels cease, arguments come to a stop, philosophies are hushed, silence prevails."

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2025 11:19 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [advaitin] No default form/body for Ishwara - Shankara says in Brihadaranyaka Bhashya

 

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625556C4D415A409BBDDA3484DD2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Suresh ji,

No one would say that there are in fact two Brahmans.  Bhagavatpada has clarified that One NB by default alone appears (made to appear) as Saguna by the Veda for upasana purposes. In the case of BG, it is a unique situation where Bhagavan speaks from various standpoints: Absolute Brahman (jneya brahman), Saguna upasya brahman and Krishna the Avatara.  We have a parallel in the Brahma sutra bhashya where in an adhikaraNa, Indra is a Jnani and while he teaches Atma vidya to Pratardana, a King, he says: maameva vijAnIhi - realize Me alone.  There is a vichara as to what this maam here means? It is determined finally that it is Indra's true Atman, which is also the hearer's Atman, which he asks Pratardana to realize.  This Atman is undoubtedly NB as per Advaita.  Similarly Krishna when he says jnAtvA mAm, etc. he refers to the NB Atman which is the true nature of everyone.  5.29: In the Bhashya Shankara says:

सर्वभूतानां हृदयेशयं सर्वकर्मफलाध्यक्षं सर्वप्रत्ययसाक्षिणं मां नारायणं ज्ञात्वा शान्तिं सर्वसंसारोपरतिम् ऋच्छति प्राप्नोति ॥ २९ ॥

Surely Shankara would not compromise on this realization being Aham Brahmasmi.  Yet, we find Shankara mentioning Narayana here. In this case the Narayana is certainly not any SB/formed deity but NB just as it is the case in the Antaryami Brahmanam mantra too where he says: य ईदृगीश्वरो नारायणाख्यः which I have quoted in the original post. Here too it is a case of Tattvamasi type of teaching: एष त आत्मा अन्तर्याम्यमृतः  This Antaryami is your Atma. 

I am only adding these to my original post, not that you are disagreeing/disputing. 

warm regards

subbu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45160B43FEC97069EF7539E6A9DD2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Subbu-ji,

Yes, I fully agree that Advaitic Self / Brahman is NB which is unknowable and unthinkable.

Having said that it cannot also be denied that it is the sole cause for the body/jagat.

That alone is identified through all name/forms as it is the Self of all. 

IMHO, the above would reconcile all viewpoints.

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2025 5:29 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] No default form/body for Ishwara - Shankara says in Brihadaranyaka Bhashya

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1Y%3DO9Rg42%2Bag2UvcfpDNEUL7qAfJS-jqc3_4jpb3HhQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar-ji

We can be even more modest in our approach.

It is possible to go to a Krishna temple, and worship him as Prahlada-varada or Lakshmana-agraja.

Best Regards