[Advaita-l] Vishnu Purana: Brahma and Shiva - non-different from Vishnu, Brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

Brahma, Shiva - non-different from Vishnu, Brahman

In the Vishnu Purana, at the very beginning, we have this message that
tells us in no uncertain terms that the cosmic functions such as creation
and destruction are 'really' that of Brahman. The functions require the
operation of guna-s and thereby it is only Brahman, assuming the
appropriate gunas indulges in those functions:

जुषन् रजो गुणं तत्र स्वयं विश्वेश्वरो हरिः  ।

ब्रह्माभूत्वास्य जगतो विसृष्टौ संप्रवर्तते  ॥ १,२.६१ ॥

सृष्टं च पात्यनुयुगं यावत्कल्पविकल्पना  ।

सत्त्वभृद्भगवान्विष्णुरप्रमेयपराक्रमः  ॥ १,२.६२ ॥


By attaching himself to Rajo guna, and himself having become Brahma, Vishnu
(Brahman/Ishwara) engages in the creation of the world. And assuming the
Sattva guna, Vishnu himself of mighty power engages in maintaining the
created world. [the particle 'bhrt' after sattva in the above verse teaches
that Brahman 'assumes' sattvaguna. This is a strong refutation of the
unvedic idea that Vishnu is '*always *of sattva guna.' For, the Vedanta
teaches that Brahman is beyond all gunas, even sattva.]


तमोद्रेकी च कल्पान्ते रुद्ररूपी जर्नादनः  ।

मैत्रेयाखिलभूतानि भक्षयत्यतिदारूणः  ॥ १,२.६३ ॥

भक्षयित्वा च भूतानि जगत्येकार्णवीकृते  ।

नागपर्यङ्कशयने शेते च परमेश्वरः  ॥ १,२.६४ ॥


At the end of the Kalpa, Janardana of Rudra-form, who is of immense Tamas,
O Maitreya, gobbles up the entire creation. And having made the world one
mass, Parameshwara rests on the serpent-couch. [Sridhara Swamin says here:
Parameshwara sleeps in his mula svarupa of brahma, shiva, etc. avatara.
Thus Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are only avataras of Brahman, no different
from Rama, Krishna, Narasimha, etc., a concept that is anathema for those
theological schools that hold a Vishnu that is absolutely distinct from the
'jivas' :-) that are Brahma and Shiva is the Para Brahman.]


Here the Purana clearly says it is Vishnu alone, owing to immense Tamas,
has become Rudra. This also is a refutation of the theological schools'
idea that Vishnu is different from Brahma and Rudra. Such laughable ideas
have no place in the Vedanta/Vishnu Purana.


प्रबुद्धश्च पुनः सृष्टिं करोति ब्रह्मरूपधृक् ॥ १,२.६५ ॥

सृष्टिस्थित्यन्तकरणीं ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवात्मिकाम्  ।

स संज्ञां याति भगवानेक एव जनार्दनः  ॥ १,२.६६ ॥


The Purana confirms the idea by reiterating that again, at the beginning of
the next cycle, Brahman (Vishnu), taking up the form of Brahma, engages in
creation. Thus, One Lord, Janardana, alone gets the names of Brahma, Vishnu
and Shiva.  This is what is stated by Sureshwara in the Brihadaranya
Vartika. This idea is also inimical to theological schools as they cannot
tolerate Vishnu  (a finite deity) being also Brahma and Rudra. They come up
with childish ideas as 'these statements mean 'Vishnu is antaryami of
Brahma and Shiva.' They fail to understand that if one Janardana has to get
three names owing to different functions, upadhis, then Janardana has to be
the antaryami of Vishnu also. Because even this function is also only an
assumed one, assuming sattva guna, which is not the native guna of
Janardana. This is what is taught in the above lines. Sridhara Swamin
continues;
*ब्रह्मादिरूपाणि च तद्व्यतिरिक्तानि न भवन्ति *इत्येतदाह -
सृष्टिस्थित्यन्तकरणीं.
The VP says: the forms such as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are not distinct
from Janardana by the verse: सृष्टिस्थित्यन्तकरणीं...


स्त्रष्टा सृजति चात्मानं विष्णुः पाल्यं च पाति च  ।

उपसंह्रियते चान्ते संहर्ता च स्वयं प्रभुः  ॥ १,२.६७ ॥


Again the idea is reiterated in other words: Vishnu creates himself and
sustains himself and destroys/resolves himself by assuming the roles of
creator, sustainer and destroyer. Thus the created/sustained/destroyed
world and the creator, sustainer and destroyer - both the sets are
non-different from Vishnu/Janardana. This is further clarified in the
sequel.


पृथिव्यापस्तथा तेजो वायुराकाश एव च  ।

सर्वेन्द्रियान्तःकरणं पुरुषाख्यं हि यज्जगत् ॥ १,२.६८ ॥

स एव सर्वभूतात्मा विश्वरूपो यतोऽव्ययः  ।

सर्गादिकं तु तस्यैव भूतस्थमुपकारकम्  ॥ १,२.६९ ॥


The Pancha bhutas, their products that are the sense organs and mind stuff
is all the world, and is one entity called Purusha. He himself is the self
of all beings and is the vishva rupa.  'Purusha eva idam sarvam', 'sarvam
khalvidam brahma' etc. are the vedic passages that confirm this. Also, is
'Purusha' were only Vishnu and not the rest of creation, the former cannot
escape being vastu-parichchinna, limited by an object that is not oneself.
Such a situation will thwart Brahman from being the Absolute, Ananta,
Infinite (of the Taittiriya Upanishad).


स एव सृज्यः स च सर्गकर्ता स एव पात्यत्ति च पाल्यते च  ।

ब्रह्माद्यवस्थाभिरशेषमूर्तिर्विष्णुर्वरिष्ठो वरदो वरेण्यः  ॥ १,२.७० ॥


He himself is the created world, he is the creator, the sustainer and the
sustained. He is the One, secondless Brahman, Vishnu the Supreme. [This is
the vivarta vada of Vedanta.]


निर्गुणस्याप्रमेयस्य शुद्धस्याप्यमलात्मनः  ।

कथं सर्गादिकर्तृत्वं ब्रह्मणोभ्युपगम्यते  ॥ १,३.१ ॥

While Brahman is Nirguna and cannot be grasped through any pramana, how can
we admit the roles of creator, etc. to such an entity?


श्रीपराशार उवाच

शक्तयः सर्वभावानामचिन्त्यज्ञानगोचराः  ।

यतोऽतो ब्रह्मणस्तस्तु सर्गाद्या भावशक्तयः  ।

भवन्ति तपतां श्रेष्ठ पावकस्य यथोष्णता  ॥ १,३.२ ॥


Just as fire has heat, so too Brahman has this power to create, etc. These
powers are illusory, beyond the grasp of the intellect.


तन्निबोध यथा सर्गे भगवान्संप्रवर्तते  ।

नारायणाख्यो भगवान्ब्रह्मा लोकपितामाहः  ॥ १,३.३ ॥

उत्पन्नः प्रोच्यते विद्वन्नित्यमेवोपचारतः  ॥ १,३.४ ॥


The Bhagavan called by the name 'Narayana' is himself *born* as Brahma the
Pitamaha, the Grandsire. Such 'becoming' as Brahma is spoken of only
metaphorically for there cannot be any real 'becoming' for Brahman.


The above explanations of the verses is based on Sridhara Swamin's
commentary. Nirguna = being devoid of sattva, etc. 'shuddha' = being devoid
of a body. Question: If Brahma is really not other than Narayana (who has
been described as Para Brahman, nirguna, etc.) how is it that the vedic
passages such as 'Hiranyagarbha came into being..' etc. talk of his
(Narayana's) originating? The reply is: It is spoken of so in such passages
cited only metaphorically, upachaaratah. For someone who has originated by
his own will, there is a similarity of being created. By this similarity,
the metaphorical usage is justified.


The above is the absolute position of the Veda, Itihasa, Purana, etc.
texts. All that may be found in these and other texts that might appear
(for an uninformed reader) contrary to the above is to be understood in the
above light.


Thus, there is absolutely no room in the Vedas or in the Vishnu Purana
('Purana Ratnam') for an absolute distinction/difference between the
Trimurtis. What is confirmed by the above text is that the Trimurtis are
non-different from the Turiya Janardana. This is what Shankara also has
said in the Vishnu Sahasra Nama bhashya for the terms 'bhutakrit, etc.'.
Those who have no exposure to Vedanta misunderstand such passages of
Shankara and the Vishnu Purana and try to posit their own sectarian ideas
on the sacred scriptural texts. Sridhara Swamin has clearly given the
absolute Vedantic conclusion about these matters.


Thus the VP, 'Purana Ratnam', deals the death blow to all unvedantic ideas
propagated by non-advaitic schools with the malicious design of dividing
the society on sectarian lines. All the venerable Advaita Acharyas starting
from Shankara, Sureshwara, Sarvajnatman, Amalananda, Anandagiri, Sridhara
Swamin, etc. and others such as Narayana Bhatta, Desamangalam Arya and
Krishna Misra who are all touted to be supporters of a particular unvedic
brand of vaishnavism have been proved to be only antithetical to it. There
is a hidden agenda to malign these Acharyas and scholars by parading them
as supporters of bigotry. Such designs will not succeed in the face of
textual evidences that are available galore to the informed. Only the
uninformed are likely to fall a prey to such malicious propaganda.


 regards

subbu