[Advaita-l] Always we are angry only with 'Vishnu', says the Vishnupuranam

[V Subrahmanian]

Always we are angry only with 'Vishnu', says the Vishnupuranam

In the Vishnupuranam occur these verses:

Prahlada addresses Hiranyakashipu:

सर्वभूतात्मके तात जगन्नाथे जगन्मये  ।

परमात्मनि गोविन्दे मित्रामित्रकथा कुतः  ॥ १,१९.३७ ॥


It were idle to talk of friend or foe in Govinda, who is the supreme soul,
lord of the world, consisting of the world, and who is identical with all
beings.


Sridhara swamin says: सर्वभूतात्मके सर्वेषां भूतानामात्मनि परमात्मनि
सर्वजीवनियन्तरि |


त्वय्यस्ति भगवान् विष्णुर्मयि चान्यत्र चास्ति सः  ।

यतस्ततोयं मित्रं मे शत्रुश्चेति पृथक्कुतः  ॥ १,१९.३८ ॥

O Father, the divine Vishńu is in thee, in me, and in all everywhere else;
and hence how can I speak of friend or foe, as distinct from myself?


Sridhara swamin: तदेवाह त्वय्यस्ति इति | पृथक् भेदः कुतः |


From the above verses we come to know that whenever we are angry with
anyone or are friendly with anyone, we are being angry with or friendly
with Vishnu.  We express our anger sometimes as 'fie upon him', 'let him go
to hell', 'to hell with you,' etc. We are actually conscious that we are
angry with a sentient entity; we can't be really angry with an insentient
object. Prahlada says the object of anger or agreement is Vishnu and not
any other. In the second verse Prahlada is even more emphatic: It is Vishnu
in the one who is expressing anger and it is Vishnu in whom the anger is
addressed to. I other words, in all such situations, it is Vishnu who is
angry with Vishnu. This is really absurd. Prahlada wants us to overcome
this absurdity.  While Vishnu is the only chaitanya vastu everywhere, in
everyone, there is absolutely no difference between you and me.


The Vedantic, ontological, fallout of the above verses is: There are no two
chaitanyam-s in a person, one as jivatma and another as Paramatma. There is
one chit alone in everyone and that chit is the same in everyone.


The mistaken idea that the jiva, a sentient, is impelled, niyamya, by
Paramatma, the antaryami, the niyamaka, is refuted by the Brahma sutra and
the bhashya: 1.2.20:


अत्रोच्यते — अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितकार्यकरणोपाधिनिमित्तोऽयं
शारीरान्तर्यामिणोर्भेदव्यपदेशः, न पारमार्थिकः । एको हि प्रत्यगात्मा भवति,
*न द्वौ प्रत्यगात्मानौ सम्भवतः** ।* एकस्यैव तु भेदव्यवहार उपाधिकृतः, यथा
घटाकाशो महाकाश इति ।


[The difference between the jiva and antaryami is based on the aupadhika
avidya-created body-mind complex and not absolute. Only one Pratyagaatma,
the sentient self beyond the five koshas, is possible in a person and not
two selves. One Sentient atman alone is seen as two based on upadhi bheda
like the same ether is transacted as pot-ether and great-ether.]


The last observation by Shankara above is the meaning of the 'dvA
suparNA..' mantra of the Mundakopanishat.  The Upanishat talks of two
entities only based on one's wrong thinking that I am a jiva and there is
someone different from me as Ishwara. This idea is refuted by the Upanishat
itself in the subsequent mantras there. Continues Shankara in the Sutra
Bhashya:


 ततश्च ज्ञातृज्ञेयादिभेदश्रुतयः प्रत्यक्षादीनि च प्रमाणानि संसारानुभवो
विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रं चेति सर्वमेतदुपपद्यते । तथा च श्रुतिः — ‘यत्र हि
द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति’ इत्यविद्याविषये सर्वं व्यवहारं दर्शयति । ‘
यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ इति विद्याविषये सर्वं
व्यवहारं वारयति ॥ २० ॥


*Thus, the Vishnu Purana, through the above two seminal teachings of
Prahlada, is establishing that there is only one chaitanyam in everyone and
that chaitanyam is the same in all.  How is he doing that? In the first
verse he says 'Ideas of friend and foe happen with respect to the one
dwelling in the body, Govinda.'  He is advising that there should be no
love or hatred at all. If Prahlada had intended that there is another
sentient being dwelling in the body apart from Govinda, he would have
advised 'One should not be angry/agreeable with Govinda but it would be
alright to have such ideas with the jiva who is different from Govinda.'
That he has not said so is enough proof that he is advocating the Vedantic
truth that there is only one Chaitanya vastu in the body and that is
Govinda.  *


The second verse cited from the VP:


त्वय्यस्ति भगवान् विष्णुर्मयि चान्यत्र चास्ति सः  ।

यतस्ततोयं मित्रं मे शत्रुश्चेति पृथक्कुतः  ॥ १,१९.३८ ॥

The divine Vishńu is in thee, father, in me, and in all everywhere else;
and hence how can I speak of friend or foe, as distinct from myself?


is reminiscent of the verse of the Bhaja Govindam:


त्वयि मयिचान्यत्रैको विष्णुः व्यर्थं कुप्यसि मय्यसहिष्णुः . भव समचित्तः
सर्वत्र त्वं वाञ्छस्यचिराद्यदिविष्णुत्वम् .. २४..

In me, in you and in everything, none but the same Vishnu dwells . Your
anger and impatience is meaningless . If you wish to attain the status of
Vishnu, have the vision of sameness in all beings.


Whether one expresses anger or agreement with anyone, it is Vishnu, the
Atman, doing that to Vishnu, the Atman.  This is the Vedantic truth that
the VP conveys through the wise words of Prahlada.  The VP thereby refutes
the non-advaitic idea of the jiva being a niyamya and the Paramatma being
the niyamaka. The niyamya can only be jaDa as brought out by Shankara in
the cited Sutra bhashya where he cites the Brihadaranyaka antaryami passage
which precludes anyone other than the Antaryami (Brahman) as the seer,
listener,etc.  ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा’ इत्यादिश्रुतिवचनं विरुध्येत । अत्र
हि प्रकृतादन्तर्यामिणोऽन्यं द्रष्टारं श्रोतारं मन्तारंविज्ञातारं चात्मानं
प्रतिषेधति ।  The shruti does not admit anyone other than Brahman to be the
seer, knower, etc. which appear to be the properties of the jiva. Thus even
in the यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन्विज्ञानादन्तरो यं विज्ञानं न वेद यस्य विज्ञानं
शरीरं यो विज्ञानमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ २२ ॥  of
Brihadaranyaka 3.7.22 (Kanva recension) or the 'य आत्मनि तिष्ठन्ना
त्मानमन्तरो यमयति..' (of the Br.Up. Mandhyandina recension), the niyamya is
the inert body-sense-motor organs-mind complex alone and the niyamaka is
the chaitanya that is the Antaryami Brahman.


Om Tat Sat