[Advaita-l] Kurma Purana - the Verdict of the Veda

[V Subrahmanian]

कूर्मपुराणम्-पूर्वभागः/षड्विंशतितमोऽध्यायः
https://sa.wikisource.org/s/41h

तस्यैव परमा मूर्त्तिस्तन्मयोऽहं न संशयः ।
नावयोर्विद्यते भेदो वेदेष्वेवं विनिश्चयः ।। २६.६०

In the above verse Mahavishnu says: I am one with Shiva and there is no
difference between us.  This is the verdict of the Vedas.

We find here a contradiction to the unvedic idea of 'classification of
Puranas based on the deity' found in the Puranas. Since the classification
has no basis in the Vedas, the concept itself needs to be rejected as
stated by Anandagiri to Sureshwaracharya's vartika:

यः पृथिव्यामितीशोऽसावन्तर्यामी जगद्गुरुः ।

हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ॥


[The Br.Up. ‘he who, stationed in the pṛthvī devatā impels the
mind-body-organs of that devatā….’ who is the antaryāmī, jagadguru, even
though one, is variously spoken of as Hari, Brahmā and Pinākī (Śiva).]


Anandagiri: कथं श्रुत्यवष्टम्भेन ईश्वरस्य कारणत्वं, मूर्तित्रयस्य इतिहासादौ
सर्गस्थितिलयेषु यथायोगं कर्तृत्वश्रुतेः, अत आह । यः पृथिव्यामिति । प्रकृतो
हि ईश्वरः स्वरूपेण एकोऽपि मूर्तित्रयात्मना बहुधा उच्यते पृथिव्यादौ तस्यैव
अन्तर्यामित्वेन स्थितिश्रुतेः, न च तद्विरोधे पुराणादिप्रामाण्यं
सापेक्षत्वेन दौर्बल्यादिति भावः । स पूर्वेषां गुरुरितिन्यायेन अन्तर्यामी
इत्यस्य व्याख्या जगद्गुरुरिति ।


Anandagiri says: How is it that while Isvara is the jagatkāraṇam according
to the Shruti, the itihāsa, etc. say that there is the causehood as
appropriately assigned to the trimūrti-s in creation, sustenance and
dissolution? [the idea is: while the shruti says Brahman, Ishvara, is the
jagatkāraṇam, we find the itihāsa, purāna, etc. distributing that to three
different entities functionally?] The above verse of Sureshvara is
answering this question: Even though Ishwara is one only, he is spoken of
as many, Hari, Brahmā, Pinākī. Why is it that Ishwara is admitted to be one
only? Since it is one Ishwara alone (not many) that is taught in the shruti
as the antaryāmin.* If the purāṇa-s, etc. say something different (three
different individuals performing distinct functions), then since these
texts are dependent on the Shruti for their prāmāṇya, they do not enjoy the
status of the shruti; they are durbala, weak, only when they say something
contradictory to the Shruti.* Since He, Ishwara, is the Guru of everyone
(including devatā-s) this antaryāmin, Ishwara, alone gets the epithet of
‘Jagadguru’.


In this very Padmapurana while eulogising the greatness of the 12th canto of
the Bhagavatam it is said that those who do not differentiate between Hari,
Hara and Durga and look upon the Triad as Para Brahman are Vaishnavottamas:
Greatest devotees of Vishnu.

In the Kapila Upa Purana, 21st chapter, the non-difference of Hari and Hara
is emphatically stated along with the censure of the idea of difference
between the two and that the Moksha Jnana that is stated in this chapter
should not be given out to 'non-Vaishnavas'.  From this it is implied that
those who differentiate between Hari and Hara are not Vaishnavas.

We do not come across in the Vedas or Upanishads about any part thereof
being Tamasa.  Hence, if the Puranas say that some are tamasa, etc. then
they being veda viruddha, they do not enjoy the status of being pramana.
Above all, to divide is not the goal of the Veda; it is only to unite and
converge in the Advaitam of the Mandukya Upanishad. Any text that teaches
sectarianism, bigotry, etc. has to be rejected as being divergent from the
Vedic goal.

Om Tat Sat