[Advaita-l] [advaitin] rAma-krishna-shiva-durga etc. are not same in shAstric vyavahAra!!!

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,
I am afraid I do not understand what your main contention is, or how it is
different to what I am saying.

I thought I was addressing what was your main issue, but I must confess I
may have got it wrong.

Are you saying:

1)  Chaitanya in association with only one name and form is Ishvara? Or
2) Chaitanya in association with all names and forms is Ishvara? Or
3) Chaitanya in association with some names and forms is Ishvara? Or
4) Chaitanya in association with no names and forms is Ishvara?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023, 07:01 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, <
advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
>    - It seems upAdhi sahita brahman making more noise here than
>    nirupAdhika brahman 😊
>
>
>
> I only meant that they are only jIva-s in vyavahAra, they are not Ishvara.
>
>
>
> Ø     And IshvarOpAdhi, his sarvajnatva, sarvashatitva too valid in
> vyavahAra only due to limited adjuncts is it not??  ( vide reference
> ArambhaNAdhikaraNa bhAshya) If the upAdhi of Ishwara is his own
> iccha/saMkalpa/ sAdhakAnugrahArthaM why bhAshyakAra said its due to
> ignorance valid only in vyavahAra?? And he also clarified elsewhere
> Ishwara’s / brahman’s sarvajnatvam sarvashaktitvaM etc. is svabhAva of
> brahman (itareya intro) Just wondering.
>
>
>
> Just because we accept there is jIveshvara bheda and jIva-jIva bheda in
> vyavahAra, why should we accept  bheda between one form of Ishvara and
> another form of Ishvara in *all* respects? The bheda between Shiva and
> Vishnu that we are willing to accept is only in their name, form, pUja
> vidhi, mantras etc. We do not accept any bheda in their status as Ishvara.
>
>
>
> Ø     IMO, it is because we are differentiating based on upAdhi-s.
> Ignoring the upAdhi and concentrating and realizing ONLY  Ishwaratva (or
> paramArtha tattva) does not stop us to see Ishwaravtva ONLY in Ishwara
> upAdhi.  And when we are saying Ishwaratva being worshipped behind names
> and forms we knowingly or unknowingly clinging to upAdhi-s only and in that
> upAdhi pradhAna upAsana prakriya, upAsya devata is different so no need to
> see the abheda and argue the sameness even though in their kAraNa svarUpa
> it is Ishwara since Ishwaratva is one and the same behind ‘everything’.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In fact, if we accept bheda between two forms of Ishvara in all respects
> in vyavahAra then it is as good as saying there are two Ishvara-s, which
> would be absurd.
>
>
>
>    - Yes this would be absurd and the same rule is applicable to
>    jeeva-jeeva bheda, Jeeva-Ishwara bheda, deva-Ishwara bheda in vyavahAra.
>    For us, the advaitins, it would be shAtra permit way to think like that.
>    Now the question is what are the upAdhi-s that are exclusively worn by
>    Ishwara by his own eccha/saMkalpa to bless the sAdhaka-s??  Can we say
>    upAdhi-s ( names and forms) exclusively attributed to ONLY paNchAyatana
>    devata, ok we can include shaNmukha also and nothing else??  I don’t think
>    that would be restrictions that we can impose on IshwarOpAdhi, yO yO yAm
>    yAm tanum bhaktaH ….tAm eva vidadAmyahaM says lord in geeta.  It might be
>    varAha, it might be Narasimha, it might be fish, he might be dwarf (vAmana)
>    or gigantic (trivikrama) what not??  So there is no limitations or
>    exclusiveness to his attire (upAdhi-s) and at the same time the power
>    exhibited by the same Ishwara through different upAdhi-s why not he is
>    different in different names and forms??  The power behind oven and
>    refrigerator one and the same but serve different purpose through different
>    devices.  Hence upAsya devata, upAsana vidhi, upAsaka all are exclusive and
>    different in their own sphere in the kArya brahmOpAsana.  This is what I am
>    trying to say.  Please let me know where I am erring in this
>    understanding.
>
>
>
> We instead say both Shiva and Vishnu are Ishvara only, they have just
> taken different names and forms for our benefit.
>
>
>
> Ø     Interestingly when we are trying to prove shiva vishNu abheda we
> are not so particular to prove along with devi, sUrya, gaNapati abheda.
> And bhAshyakAra too interestingly makes the categorization of some devata-s
> as tAmasi (vinAyaka, mAtru gaNa,sapta mAtruka etc.) and arAdhana of it
> restricted to only some set of upAsaka-s.
>
>
>
> 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+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581F14A03FD2BB88D50189484D89%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581F14A03FD2BB88D50189484D89%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>