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

[Kaushik Chevendra]

Namaste sir.

>
> There are statements that are hard to reconcile within the Bhashya, etc.
> texts.  While generally there is a thinking that Hiranyagarbha/Brahmaa is a
> jiva, there is a contradicting statement also:
>

That's because in acharyas bhasya itself he has mentioned that
hiranyagarbha is affected by avidya. He is affected with fear,worry etc.
Our abhinava vidyatirtha swamin, madhusudan Saraswati, sridhara swamin etc
and shankaracharya himself have said that isvara is free from defects.
If isvara isnt himself free, how can he give mukthi to others?
Now shankaracharya has said in his gita bhasya that this brahma is under
the control of krishna. It's not nirguna brahman in this context because
acharya uses the word Vasudev suta(son of Vasudeva).
So if we say that brahma is isvara the following things come into play

1) is isvara affected by avidya? ( As he experiences fear etc)
2) is isvara position attainable through sadhana?(hiranyagarbha is)
3) Is isvara free from all defects and pure or is he affected with fear etc?
4) how can isvara who is imperfect and affected by avidya give mukthi to
others?

>
> In the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya Vartika, Sureshwaracharya, a direct disciple
> of Shankaracharya, has said:
>
> 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’.
>
First let us accept that our our acharyas haven't gone against
shankaracharya. Now there is no objection that isvara only does creation,
sustenance etc.
The above statement paragraph is to show that it's only one isvara that
does this. All jeevas are nimmita karana only. The chaitanya present in
jeevas is isvara, the Shakthi they have is given by isvara, the control of
Maya is with isvara. Where does the jeeva do anything?Hence it's one isvara
only having various names doing these activities.
Even in puranas where brahma does creation like in bagavatha, the power to
do so is given by isvara after tapasya.
Hence the oneness is of isvara is in this way only. Because while coming to
a conclusion we must do so without having contradiction within our own
works.

>
> In the Samanvayadhikaranam (tat tu samanvayaat) sutra bhashya, Shankara
> cites  the famous mantra of the Shvetashvataropanishad:
>
> तथा ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा । कर्माध्यक्षः
> सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च’ (श्वे. उ. ६ । ११)
> <https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/svt?page=6&id=SV_C06_V11&hl=%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%81%20%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A2%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%C2%A0%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9A>
>  इति, ‘स पर्यगाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम्’ (ई. उ. ८)
> <https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Isha?page=NaN&id=IS_V08&hl=%E0%A4%B8%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9B%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D> इति,
> च —
>
> Anandagiri, in the gloss Nyayanirnaya, explains the mantra in his own
> words:
>
> निर्गुणत्वान्निर्दोषत्वाच्च ब्रह्मात्मनि द्विधापि संस्कारो नेत्युक्तम् ।
> इदानीं तस्मिन्गुणदोषयोरभावे मानमाह —
>
> तथाचेति ।
>
> मूर्तित्रयात्मना भेदं प्रत्याह —
>
> एक इति ।
>
> यथाहुः - ‘हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ‘ इति अखण्डजाड्यं
> व्यावर्तयति —
>
> देव इति ।
>
>
> What is very interesting is that Anandagiri, while explaining the word
> 'EkaH' in the mantra, raises an objection: Is not Brahman endowed with
> threefold  difference on the basis of the Trimurti-s? The word 'Ekah' is
> in refutation of such a difference. Anandagiri cites a line: 'One alone is
> spoken of as many as Hari, Brahmaa and Pinaaki.'
>

The same can be applied here. Now if isvara and brahma are same. Then who
is this entity which shankaracharya says brahma is under the control of?
Who is that he is calling the father of brahma? Verily it's not nirguna
brahman. Cause creation is done by isvara and not nirguna brahman.

>
> It is interesting to look at some verses of the Anubhuti Prakasha of Swami
> Vidyaranya for the Shvetashvataropanishat:
>
> In verse 99 he says:
>
> विष्ण्वादीनाम् ईश्वराणां परमं तं महेश्वरम् |
> देवानां परमं देवं विदामोऽस्य प्रसादतः ||
>
> Let us realize that Divine Being, by its own grace, who is the god of
> gods, who is the Supreme Lord of lords such as Vishnu.
>

There is madhusudana Saraswati acharyas statment that he knows of no higher
truth than Krishna.
Sridhara swamin, narayana Bhatt, Etc will also attest to the same fact.

 So, from the above we know that it is Nirguna Brahman that is the ultimate
> God.
>

In what way is he ultimate? He is non different form all. In the case of
isvara he is having superior upadhis hence he is superior to other jeevas.
But nirguna brahman is non different from all, free from gunas and upadhis.
So in what way is he ultimate? It's the unchanging and eternal nirguna
brahman which exists. But it can't be compared with superiority and
inferiority as it doesn't possess any gunas.

All other deities including Vishnu were discounted from this status.
>
As long as we are in vyavahara and jagat is existant, isvara is supreme.

>
> If we are to hold that Shankara has not accepted any other deity as
> Ishwara (which means jagatkaranam), then we will have to say the popular
> stutis like Ganesha Pancharatnam, Subrahmanya Bhujangam, etc. that Sringeri
> peetham holds as that of the Acharya, are not authentically so.
>
I have not said so. But because shankaracharya himself stated that surya is
an attainable post and because it is illogical to say isvara is an
attainable post i had said he is not isvara.
Again further i said that worshipping surya as supreme won't be a
contradiction because isvara is only worshipped even there.

>
> Actually there is a popular name of Surya as Hiranyagarbha.
> https://www.wordzz.com/12-names-of-lord-surya/
>
> We cannot also say that Swami Vidyaranya is not in our sampradaya; he was
> a pontiff f the Sringeri Peetham.
>
Our sringeri acharya said that surya is a jeeva. So we can't discard that
also. Both our acharyas chandrashekhar Bharathi swamin and abhinava
vidyatirtha swamin have said isvara is not an attainable post. So we can't
ignore them as well. Hence my reconciliation that surya is worshipped as
isvara because isvara is only worshipped.

>
> So, no finality can be arrived at in this regard.
>


>
It can be sir. The whole discussion boils down to only one question.
1) is isvara an attainable position? (Our acharyas say no)
2) if not surya and skanda aren't isvara.

Namo narayana

>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
>
>>
>>>>>>