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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Subbu ji

When we say kAryOpAdhiH jeevaH and equate the prathamajaH hiraNyagarbhaH as
the first born jeeva, that seems to be the consistent position in many
shrutis. This same hiraNyagarbha (called kArya Brahman in bhAShya) viewed
through roles of sRShTi, sthiti and laya has been called brahmA, viShNu and
rudra, in several contexts in bhAShya and elsewhere.

At the same time, the yakSha form manifested in the Kena Upanishad is not
presented as just an exalted jeeva who was afflicted with avidyA and then
attained that status by karma and upAsanam - rather the yakSha is Brahman
himself. Similarly (at least some if not all of the) avatAras who
mainfested their Leela, were not jIvas born only due to their karma and
upAsanam. All of these were directly forms of Ishvara (with mAya as upAdhi)
who were not born due to fructification of some earlier upAsanam and karma
phala.

Incidentally, there is a popular ISKCON story of several brahmA-s
(chaturmukha brahma, trimukha brahma etc) of various forms coming to Lord
Krishna and paying obeisance to him - as per the story told in the purANa.
This conveys this subtle difference between Krishna who was a direct
manifestation of Ishvara in comparison with brahmA the exalted jeeva.


We notice that the kAraNopAdir-IshvaraH can thus manifest *directly* in any
form he chooses, in order to bestow anugraha upon the devotee. Like the
yakSha in the kenopanishad.  This bestowal of anugraha by Ishvara was
quoted by you from bhAShya too.

Now the question is  - what about
Indra, Surya who are viewed as exalted jeevas occupying a certain post
attained through karma and upAsana. The question is - they seem like
exalted jeevas rather than a form of Ishvara? In which case, what of the
devotion to them looking on them as Ishvara - is that mere arthavAda or
worse still inauthentic? I understand the answer to the above as follows.
Such worship of sUrya etc as Ishvara himself is not only efficacious and
authentic (i.e., in line with shAstra) but it's also not an arthavAda or
some sort of adhyAsa of Ishvaratvam upon an exalted jIva. We can justify
this as follows.

In the devatAdhikaraNam 1.3.28 of brahma sUtra, there is the assertion of
AkRti nityAtvam of both hiraNyagarbha (the kArya Brahman) and the devatas
like Indra, sUrya etc. In other words, different jeevas occupy these slots
in different kalpas (iterative cycles of creation) by the strength of
upAsanA, but their innate common template (AkRti) is eternal across all
kalpas - this knowledge has its Ashraya in Ishvara himself who reveals it
to brahmA at the kalpAdi.

One AkRti for all Indras across all kalpas, one AkRti for all the
prathamaja-brahmA-s across all kalpas etc. Each kalpa instantiates the
AkRti with one specific jeeva for the brahmA, Indra etc based on the jeeva
whose prArabdha has fructified to become brahmA, sUrya etc.

Now, when a devotee invokes the "non-jIva" kAraNopAdir-IshvaraH in any
particular form in consonance with shAstra (*including* the AkRti/mantra of
sUrya, skanda etc), he is relating to that eternal AkRti which has its
Ashraya in knowledge of Ishvara. That AkRti incidentally may have got
instantiated in the current kalpa with some particular jeeva. But the
devotee is not necessarily engaging in mere imagination or even just a
shAstra endorsed adhyAsa in imputing Ishvaratvam to Skanda, sUrya etc.
Because the kAraNopAdhirIshvaraH can manifest like the yaxa, like Narasimha
etc in any form for bestowing anugraha.

 Thus even if we grant that each kalpa has at the start, an exalted jIva
(hiraNyagarbha) who was brahmA and then received/recollected the Vedas by
the grace of Ishvara/Rudra (as mentioned in shvetAshvatara)  and then went
on to create the rest of sRShTi, even then, Ishvara himself (who is the
kAraNa/repository of all AkRtis of different Devas) can be directly invoked
in forms like Skanda etc without referring any jIva or karma-born devatA.

Thus, based on the nitya AkRtis which have their Ashraya in kAraNopAdhiH
Ishvara, a devotee of Skanda or Surya or avatAras like Krishna, is
justified in regarding that being/devatA with some maNDala ( form, mantra,
pUja vidhi etc) as *Ishvara himself*.
 In this sense, Skanda, sUrya etc are not someone who is either "merely" an
exalted jIva who is enjoined to be imagined/meditated upon as Ishvara etc.,
or even a jnAnI who was afflicted earlier with avidyA but later shed that
avidyA. They are Ishvara himself.




Om
Raghav

On Sat, 11 Feb, 2023, 5:31 pm Kaushik Chevendra via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>