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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 4:03 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
>


Dear Raghav,

Your post makes a lot of sense.  We have statements in the Bhashya such as
the person who has acquired the post of prajapati /Hiranyagarbha is stated
to have 'independent ability to create, sustain and withdraw'.  There is a
very specific statement of Shankaracharya in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya to
this effect.  Whereas in the Brahma Sutra bhashya at the end it is stated
that the upasakas who go to Brahmaloka and who are mukdas also, even though
day enjoy all the bhogas of the 'nitya siddha Ishwara', appearing to be a
technical term though, but not the power to create etc, which are the
exclusive domain of Ishwara. So  a contradiction appears here: how can the
earlier stated Hiranyabarbha also have 'svatantra'  powers to create etc.

We also see in valid smriti's like Parasara smriti very clear statements to
the effect that Brahma Vishnu and Shiva are all born and they disappear at
every Kalpa. There is the commentary of Swami Vidyaranya quoting from this
Skanda purana etc for this. Certainly we cannot brush them aside. We also
have a statement in the Mahabharata which says that Rudra when pleasedcan
grant the position of Brahma, Keshava, Indra etc to his devotees.

In the VSN bhashya Shankaracharya for the name Keshava gives an
etamological meaning to say that Keshava is the one i'n whose control' are
the Trimurtis. For the word 'Trayambaka' of the Rudra, the Sayana bhasya
says: Trayambaka is the father of the Trimurtis.

In the Telugu composition 'Raama nannu brovara', Sri Thyagaraja says:
'cheemalo brahmalo shiva keshavaadulalo' - You are the one residing as the
Chaitanyam, Antaryami, in the smallest creature ant and in the Trimurtis.

We cannot brush these aside as arthavadas. So, this gives us the picture
where even the Trimurtis are jivas who have attained those positions
through upasana, if that be accepted, they are under the control of an
'Ishwara' for which Advaita has no default form/name.

In the Puranas we have Skanda, Surya, Ganapati, etc. portrayed as the
origin of the Trimurtis. Even Devi is of this nature, the origin of the
Trimurtis, in the Devi Bhagavata, etc.

So, it is impossible to determine beyond any doubt or dispute the exact
position of all deities such as Indra, including the Trimurtis. The idea of
a Turiya Shiva/Vishnu in the Puranas/Mahabharata, Atharvashikha Upanishad,
is also shown by me before, where the Trimurtis are 'born' from the Turiya
Shiva/Vishnu.

Om Tat Sat



>
> 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
>
>
>