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

[Kaushik Chevendra]

Namaste sir.


>
>
>
> 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'.


This independence is only relative. Just as we say Indra is independently
capable of giving rains etc..
Why is this relative? Otherwise the statment of acharya in his gita bhasya
will become contradictory.
Krishna says i am "sarva bhuta mahesvrah" to this acharya says " the one
who has the control of things starting of blade of grass to brahma
himself". Also the Shruthi statment of "isvara sarvabhutanam brahmadipati"
(lord of brahama and etc).
Hence to avoid contradiction of acharya bhasya this interpretation is to be
taken.


> 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.


The roopam is what is disappearing. Why? Because is in the gita bhasya
itself when krishna says that at the end of kalpa he takes the jagat into
him, acharya doesn't say he disappears, further he says at the beginning of
the kalpa he puts forward the universe (krishna's statment). His roopam
might not be existant but he is present as nirakara isvara.
It would be ridiculous to say he disappeared when he is incharge of putting
forward the universe at the beginning of every kalpa and taking it back.
Further the very madhusudana Saraswati acharya who said that vaikuntha is
not eternal, also said that Vishnu is not affected by pralaya and remains
above brahma etc at the time of pralaya.


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.
>

There are hundreds of verses saying that if someone thinks Shiva, Vishnu
are equal they attain hell. There are thousands of statments which talk
about superiority of Shiva over Vishnu. And Vishnu over Shiva. There are
hundreds of statments where kailasa is said to be eternal. Hundreds of
statments saying vaikuntha is eternal.
When we see these statments as arthavada because it's not in line with
sidhantha etc. Why is the above single verse taken to mean the exact truth?
This type of statments go against acharyas bhasya itself. Why?
In the gita as well as bsb bhasya, the attainment of "vishnutva" is
liberation. "Vishnor paramam padam" is mukthi. Infact when krishna says
that the one minded sages "become me" acharya interprets it as mukthi and
not becoming Vishnu.
Had it been becoming isvara or Vishnu acharya would say so.
In the upanishad bhasya when acharya says that brahma became so because of
his sadhana, acharya further says that because he is afflicted with fear,
worry etc, one must not look for such temporary positions and strive for
mukthi.
Isvaratva is mukthi and not becoming Vishnu.
And for one such statment of vidyaranya acharya, thousands of statments
ffrom madhushana acharya's, Sridhara swamin's, narayana Bhatta's works can
be given to prove this type of interpretation as wrong.

Even if one wants to take the above verse as true it can be interpreted as
sarupya, soujya etc.

>
> 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.
>
Also in the vsn bhasya acharya quotes the atmabodha upanishad which says
meditation on "narayana" who has discuss, conch,mace attains vaikuntha.


>
>

> 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.
>
The above explanation seems like more of an Arya samaj explanation where
some nirakara entity is talking through "krishna" in gita.


This goes starkly against gita bhasya again. Acharya clearly says that no
one is even equal to krishna let alone greater than him. It can't be argued
that he is talking about some nirakara isvara. Because Arjuna is clearly
talking to krishna and acharya gives teh explanation as such.

 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.
>

The oneness of trumtis is only in the sense that one isvara does creation,
sustenance etc in various forms.
You are considering only the verses which talk about oneness of Trimurtis.
But hundreds of stories, statments etc clearly differentiate between isvara
and brahma.
Infact the svetasvtara upanishad is very clear in this matter which is
being ignored.

>
> So, it is impossible to determine beyond any doubt or dispute the exact
> position of all deities such as Indra, including the Trimurtis.

It can be sir. If we get a clear picture of what isvaratva means. A
definite definition has to be given and not arbitrary verses which are
contradicting the stance of sidhantha.
And the position of indradi devatas has been stated without dispute as
temporary positions and not like the roopas of bagavan by both
chandrashekhar Bharathi swami and vidyaranya swamin. That should be enough
in this regard.

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.
>
This is that nirakra isvara only. Not that some other entity higher than
them which will lead to multiple contradictions in bhasyas.

>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>