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

[Kaushik Chevendra]

>
> There is a problem here: Hiranyagarbha, the Lord of that 14th loka, where
> saguna upasaka's go for krama mukti, is stated by Shankara in that Br.Up.
> bhashya as the one who is independently capable of creation, etc. This H is
> someone who has attained that status through upasana, and in that section
> alone Shankara says about his capacity.
>
The same section also contains the fact that this prajapati is constantly
troubled by avidya.

>
And this loka is said to perish and H along with others will *become*
> muktas. So, that H cannot be the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer. But
> Shankara says so. That is what is intriguing. It requires a thorough study
> of the Bhashyas to reconcile this. We cannot say that this independence is
> relative as H is not admitted anywhere to be the sustainer, etc. Hence this
> problem. I have not got a convincing solution to this so far.
>
If we accept that the gita bhasya as authoritative as upanishad bhasya
there is no problem.
When independence is talked about its generally in a relative way only. I
am constantly quoting gita bhasya because isvaratva is thoroughly explained
in it. If brahma has attained his position through some upasana, who is
that who has given him the fruit of his action? Certainly someone else has
given him the fruit of his action. Someone above him.
If he is independently capable of sustenance etc. Whats the role of krishna
in projecting and taking back the universe at the end of each kalpa as
explained by acharya?
Clearly Brahma and krishna have been differentiated multiple times in his
bhasya by him.
Another definitive factor here is that "H" hasn't attained mukthi yet. End
of the kalpa he will do so. While isvara is nitya muktha.


> Bhashya for Br.Up. mantra 1.4.1:
>
>
>  ज्ञानकर्मभ्यां समुच्चिताभ्यां प्रजापतित्वप्राप्तिर्व्याख्याता ;
> केवलप्राणदर्शनेन च — ‘तद्धैतल्लोकजिदेव’ इत्यादिना । प्रजापतेः फलभूतस्य
> सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारेषु जगतः स्वातन्त्र्यादिविभूत्युपवर्णनेन
> ज्ञानकर्मणोर्वैदिकयोः फलोत्कर्षो वर्णयितव्य इत्येवमर्थमारभ्यते । तेन च
> कर्मकाण्डविहितज्ञानकर्मस्तुतिः कृता भवेत्सामर्थ्यात् ।
>
> By resorting to samucchaya of jnana and karma Prajapati status is to be
> attained. ....The fruit of that sadhana is Prajapati who is the cause of
> the creation, sustenance and destruction of the world independently.  This
> is one of the vibhutis of Prajapati.  This is in the section of the vaidika
> jnana karma samucchaya.
>
> How can Prajapati be endowed with the above stated capacity, which is
> reserved for the nitya siddha Ishwara in the Brahma sutras?
>
That's because isvara only is creating through prajapati as i had explained
before. Jeevatmas are only "instruments". The independent Shakthi itself is
granted by isvara.

>
> regards
> subbu
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>