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

[Kaushik Chevendra]

In the BSB bhasya shri shankaracharya says- 2.1.27
"He rests with his rays in him'--still Selfhood cannot be ascribed to the
sun, on account of his externality (parāgrūpatva). Immortality, &c. also
cannot be predicated of him, as Scripture speaks of his origin and his
dissolution. For the (so-called) deathlessness of the gods only means their
(comparatively) long existence. And their lordly power also is based on the
highest Lord and does not naturally belong to them; as the mantra declares,
'From terror of it (Brahman) the wind blows, from terror the sun rises;
from terror of it Agni and Indra, yea, Death runs as the fifth.'--Hence the
person in the eye must be viewed as the highest Lord only"

On Mon, 13 Feb, 2023, 12:20 pm Kaushik Chevendra, <
chevendrakaushik at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>>