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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Yes. My understanding is by and large the same as what is elaborated by
Venkat Ji, though there could be some differences on minor points.

Regards

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, 08:07 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Resending, as it sounds like the previous message was held up due to size
> constraints.
>
> Namaste Subbuji,
> Thank you very much for bringing this up.
>
> I have a different view to this section - while normally sRShTi sthiti
> laya in the Shruti is a brahma linga, there are very specific jIva linga-s
> here that indicate that the one performing these activities is the
> prathamaja jIva, not Ishvara.
>
> You had asked:
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, 00:12 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> In that case, is the Viraj a jiva who has attained that state by the
>> sadhana of jnana-karma samucchaya?
>
> Yes, I believe the bhAShya pretty conclusively answers in the affirmative.
>
> 1) In the beginning bhAShya of 1.4.1 shankarAchArya comments on the word
> Atma, not as paramAtma but as a sharIri, jIvAtma:
> आत्मैव आत्मेति प्रजापतिः प्रथमोऽण्डजः शरीर्यभिधीयते ।
> The reference to the virAT prajApati as "sharIri" in the bhAShya indicates
> that the bhAShyakAra considers him as a jIva indeed - he also calls him a
> prathama-anDaja.
>
> 2) The bhAShya says - the very same prajApati alone is born, a result of
> jnAnakarma samuccaya. The next sentence is: वैदिकज्ञानकर्मफलभूतः स एव —
> किम् ? इदं शरीरभेदजातं तेन प्रजापतिशरीरेणाविभक्तम् आत्मैवासीत् अग्रे
> प्राक्शरीरान्तरोत्पत्तेः ।
> The Atma, who is prajApati (आत्मेति प्रजापतिः), was alone present,
> undifferentiated into any body other than prajApati, in the beginning, i.e.
> prior to the creation of any other body.
>
> 3) The bhAShya then says he saw himself and wondered who he was, and he
> didn't see anyone else - स एव प्रथमः सम्भूतोऽनुवीक्ष्यान्वालोचनं कृत्वा —
> ‘कोऽहं किंलक्षणो वास्मि’ इति, नान्यद्वस्त्वन्तरम् , आत्मनः
> प्राणपिण्डात्मकात्कार्यकरणरूपात् , नापश्यत् न ददर्श । Shankaracharya uses a
> phrase for his body आत्मनः प्राणपिण्डात्मकात्कार्यकरणरूपात्  - his body,
> being of the nature of a mass/lump of prANa (prANa piNDa), ie
> kArya-karaNa-rUpa. Again, the use of the phrase kArya-karaNa-rUpa as
> opposed to mAyAmaya-rUpa is a jIva linga, because it is a jIva whose body
> is kAryakaraNa rUpa (in the brahma sUtra Shankaracharya describes the body
> of Ishvara as a mAyAmaya rUpa  स्यात् परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात्
> मायामयंरूपं).
>
> 4) He then goes on to say that the entity in question recalled his nature,
> as a result of the purification due to karma and upAsana undertaken in his
> previous life. तथा पूर्वजन्मश्रौतविज्ञानसंस्कृतः ‘सोऽहं प्रजापतिः,
> सर्वात्माहमस्मि’ इत्यग्रे व्याहरत् व्याहृतवान् ।
> This indicates two things - he had a prior life in which he had performed
> jnAna (upAsana) and karma and his present birth was a result of that - ie
> he was a kartA, as a result of which he became a bhoktA too. Such a being
> cannot be Ishvara, for Ishvara sharIra is taken इच्छावशात्, not कर्मवशात्,
> and He neither performs karma nor is he subject to karma phala.
>
> The second thing this indicates was that his knowledge of his nature was a
> result of samskAra undertaken in a previous birth - ie he was a jIva whose
> body mind complex needed samskAra for it to manifest knowledge. Such a
> being cannot be the Ishvara whom the brihadAraNyaka will later go on to
> describe as - for whom the very Vedas are effortless creations, emerging as
> though like breath - अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः
> सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसः.
>
> Moving on, the bhAShya then describes why his first secret name is "aham"
> and every being born from him refers to itself as aham (as the cause, so
> the effect).
>
> 5) What are these defects that this entity previously possessed?  In
> talking about the second name, auShat, the bhAShyakAra says:
> स च प्रजापतिः, अतिक्रान्तजन्मनि सम्यक्कर्मज्ञानभावनानुष्ठानैः
> साधकावस्थायाम् , यद्यस्मात् , कर्मज्ञानभावनानुष्ठानैः प्रजापतित्वं
> प्रतिपित्सूनां पूर्वः प्रथमः सन् ,
> अस्मात्प्रजापतित्वप्रतिपित्सुसमुदायात्सर्वस्मात् , आदौ औषत् अदहत् ; किम् ?
> आसङ्गाज्ञानलक्षणान्सर्वान्पाप्मनः प्रजापतित्वप्रतिबन्धकारणभूतान् ;
> That prajApati who in his prior birth had adequately performed karma and
> upAsana as a sAdhaka (again, a sAdhaka, meaning a jIva, not a nityasiddha
> Ishvara), was the first of the prajApati-s (in a kalpa, hiraNyagarbha
> himself is born as the first prajApati). Such a first among the prajApati-s
> burnt (auShat). Burnt what? - all manner of evils - attachment and
> ignorance (आसङ्गाज्ञानलक्षणान्) which were obstacles preventing him from
> being the prajApati in his past life (प्रजापतित्वप्रतिबन्धकारणभूतान्).
> Again we get three indicatory marks of being a jIva - 1)  he was a sAdhaka
> in his previous birth. 2) He suffered from attachment and ignorance (which
> Ishvara can never suffer from) 3) these defects prevented him from being a
> prajApati back in his previous life itself (again Ishvara is nitya, He does
> not become Ishvara with effort).
>
> The nature of the defects which needed samskAra in the previous sentence
> are elaborated in the above sentence.
>
> 6) That is the reason he gets the third secret name - puruSha - because he
> burns off the one before him - पूर्वमौषदिति पुरुषः - pUrvam auShat iti
> puruShah. Who does he burn? He burns the one before who wanted to be
> prajApati. कम् ? योऽस्माद्विदुषः पूर्वः प्रथमः प्रजापतिर्बुभूषति
> भवितुमिच्छति तमित्यर्थः ।
>
> But isn't the desire to be a virAT dangerous, if it means getting burnt by
> the one who knows how to be prajApati? नन्वनर्थाय प्राजापत्यप्रतिपित्सा,
> एवंविदा चेद्दह्यते. No, this is not a defect, for the burning only refers
> to the burning of the flaws that prevented him from the first prajApati
> - नैष दोषः, ज्ञानभावनोत्कर्षाभावात् प्रथमं
> प्रजापतित्वप्रतिपत्त्यभावमात्रत्वाद्दाहस्य ।
>
> 7) The one possessing of the superior means to the knowledge attains the
> post of prajApati, and the one who does not so possess does not so attain,
> and so the former is figuratively said to burn the latter. It is not as
> though he really burns someone:
>  उत्कृष्टसाधनः प्रथमं प्रजापतित्वं प्राप्नुवन् न्यूनसाधनो न प्राप्नोतीति,
> स तं दहतीत्युच्यते ; न पुनः प्रत्यक्षमुत्कृष्टसाधनेनेतरो दह्यते.
> Again, plenty of clues that prajApatitva is a post to be attained through
> some means. He was not a prajApati first because he lacked the means. Later
> he acquired the means, put those means into practice and then acquired the
> post.
>
> Shankaracharya then makes it even more clear by giving the example of a
> race when he says - the winner of a race can be figuratively described as
> burning the competition, because the winner has effectively shorn the
> competition of their strength - यथा लोके आजिसृतां यः प्रथममाजिमुपसर्पति
> तेनेतरे दग्धा इवापहृतसामर्थ्या भवन्ति, तद्वत्.
>
> Therefore, while we can certainly acknowledge that the performance of
> sRShTi sthiti laya are the domain of Ishvara, the prajApati in question who
> performs these activities is a jIva in reality because of various
> indicatory marks in the shruti text that are clarified in the bhAShya.
>
> So, in my view, the bhAShya proves that the entity is in reality a jIva
> only for all the reasons enumerated above.
>
> But isn't the kartA of sRShTi sthiti laya a brahmalinga, which the
> sUtrakAra uses as a taTastha lakshaNa in janmAdyasya yatah? You had said
> doesn't this (taking this prajApati to be a jIva) contradict elsewhere in
> the sUtra where it was said jIva-s cannot perform this function?
>
> The bhashyam says:
>>
>> *प्रजापतेः फलभूतस्य* सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारेषु जगतः
>> स्वातन्त्र्यादिविभूत्युपवर्णनेन ज्ञानकर्मणोर्वैदिकयोः फलोत्कर्षो
>> वर्णयितव्य
>> इत्येवमर्थमारभ्यते ।
>>
>> Prajapati is a 'phala', result, of a certain sadhana. Does someone with a
>> sadhana attaining the status of Prajapati/Virat have the power to create,
>> etc. independently? Also, is it not a contradiction with the Brahma Sutra
>> 'Jagatvyapara varjyam..' which is stated to be the 'sole' domain of nitya
>> siddha Ishwara?  That is the point I was making.
>>
>> regards
>> subbu
>>
> I believe the above doesn't rule out a jIva performing these functions - I
> think the above only refers to the sAdhaka-s who as a result of brahma
> jnAna have become mukta-s - they are Brahman, but they cannot fulfil roles
> as the Creator, Preserver and Sustainer of the universe, because they do
> not possess the instruments / body mind complex with which to perform such
> roles.
>
> To be the Creator prajApati, requires the performance of karma and upAsana
> as stated in 1.4.1 - jnAni-s are Brahman because they have brahma jnAna but
> in order for them to perform the functions of creating, preserving and
> destroying, they also need a body mind complex purified by karma-upAsana
> samuccaya. Even then, they are performing the roles not *as* Ishvara, but *as
> prajApati*, *under the blessing of Ishvara (*mRtyurdhAvati pancama iti).
> The svAtantrya in the bhAShya must be interpreted here to mean without the
> help of anybody else, not independently of Ishvara.
>
> Such beings are exalted, no doubt, but when their creation, preservation
> and destruction of universe is being talked about, this is a function that
> they uniquely / independently perform - like the CEO of a company. The CEO
> is the first and most senior employee in the company, but he is only
> fulfilling a temporary role on behalf of someone. Once his job is done, he
> will retire and someone else will take up the job. They are managers for
> the real boss, the owner (the shareholders in the case of a CEO, Ishvara in
> the case of hiraNyagarbha).
>
> In many places we use the presence of these functions as a brahmalinga,
> but we have to add a corollary - if there are mitigating factors to Ishvara
> being the one being talked about, we have to revisit that original
> conclusion. These jobs alone cannot be the conclusive indicatory mark of
> Ishvara - it has to be the presence of that, in the absence of mitigating
> factors indicating of jIva - and 1.4.1 is a good example of where that
> occurs.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>