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

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks Venkat ji, for the inputs from the Vartika and Anandagiri Acharya.
There is a similar statement by Sureshwaracharya in the Br.Up.Bh.Vartika
and a very illuminating gloss of Anandagiri.  I shall copy the entire
discussion from an old post of mine:

In the Samanvayadhikaranam (tat tu samanvayaat) sutra bhashya, Shankara
cites the famous mantra of the Shvetashatara Upanishad:

तथा ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा । कर्माध्यक्षः
सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च’ (श्वे. उ. ६ । ११) इति, ‘स
पर्यगाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम्’ (ई. उ. ८) इति, च —

Anandagiri, in the gloss Nyayanirnaya, explains the mantra in his own words:

निर्गुणत्वान्निर्दोषत्वाच्च ब्रह्मात्मनि द्विधापि संस्कारो नेत्युक्तम् ।
इदानीं तस्मिन्गुणदोषयोरभावे मानमाह —

तथाचेति । मूर्तित्रयात्मना भेदं प्रत्याह — एक इति ।

यथाहुः – ‘हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ‘ इति अखण्डजाड्यं
व्यावर्तयति —

देव इति ।What is very interesting is that Anandagiri, while explaining the
word ‘EkaH’ in the mantra, raises an objection: Is not Brahman endowed with
threefold difference on the basis of the Trimurti-s? The word ‘Ekah’ is in
refutation of such a difference. Anandagiri cites a line: ‘One alone is
spoken of as many as Hari, Brahmaa and Pinaaki.’

We recognize this line to be from the Vartika of Sureshwaracharya on the
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya on the Antaryami Brahmanam.

यः पृथिव्यामितीशोऽसावन्तर्यामी जगद्गुरुः ।

हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ॥

[The Br.Up. ‘he who, stationed in the pṛthvī devatā impels the
mind-body-organs of that devatā….’ who is the antaryāmī, jagadguru, even
though one, is variously spoken of as Hari, Brahmā and Pinākī (Śiva).]

Anandagiri: कथं श्रुत्यवष्टम्भेन ईश्वरस्य कारणत्वं, मूर्तित्रयस्य इतिहासादौ
सर्गस्थितिलयेषु यथायोगं कर्तृत्वश्रुतेः, अत आह । यः पृथिव्यामिति । प्रकृतो
हि ईश्वरः स्वरूपेण एकोऽपि मूर्तित्रयात्मना बहुधा उच्यते पृथिव्यादौ तस्यैव
अन्तर्यामित्वेन स्थितिश्रुतेः, न च तद्विरोधे पुराणादिप्रामाण्यं
सापेक्षत्वेन दौर्बल्यादिति भावः । स पूर्वेषां गुरुरितिन्यायेन अन्तर्यामी
इत्यस्य व्याख्या जगद्गुरुरिति ।

Anandagiri says: How is it that while Isvara is the jagatkāraṇam according
to the Shruti, the itihāsa, etc. say that there is the causehood as
appropriately assigned to the trimūrti-s in creation, sustenance and
dissolution? [the idea is: while the shruti says Brahman, Ishvara, is the
jagatkāraṇam, we find the itihāsa, purāna, etc. distributing that to three
different entities functionally?] The above verse of Sureshvara is
answering this question: Even though Ishwara is one only, he is spoken of
as many, Hari, Brahmā, Pinākī. Why is it that Ishwara is admitted to be one
only? Since it is one Ishwara alone (not many) that is taught in the shruti
as the antaryāmin. If the purāṇa-s, etc. say something different (three
different individuals performing distinct functions), then since these
texts are dependent on the Shruti for their prāmāṇya, they do not enjoy the
status of the shruti; they are durbala, weak, only when they say something
contradictory to the Shruti. Since He, Ishwara, is the Guru of everyone
(including devatā-s) this antaryāmin, Ishwara, alone gets the epithet of
‘Jagadguru’.

So, the srishTyAdi kArya is happening through the three upadhis of the same
Ishwara.  In order to be in line with the Br.Up. Bhashya on Prajapati that
we have discussed, his having the capacity to create, sustain, destroy,
independently, we have to say that this one Prajapati alone does all the
three functions through those three upadhis. In that case the Trimurtis
will be non-diff from this Prathama shariri who is in turn 'under' the
Ishwara.. This, again is in tune with the many Puranic passages that I have
cited here:
https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2020/01/11/how-does-brahman-become-jagatkaaranam-shiva-and-vishnu-purana-non-difference/

Vishnu Purana and Shiva Purana both have this common idea: One
Vishnu/Janardana or One Rudra/Shiva takes the form of the Trimurtis based
on the Three gunas sattva, etc. for the three functions of creation, etc.
There is the Atharva Shikha Upanishad too which says: Brahma, Vishnu and
Rudra, Indra, etc. are born from Shambhu.  In all these cases we have a
Turiya Vishnu/Shiva from which the three murtis emerge.  This scheme is in
my view in tune with the Bhashya that we have discussed on the
Prathamaja/prathama shariri.  Here the Vishnu, Shiva of the Trimurtis will
be diff from the Vishnu / Shiva from which the trimurtis emerge.  About
Brahma too there can be a reconciliation based on a Shiva Purana and
Kalidasa's statement: In every Kalpa the Three will alternate to assume
superior-inferior bhaava among themselves.

warm regards

subbu




>
>>