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

[Kaushik Chevendra]

> 2. *Entering the superior bodies like that of Vishnu, He became the
> deities*;
> and remaining in the inferior bodies like that of men He worships the
> deities.  Panchadashi 1
>

There is no entering of isvara in anything. He is what is present
everywhere. It's the nirguna brahman which is the akaryha chaitanyam
present in all.

>
> Here the Brahman/Ishwara that is the jagatkAraNam is stated to have entered
> bodies like that of Vishnu that are created. The subject-object difference
> is there.
>
Verily because the nirguna brahman is above the Maya affected jagat of
which isvara is suprems.

>
> उपासकस्तु सततं ध्यायन्नेव वसेदिति ।
> *ध्यानेनैव कृतं तस्य ब्रह्मत्वं विष्णुतादिवत् ॥ * Panchadashi 9.116
>
> 116. On the other hand, a meditator should always engage himself in
> meditation, for through meditation his feeling of identity with Brahman
> arises, as a devotee has it by meditating on Vishnu.
>

There is a variant translation and the commentary provided to it  doesn't
say this rather it says " A meditator should always engage in devotional
services to keep up the notion that he is brahman or Vishnu". It's being
used synonymously as the commentator explained.

>
> 117. The feeling of identity, which is the effect of meditation, ceases
> when the practice is given up; but the true Brahmanhood does not vanish
> even in the absence of knowledge.
>
Here the commentator explains that the identity of oneself with Vasudeva or
Vishnu end after the devotional service is done. But not so in the case
with the nirguna brahman.

>
> From the above it looks like one 'attains' Vishnuhood by meditation, which,
> however, is not absolute;


The same "vishnuhood" is repeatedly explained by Shankaracharya in his
bhasyas as mukthi. Infact he says that there is nothing greater to achive
than the state of Vishnu.

it ceases when the effect of dhyana ceases. But
> not so with regard to Nirguna Brahman.
>
> This I think can be mapped with the PrajApatitva/Hiranyagarbhatva that one
> attains through meditation/jnanakarma samucchaya.
>

Again no. Cause it is starkly going against the shankara bhasya. Even if
the panchadasi might indicate so, the stapakacharya bhasya has more pramana
here. As he is lord Shiva himself.

If one wants to ignore the numerous statments of shankaracharya regarding
"vishnuhood" it's a personal choice

>
> Here Vidyaranya seems to make a difference between the deity Vishnu and
> Brahman. The rule 'tam yathAyathOpAsatE...
>

Shankaracharya on the other hand doesn't do so. He uses "narayana"
"Vasudeva( vasudevas son) "krishna" and "purushottam" "janardana " as
non-different from Brahman.

One can argue that it's not chaturbhuj Vishnu etc etc. But numerous
statments from gita bhasya take away such claims.

>
> Turiya Vishnu/Shiva could very well be meditated upon by holding the
> generally attributed sthiti/laya kartrutva as aupaadhika and not svAbhAvika
> to that Vishnu/Shiva which is the ultimate JagatkAraNam saguNa vastu.


> The idea of Turiya Shiva is apparently highlighted for the first time by
> Sri Appayya Dikshitar, based on the shruti and purana vakyas, and this is
> severely criticized by Madhwas like Vijayendra Tirtha, his contemporary. By
> that they feared that the taratamya they hold between Shiva and Vishnu is
> sought to be obliterated and hence the criticism.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Venkatraghavan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>