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

[V Subrahmanian]

Thank you Venkat ji, for the explanation based on Achyutarai
Modak's commentary on the 10.2.  When one reads it, it is inevitable that
one gets the feeling that it is a very convoluted interpretation.  He
himself finds it so, it appears, when he gives that struggling vigraha for
that samasa, and saying 'vaktum shakyatvaaccha'.

 He first parses the samasa as viShNvaadi and makes it a plural विष्ण्वादयः
. And uttama to apply to Indra etc. exalted ones. Does he mean Vishnu, etc.
*Ishwaras* have 'entered' Indra, etc. exalted deities? When the previous
verse says 'Brahman entered' in singular, how will it align with the plural
Vishnu, etc. entered ...?  Who are meant by the 'Adi' after Vishnu?

The Ramakrishna commentary does not do all that.  It simply takes Vishnu,
etc. as signifying exalted bodies.  The Tamil translation of Jnanananda
Bharati Swamigal too says so. The Kalyanapiyusha commentary also says this
alone:

https://archive.org/details/Vedanta.Panchadasi.with.Kalyana.Piyusa.Vyakhya/page/n463/mode/2up

Also, the reading in the second line, last word, differs across the
commentaries: Modak takes it as 'Devataam' and explains: The one who has
entered in humans, etc.and worships (himself as) devatA.  In Ramakrishna's
reading, it is 'martyatAm', Brahman, having entered human, etc. bodies,
experiences itself as human. In this case, there requires an 'aadi' in the
martyatAm too since each jiva in every non-human animal, etc. body
experiences itself as that. Bhajati can mean 'experiences' and 'worships'.
In the Kalyanapiyusha the 'martyatAm 'is seen. In any case, there seems to
be difficulty if martyatAm is taken. Overall the verse poses difficulty.

I agree with the rest of your clarification regarding meditation, etc.
Thanks for that.

warm regards
subbu



On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:01 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji
>
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, 16:02 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Panchadashi:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Please see the attached TIkAs for this verse (10.2):
> विष्ण्वाद्युत्तमदेहेषु प्रविष्टः देवता भवेत्।
> मर्त्याद्यधमदेहेषु स्थितो भजति मर्त्यताम्॥
>
> After considering the possibility of the word viShNu in this verse to mean
> a jIva,  the TikAkAra of the panchadashi rejects that view by establishing
> that the viShNu spoken of here is Ishvara only.
>
> Please note the sentence below in the panchadashI TIkA pages attached
> which interprets the samAsa विष्ण्वाद्युत्तमदेहेषु occuring in the verse -
> तथाच *विष्ण्वादयः* = श्रुत्यादिप्रसिद्धाः सर्वेऽपि परमेश्वरलीलाविग्रहा‌
> *उत्तमाः* = सर्वोत्कटा येषामिन्द्रादीनां जीवानां व्यष्ट्यात्मकत्वेन
> प्रसिद्धानां तेषां ये देहा वज्रहस्तः पुरन्दर इत्यादिश्रुत्यादिप्रसिद्धाः
> काया*स्तेष्वि*ति विग्रहस्यैव स्वारसिकत्वेनाऽऽचार्यविवक्षितमवश्यं वाच्यम्
> ।
>
> That is, the TIkAkAra interprets the term विष्ण्वाद्युत्तमदेहेषु to mean
> Vishnu etc enters the superior bodies to become the devatAs such as Indra -
> and not Brahman enters superior bodies such as Vishnu. It is only the
> latter interpretation which you may be making that supports the view that
> Vishnu is a jIva.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> From the above it looks like one 'attains' Vishnuhood by meditation,
>> which, however, is not absolute; it ceases when the effect of dhyana
>> ceases. But not so with regard to Nirguna Brahman.
>>
>
> See the TIkA for these two verses, attached. The panchadashIkAra is not
> saying that Vishnuhood is attained by meditation. Rather, he is saying that
> the Vishnuhood so assumed is not real. यथा स्वस्मिन् ध्यानेन संपादितस्य
> विष्णुत्वादेः पारमार्थिकत्वं नास्ति।
>
> In an ahamgraha upAsana, one takes oneself to be viShNu - and that state
> lasts for so long as the upAsana lasts. This does not mean that one attains
> vishNutva, whereas the brahmatva that one attains by jnAna does not so
> disappear because it is not an unreal assumption made for the sake of
> upAsana and lasts as long as the dhyAna vRtti lasts. Rather, that is the
> actual nature of the jnAni. That is why the next verse says:
> ध्यानोपादानकं यत्तद्ध्यानाभावे विलीयते ।
> वास्तवी ब्रह्मता नैव ज्ञानाभावे विलीयते॥
> The status of vishNutA that one attains in upAsana disappears once the
> dhyAnavRtti ends, whereas the real brahmatA does not disappear when the
> jnAnavRtti ends.
>
> This is a viparIta dRShTAnta that shows the difference between dhyAna and
> jnAna and only works if vishNutA is the same as / close to brahmatA. A
> viparIta dRShTAnta needs a common basis. The dArShTAnta is brahmatA and
> dRShTAnta is viShNutA. As this is a viparIta dRShTAnta, it can only work if
> there is a common basis between viShNutA and brahmatA. He is showing the
> difference between jnAna and dhyAna by showing how they differ with respect
> to the same / similar attained status.
>
> For example - If one wants to show the difference between understanding
> and rote memory, we will use a common basis to compare the two - we will
> say something like: it is better to understand a particular physics concept
> rather than simply memorise it, because even if one forgets it, one can
> always work it out. Whereas if you simply memorise that concept without any
> understanding, if you forget it, it is lost.  If we instead use a physics
> concept in the case of understanding and a poem in the case of memory, the
> comparison between understanding and memory wouldn't really stand out.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> --
>
>