[Advaita-l] 'Prana' as Brahman

[Kaushik Chevendra]

In the Kenopanishad 1.5 bhashyam Shankara has said:
>
> तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति, न
> त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात्
>
> Atma being a samsari, indeed is someone who is fit to perform karma or
> upasana and wishes to attain to the state of gods or heaven. Therefore the
> upaasya is different such as Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra or Prana could be
> Brahman but not the Atma who is only upasaka, since holding the upasaka and
> upasya as non-different contradicts what practice prevails in the world.


Here it's "vishnorisvara" which is Vishnu who is isvara. Not Vishnu and
isvara. Because if you are interpreting "vishnoranantha" in the mundaka
upanishad bhasya as Vishnu who is called anantha then why is the
"vishnorisvara" being split here?

There is a stuti by all the sense and action organs addressed to Prana,
> whom  they all accept as their 'leader':
>
> इन्द्रस्त्वं प्राण तेजसा रुद्रोऽसि परिरक्षिता ।
> त्वमन्तरिक्षे चरसि सूर्यस्त्वं ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥ ९ ॥
>  किञ्च, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, तेजसा वीर्येण रुद्रोऽसि संहरन्
> जगत् । स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः
> सौम्येन रूपेण । त्वम् अन्तरिक्षे अजस्रं चरसि उदयास्तमयाभ्यां सूर्यः त्वमेव
> च सर्वेषां ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥
>
> You are Parameshwara (not Shiva here), O Prana, by your veerya you destroy
> the creation as Rudra, in sustaining, you are (Vishnu as clarified by
> Anandagiri in the gloss) in soumya, benign, form.  (the malign form is
> Rudra, as stated in the mantra itself. The benign form, is not named,
> though, but supplied owing to its obvious nature: Vishnu). You are Surya,
> etc.
> Further the stuti goes on to give all the Ishwara lakshanas (lingas) that
> we can easily grasp from the mantras and the Bhashyas:
>

The word Vishnu is not mentioned here actually. The tika to it gives the
name Vishnu. But in either case here "prana" is identified with isvara and
the supreme being. Just as we see such superimposition in surya worship we
find that here as well.


>
> Shankara calls this Prana, Prathamaja, the term used in the Brihadaranyaka
> bhashya on Prajapati who attained that status through sadhana.
> Shankara identifies prathaja with prajapati, hiranyagarbha,
> prathamashariri...
>

Shankaracharya has identified this prana not only with prathamaja. He is
identifying prana here with isvara who is non-different from the universe.
Hence 'prana' is being praised as the creator, sustenanor etc.
There is no emphasis on prathamaja here.

या प्रथमजस्य हिरण्यगर्भस्य बुद्धिः, BSB 1.4.1
>  मृत्युश्च अशनायालक्षणो बुद्ध्यात्मा समष्टिः प्रथमजः वायुः सूत्रं सत्यं
> हिरण्यगर्भः  Brihadaranyaka bhashya
> प्रथमजं प्रथमजातम् , सर्वस्मात्संसारिण एतदेवाग्रे जातं ब्रह्म अतः प्रथमजम्


>
> In this context we can recall Shankara holding Vishnu to be this prathama
> shariri in the Mundakopanishad 2.1.4:
> यस्य च पद्भ्यां जाता पृथिवी, एष देवो विष्णुरनन्तः प्रथमशरीरी
> त्रैलोक्यदेहोपाधिः सर्वेषां भूतानामन्तरात्मा ।
> From the 'from whose feet Prithvi, earth, was born' we can identify this
> with 'padbhyaam bhUmiH' of the Purusha suktam. The prathama shariri,
> Hiranyagarbha, epithet Shankara gives for Vishnu here is noteworthy.
>

Not really. Here the words "vishnoranantha" are taken to be adjectives of
being all-pervading and without end. Infact many translations do as such.
Also the gudartha Deepika clearly differentiates between virat and Vishnu's
form. Check the 4.6 verse it gives a very strong reasoning.

Hiranyagarbha is the one from whom all devatas emerge.
> So, there seems to be a pattern across the Bhashya:
> The saguna brahman is prathamaja, mahat, prathama shariri, Vishnu,
> Hiranyagarbha, Prana, Rudra, etc. as borne out by the Prashnopanishat and
> many other references.  If one digs deeper many may surface


>
> Yes. If we choose to ignore the direct statments of acharya made
everywhere of isvara being nityamuktha etc and try to grasp on straws, we
can find so.

>
> Now (again) the question: If prathamaja, prathamashariri, is a post
> attained by jnana karma samucchaya sadhana as established in the
> Brihadaranyaka bhashya that we discussed recently, are all the deities
> Vishnu, Rudra, Brahma (creator) who are also mentioned above in various
> bhashyas, non-different or synonymous with the Prathamaja?
>
As answered before the answer is no. Because verily there are statments
where the oneness of the devatas and isvara is made. But you are ignoring
the statments that bring about the difference between them.
Because the statments of gita bhasya are not enough here are instances from
BSB bhasya 1.1.20-.
"Now, entire freedom from sin is attributed in Scripture to the highest
Self only; so, for instance (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1), 'The Self which is free
from sin,' &c. Then, again, there is the passage, 'He is Ṛk, he is Sāman,
Uktha, Yajus, Brahman,' which declares the person in the eye to be the Self
of the Ṛk, Sāman, and so on; which is possible only if that person is the
Lord who, as being the cause of all, is to be considered as the Self of
all. "

From here we can see that the highest lord declared as the self of all
beings is free from sin and is completely independent. Now the self of all
beings has been identified numerous times as the krishna in the gita
bhasya. I hope i don't need to quote them.
Now acharya continues to say what form is taken-
"we reply that the highest Lord also may, when he pleases, assume a bodily
shape formed of Māyā, in order to gratify thereby his devout worshippers.
Thus Smṛti also says, 'That thou seest me, O Nārada, is the Māyā emitted by
me; do not then look on me as endowed with the qualities of all beings.'"

The statment that acharya quoted is Vishnu's statment to Narada Maharshi.
So it's very clear that the highest lord is free from sin and karma. He has
also taken the form of Vishnu as quoted by acharya.
So it's pretty direct and also well established from gita bhasya and the
BSB bhasya that the roopa of Vishnu is ichavasat roopa of isvara and not a
karma phala.

Here are more instances where isvara is differentiated from hiranyagarbha
in the basb itself -


   1. Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1.1.20
   2. Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 1.1.4
   3. Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 1.3.30

So now I have few questions if you wish to say that Vishnu/Shiva is jeeva-

1)  Why does Acharya say Vishnu is nitya muktha, aja(unborn) if he was a
jeeva in his previous birth?
2) If his form is a karma phala then why does Acharya say that the supreme
lord  who is sinless takes a form to grace his devotees? And what's the use
of the word ichavasat?
3) In the bsb bhasya where badarayana says that the jeevas are eternal
parts of isvara acharya quotes the gita statment of krishna "the jeevas are
an eternal part of me". Surely if acharya thought Vishnu was a jeeva he
wouldn't quote this verse.
4) In the BSB bhasya acharya says that the Aishwarya of devatas including
hiranyagarbha, surya belongs to isvara. And in the case of Vishnu he says
bhagavan is eternally possessing jnanaishwarya. How should we understand
this?

Verily acharya himself cannot be confused regarding the status of Vishnu?
The gita bhasya itself of acharya is enough to prove that Vishnu isn't a
jeeva. But if one chooses to ignore all such statements and pick up the
ones holding identity only, it becomes similar to the vaishnava way of
interpretation where only the verses agreeing with their view is taken and
remaining is thrown away.

While interpreting any statment it should be done so that its not in
contradiction with the other statments of acharya. If a single verse of
line is taken and the numerous direct statments are ignored verily it's not
a right way of interpretation.


Namo narayana





Om Tat Sat
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>