[Advaita-l] 'Prana' as Brahman

[Kaushik Chevendra]

Namaste

There is no reason to restrict it to 3 deities as it is extremely popular
> that Shiva (Ishwara) is also meditated upon by upasakas, just as Vishnu is
> and as Prana is (in Prana vidya, a sagunopasana). Why should the
> Bhashyakara leave out Shiva and include Prana and Indra? Also, there is no
> need to give an adjective only to Vishnu and deny that to the others.
> Shankara says there: These deities can be Brahman but not the upasaka (who
> is always different from the upasya).  This mantra is there to teach that
> the Upanishadic Brahman is not something that is meditated upon as
> 'something different from the upasaka'.  Hence Shankara has proposed a case
> where there is clear difference in the upasana of various deities.. He says
> there: तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म
> भवितुमर्हति, न त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात् । There is no need to say
> Vishnu who is Ishwara is Brahman since the adjective here 'Ishwara' itself
> means Brahman. So the meaning there is Vishnu is Brahman, Ishwara (Shiva -
> In Kenopanishat bhashya Shankara refers to Shiva as 'sarvajna Ishwara') is
> Brahman, Indra is Brahman and Prana is Brahman.
>
>> Thats is no problem. It's just a suggestion that i have given it can also
be taken as vishnorisvara and there won't be a grammatical error.


> Dear Kaushik, I have not 'decided' Vishnu is a jeeva.
>

If that's the case there is no problem sir. But the way you have been
interpreting the verses seem to be with that in mind. Hence that statment.

The question is with respect to the status of Shiva too in the light of the
> Prashnopanishat mantra and the bhashyam. It says: Prana 'as' Rudra
> dissolves, 'as' .....sustains and goes on to say Prana is Surya, etc.  It
> is something like a Vishvarupa description of Prana in all those mantras
> there. While the Bh.Gita Vishvarupa has everyone else 'within' Bhagavan,
> here everything, including Rudra and Vishnu, is 'within' Prana.  And
> Shankara says clearly there: this Prana is prathamaja.  (And the
> Brihadaranyaka Bhashya about Prajapati who has attained that status through
> sadhana is stated to have independent capacity to create, sustain, etc. by
> Shankara.)
>

Here the devatas are making a stuti of prana being identified as supreme
isvara. We see these type of incidents,stuthis in other puranas as well.
Where the devatas , Munis etc praise a particular devata as supreme ruler
and cause of all. Verily all those prayers are to the antraymin isvara. Who
is the sustatiner, etc. Hence we have such statments of prana being
identified as the supreme Brahaman.
But as a devata that's is not the case. Why? In the BSB bhasya acharya
makes it very clear that the Aishwarya of all devatas starting from
prajapati is not their own. As cited by me earlier only the supreme lord is
independent in this case. And acharya also quoted what form he has taken.

Also the brihadaranyaka passages of brahma's independency has been
discussed before.


>
> The questions have a bearing on the saguna brahma upasana, brahma loka,
> krama mukti, etc. How can a Shiva or Vishnu upasaka be in Brahma loka and
> get sayujya with Brahmaa (instead of with Vishnu or Shiva or any other)?
>
The shankara bhasya doesn't give much of an explanation here. But the later
commentators such as madhusudana Saraswati, the Puri peetha acharyas etc
have given an explanation for this.

It's understood that there are various divisions of brahmaloka. And few who
go there come back and few attain mukthi. For this the explanation has been
given that those who go through bakthi attain lokas such vaikuntha, kailasa
etc where they attain saujya with isvara. There are other vidyas which lead
to brahmaloka, where brahma is the head and they attain saujya with him.



It is very clearly stated in the BSB end that this Brahmaa, the head of
> that loka, will also get videha mukti when that loka perishes.
>
This is true in the case of brahma alone. Because isvara is nitya muktha
(gita bhasya). So we can understand that brahmas term ends and he attains
mukthi. This is also explained in the BSB bhasya.

  Then what will happen to the Vishnu or Shiva who are also there, if their
> presence there and sayujya with them is admitted?
>

What happens to krishna when he left his body? Or Rama when he lefts his
body? The lord takes back his form that's all. He isn't subject to pralaya
(gudartha Deepika, shankara gita bhasya, BSB bhasya)

>
> It is necessary that these questions are answered.  If no one comes
> forward to answer these but want to avoid these just because they appear
> inconvenient, there will be no room for vichara.
>

> Very true. I apologise for my previous comments.

Namo narayana

>
> regards
> subbu
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>