[Advaita-l] A 'new' light on the Trimurtis' advent

[V Subrahmanian]

Generally people think that: Vishnu was already there and Brahma and Rudra
arise later without having been in the beginning. By that, both of them are
considered to be in the Jiva category.
But from this following statement of Atri Maharishi in the Bhagavatam we
know that this idea is not based on firm foundation:
श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः ४/अध्यायः १
https://sa.wikisource.org/s/ats
<https://sa.wikisource.org/s/ats?fbclid=IwAR0cz8hEFNf3zO-tN9naWn-FdhUAzODKD6Y5gmX1l9VP9ZvPwSJU9ihrj3Y>
अत्रिरुवाच -
विश्वोद्भवस्थितिलयेषु विभज्यमानैः
मायागुणैरनुयुगं विगृहीतदेहाः ।
ते ब्रह्मविष्णुगिरिशाः प्रणतोऽस्म्यहं वः
तेभ्यः क एव भवतां मे इहोपहूतः ॥ २७ ॥
When Atri Maharishi prays to the Supreme Cause, Jagatkarana, to bless him
with a child, the Trimurthys together appear before him. Then what Atri
Maharshi says about those three is as follows:
That you, Brahma, Vishnu and Girisha, incarnate in every yuga for the
maintenance of world's creation, stay and destruction by taking upon of the
sattva, rajas and tamo gunas of Maya.
From this we know that the Trimurthys incarnate in every yuga to perform
these three great functions. So the idea that Vishnu was already there and
Brahma and Rudra were born later is not true.
There is a mantra in Mahopanishad:
एको ह वै नारायण आसीत्। न ब्रह्मा न ईशानो ..
There was only Narayana, no Brahma and no Shiva...
Without knowing the true purport of this, some people are delusional that
only Narayana is Parabrahma and Brahma and Rudras are Jivas.
But from this clear statement in the Atharvashikha Upanishad –
'सर्वमिदं ब्रह्मविष्णुरुद्रेन्द्रास्ते सम्प्रसूयन्ते सर्वाणि चेन्द्रियाणि
सह भूतैः..'
https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc.../atharvashikha.html
<https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsanskritdocuments.org%2Fdoc_upanishhat%2Fatharvashikha.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3AmZMtwD087dafCb5mR6_JX30nIoUwg42t0bo3J0rCR625ogJORClrBGU&h=AT0wK1apMSaddFbwVsu8LBfEhSEOFIjw56AzbIemMj49us7gQPYLKZRsr87KUwkLZdKVp6utGWDgpzqY-DdGgCabaQWuzyNJFAM6CU1-c8S3rmzEfdWYr5Kkft7vCzNmCiY&__tn__=-UK-R&c[0]=AT2wx_NODGqZCNhyBCT8chk2PtvsyMWWvviTA4nFwDfGBf3xO6THy8fQG1DY_9ZjGVYmbLvAG6-ax224cLd12UF715guPRU2tmFuoLlZBGIB7VD_yFQTjcVOzwm3ZxGuIDis0-pob2NO9otryOp4k6NabhClN0Wy_r4-XEAF1pOlZmMRsu3ljGIlgyotDAx-0BWH3HQIx5nwmw>
we get rid of that illusion: from 'Shambhu' the trinity is born. 'Birth'
here means 'incarnating' as Atri Maharshi said, by taking on the three
guna-s.
The Vishnu Purana is clear in this regard:
जुषन् रजो गुणं तत्र स्वयं विश्वेश्वरो हरिः ।
ब्रह्माभूत्वास्य जगतो विसृष्टौ संप्रवर्तते ॥ १,२.६१ ॥
सृष्टं च पात्यनुयुगं यावत्कल्पविकल्पना ।
Here the word 'anuyugam' corresponds to the word 'anuyugam' in the
Bhagavatam.
सत्त्वभृद्भगवान्विष्णुरप्रमेयपराक्रमः ॥ १,२.६२ ॥
तमोद्रेकी च कल्पान्ते रुद्ररूपी जर्नादनः ।
मैत्रेयाखिलभूतानि भक्षयत्यतिदारूणः ॥ १,२.६३ ॥
भक्षयित्वा च भूतानि जगत्येकार्णवीकृते ।
नागपर्यङ्कशयने शेते च परमेश्वरः ॥ १,२.६४ ॥
So it is unscriptural to separate Brahma and Rudra from Vishnu and say
'these two are Jivas'. The Shastra accords the same status to all the
Three. The same Parabrahman takes these three forms to perform functions
like creation depending on the three qualities of Prakriti. This is the
truth.
Wherever sentences occur contrary to the above, they should be treated as
inconclusive. The statement of Atri Maharshi should be seen as superseding
them. Only if this is done, the words of Veda and Veda Vyasa will become
aligned with each other. And the error of self-contradiction would not
occur.

Om Tat Sat