[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Fwd: Brahman has no default form; Only contextual form - Varaha Purana

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, but it appears to me that a
mAyAmaya sharIra can also be pratyaksha yogya, if Ishvara so wishes - this
pratyaksha yogyatva need not be limited to being an object of the
instrument of sight, it may be extended to the other four organs of
perception too. Therefore, it is possible for the devotee to touch
Ishvara's feet even if they are not bhautika.

The intent with saying that the body is mAyAmaya sharIra is not that the
vision of the Ishvara is merely a mental / subjective vision of the upAsaka
- rather that the body that Ishvara takes up then is made up of mAyA, and
therefore is not subject to the physical / biological restrictions of a
bhautika sharIra.

There are several examples that come up in advaita sharada of this idea:

1) Anandagiri gItAbhAShya upodghAta अंशेनेति । स्वेच्छानिर्मितेन मायामयेन
स्वरूपेणेत्यर्थः ।
2) Anandagiri gItAbhAShya TIkA: 4.2
यथा लोके कश्चिज्जातो देहवानालक्ष्यते, एवमहमपि मायामाश्रित्यत्या स्ववशया
सम्भवामि - जन्मव्यवहारमनुभवामि, तेन मायामयमीश्वरस्य जन्मेत्याह - तां
प्रकृतिमित्यादिना ।
3) Anandagiri gItAbhAShya TIkA: 4.9
मायामयमीश्वरस्य जन्म, न वास्तवं, तस्यैव च जगत्परिपालनं कर्म, नान्यस्य, इति
जानतः श्रेयोऽवाप्तिन्दर्शयन् , विपक्षे प्रत्यवायं सूचयति - तज्जन्मेत्यादिना
।
4) appayya dIkshitendra, nyAyarakshAmaNi 1.1.20
रूपवत्त्वञ्च ब्रह्मणोऽपि सम्भवति; सत्यस्य रूपस्य नीरूपशास्त्रविरोधित्वेऽपि
मायामयस्य तदविरोधित्वात् । ब्रह्मणि च रूपस्य ‘माया ह्येषा मया सृष्टा यन्मां
पश्यसि नारद’ इति वचनानुसारेण मायामयस्यैवाङ्गीकारात् । न च
तद्बोधकवचनानामप्रामाण्यप्रसङ्गः ; मायाविदर्शितमायादृष्ट्यनुवादवत्
प्रामाण्योपपत्तेः । इह च ‘हिरण्मयः पुरुषो दृश्यते’ ‘यन्मां पश्यसि’ इत्यादौ
तथैव दृष्ट्यनुवाददर्शनाच्च । आरम्भणाधिकरणे व्युत्पादयिष्यमाणेन न्यायेन
शरीरेऽपि व्यावहारिकप्रामाण्योपपत्तेश्च । न च शरीरं कर्मजन्यमेवेति नियमः ;
इह अनन्यथासिद्धलिङ्गावगमितस्य परमेश्वरस्य शरीरसिद्धौ ‘रमणीयचरणा रमणीयां
योनिमापद्येरन्’ ‘कपूयचरणाः कपूयां योनिमापद्येरन्’(छा. ५.१०. ७)
इत्यादिश्रुतीनामनीश्वरशरीरविषयत्वकल्पनोपपत्तेः । न च सर्वपाप्मोदयश्रुतौ
फलमिव, शरीरं कर्मजन्यमिति श्रुतावपि शरीरत्वावच्छेदेन कर्मजन्यत्वे
लाघवमित्युपपत्तिस्तात्पर्यलिङ्गमस्तीति तदनुरोधेनैतत्सङ्कोचकल्पनं न
युक्तमिति वाच्यम् । श्रुतिदर्शितफलात्
पुरुषबुद्धिकल्प्योपपत्तेर्दुर्बलत्वात् । एतेन – परमेश्वरस्य शरीराङ्गीकारे
दुःखमपि स्यात् ; ‘न ह वै सशरीरस्य सतः प्रियाप्रिययोरपहतिरस्ति’(छा. ८. १२.
१) इति श्रुतेः – इति निरस्तम् । पुण्यपापफलोपभोगार्थकर्मसंपादितस्यैव शरीरस्य
तया श्रुत्या दुःखाविनाभावप्रतिपादनात् ।
परमेश्वरेणोपासकानुग्रहार्थमिच्छापरिगृहीते शरीरे तदप्रसक्तेः ।

What about Anandagiri AchArya in his TIkA to mANDUkya indicatinh that
avatAra sharIra can be pAncabhautika? See the context below:
मूर्तस्त्रिशूलादिधारी महेश्वरश्चक्रधारी वा परमार्थो भवतीत्यागमिकाः । तदपि
भ्रान्तिमात्रम्। अस्मदादिशरीरवत् तस्यापि शरीरस्य पाञ्चभौतिकत्वात्।
Here he does admit that Ishvara's body is pAncabhautika, but his intent is
to say that the body is not real (paramArtha), so make of it as you will.

In any case, I think it can be argued either way, and I don't have strong
views on the matter. Presenting both sides of the case - each side can pick
whichever argument appeals to them.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan




On Tue, 28 Feb 2023, 17:59 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Venkat ji,
>
> Thanks for sharing the Vichara sagara pages on the topic.  Upon reading
> this, a question arises:
>
> The author has said: the bodies of avatara purushas like Rama and Krishna
> are not bhautika.  They did generate sukha (to the punyavaan jivas) and
> duhkha (to the papavaan jivas).  Yet, the very avatara bodies are
> themselves not a product of punya or otherwise of Rama and Krishna; the
> jivas' punya/papa alone is the cause of the sukha, etc.
>
> My question is:  In the 13th chapter of the BG, kshetram (prakriti) is
> defined as:
>
> महाभूतान्यहङ्कारो बुद्धिरव्यक्तमेव च ।
> इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः ॥ ५ ॥
> इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं सङ्घातश्चेतना धृतिः ।
> एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम् ॥ ६ ॥
>
> Here kshetram is all that is observed, experienced. This consists of the
> pancha koshas (including the sense/action organs, manas, buddhi, prana,
> sthula shariram, ahankara) and the outside world of shabda, sparsha, etc.
> Also, the reactions that the contact of the sense/action organs with the
> outside world of sound, etc. These reactions are stated to be sukha,
> duhkha, etc. All of this is together called kshetram: prakriti and its
> parinaama-s. Kshetrajna, the pure Consciousness is the 'other', distinct
> from kshetram.
>
> Now, if the avatara bodies of Rama and Krishna generates sukha/duhkha to
> the ones who saw them during those avataras, there was essentially contact
> of the sense..organs of the jivas with those avatara bodies. The gopis had
> the sparsha anubhava. So many in those avataras had sparsha anubhava of the
> avatara bodies. The bodies then will have to come under shabda, sparsha,
> etc. Taking the 13th chapter specification of the kshetram, the avatara
> bodies will have to be admitted to be products of prakriti. Only murta
> dravyam can be vishaya for chakshus, sparsha, etc.
>
> In the case of bhaktas who experience the divine bodies of Rama, etc. long
> after the avataras have ended their earthly role, the manasa pratyaksha
> generates sukha. But even manasa must depend on aindriya anubhava had
> before. In this case, the bhakta has seen/read the puranas account of the
> rupam of the Lord and that input helps the mano vrittis. Bhaktas have even
> visions of the Lord, speak with Him, hug, etc. This is not purely mental;
> they see the divine form in front of them, touch, etc. HH Sri Abhinava
> Vidyatirtha Swamigal's savikalpa samadhi, etc. anubhavas have been
> documented. He leaned forward and touched the feet of Ambal during one such
> vision. All these must happen with some material dravya, even if the vision
> is subjective. Acharyal has said: if the Lord, during such a vision, had
> given a fruit or any other object, that will remain even after the vision
> ceases and shall be a proof of the vision.  Such fruit necessarily is
> bhautika.
>
> In the light of the above, how do we reconcile the Vichara sagara opinion
> with the kshetram definition? I am only seeking to get clarification.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 7:12 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Raghav ji,
>>
>> Please find attached an interesting discussion in the Sanskrit Vichara
>> Sagara on the untenability of avatAra sharIra to be bhautika.
>> As its a file attachment, it will be rejected by the advaita-l server,
>> others can view it by seeing the corresponding message in the advaitin
>> google groups: https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkataraghavan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te37dKWa6-0-%2BotOtiaMTKk8DTeRYdAtxOgPbdQWMEVF%3DA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te37dKWa6-0-%2BotOtiaMTKk8DTeRYdAtxOgPbdQWMEVF%3DA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>