[Advaita-l] Fwd: Shankara admits Vishnu and other deities as upasya in images

[V Subrahmanian]

Re-posting this in view of the current discussion on
'Shanmata/Panchayatana' in Advaita.

regards
subbu

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 5:41 PM
Subject: Shankara admits Vishnu and other deities as upasya in images
To: Advaitin <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>


Shankara admits Vishnu and *other deities* as upasya in images

The teaching of Nirguna Brahman comes along with the aids to realize it.
The Upanishads teach various upasanas, with the help of which one can
proceed to attain the Nirguna Brahma Jnanam. These upasanas are based on
some or the other 'object' - called prateeka-s. These could be one or the
other cosmic entities like the sun, fire presiding in a particular locus,
etc. or other conceived objects like the Omkara, a name, etc. While talking
of these things, in the Bhashyas, Shankara makes a comparison with
meditating upon deities in images.  Thus, we have, in the Shankara
bhashyas, the mention of / treatment of both prateeka-s and pratima-s
sometimes together or sometimes separately.  In any case, it is very clear
that he accords the same status to these two aids: prateeka and pratima.
This passage from the BSB 4.1.5 has both prateeka and pratima
together:    ईदृशं
च अत्र ब्रह्मण उपास्यत्वम् , यत्प्रतीकेषु तद्दृष्ट्यध्यारोपणम् —
प्रतिमादिष्विव विष्ण्वादीनाम् ॥ ५ ॥  [Just as one 'superimposes' the idea
of Vishnu, etc. in images, etc. one 'superimposes' the idea of Brahman in
the prateeka-s. ]


In the Prasthana traya Bhashya we usually find expressions such as:

Chandogya 6.16.3
 यथा च लोके प्रतिमादिषु विष्ण्वादिबुद्धिः,

Looking upon the image, etc. as Vishnu, etc...[In this statement one might
say that the word 'pratima' is restrictive singular and the word 'aadi' is
to mean other types of representations of Brahman such as cosmic entities
like Sun, Fire, and names such as Omkara which all come under the group
'prateeka'.  And the word 'Vishnu' is also restrictive to that deity alone
and the word 'aadi' can mean some other non-deity entities such as
Brahman.  In other words, the one-to-one matching can be restricted to
pratima = Vishnu and 'aadi' in both the sides of the equation to non-image
and non-deity entities. ]

BSB 4.1.3     प्रतिमादिष्विव विष्ण्वादिदर्शनम्    [ same as above..]

However, in these following, perhaps, unique passages, Shankara gives us
the unmistakable impression that he is admitting of deities other than
Vishnu for meditation/worship in images:

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् प्रथमोऽध्यायः तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र १ - भाष्यम्
प्रतिमाब्राह्मणादिषु विष्ण्वादिदेवपित्रादिदृष्टीनां   [Meditating in image,
brahmana, etc. of Vishnu, etc. deities, pitrus, etc. ..]

Swami Madhavananda's translation: This also proves that viewing an image as
Vishnu and other gods, and a Brahmana as the manes and so forth has a basis
in reality.



बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्पञ्चमोऽध्यायःप्रथमं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र १ - भाष्यम्

………। तच्च द्विप्रकारेण, प्रतीकत्वेन अभिधानत्वेन च । प्रतीकत्वेन — यथा
*विष्ण्वादिप्रतिमा* अभेदेन, एवम् ओङ्कारः ब्रह्मेति प्रतिपत्तव्यः । तथा
ह्योङ्कारालम्बनस्य ब्रह्म प्रसीदति, ‘एतदालम्बनं श्रेष्ठमेतदालम्बनं परम् ।
एतदालम्बनं ज्ञात्वा ब्रह्मलोके महीयते’ (क. उ. १ । २ । १७)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Kathaka?page=1&id=Ka_C01_S02_V17&hl=%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%C2%A0%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9E%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87>
 इति श्रुतेः ॥

Swami Madhavananda's translation:  [ ...It is so in two ways: as a symbol
and as a name. As a symbol: Just as the image of Vishnu or any other god is
regarded as identical with that god (for purposes of worship), so is Om to
be treated as Brahman. (Why?) Because Brahman is pleased with one who uses
Om as an aid: for the Shruti says: 'This is the best help and the highest.
Knowing this help one is glorified in the world of Brahman.'Kathopanishat
2.17]


प्रश्नोपनिषद्भाष्यम् 5.2

तस्मै स होवाच । एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोङ्कारः ।
तस्माद्विद्वानेतेनैवायतनेनैकतरमन्वेति ॥ २ ॥

[O Satyakama, this very Brahman, that is (known as) the inferior and
superior, is but this Om. Therefore the illumined soul attains either of
the two through this one means alone.]  The relevant portion of the bhashya
is:

शब्दाद्युपलक्षणानर्हं सर्वधर्मविशेषवर्जितम् , अतो न
शक्यमतीन्द्रियगोचरत्वात्केवलेन मनसावगाहितुम् । ओङ्कारे तु
विष्ण्वादिप्रतिमास्थानीये भक्त्यावेशित- ब्रह्मभावे ध्यायिनां
तत्प्रसीदतीत्यवगम्यते शास्त्रप्रामाण्यात् ।

The above Prashnopanishad Bhashya expression is the completely unmistakable
one, free of any ambiguity whatsoever.

The context is this: Since Brahman (nirgunam) is beyond being indicated by
words, etc. and completely devoid of all attributes, hence, it is
impossible to know it / realize it through the mind alone as it (Brahman)
is beyond the ken of the senses. However, when one resorts to Omkara, just
as one would resort to an image to meditate upon Vishnu, etc, by looking
upon it as Brahman, the deity is pleased with the devotee.  This is known
through the shaastra pramana.

Says Swami Gambhirananda in the translation: ... But to those who meditate
on Om, which is comparable to the images of Vishnu and others and on which
is fixed the idea of Brahman with devotion, that Brahman becomes favorable
(and reveals Itself). This is understood on the authority of scriptures.
Similar is the case with the inferior Brahman.  Anandagiri too emphasizes
the 'shaastra pramaana' part thus. That by meditating upon a deity in an
image results in that deity being pleased is known through the shaastra
pramana. Otherwise the prescribing such means of attaining the para brahman
through such upasana in the shaastra would be without any purpose.

One can see the consistency in Shankara's bhashyam across the three
instances - two from the Brihadaranyaka  and one from the Prashna
Upanishad. Also, the consistency is even more appreciated when we notice
that the (Kathopanishat) shruti passage Shankara cites in the Br.up.
Bhashya 5.1.1 is non-different in teaching/message from the Prashna mantra
5.2 that Shankara comments upon. Both these are about Omkara as an aid to
knowing Brahman, whether it is para or apara.

Thus we get a clinching evidence in the above bhashya that Shankara has not
restricted the status of saguna (apara) brahman to the deity Vishnu alone.
He compares Omkara as a representation of Brahman with image as a
representation of *Vishnu, etc. deities.* The word 'bhakti' too is
significant.  The attempt by the author of the Tamil book 'Sankararum
Vainavamum', thus turns out to be a misadventure, without any basis
whatsoever in the Shankara Bhashya.

Om Tat Sat