[Advaita-l] For Shankara, Vishnu, etc. are only illusory forms of Brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

One popular usage of the itthambhāve tṛtīyā by Shankara is in the
Vivekachudamani verse:

जन्तूनां नरजन्म दुर्लभमतः पुंस्त्वं ततो विप्रता तस्माद्वैदिकधर्ममार्गपरता
विद्वत्त्वमस्मात्परम्।
आत्मानात्मविवेचनं स्वनुभवो *ब्रह्मात्मना संस्थिति*- र्मुक्तिर्नो
शतकोटिजन्मसु कृतैः पुण्यैर्विना लभ्यते।। 2 ।।

*ब्रह्मात्मना संस्थिति* means: remaining established *as verily Brahman*.
It does not mean 'the jiva is Brahman's ātmā'.



On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:38 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The 'itthambhāva tṛtīyā' that I have mentioned here is actually found in
> the Bhāgavatam itself, in this very context:
>
> ०२१००४४१ इत्थम्भावेन कथितो भगवान्भगवत्तमः
> ०२१००४४३ नेत्थम्भावेन हि परं द्रष्टुमर्हन्ति सूरयः
>
> Meaning as per Sridhara Swamin: (After saying 'brahmarūpeṇa,
>
> viṣṇurūpeṇa and rudrarūpeṇa) he says:
>
> इत्थंभावेन = स्रष्टृत्वादिरूपेण ’तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः’, ’सोऽकामयत
>
> बहु स्यां प्रजायेय’ इत्यादिश्रुत्या कथितः । सूरयस्तु परं केवलं एवंरूपेण द्रष्टुं नार्हन्ति ।
>
> [The shruti teaches Brahman as endowed with the functions of
>
> creation, etc. through the passages 'From Brahman ākāśa emerged',
>
> 'It desired, deliberated, let me become many and be born as
>
> many'. However, Knowers of Brahman, Jnanis, cannot perceive
>
> Brahman in this form.]
>
> It is after this verse the Bhagavatam says that the teaching
>
> of Brahman as creator, etc. is only with a view to negate it later.
>
> Thus, the itthambhāve tṛtīyā, a form of the instrumental case,
>
>  is found used in that very sense in the Srimadbhāgavatam: Brahman
>
> as Brahmā,as Vishnu and as Rudra.
>
> Om Tat Sat
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:11 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For Shankara, Vishnu, etc. are only illusory forms of Brahman
>>
>> For Shankara, Brahman is the Jagatkāraṇam, and not any finite deity which
>> is subject to vastupariccheda doṣa.  In other words, if he jagatkāraṇam is
>> held to be the deity Vishṇu, he will be different from Shiva and Brahma and
>> everything else in creation.  This will limit Vishnu on the basis of
>> object: this is vastuparicchedam.
>>
>> In the VSN bhashya Shankara has said, with regard to the trimurtis:
>>
>>
>>    1. रजोगुणं *समाश्रित्य* विरिञ्चिरूपेण…
>>    2. तमोगुणम् *आस्थाय *स रुद्रात्मना..
>>    3. सत्त्वगुणम् *अधिष्ठाय* भूतानि
>>
>> Now notice the three lyabanta avyayas Shankara has used that I have
>> underlined: All the three words mean the same: 1. By resorting to, 2. By
>> standing in it, literally, or ‘firmly taking up’ and 3. By keeping it as
>> the basis. And in all the three cases, the lyabanta applies, relates, to
>> Viṣṇu, as Brahman, only, ekakartṛkatvam. The characteristic of lyabanta or
>> ktvānta avyaya is this 'ekakartṛtaktam'. There are two acts, in sequence,
>> performed by the same person:It denotes that A, upon doing xxxx, does yyyy.
>> Aassume a guṇa and perform an act.  Viṣṇu, by resorting to the three gunas
>> is engaging in the three acts. None can break the above grammar rule and
>> show any other anvaya to those sentences. And he does this not by using
>> Rudra and Brahma as instruments, but *as themselves*. This tṛtīyā
>> vibhakti is called ‘itthambhāve’. One example where Shankara uses this form
>> of the instrumental case is the Taittiriya bhāṣya for the upanishadic
>> words: ‘brahmaṇā vipaściteti’. The context and meaning there is: The
>> Atmajnāni, in Advaita, is Brahman itself. The Upanishad says: सोऽश्नुते
>> सर्वान् कामान् सह, ब्रह्मणा विपश्चितेति. While this sentence can mean: that
>> jnani will enjoy all bhogas *along with* Brahman (brahmaṇā saha) (as
>> Dvaitins interpret it), in advaita there are no two entities in mokṣa. So,
>> Shankara uses that instrumental case in which Brahman is used in the
>> sentence as: *As Brahman*, that is, being non-different from Brahman, he
>> enjoys all bhogas. For the how and what ‘enjoyment’ here means, one can
>> look into the bhashya. The point that is made here, in this VSN context is:
>> Vishnu *as Rudra* and *as Brahmā* engages in the respective acts. As for
>> himself, there is no need to mention as it is popular that Vishnu is one
>> among the trimurtis, and hence Shankara does not use the tṛtīyā. The
>> pronoun ‘sa’ used by the bhāṣhyam only in respect of Rudra, is to be
>> applied in the other two cases too. It is for any intelligent reader,to
>> supply it along with the tṛtīyā ṭhere and understand the bhāṣyam. Thus, the
>> one Brahman, *as the trimurtis*, engages in those acts, with the
>> necessary guṇas. Shankara nowhere says here ‘as the inner self’. Rudrātmanā
>> does not mean ‘as the inner self of Rudra’ but ‘*as Rudra*’ as I have
>> explained above ('itthambhāve tṛtīyā).
>>
>> This is beautifully explained by Sridhara swamin in the Bhagavata
>> commentary 2.10.40,42,43:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *sa vācya-vācakatayā bhagavān brahma-rūpa-dhṛknāma-rūpa-kriyā dhatte
>> sakarmākarmakaḥ paraḥ*
>>
>> *That Lord, taking upon the form of Brahmā.....*
>>
>> sa evedaṁ jagad-dhātā
>> bhagavān dharma-rūpa-dhṛk
>> puṣṇāti sthāpayan viśvaṁ
>> tiryaṅ-nara-surādibhiḥ
>>
>> He, the Personality of Godhead, as the maintainer of all in the universe,
>> appears in different incarnations after establishing the creation, and thus
>> He reclaims all kinds of conditioned souls amongst the humans, the
>> nonhumans and the demigods.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *tataḥ kālāgni-rudrātmā yat sṛṣṭam idam ātmanaḥsanniyacchati tat kāle
>> ghanānīkam ivānilaḥ*Thereafter, at the end of the millennium, the Lord
>> Himself in the form of Rudra, the destroyer, will annihilate the complete
>> creation as the wind displaces the clouds.
>>
>> The commentary of Sridhara Swamin for the above two verses:
>>
>> *ब्रह्मरूपेण* स्रष्टृत्वमुक्त्वा *विष्णुरूपेण* पालकत्वमाह ।.....
>> *रुद्ररूपेण* संहर्तृत्वमाह ..। [After having stated the creatorship *as
>> Brahmā, *the sustainership* as vishnu *is being stated*.*]
>>
>> This is very clear. What Shankara has said in the VSN Bhashya is exactly
>> this. In fact  in the Praśnopanishad 2.9 bhashya too Shankara employs this
>> itthambhāve tṛtīya only:
>>
>> किंच, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, *तेजसा वीर्येण* रुद्रोऽसि संहरन्
>> जगत् । स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः *सौम्येन
>> रूपेण*. The construct of the mantra itself is such, in the case of rudra
>> it says tejasā. ‘You, O Prāna, are Rudra, destroying the worlds.’ Shankara
>> follows exactly the construct and applies it to the rakṣaṇa act too even
>> though the mantra just said: परिरक्षिता without even specifying ‘as
>> whom/what’. ‘You alone are the protector/preserver of the world as the
>> benign-form (ed Viṣṇu): soumyena *rūpeṇa*.’ The reference is to Vishnu
>> is unmistakable. It is not meant or said by the mantra that Prāṇa is a
>> different entity and Rudra and the unnamed Viṣṇu are different entities.
>> Thus, Shankara explicitly uses the suffix 'rūpeṇa' with respect to Vishnu
>> as well, as he has done in the case of Rudra. Moreover, Anandagiri
>> clarifies there: विष्ण्वादिरूपेण [in the forms such as Vishnu].  Thus, for
>> the Upanishad and Shankara, Vishnu is just one of the many forms in the
>> cosmos that Brahman takes for the purposes of creation, etc.
>>
>> It is at this juncture that the Bhagavatam itself says that there is no
>> true doership for Brahman; it is only stated as an adhyāropa in the śāstra
>> only with the view to negate it: pratiṣedhārtham. Such being the case, why
>> would Brahman really do anything by itself or cause anything to be done by
>> the agency of anyone else? If it considers really anything/anyone as
>> 'other', then it ceases to be Brahman, for that very consideration limits
>> it: vastupariccheda.
>>
>> This is a further confirmation of the Nr.Ut.Tā.Upanishad which teaches
>> that the trimurtis are only illusory creations of Brahman through the
>> agency of māyā. Shankara has very clearly elucidated this.
>>
>>
>> Om Tat Sat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>