[Advaita-l] [advaitin] rAma-krishna-shiva-durga etc. are not same in shAstric vyavahAra!!!

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Raghav ji,

No, I actually am not saying that Vishnu or Shiva are jIva-s, I consider
them to be forms of Ishvara only - primarily because the shAstra teaches
worship of Ishvara with those forms. Therefore, the Shiva or Vishnu that I
worship are not the entity that only dissolves the universe or only
protects the universe. They are verily Ishvara, the source of all the five
functions of sRShTi, sthiti, laya, tirodhAna and anugraha. I see no
spiritual merit to be obtained in considering them to be jIva-s.

Therefore, where the birth or dissolution of Shiva or Vishnu are spoken of
in certain purANa-s, it is with some other purpose - such as conveying
something about Ishvara tattva or for glorifying some other form of Ishvara
so that the listener is motivated to use Ishvara with that form as an
upAsya devatA. Further, there are other shruti / smRti / purAna / itihAsa-s
where Shiva or Vishnu are spoken of as supreme - again because these texts
have the purport of conveying that form of Ishvara as an object of upAsana.
If we take Shiva or Vishnu as jIva-s, such texts will lose their prAmANya.

However one must ultimately realise that Ishvara is beyond those forms also.

On the other hand, hiraNyagarbha is a jIva, primarily because it is the
very same shAstra that says so and tradition in the form of the bhAShya,
guru paramparA, shiShTAchAra, kulAchAra etc also support it.

Finally, the usage of terms such as brahma linga/ jIva linga etc is in the
context of the exegesis (mImAmsa) of vedic texts - these are indicatory
marks found in the text that help us understand the meaning of the passage
and not qualities of the jIva or Ishvara.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan



On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, 19:57 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Venkat ji
> I understand you to be saying that the trinity (brahmA, viShNu, maheshvara
> with their names taken together as a triàd) are exalted jeevas sharing
> jeeva-linga-s with upAdhis which invite the label of kArya-brahman.
>
> On the other hand, Ishvara shares the brahma-linga with mAyopAdhi and a
> mAyamaya sharIra. This Ishvara has no specific default "form" etc., in
> contrast to the trinity who have been taught in shAstra with some 'default'
> form with associated upAsanA vidhi like tulasI and bilva etc.
>
>
> In the mRt, mRtpiNDa and ghaTa-paTAdi example, i would take them to be
> Ishvara, Prajaapati, Indaraadi-devatAs.
>
> Ishvara is nirAkAra but not without an upAdhi.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb, 2023, 8:07 am Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Resending, as it sounds like the previous message was held up due to size
> > constraints.
> >
> > Namaste Subbuji,
> > Thank you very much for bringing this up.
> >
> > I have a different view to this section - while normally sRShTi sthiti
> laya
> > in the Shruti is a brahma linga, there are very specific jIva linga-s
> here
> > that indicate that the one performing these activities is the prathamaja
> > jIva, not Ishvara.
> >
> > You had asked:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, 00:12 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > In that case, is the Viraj a jiva who has attained that state by the
> > > sadhana of jnana-karma samucchaya?
> >
> > Yes, I believe the bhAShya pretty conclusively answers in the
> affirmative.
> >
> > 1) In the beginning bhAShya of 1.4.1 shankarAchArya comments on the word
> > Atma, not as paramAtma but as a sharIri, jIvAtma:
> > आत्मैव आत्मेति प्रजापतिः प्रथमोऽण्डजः शरीर्यभिधीयते ।
> > The reference to the virAT prajApati as "sharIri" in the bhAShya
> indicates
> > that the bhAShyakAra considers him as a jIva indeed - he also calls him a
> > prathama-anDaja.
> >
> > 2) The bhAShya says - the very same prajApati alone is born, a result of
> > jnAnakarma samuccaya. The next sentence is: वैदिकज्ञानकर्मफलभूतः स एव —
> > किम् ? इदं शरीरभेदजातं तेन प्रजापतिशरीरेणाविभक्तम् आत्मैवासीत् अग्रे
> > प्राक्शरीरान्तरोत्पत्तेः ।
> > The Atma, who is prajApati (आत्मेति प्रजापतिः), was alone present,
> > undifferentiated into any body other than prajApati, in the beginning,
> i.e.
> > prior to the creation of any other body.
> >
> > 3) The bhAShya then says he saw himself and wondered who he was, and he
> > didn't see anyone else - स एव प्रथमः सम्भूतोऽनुवीक्ष्यान्वालोचनं कृत्वा —
> > ‘कोऽहं किंलक्षणो वास्मि’ इति, नान्यद्वस्त्वन्तरम् , आत्मनः
> > प्राणपिण्डात्मकात्कार्यकरणरूपात् , नापश्यत् न ददर्श । Shankaracharya
> uses a
> > phrase for his body आत्मनः प्राणपिण्डात्मकात्कार्यकरणरूपात्  - his body,
> > being of the nature of a mass/lump of prANa (prANa piNDa), ie
> > kArya-karaNa-rUpa. Again, the use of the phrase kArya-karaNa-rUpa as
> > opposed to mAyAmaya-rUpa is a jIva linga, because it is a jIva whose body
> > is kAryakaraNa rUpa (in the brahma sUtra Shankaracharya describes the
> body
> > of Ishvara as a mAyAmaya rUpa  स्यात् परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात्
> > मायामयंरूपं).
> >
> > 4) He then goes on to say that the entity in question recalled his
> nature,
> > as a result of the purification due to karma and upAsana undertaken in
> his
> > previous life. तथा पूर्वजन्मश्रौतविज्ञानसंस्कृतः ‘सोऽहं प्रजापतिः,
> > सर्वात्माहमस्मि’ इत्यग्रे व्याहरत् व्याहृतवान् ।
> > This indicates two things - he had a prior life in which he had performed
> > jnAna (upAsana) and karma and his present birth was a result of that - ie
> > he was a kartA, as a result of which he became a bhoktA too. Such a being
> > cannot be Ishvara, for Ishvara sharIra is taken इच्छावशात्, not
> कर्मवशात्,
> > and He neither performs karma nor is he subject to karma phala.
> >
> > The second thing this indicates was that his knowledge of his nature was
> a
> > result of samskAra undertaken in a previous birth - ie he was a jIva
> whose
> > body mind complex needed samskAra for it to manifest knowledge. Such a
> > being cannot be the Ishvara whom the brihadAraNyaka will later go on to
> > describe as - for whom the very Vedas are effortless creations, emerging
> as
> > though like breath - अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः
> > सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसः.
> >
> > Moving on, the bhAShya then describes why his first secret name is "aham"
> > and every being born from him refers to itself as aham (as the cause, so
> > the effect).
> >
> > 5) What are these defects that this entity previously possessed?  In
> > talking about the second name, auShat, the bhAShyakAra says:
> > स च प्रजापतिः, अतिक्रान्तजन्मनि सम्यक्कर्मज्ञानभावनानुष्ठानैः
> > साधकावस्थायाम् , यद्यस्मात् , कर्मज्ञानभावनानुष्ठानैः प्रजापतित्वं
> > प्रतिपित्सूनां पूर्वः प्रथमः सन् ,
> > अस्मात्प्रजापतित्वप्रतिपित्सुसमुदायात्सर्वस्मात् , आदौ औषत् अदहत् ; किम्
> ?
> > आसङ्गाज्ञानलक्षणान्सर्वान्पाप्मनः प्रजापतित्वप्रतिबन्धकारणभूतान् ;
> > That prajApati who in his prior birth had adequately performed karma and
> > upAsana as a sAdhaka (again, a sAdhaka, meaning a jIva, not a nityasiddha
> > Ishvara), was the first of the prajApati-s (in a kalpa, hiraNyagarbha
> > himself is born as the first prajApati). Such a first among the
> prajApati-s
> > burnt (auShat). Burnt what? - all manner of evils - attachment and
> > ignorance (आसङ्गाज्ञानलक्षणान्) which were obstacles preventing him from
> > being the prajApati in his past life (प्रजापतित्वप्रतिबन्धकारणभूतान्).
> > Again we get three indicatory marks of being a jIva - 1)  he was a
> sAdhaka
> > in his previous birth. 2) He suffered from attachment and ignorance
> (which
> > Ishvara can never suffer from) 3) these defects prevented him from being
> a
> > prajApati back in his previous life itself (again Ishvara is nitya, He
> does
> > not become Ishvara with effort).
> >
> > The nature of the defects which needed samskAra in the previous sentence
> > are elaborated in the above sentence.
> >
> > 6) That is the reason he gets the third secret name - puruSha - because
> he
> > burns off the one before him - पूर्वमौषदिति पुरुषः - pUrvam auShat iti
> > puruShah. Who does he burn? He burns the one before who wanted to be
> > prajApati. कम् ? योऽस्माद्विदुषः पूर्वः प्रथमः प्रजापतिर्बुभूषति
> > भवितुमिच्छति तमित्यर्थः ।
> >
> > But isn't the desire to be a virAT dangerous, if it means getting burnt
> by
> > the one who knows how to be prajApati? नन्वनर्थाय प्राजापत्यप्रतिपित्सा,
> > एवंविदा चेद्दह्यते. No, this is not a defect, for the burning only refers
> > to the burning of the flaws that prevented him from the first prajApati
> > - नैष दोषः, ज्ञानभावनोत्कर्षाभावात् प्रथमं
> > प्रजापतित्वप्रतिपत्त्यभावमात्रत्वाद्दाहस्य ।
> >
> > 7) The one possessing of the superior means to the knowledge attains the
> > post of prajApati, and the one who does not so possess does not so
> attain,
> > and so the former is figuratively said to burn the latter. It is not as
> > though he really burns someone:
> >  उत्कृष्टसाधनः प्रथमं प्रजापतित्वं प्राप्नुवन् न्यूनसाधनो न
> प्राप्नोतीति, स
> > तं दहतीत्युच्यते ; न पुनः प्रत्यक्षमुत्कृष्टसाधनेनेतरो दह्यते.
> > Again, plenty of clues that prajApatitva is a post to be attained through
> > some means. He was not a prajApati first because he lacked the means.
> Later
> > he acquired the means, put those means into practice and then acquired
> the
> > post.
> >
> > Shankaracharya then makes it even more clear by giving the example of a
> > race when he says - the winner of a race can be figuratively described as
> > burning the competition, because the winner has effectively shorn the
> > competition of their strength - यथा लोके आजिसृतां यः प्रथममाजिमुपसर्पति
> > तेनेतरे दग्धा इवापहृतसामर्थ्या भवन्ति, तद्वत्.
> >
> > Therefore, while we can certainly acknowledge that the performance of
> > sRShTi sthiti laya are the domain of Ishvara, the prajApati in question
> who
> > performs these activities is a jIva in reality because of various
> > indicatory marks in the shruti text that are clarified in the bhAShya.
> >
> > So, in my view, the bhAShya proves that the entity is in reality a jIva
> > only for all the reasons enumerated above.
> >
> > But isn't the kartA of sRShTi sthiti laya a brahmalinga, which the
> > sUtrakAra uses as a taTastha lakshaNa in janmAdyasya yatah? You had said
> > doesn't this (taking this prajApati to be a jIva) contradict elsewhere in
> > the sUtra where it was said jIva-s cannot perform this function?
> >
> > The bhashyam says:
> > >
> > > *प्रजापतेः फलभूतस्य* सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारेषु जगतः
> > > स्वातन्त्र्यादिविभूत्युपवर्णनेन ज्ञानकर्मणोर्वैदिकयोः फलोत्कर्षो
> > वर्णयितव्य
> > > इत्येवमर्थमारभ्यते ।
> > >
> > > Prajapati is a 'phala', result, of a certain sadhana. Does someone
> with a
> > > sadhana attaining the status of Prajapati/Virat have the power to
> create,
> > > etc. independently? Also, is it not a contradiction with the Brahma
> Sutra
> > > 'Jagatvyapara varjyam..' which is stated to be the 'sole' domain of
> nitya
> > > siddha Ishwara?  That is the point I was making.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > subbu
> > >
> > I believe the above doesn't rule out a jIva performing these functions -
> I
> > think the above only refers to the sAdhaka-s who as a result of brahma
> > jnAna have become mukta-s - they are Brahman, but they cannot fulfil
> roles
> > as the Creator, Preserver and Sustainer of the universe, because they do
> > not possess the instruments / body mind complex with which to perform
> such
> > roles.
> >
> > To be the Creator prajApati, requires the performance of karma and
> upAsana
> > as stated in 1.4.1 - jnAni-s are Brahman because they have brahma jnAna
> but
> > in order for them to perform the functions of creating, preserving and
> > destroying, they also need a body mind complex purified by karma-upAsana
> > samuccaya. Even then, they are performing the roles not *as* Ishvara, but
> > *as
> > prajApati*, *under the blessing of Ishvara (*mRtyurdhAvati pancama iti).
> > The svAtantrya in the bhAShya must be interpreted here to mean without
> the
> > help of anybody else, not independently of Ishvara.
> >
> > Such beings are exalted, no doubt, but when their creation, preservation
> > and destruction of universe is being talked about, this is a function
> that
> > they uniquely / independently perform - like the CEO of a company. The
> CEO
> > is the first and most senior employee in the company, but he is only
> > fulfilling a temporary role on behalf of someone. Once his job is done,
> he
> > will retire and someone else will take up the job. They are managers for
> > the real boss, the owner (the shareholders in the case of a CEO, Ishvara
> in
> > the case of hiraNyagarbha).
> >
> > In many places we use the presence of these functions as a brahmalinga,
> but
> > we have to add a corollary - if there are mitigating factors to Ishvara
> > being the one being talked about, we have to revisit that original
> > conclusion. These jobs alone cannot be the conclusive indicatory mark of
> > Ishvara - it has to be the presence of that, in the absence of mitigating
> > factors indicating of jIva - and 1.4.1 is a good example of where that
> > occurs.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Venkatraghavan
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>