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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbu ji,
I agree with everything you say except I would de-emphasise one aspect:
"In that case the Trimurtis will be non-diff from this Prathama shariri who
is in turn 'under' the Ishwara."

I think that there is no spiritual benefit (and possible spiritual harm) in
considering the trimUrti Shiva / Vishnu separate from the turIya Shiva /
Vishnu (terms used in the sense that you do below) - especially if it is
done with the purpose of reconciling durbala purANa pramANa-s. Doing so can
get in the way of the upAsana of the turIya Shiva / Vishnu etc as Ishvara -
leading to questions / confusions of whether such a worship is of Ishvara
or of a jIva etc - which affects the stronger pramANa enjoining a worship
of such forms.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan



On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, 11:46 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Venkat ji, for the inputs from the Vartika and Anandagiri Acharya.
> There is a similar statement by Sureshwaracharya in the Br.Up.Bh.Vartika
> and a very illuminating gloss of Anandagiri.  I shall copy the entire
> discussion from an old post of mine:
>
> In the Samanvayadhikaranam (tat tu samanvayaat) sutra bhashya, Shankara
> cites the famous mantra of the Shvetashatara Upanishad:
>
> तथा ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा । कर्माध्यक्षः
> सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च’ (श्वे. उ. ६ । ११) इति, ‘स
> पर्यगाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम्’ (ई. उ. ८) इति, च —
>
> Anandagiri, in the gloss Nyayanirnaya, explains the mantra in his own
> words:
>
> निर्गुणत्वान्निर्दोषत्वाच्च ब्रह्मात्मनि द्विधापि संस्कारो नेत्युक्तम् ।
> इदानीं तस्मिन्गुणदोषयोरभावे मानमाह —
>
> तथाचेति । मूर्तित्रयात्मना भेदं प्रत्याह — एक इति ।
>
> यथाहुः – ‘हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ‘ इति अखण्डजाड्यं
> व्यावर्तयति —
>
> देव इति ।What is very interesting is that Anandagiri, while explaining the
> word ‘EkaH’ in the mantra, raises an objection: Is not Brahman endowed with
> threefold difference on the basis of the Trimurti-s? The word ‘Ekah’ is in
> refutation of such a difference. Anandagiri cites a line: ‘One alone is
> spoken of as many as Hari, Brahmaa and Pinaaki.’
>
> We recognize this line to be from the Vartika of Sureshwaracharya on the
> Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya on the Antaryami Brahmanam.
>
> यः पृथिव्यामितीशोऽसावन्तर्यामी जगद्गुरुः ।
>
> हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ॥
>
> [The Br.Up. ‘he who, stationed in the pṛthvī devatā impels the
> mind-body-organs of that devatā….’ who is the antaryāmī, jagadguru, even
> though one, is variously spoken of as Hari, Brahmā and Pinākī (Śiva).]
>
> Anandagiri: कथं श्रुत्यवष्टम्भेन ईश्वरस्य कारणत्वं, मूर्तित्रयस्य
> इतिहासादौ सर्गस्थितिलयेषु यथायोगं कर्तृत्वश्रुतेः, अत आह । यः पृथिव्यामिति
> । प्रकृतो हि ईश्वरः स्वरूपेण एकोऽपि मूर्तित्रयात्मना बहुधा उच्यते
> पृथिव्यादौ तस्यैव अन्तर्यामित्वेन स्थितिश्रुतेः, न च तद्विरोधे
> पुराणादिप्रामाण्यं सापेक्षत्वेन दौर्बल्यादिति भावः । स पूर्वेषां
> गुरुरितिन्यायेन अन्तर्यामी इत्यस्य व्याख्या जगद्गुरुरिति ।
>
> Anandagiri says: How is it that while Isvara is the jagatkāraṇam according
> to the Shruti, the itihāsa, etc. say that there is the causehood as
> appropriately assigned to the trimūrti-s in creation, sustenance and
> dissolution? [the idea is: while the shruti says Brahman, Ishvara, is the
> jagatkāraṇam, we find the itihāsa, purāna, etc. distributing that to three
> different entities functionally?] The above verse of Sureshvara is
> answering this question: Even though Ishwara is one only, he is spoken of
> as many, Hari, Brahmā, Pinākī. Why is it that Ishwara is admitted to be one
> only? Since it is one Ishwara alone (not many) that is taught in the shruti
> as the antaryāmin. If the purāṇa-s, etc. say something different (three
> different individuals performing distinct functions), then since these
> texts are dependent on the Shruti for their prāmāṇya, they do not enjoy the
> status of the shruti; they are durbala, weak, only when they say something
> contradictory to the Shruti. Since He, Ishwara, is the Guru of everyone
> (including devatā-s) this antaryāmin, Ishwara, alone gets the epithet of
> ‘Jagadguru’.
>
> So, the srishTyAdi kArya is happening through the three upadhis of the
> same Ishwara.  In order to be in line with the Br.Up. Bhashya on Prajapati
> that we have discussed, his having the capacity to create, sustain,
> destroy, independently, we have to say that this one Prajapati alone does
> all the three functions through those three upadhis. In that case the
> Trimurtis will be non-diff from this Prathama shariri who is in turn
> 'under' the Ishwara.. This, again is in tune with the many Puranic passages
> that I have cited here:
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2020/01/11/how-does-brahman-become-jagatkaaranam-shiva-and-vishnu-purana-non-difference/
>
> Vishnu Purana and Shiva Purana both have this common idea: One
> Vishnu/Janardana or One Rudra/Shiva takes the form of the Trimurtis based
> on the Three gunas sattva, etc. for the three functions of creation, etc.
> There is the Atharva Shikha Upanishad too which says: Brahma, Vishnu and
> Rudra, Indra, etc. are born from Shambhu.  In all these cases we have a
> Turiya Vishnu/Shiva from which the three murtis emerge.  This scheme is in
> my view in tune with the Bhashya that we have discussed on the
> Prathamaja/prathama shariri.  Here the Vishnu, Shiva of the Trimurtis will
> be diff from the Vishnu / Shiva from which the trimurtis emerge.  About
> Brahma too there can be a reconciliation based on a Shiva Purana and
> Kalidasa's statement: In every Kalpa the Three will alternate to assume
> superior-inferior bhaava among themselves.
>
> warm regards
>
> subbu
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>