[Advaita-l] 'Prana' as Brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 6:02 PM Kaushik Chevendra <
chevendrakaushik at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 18 Feb, 2023, 5:42 pm V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It is Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra and Prana, four entities.  विष्णुरीश्वर
>> इन्द्रः प्राणो  Those with Sanskrit sandhi knowledge will clearly see this:
>> VishNuH, IshwaraH, IndraH, PrANa. There is upasaka upasya bhaava with
>> regard to these four entities. That is what is being stated here.  On the
>> other hand, in Mundaka it is  एष देवो विष्णुरनन्तः it is only one entity
>> for whom the adjective anantaH is given. And he is called prathama shariri
>> who has the three lokas as his body. There is no context of many entities
>> here. In the Kena bhashya, there is. Hence the two cases are different.
>>
>
> Yes. The two cases are verily different. There are multiple dieties being
> inferred in this context. But it's not "4". Even if we take vishnorisvara
> as 1, it will still be 3 dieties. And plural form of the the bhasya isn't
> affected. Hence it can verily be taken as vishnorisvara.
>

There is no reason to restrict it to 3 deities as it is extremely popular
that Shiva (Ishwara) is also meditated upon by upasakas, just as Vishnu is
and as Prana is (in Prana vidya, a sagunopasana). Why should the
Bhashyakara leave out Shiva and include Prana and Indra? Also, there is no
need to give an adjective only to Vishnu and deny that to the others.
Shankara says there: These deities can be Brahman but not the upasaka (who
is always different from the upasya).  This mantra is there to teach that
the Upanishadic Brahman is not something that is meditated upon as
'something different from the upasaka'.  Hence Shankara has proposed a case
where there is clear difference in the upasana of various deities.. He says
there: तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म
भवितुमर्हति, न त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात् । There is no need to say
Vishnu who is Ishwara is Brahman since the adjective here 'Ishwara' itself
means Brahman. So the meaning there is Vishnu is Brahman, Ishwara (Shiva -
In Kenopanishat bhashya Shankara refers to Shiva as 'sarvajna Ishwara') is
Brahman, Indra is Brahman and Prana is Brahman.

>
>>>
>>>>
>> The tika gives it because of the context: As I had explained: 'with
>> veerya you (Prana) are Rudra. Shankara gives the meaning: samhartaa, the
>> destroyer.  The mantra then says: parirakshitaa: sustainer. Shankara says:
>> in opposition to veerya of the mantra, adds sowmyena, benign, paalayitaa.
>> Now everyone knows that the paalana, sustaining function is that of Vishnu.
>> So, seeing the commentary, the gloss says it is Vishnu, etc
>> .
>>
> Yes the commentary isn't wrong in saying so, while again the sudhasattva
> upadhi given to Vishnu in tikkas is present as well.  So no problem arises
> here.
>
>>
>>
>>> But in either case here "prana" is identified with isvara and the
>>> supreme being. Just as we see such superimposition in surya worship we find
>>> that here as well.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, that is fine. But Shankara says here that he is  Prathamaja for
>> Prana, the epithet in synonym, he uses for Vishnu in Mundaka:
>> prathamashariri.
>>
>
> As i had explained before taking the gudartha Deepika ( shri ms)in context
> as well as other translations in mind. The vishnoranantha is an adjective
> for virat. Because he is all pervading and without beginning and end.
>
>
>>  व्रात्यस्त्वं प्राणैकर्षिरत्ता विश्वस्य सत्पतिः ।
>>
>> वयमाद्यस्य दातारः पिता त्वं मातरिश्व नः ॥ ११ ॥
>> किञ्च, *प्रथमजत्वा*दन्यस्य संस्कर्तुरभावादसंस्कृतो व्रात्यः त्वम् ,
>> स्वभावत एव शुद्ध इत्यभिप्रायः । Says Shankara: Since you, Prana, are
>> prathamaja, you have nobody else to give you samskara, you are pure by
>> nature.
>>
> How does this contradict any of my statments?
>
> In either case i had presented many problems with Vishnu being a jeeva
> from the shankara BSB bhasya, gita bhasya. And various other quotes can be
> given from the works of sridhar swamin, madhusudana Saraswati, abhinava
> vidyatirtha swamin, chandrashekhara Bharathi etc.
>
> In all due respect i had raised many objections for which there have been
> no response. At this point i understand you have decided that Vishnu is a
> jeeva.
>

Dear Kaushik, I have not 'decided' Vishnu is a jeeva. The question is with
respect to the status of Shiva too in the light of the
Prashnopanishat mantra and the bhashyam. It says: Prana 'as' Rudra
dissolves, 'as' .....sustains and goes on to say Prana is Surya, etc.  It
is something like a Vishvarupa description of Prana in all those mantras
there. While the Bh.Gita Vishvarupa has everyone else 'within' Bhagavan,
here everything, including Rudra and Vishnu, is 'within' Prana.  And
Shankara says clearly there: this Prana is prathamaja.  (And the
Brihadaranyaka Bhashya about Prajapati who has attained that status through
sadhana is stated to have independent capacity to create, sustain, etc. by
Shankara.)

I am only raising questions, all based on the various statements by the
Bhashyakara, that give rise to that doubt.  I am seeking a samanvaya,
reconciliation of the seemingly contradictory passages of the Bhashya. The
questions have a bearing on the saguna brahma upasana, brahma loka, krama
mukti, etc. How can a Shiva or Vishnu upasaka be in Brahma loka and get
sayujya with Brahmaa (instead of with Vishnu or Shiva or any other)? It is
very clearly stated in the BSB end that this Brahmaa, the head of that
loka, will also get videha mukti when that loka perishes.  Then what will
happen to the Vishnu or Shiva who are also there, if their presence there
and sayujya with them is admitted?

It is necessary that these questions are answered.  If no one comes forward
to answer these but want to avoid these just because they appear
inconvenient, there will be no room for vichara.

regards
subbu




>
>
>
>>