[Advaita-l] Concept of Īśvara according to Sureśvarāchārya

[Kaushik Chevendra]

>
>>
> Madhusudana Saraswati has in the commentary to the Mahimna stotra says
> this:
>
> बहलरजसे विश्वोत्पत्तौ भवाय नमो नमः
>
> प्रबलतमसे तत्संहारे हराय नमो नमः ।
>
> जनसुखकृते सत्त्वोद्रिक्तौ मृडाय नमो नमः
>
> प्रमहसिपदे निस्त्रैगुण्ये शिवाय नमो नमः ॥३०॥
>
>
> [Salutation to Brahmā in whom rajas preponderates for the creation of the
> universe, salutation to Rudra in whom Tama preponderates for the
> destruction of the same. Salutatio to Viṣṇu in whom Sattva preponderates
> for giving happiness to the people (by preservation of the created
> universe). Salutation to Śiva who is effulgent and beyond the three
> attributes. For explanation of this last line pl. read the part below this
> post.]
>
> This is exactly how many puranas like the Vishnu, Shiva, etc. describe the
> Trimurtis- when Sattva Rajas and Tamas are considered as gunas with which
> the Trimurti-s are associated.  In all such instances no distinction is
> made to show Brahma as a jiva.
>
When isvara is said to be non-different from the jagat there is no
difference. We find statements in the scriptures that narayana is jagat as
well as the jeeva. This doesn't prove absolute non-differnece in
vyavahara.The similarity of prajapati with isvara is limited due to the
very simple reason that there is a "prarabdha" karma for him to experience.
The reason for his roopa and position is karma phala. He also attains
mukthi at the end of kalpa. This is all very different from the nithya
muktha isvara who is free from karma and takes ichavast roopas as explained
by shankaracharya in his bsb bhasya.

> Shankara too has done the same in the Vishnu Sahasra Nama Bhashya multiple
> times. For the bhUtakrit bhUtabhrt names at the beginning itself he says
> the same depicted in the mahimna stotra above.
>
The vsn also has many places where vishnu is taken over brahma as i have
given many references before.

> For the name Keshava, Shankara says, giving an etymological meaning, K is
> the one in whose control are the Trimurtis.
>
He has given more than 2 meanings for keshava. One place he says one who
has "brahma and shiva" in control. In either case I had already given a
different interpretation keeping in mind the other statements made by him
in the bhasya.

> Elsewhere, citing the Kaivalya upanishad: sa brahma, sa shivah, sa
> harih... It is Vishnu who is said so by all these names.
>
All the names and stotras are only for parameshwara. There is no problem
there.

> At the beginning Shankara cites many shlokas from Harivamsha, Vishnu
> Purana, etc. to establish Trimurti/Harihara abheda. Nowhere in these
> instances he says Brahma is a jiva.
>
There is no reason for him to constantly repeat himself. He has made it
clear that prajapati is a jeevatma many times, We cannot ignore the
statements of  difference and only focus on the identity being brought
about. Shri venkatji has explained that brahma is very close to isvara and
hence he is almost identical to him. Further we find acharya discouraging
us to not strive for the state of hiranyagarbha but for mukthi. In all the
bhasyas acharya has taken "state of vishnu" as mukthi. Not only in gita
bhasya but also in the upanishad bhashya the state of vishnu is mukthi. And
Krishna says "becomes me" acharya interprets as mukthi only.

> What he has said about Brahma in the Bhagavadgita is contextual.  This is
> what all the Advaita Acharyas of the past and the present have done:
> wherever they say that Hiranyagarbha/Brahma is a jiva it is contextual. But
> when it comes to their interpreting Trimurtis, they hold abheda. This is
> because the Puranas say that only depending upon the three gunas does
> Brahman become JagatkAraNam. So, in this situation it cannot say: Rajas is
> the upadhi of a jiva and the other two are Upadhis of Brahman.
>
What is contextual here? Ms acharya clearly has stated numerous times that
hiranyagarbha is a jeevatma. Discussing bagavana shareera acharya says all
the sukshma sharira belongs to  hiranyagarbha who is a jeeva. Discussing
the "time of brahma" and pralaya, acharya takes this "brahma" as
hiranyagarbha who is a jeeva only in the gita bhasya. I don't see any
context here.


"So, we cannot say with finality what the Advaita Acharyas, including
Shankara hold, with regard to Brahma/Hiranyagarbha/Prajapati. What they say
in various places is contextual and no final position can be gleaned from
this."

I am not aware about other acharyas but shri shankara and ms acharya have
taken hiranyagharba as a jeevatma as explained in many places.

> Some years back I had asked in an assembly at the Sanskrit University in
> Sringeri: Is it possible to clearly demarcate between the Hiranyagarbha of
> the Upanishad (Shankara Bhashya) and the Brahma, a member of the
> Trimurtis.  They said the latter is of the puranas and should not be mixed
> with the former.  I could not get any further clarification.
>
If the prajapati of upanishads is not the brahma of puranas then there is
no problem considering brahma is absolutely non-different from isvara. But
I don't know how far that can be acceptable because shankaracharya uses
brahma/hiranyagarbha interchangeably in the gita bhasya.
The settled fact is that prajapati is a jeevatma and krishna being the
supreme lord is what MS acharya says. It's well known that shri Ms was an
ardent devotee of krishna,

>
> Having explained thus to refer to Hara, Shiva, the commentator Madhusudana
> Saraswati, for whom Hari and Hara are non-different, says: the above
> explanation applies to Hari too in exactly the same manner. Thus, for
> Madhusūdana the Supreme Brahman can be called Hari or Hara. It makes no
> difference for the advaitin.
>

That is again acceptable. Not only hari/hara but also devi,ganesha etc are
all non-different and supreme forms of paramaevara.

namo narayana