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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

On Thu, 16 Feb 2023, 02:08 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Venkat ji, for the explanation based on Achyutarai
> Modak's commentary on the 10.2.  When one reads it, it is inevitable that
> one gets the feeling that it is a very convoluted interpretation.  He
> himself finds it so, it appears, when he gives that struggling vigraha for
> that samasa, and saying 'vaktum shakyatvaaccha'.
>

It is a more involved explanation, compared to the other commentaries for
sure, but I thought it is relevant because it is only this TIkA as far as I
am aware that directly addresses the problem with the point that you had
raised of Vishnu being taken to be a jIva.

His point is that one cannot resort to taking Vishnu to be a jIva unless
the mUla grantha cannot be interpreted otherwise (kimidam viShNorjIvatvam
mUlagranthAnyathAnupapattyocyate?). And then proceeds to give the two
alternative explanations that don't resort to taking Vishnu to be a jIva.

The phrase ityapi vaktum shakyatvAt is because he is giving an alternative
explanation to the first one - in the second interpretation, he is saying
that the word devatA in the phrase "praviShTah san devatA(h) abhavat"
cannot be used in the sense of devAs (pl), because the form would have to
be daivatAni for masculine or devatAh for feminine (and why would the
panchadashIkAra want to say he entered only exalted feminine devatA forms?)
, and so as an alternative, the interpretation can be "praviShTah san
Ishvarah abhavat".

First explanation is Ishvara enters the various jIva bodies. Alternatively,
the second explanation can also be Brahman enters exalted bodies such as
Ishvara etc. As he is giving an alternative he is saying - ityapi vaktum
shakyatvAt.


>  He first parses the samasa as viShNvaadi and makes it a plural
> विष्ण्वादयः . And uttama to apply to Indra etc. exalted ones. Does he mean
> Vishnu, etc. *Ishwaras* have 'entered' Indra, etc. exalted deities? When
> the previous verse says 'Brahman entered' in singular, how will it align
> with the plural Vishnu, etc. entered ...?  Who are meant by the 'Adi' after
> Vishnu?
>
The Adi after Vishnu is Ishvara in his various forms that are well known in
the shruti smRti purANa etc श्रुत्यादिप्रसिद्धाः सर्वेऽपि
परमेश्वरलीलाविग्रहा‌ः. So the meaning can be - Ishvara, be he as Shiva or
Vishnu or any other form described in shAstra, enters exalted jIva bodies.

>
> The Ramakrishna commentary does not do all that.
>
  It simply takes Vishnu, etc. as signifying exalted bodies.
>

Correct, but he does not take Vishnu to be a jIva either.

The Tamil translation of Jnanananda Bharati Swamigal too says so.
>
Can you send me this link please?

The Kalyanapiyusha commentary also says this alone:
>
>
> https://archive.org/details/Vedanta.Panchadasi.with.Kalyana.Piyusa.Vyakhya/page/n463/mode/2up
>

Yes, here the introduction to the verse seems to imply Vishnu being taken
as a jIva.

>
> Also, the reading in the second line, last word, differs across the
> commentaries: Modak takes it as 'Devataam' and explains: The one who has
> entered in humans, etc.and worships (himself as) devatA.
>
Yes.

In Ramakrishna's reading, it is 'martyatAm', Brahman, having entered human,
> etc. bodies, experiences itself as human. In this case, there requires
> an 'aadi' in the martyatAm too since each jiva in every non-human animal,
> etc. body experiences itself as that.
>
Can't martyatAm be taken to mean mortal? Brahman having entered mortal
bodies experiences itself as mortal? Why should there be another Adi?

Bhajati can mean 'experiences' and 'worships'.  In the Kalyanapiyusha the
> 'martyatAm 'is seen. In any case, there seems to be difficulty if martyatAm
> is taken. Overall the verse poses difficulty.
>

Yes, it does for sure.

Regards
Venkatraghavan