[Advaita-l] 'Prana' as Brahman

[Kaushik Chevendra]

Because tika has been quoted in the prashnopanishad.
Here is a statment of amalananda(our own acharya) on the panchatantra texts
which hold narayana and his avataras as supreme and not a "jeeva" (which
shankara himself says is in accordance with the vedanta).
जीवाभिन्नब्रह्मणो जगत्सर्गं वदतः समन्वयस्य
जीवोत्पत्तिप्रतिपादकपाञ्चरात्रस्मृतिविरोधसंदेहे, अधिष्ठातैवेश्वर इति मते
निरस्ते, प्रकृतिरपि स इति मतस्य वेदसंमतत्वाज्जीवोत्पत्तावपि प्रमाणत्वम् —
एवंभूतावान्तरसंगतिलोभेन स्मृत्पादसंगतमप्यधिकरणमिह लिखितम् । तत्र — ईशोक्तं
न पुराणेषु व्यामोहार्थमितीरितम् । पञ्चरात्रमतो जीवो विकार इति मीयते ॥
पञ्चरात्रकर्तुर्वासुदेवस्य वेदादेव सर्वज्ञत्वावगमात् कपिलपतञ्जल्यादीनां च
जीवत्वात्, पञ्चरात्रस्य च पुराणेषु बुद्धादिदर्शनवत्
व्यामोहार्थमीश्वरप्रणीतत्वाश्रवणात्
ब्रह्मनिमित्तत्वप्रकृतित्वसंप्रतिपत्तेश्च
जीवोत्पत्तावप्यद्वैताव्याघातात्तत्सिद्धजीवोत्पत्तिरबाध्या । अत एवागतार्था च
। एवं प्राप्ते, अभिधीयते — “बुद्धिपूर्वकृतिस्तन्त्रं ब्रह्मनिःश्वसितं
श्रुतिः । तेन जीवजनिस्तत्र सिद्धा गौणी नियम्यते ॥” यावद्ध्येकदेशे
वेदाविरोधादीश्वरबुद्धेर्वेदमूलत्वं वेदाद्वा सर्वविषयत्वं प्रतीयते, तावदेव
स्वतःप्रमाणवेदाज्जीवानुत्पत्तिप्रमितौ तादृशबुद्धिपूर्वकेश्वरवचनान्न
जीवोत्पत्तिरवगन्तुं शक्यते । अतः प्रमाणापहृतविषये गौणं तद्वचनम्, न तु
भ्रान्तं पूर्वोक्तयुक्तिभिरिति ।
Meaning: The adhikaraNa is begun as follows — there is a doubt as to
whether the the origination of the individual soul (jIvotpatti) must be
accepted literally from statements in the pAncarAtra Agama. This tantra was
composed by the Omniscient Lord, and are in agreement with the Veda in
terms of the oneness of material and efficient causes. It cannot be said
that these statements are made in error, since they were uttered by the
Lord Himself, compared to other darshanas like sAMkhya, yoga, etc. that
were composed by jIvas like Kapila, Patanjali, etc. Moreover, we do not see
anywhere in the Puranas that the pAncarAtra tantra was propagated by the
Lord Himself for the sake of delusion not unlike the doctrine of the
Bauddhas propagated again by Himself to delude the wicked. Such a doubt is
raised here. The correct position, on the other hand , is as follows:
“Since the Lord’s voluntary composition is the pAncarAtra tantra, and His
involuntary breath is the shruti, statements of origination of the soul are
secondary and figurative, not primary and literal”. The omnscience,
benevolent nature, and infalliability of the Lord are all understood to be
true only from the self-evident shruti. Hence, the pAncarAtra Agamas are
dependent on the Veda for their authority. Hence, it cannot be said that
they propagate the theory of origin of the individual soul literally, since
it would contradict the shruti that says the individual soul is eternal.
Therefore, such statements in the pAncarAtra are to be understood as
secondary and conveying something else, and are not erroneous due to the
reasons given in the prima facie position.

On Sat, 18 Feb, 2023, 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>> 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, 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. And i cant convince you otherwise irrespective of various logical
> problems. Hence at this point I'll agree to disagree because no one in our
> sampradaya considers Vishnu/Shiva as jeevatmas. Acharya abhinava
> vidyatirtha swamin has made it clear that bhagavan is pure, free from
> karma. That's enough for me
>
>
> Namo narayana
>
>
>
>
>>>> regards
>>>
>>> subbu
>>
>